Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. Last summer, in July, the House understood the importance of doing what we can to encourage greater trade between the United States and Africa. We acted by passing this historic Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. We now have a chance to send this bill to the President's desk for his signature and open a long overdue era of new relations between the United States and Africa, one that recognizes the strong economic potential of a continent of 800 million people. What this bill does is to build a partnership between America and those African nations which are committed to reforming their economies in a way that allows for America to sell more goods and services. In short, this legislation treats trade as a two-way street. Already the United States exports some $6 billion of goods and services to Africa each year. Some 100,000 American jobs depend on this trade, which should grow under this legislation. Few Americans probably realize that West Africa is approaching the Persian Gulf as a source of oil for the United States. This is but one example of Africa's growing economic significance to the U.S. Fortunately, many African countries have been moving toward greater economic openness over the last decade, ditching the African socialism that wreaked economic havoc. With this bill we will be encouraging this trend and trade. The trade that occurs with America should expand and should expand significantly. I think if we can get beyond the headlines, Africa has the potential. I have seen dynamic entrepreneurs in Africa. I have seen vibrant and prosperous African businesses, businesses which want to do business with America. That is their message. They say we are tired of doing business with the Europeans. We want to do business with Americans. Let us take advantage of that. Let us get America into the African economic game. This legislation is good for America, and it is good for Africa. This is not as powerful a bill in some ways as we passed through the House last July. In conference, the Senate demanded additional restrictions on trade with Africa; and in my view, this is unfortunate. We would have liked trade with Africa to be regulated more by markets and less by bureaucrats, especially when we are dealing with the world's poorest continent. That would have been better for American consumers. American exporters would have been advantaged more by that and Africa would have been advantaged more by that. This conference report is a clear and important step in the right direction toward greater trade between the United States and Africa, and it moves us away from the odd policy of giving aid to Africa with one hand and shutting out what it manages to produce with the other. Let us move Africa away from aid to economic self-sufficiency. That is the spirit of this bill. We need to be frank. There are many Members of Congress who have worked on this legislation, and I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); as well as the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). I want to also thank my cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). We want to thank the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Payne) as well. We have done this work frankly with a sense of urgency, urgency because Africa is on the brink of permanent economic marginalization. The global economy is changing in dizzying ways. Unless we help bring Africa into the world economy and do it now, Africa will never develop. It will be hopelessly left behind, and Americans are fooling themselves if we think we could ignore an undeveloped Africa in which war and disease were commonplace. These problems have come to America already. Let us do something to help Africa help itself and help America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who also serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) in recognizing the work that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) over the last 6 years has put in conceptually to this effort. We have thanked the ranking members, but let me also thank the staff of the Committee on International Relations and the staff of the Committee on Ways and Means for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, let me say as chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I think we are on the verge of making a very significant achievement for this Congress and for the future of America's relationship with Africa. I think the African and Caribbean bills are going to play a critical role in helping to bring Africa and the Caribbean nations further into the world economy, which I believe is good not only for those countries, but good for the United States. I believe that this bill will not cure all of the ills that we have heard about today, some of the problems in Africa; but I think it will help spur economic growth in Africa. And unless African economies grow, then all our concerns about Africa, whether it is poverty or environmental degradation or disease, those are guaranteed to grow. I think the Caribbean Basin initiative in this bill offers benefits to American businesses. I think it builds on the $19 billion in exports that the U.S. sent to Caribbean countries last year. And as we have heard, U.S. exports to that region have tripled as a result of the enactment of CBI in 1984. With both Africa and the Caribbean, this bill reduces duties, which is a benefit to the American consumer. And because it helps build political and economic stability, the Caribbean Basin Initiative enhancement in this report will contribute to U.S. national security. The Caribbean countries are close neighbors to America, and we have a big stake in their well-being. Mr. Speaker, let me say the African Growth and Opportunity Act will help build critical and economic stability in Africa, and that is in our strategic national interest. We need to pass this conference report. We need to do what is good for Africa, do what is good for the Caribbean nations, and what is good for America. I urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rules for H.R. 434, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Last summer, the House understood the importance of doing what we can to encourage greater trade between the United States and Africa. We acted by passing this historic bill. We now have a chance to send this bill to the President's desk for a signature and open a long overdue era of new relations between the United States and Africa, one that recognizes the strong economic potential of a continent of some hundreds of millions of people. I wanted to address for just a moment the issue of transshipments. Textile and apparel imports from sub-Saharan Africa do not present increased transshipment concerns. In fact, Customs estimates its current enforcement rate as one of the highest. I should just share that the U.S. Trade Representative tells us there are no cases, to her knowledge. The Customs publishes a list of foreign factories involved in transshipment. Its current transshipper list does not include any African countries. The reason for this substantial compliance rate on the part of the African continent for textile and apparel imports from sub-Sarahan Africa are because Africa has a small number of factories which make it easy for the U.S. Customs to monitor transshipment, and African countries are starting from a low production base; and U.S. Customs would be able to immediately detect any sudden increases in production and determine whether transshipment is occurring. Now, this bill provides $5.9 million for additional resources for Customs enforcement efforts that have proven the most effective, which is stationing Customs personnel in sub-Sarahan countries, use of jump teams, informants, collection of production information, monitoring and analyzing import trends; and in addition the legislation also requires beneficiary countries to cooperate with U.S. Customs in enforcement against transshipment and to enact laws to prevent circumvention. Now, what would happen if a country did not cooperate? The answer to that is very clear. They lose the benefits under the bill, so they have a very real incentive to cooperate. What this bill does is to build a partnership between America and those African nations which are committed to reforming their economies in a way that allows for America to sell more goods and services. In short, this legislation treats trade as a two-way street. Already the United States exports some $6 billion worth of goods and services to Africa each year. Now, in my opinion this is not as powerful a bill as was passed by the House last July. The U.S. Trade Representative, she argues otherwise. Rosa Whitaker feels that in some way the bill is strengthened and is as good as the bill passed. In conference, the Senate demanded additional restrictions on trade with Africa, and in my view this is unfortunate. We would have liked trade with Africa to be regulated more by markets and less by bureaucrats, especially when we are dealing with the world's poorest continent; but this conference report clearly is an important step in the right direction toward greater trade between the United States and Africa. Many Members of Congress have worked on this legislation to develop a new trade relationship with Africa for several years. It is the result of years of hearings in the Committee on International Relations and in the Committee on Ways and Means. We have debated this bill on the floor twice. We have passed this bill twice. This bill is a solid and well- reasoned, bipartisan effort. We have done this work in our relations with Africa with, frankly, a sense of urgency, urgency because Africa could be on the brink of permanent economic marginalization. Unless we help bring Africa into the world economy and do it now, Africa will never develop; and Americans are fooling themselves if we think we could ignore an undeveloped Africa in which war and disease become commonplace. Let us do something to help Africa help itself, and let us do something to help America. This bill is a win/win. Let me say the Caribbean Basin Initiative Enhancement offers similar benefits to American businesses while promoting economic development and political stability in the Caribbean region. These countries are close neighbors to America, and we have a stake in their well-being. This Congress has the opportunity to make a firm step towards greater engagement with these regions, and I look forward to bringing this conference report to the floor. I appreciate the efforts of the Committee on Rules and look forward to passage of this important legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House that the conference report just filed for the Trade and Development Act of 2000, which contains the provisions of the Africa CBI legislation, is now available on the Internet at www.waysandmeans.com.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Sierra Leone has experienced one of the most horrific civil wars in the world over the past decade. The atrocities there have perhaps been some of the most shocking that we have seen in the world. Tens of thousands of people have been victimized. There have been killings, there have been rapes, but most shockingly, there has been a policy of forced amputations carried out as a terror tactic by the Revolutionary United Front. It is hard to imagine, but this rebel group which has won the world's disdain, has a policy of cutting off the hands, the arms of little boys and little girls. The streets of the capital, Freetown, is full of amputees, thousands of amputees, including many children. This is sheer cowardliness. It deserves the strongest condemnation that is possible out of this institution, and out of the world. There should be no question on another issue: the RUF and its allies have been guilty of attacking a democratically elected government. This group has been aided and abetted by neighboring Liberia. This bill brings attention to that aid and has constructive measures designed to pressure those neighbor governments to not wage war on the people of Sierra Leone. There is a peace agreement in place in Sierra Leone. It is a precarious peace. Unfortunately, the RUF appears to be reverting to form, waging war, disregarding peace. The RUF most recently has taken U.N. peacekeepers hostage. Its leaders have made clear in the most inflammatory statements that the U.N. is not welcome. Since the beginning of the peace process, I have expressed my serious reservations about the policy of bringing the RUF into the Sierra Leone Government. Well, that has been done. Now I hope that the peace can be built anyway. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a modest contribution to building peace. We should do this. We should help Nigeria and other West Africa states who have made a great sacrifice in lives and funds to bring stability to this country of Sierra Leone. It is in America's interests to see that terror does not win the day in Sierra Leone. For if it does, more than Sierra Leone will be imperiled. All of West Africa will be imperiled, and America would suffer too. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut for his legislation. Many of us on the Committee on International Relations have been concerned about Sierra Leone. We have held several hearings, we have passed resolutions, and now we have this legislation. There is strong committee support for this approach. For the sake of the little boys and girls who tragically will live their lives with no hands and arms, for the sake of the future of West Africa, and for America's interest in a stable and better world, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leaders of the Armenian Caucus for bringing us together to honor the memory of a tragedy, not just in Armenian history, but a tragedy in world history, a tragedy that holds for us an important historical lesson and one that should be acknowledged. As discussed, it was 85 years ago that the Ottoman Empire set out on a deliberate campaign to exterminate the Armenian people. Over a period of years, between 1915 and 1923, as they went house to house, village to village, they massacred men, women, and children, a total of 1.5 million, and a half million deported from their homelands to escape their terror. At the end of these 8 years, the Armenian population in certain areas in Turkey, in Anatolia, in Western Armenia, that population was virtually eliminated. At the time, as we have heard from our colleagues, Henry Morgantheau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, depicted the Turkish order for deportations as a death warrant to a whole race. Our ambassador recognized that this was ethnic cleansing. It is unfortunate that the Turkish government to this day does not recognize that this was ethnic cleansing. Let me just say that willful ignorance of the lessons of history doom people to repeat those same actions again and again. We have also heard from our colleagues tonight how Adolph Hitler learned that same lesson, as he said, who remembers the Armenian genocide? Well, it is important for us to remember these genocides. It is important that we learn the lesson from this 85-year-old tragedy. In my home State of California, the State Board of Education has incorporated the story of the Armenian genocide in the social studies curriculum, and this is the right thing to do. I am a cosponsor of House Resolution 398, which calls upon the President of the United States to provide for appropriate training and materials on the Armenian genocide to all foreign service officers and all State Department officials. Why is this important? Because we want them to better understand genocide wherever it threatens to erupt. We want them to understand the nature and origins of genocide. We want them to help raise the world's public opinion against genocide, wherever it starts to foment. By recognizing and learning about the crime against humanity, specifically about the Armenian genocide, we can begin to honor the courage of its victims and commemorate the strides made by its survivors and hope that others will not have to go down the track following the experiences that were suffered by the people of Armenia, only to be followed by the Jewish genocide and other genocides that we have seen, such as the one going on in Southern Sudan today. So, again, let me commemorate and let me thank the Armenian Caucus for bringing this issue to us on this anniversary of that genocide.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of title II of H.R. 1776, and specifically this title II contains H.R. 710 and that is the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of which I am a cosponsor. Manufactured housing represents more than 20 percent of all new single family homes sold in the United States. It is the fastest growing segment of our housing industry and despite the significant growth of that industry, the Federal manufactured housing program has not been considered a mainstream regulatory activity within HUD. As a consequence, it suffers from an outdated regulatory structure that hinders both producers and it hinders consumers. The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act addresses this problem by establishing a private sector consensus committee to make recommendations to the HUD Secretary for updating standards and regulations. This committee will be self-funded with the costs covered by label fees that the industry must pay on each home. This provision is long overdue, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my support for this resolution put forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a member of the Subcommittee on Africa. This resolution is a strong statement of support for humanitarian aid efforts in Mozambique; and as we have seen in news reports, Mozambique has borne the brunt of the destructive torrential rains and tropical cyclones. Unbelievably, Mozambique has been hit with over 500 percent of its average annual rainfall over the course of a couple of weeks. Flooding has also hit South Africa and Zambia and Zimbabwe, Mozambique's neighbors and partners in the Southern Africa Development Community. This resolution commends South Africa, for one, for helping Mozambique. Special recognition should be given to the tireless efforts of the South African helicopter teams who saved an estimated 14,000 stranded Mozambicans from their homes, from the roof tops of their now- destroyed homes. These were heroic efforts which saved innumerable lives, and some quarter of a million Mozambicans are now living in relief camps. Food, tents, medicine, and blankets are desperately needed. I applaud the U.S. military units now involved in rescue and relief efforts in Mozambique. American military forces are the best in the world. They bring unparalleled skills to this multi-international operation, skills that have been demonstrated in humanitarian operations in the Balkans and Bangladesh and in Latin America. I would like to say a few words about Mozambique's recent history. The example of Mozambique is a strong counter to those who see nothing in Africa but war, famine, and disease. Mozambique has put an era of authoritarian one-party rule behind it and successfully resolved the bloody, bitter civil conflict that once tore apart the country's social fabric. It is moving toward a market-based economy, one that has registered several years of impressive growth, growth in the 8 percent range. This natural disaster is a setback on this progress. Today, we can only do our best to see that Mozambique's move toward a more prosperous future is not derailed. As we speak, humanitarian relief efforts are being made by the U.S. and by Germany and by Britain, Canada and many other countries. It is my hope that out of this disaster some good may come. Some African governments, faced with limited resources, are being asked some tough questions by their citizens. A newspaper in Namibia has noted, no single Namibian would question the need to send assistance to Mozambique, whereas they can quite legitimately question the need for military assistance to Congo, which is torn by war. A Zimbabwean paper focusing on the flooding in Zimbabwe wrote, ``The government was unable to respond properly to the plight of the victims in the flooding in the south of the country because the majority of our helicopters were in the Congo.'' I hope that African citizens will increasingly question their government's presence in the war in the Congo; and if pressure is put on to end this destructive war, if Africans decide that they want to help others in need, not fight unwinnable wars, then something positive will come out of this disaster. Today, the people of Mozambique need help. Mozambique has shown that it knows the road to a better life. It deserves America's help in overcoming this natural disaster, and this resolution expresses support for U.S. relief efforts in Mozambique, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I thank the chairman of the full committee, and I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for introducing this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a distinguished American, Kristine Thalman. She dedicated her career to public service in city government and she ensured that our local citizens received the services they expect from their municipalities. She has been the Intergovernmental Relations Director for the City of Anaheim California, for the last thirteen years of her career. She retires this month. Her career at Anaheim has been admired by many of us here in Congress. I want to take this opportunity to thank Kris for her assistance to me since I am pleased to have part of the City of Anaheim in my Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, I understand that this Thursday is Kris' birthday and certainly greetings are also in order at this time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They employ over half the private workforce in this country. They contribute half of all sales. They are responsible for half the private gross domestic product in the United States. Now, what this bill will provide is needed relief for small business and for America's workers. The new tax relief provisions will create new jobs. They will promote continued economic growth. They will continue to promote the type of employment policies in which people can find jobs. The reforms in the pension system will enhance retirement security. The acceleration of the 100 percent health deduction for the self- employed will help ensure that workers will be able to afford quality health care in the private marketplace. It is time to remove some of the government ties that still bind the engine behind America's unprecedented economic prosperity. It is small business that leads to this prosperity, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 29 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security earnings limit is a very outdated provision in the Tax Code. In fact, it goes back to the Great Depression. It was designed at that time to open up more jobs for young people during the Great Depression. The idea was that this would force seniors out of the workforce by putting this special earnings limit on them. But today in this era of low unemployment and in this era of much longer life spans, seniors should be welcome to stay in America's workforce. What we did today in this House is to pass a bill that repeals this penalty on senior citizens who make the choice to continue to work. This was long overdue. Our seniors have worked their entire lives to build our country into what it is today. It is wrong for the Government to force them to choose between contributing to society or receiving their full Social Security checks. In my home State of California alone, there are more than 161,000 seniors affected by the Social Security earnings test that were penalized by that test. If this legislation is passed by the Senate and signed into law, that means all these Californians over the age of 64 will be able to continue adding to our economic productivity while keeping all of their Social Security. These are individuals who paid into Social Security on the assurance that their money would be there when they retired. The idea that the Federal Government can withhold access to their money, frankly, is outrageous. However, this is precisely what the Federal Government has done with the earnings test. It is denying seniors the benefits that they have paid for. It is denying them their earned right, and this is wrong. With this booming economy and tightening of the labor force, the Federal Government should not discourage Americans from working. Rather, it should encourage people to be more productive. By repealing the earnings limit, more individuals will now work, pay more social security taxes, increase Federal revenues, and improve economic efficiency. America would also benefit from older workers' valuable work experience and work skills. The earnings test discriminates against those who must work to supplement their benefits, because only wages are counted for purposes of this test. Income from hard-earned paychecks should not be treated less fairly than income from investment, and that is another reason why we needed to repeal it. Repealing the Social Security earnings limit will also eliminate the need to recalculate affected retirement credits and benefits. And how much would that save a year? One hundred fifty million dollars annually is spent by the bureaucracy in doing this calculation. Now, I constantly hear from seniors in my district about this issue. Whenever we hold a town meeting, or if we stop at a senior center or community center, the issue of allowing senior citizens to work without losing Social Security comes up. Senior citizens have a place in our society and in our work force, and no one should ever discourage or deny that. It is unfair for the government to penalize them for wanting to work, and that is why the best thing we can do to honor seniors and their contributions is to repeal this senseless outdated earnings limit. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Senate and the President move quickly on this legislation that we have passed today and which I coauthored.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, couples should not be punished by the government for making that decision to get married. Yet the current Tax Code pushes those married couples filing jointly into higher tax brackets. The bottom line is, this is wrong. I strongly support this Marriage Tax Elimination Act. It provides relief from the marriage penalty. This unfair tax is keeping parents from doing all they want to do for their children. In many cases, it is requiring both parents to work full time when one of them may prefer to work part time and spend more time with their children. Right now, married couples pay an average of $1,400 a year more in taxes every year, every year. Frankly, over a decade, that money could go towards a family car or a college education or a down payment on a new home or better health care coverage or for retirement savings. It is their money. It is time to end the marriage penalty.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today addresses a technical problem that residential loan servicers have encountered in complying with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (``FDCPA''). Creditors collecting their own debts are already exempt from the FDCPA, which is aimed at regulating the practices of independent debt collectors. When a residential loan servicer acquires a servicing portfolio, it is generally exempt for the FDCPA under the creditor exemption. However, a question arises when loans in a portfolio are delinquent at the time they are acquired, since the creditor exemption does not apply to debts that were ``in default'' at the time the servicer acquired them. This limitation to the creditor exemption has created considerable uncertainty in the mortgage servicing industry. In order to avoid possible liability, many loan servicers have been attempting to comply with the FDCPA by applying it to every loan, whether it was delinquent or not, when they acquired the servicing rights. The disclosures required of debt collectors under the FDCPA, however, create particular difficulties for residential mortgage loan servicers. In addition to its substantive anti-abuse protections for the debtors, the FDCPA requires a debt collector to notify the borrower in the initial written or oral communication with the borrower that it is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose (the so-called ``Miranda'' warning), requires in each subsequent communication to indicate that the communication is from a debt collector, and requires that the debt collector provide a written debt validation notice within five days after the initial communication, which allows the borrower to dispute all or any portion of the debt within 30 days. The debt validation provisions also create additional complexity for servicing activities due to restrictions or making any ``collection'' efforts during the thirty day validation period. These informational requirements dictate that the loans subject to the FDCPA must get different communications from the servicer throughout their maturity, and thus require that the loans be identified and specially designated, creating additional costs without any additional protections or benefits provided to the borrowers. Moreover, consumers are not well-served when the servicer feels compelled to make the FDCPA's disclosures. Residential mortgage loan servicers are generally not true debt collectors even if they may be deemed to be a ``debt collector'' under the FDCPA with respect to a small percentage of their loans. A separate set of rules in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act requires servicers of first lien loans to provide notices related to the borrower's right when servicing is transferred. The special FDCPA notices may convey the misleading impression that the loan has been referred to a traditional, independent debt collector, when, in fact, all that has happened is that the servicing rights have been transferred from one servicer to another--often as part of a larger portfolio of performing loans. As an alternative to following the special procedural requirements of the FDCPA, some servicers decline to accept any delinquent loans. When an acquiring loan servicer takes this approach, the perverse result may be that the holder of the servicing rights who no longer wishes to service these loans may subject these delinquent loans to more aggressive collection action than would otherwise take place if the acquiring servicer had been willing to accept those loans. The legislation I am proposing here today is intended to address the problems created when the FDCPA's procedural requirements are applied to residential mortgage loan servicers. The legislation would apply only to first lien residential mortgage loans that are acquired by bona fide loan servicers, not professional debt collectors. It would exempt them only from the ``Miranda'' notice and the dept validation provisions of the FDCPA. Importantly, all of the substantive protections under the FDCPA would continue to apply to any loan as to which the servicer is not exempt as a creditor. These provisions will allow residential mortgage loan servicers to treat the few loans subject to the FDCPA in the same way they treat all other loans and will thus reduce unnecessary administrative costs incurred identifying and separately handling these accounts. In addition, once a servicer is considered a ``debt collector'' under the FDCPA, the borrower would have a right to request a ``validation statement''--a statement of the amount necessary to bring the loan current and to pay off the loan in full as of a particular date. I think it is also important to note that this proposed legislative clarification has the full support of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency with enforcement jurisdiction over the FDCPA. As a matter of fact, the FTC has consistently gone on record in its Annual Report to Congress as supporting legislative clarification in this area. The FTC's 21st Annual Report to Congress provides as follows: Section 803 (6) of the FDCPA sets forth a number of specific exemptions from the law, one of which is collection activity by a party that ``concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such a person.'' The exemption was designed to avoid application of the FDCPA to mortgage servicing companies, whose business is accepting and recording payments on current debts. (March 19, 1999 Report) The report then goes on to make specific recommendations to Congress: The Commission believes that Section 803 (6)(F)(iii) was designed to exempt only businesses whose collection of delinquent debts is secondary to their function of servicing current accounts. . . . Therefore, the Commission recommends that Congress amend this exemption so that its applicability will depend upon the nature of the overall business conducted by the party to be exempted rather than the status of individual obligations when the party obtained them. I am pleased that several of my colleagues on the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, namely Reps. Jack Metcalf (WA) and Walter Jones (NC), are also sponsoring what I hope will be bipartisan legislation to clarify the FDCPA as it applies to residential loan servicers. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can move early in the next session to address this issue in both Committee and on the House floor.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this resolution brings a very needed focus on what should be one of our most important bilateral relations, and that is our relationship with the Republic of India. For many years during the Cold War, relations between India and the United States were cool, at best. We had tensions. We had political and economic and security tensions at the time. Thankfully, those relations have changed. They have changed because, in part, India has changed. Economic reform has allowed the Indian people to begin to realize their very considerable economic potential. And India's foreign policy is now free of Cold War shackles. As a matter of fact, on the economic front, Prime Minister Vajpayee has called for considerable economic reforms this week, and we look forward to working with India. Many of us in Congress have been working to see that U.S. policy changes to deal with this new India. As this resolution states, the President should travel to India. This trip would be most welcomed and would go a long way towards ringing in a new era of U.S.-India relations. One thing that has not changed is India's commitment to democracy. This resolution congratulates the people of India on a successful conclusion of their recent national elections. These were elections, as we have heard, that involved 650 million people. Indians are proud, and rightfully so, that theirs is the world's largest democracy. India, of course, faces many challenges ahead. Poverty and pockets of religious extremism exist. Economic reform must be accelerated, and India confronts grave security threats. The United States needs to be part of the solution of these challenges. India is too important a country for the United States to ignore. We have a direct stake in India's security and in its prosperity, and this resolution is a way of bringing attention to the many interests the United States shares with India. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the subcommittee, for bringing this forward.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, the historic legislation that we are considering today, is a win for the consumer, a win for the U.S. economy and a win for America's international competitive position abroad. American consumers will benefit from increased access, better services, greater convenience and lower costs. They will be offered the convenience of handling their banking, insurance and securities activities at one location. More importantly, with the efficiencies that could be realized from increased competition among banks, insurance, and securities providers under this proposal, consumers could ultimately save an estimated $18 billion annually. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that ``Consumers of financial services are denied the lower prices, increased access and higher quality services that would accompany the increased competition associated with permitting banking companies to expand their activities.'' This reduction in the cost of financial services, is in turn, a big win for the U.S. economy. Finally, this legislation is a win for America's international competitive position, as it will allow U.S. companies to compete more effectively with foreign firms for business around the world. As the Federal Reserve Chairman stated, ``We cannot afford to be complacent regarding the future of the U.S. banking industry. The issues are too important for the future growth of our economy and the welfare of our citizens.'' This legislation is thirty years overdue Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues not to delay its passage a day longer. At this time, I would like to make a few clarifying remarks. Included in Title VI of the bill before us are complex changes in the structure of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) System. I believe these changes will enhance the ability of the System to help member institutions serve their communities, though there is enormous work yet to be done to implement these initiatives. Consequently, at the risk of redundancy, it is important to reiterate the view expressed in the Conference regarding related regulatory actions. As noted in the Committee Report, the Conferees acknowledged and supported withdrawal of the Financial Management and Mission Achievement (FMMA) rule proposed earlier this year by the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the FHLBank System regulator. The FMMA would have made dramatic changes in such areas as mission, investments, liquidity, capital, access to advances and director/senior officer responsibilities. Because of serious concerns over the FMMA's impact on FHLBank earnings, its effect on safety and soundness and its legal basis, the proposal has been intensely controversial among the FHLBanks' membership, with over 20 national and state bank and thrift trade associations calling for a legislated delay on FMMA. Many Conferees not only shared these concerns but also felt strongly that the FMMA should not be pursued while the FHLBank System is responding to the statutory changes in this bill. There was great sympathy for a moratorium blocking the FMMA, but prior to the matter coming to a vote, Chairman Morrison of the FHFB sent a letter to Chairmen Gramm and Leach agreeing to withdraw the proposal, which I want to make sure is part of the Record. He also promised to consult with the Banking Committees regarding the content of the capital rules and any rules dealing with investments or advances. The FHFB's commitment not to act precipitously in promulgating regulations in these areas creates the proper framework for effective and timely implementation of the reforms that Congress is seeking to put in place. The regulatory standstill to which the FHFB has committed should apply to any final rules or policies applicable to investments, and the FHFB should maintain the current $9 billion ceiling on member mortgage asset pilot programs or similar activities. In the context of dramatic impending changes in the capital structure of the FHLBanks, I believe it is necessary for the FHFB to refrain from any effort otherwise to rearrange the FHLBanks' investment framework, liquidity structure and balance sheets. Finally, Mr. Speaker I would like to note that it is my understanding that credit enhancement done through the underwriting and reinsurance of mortgage guaranty insurance after a loan has been closed are secondary market transactions included in the exemption for secondary market transactions in section 502(e)(1)(C) of the S. 900 Conference Report. Federal Housing Finance Board, Washington, DC, October 18, 1999. Hon. Phil Gramm, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim Leach, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Gramm and Congressman Leach: As you proceed to consider legislation to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank System as part of the S. 900/H.R. 10 conference, I am aware that there is substantial concern regarding our proposed Financial Management and Mission Achievement regulation (FMMA). Unfortunately, this legitimate concern regarding a far-reaching regulatory initiative has resulted in a proposal for a statutory moratorium on our regulatory authority. Despite the best efforts of well-meaning advocates, such statutory language can only lead to serious ambiguity and potential litigation over the independent regulatory authority of the Finance Board. Therefore, this letter is intended to give you and your colleagues on the Committee of Conference solid assurances about our intentions upon final enactment of the statute being drafted in conference. Upon such enactment, the Finance Board will: 1. Withdraw, forthwith, its proposed FMMA. 2. Proceed in accordance with the statutory instructions regarding regulations governing a risk-based capital system and a minimum leverage requirement for the Federal Home Loan Banks. 3. Take no action to promulgate proposed or final regulations limiting assets or advances beyond those currently in effect (except to the extent necessary to protect the safety and soundness of the Federal Home Loan Banks) until such time as the regulations described in number 2 have become final and the statutory period for submission of capital plans by the Banks has expired. 4. Consult with each of you and your colleagues on the Banking Committees of the House and the Senate, regarding the content of both the capital regulations and any regulations on the subjects described in number 3, prior to issuing them in proposed form. I believe that these commitments cover the areas of concern which have lead to a proposal for moratorium legislation. You can rely on this commitment to achieve those legitimate ends sought by moratorium proponents without clouding the necessary regulatory authority of the Finance Board which could result from statutory language. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce A. Morrison.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which is the Stalking Prevention and the Victim Protection Act. In 1990, I was the author of the first antistalking law in the country. That came about at a time when there was a 6-week period in which four young women in my county of Orange County, California, were each told that they were going to be killed. And each one informed law enforcement and law enforcement, unfortunately, had to tell them there was nothing that they can do until they were physically attacked. One police officer told me the worst thing he ever had to do in his life was to try to apprehend that stalker in the act, and he almost succeeded. Unfortunately, the young woman lost her life. She was killed just before the apprehension of the stalker was made. So all four of these young women who knew they were going to be killed, who told law enforcement, who told their friends that this was going to happen to them lost their lives in the span of 6 weeks. That was the impetus for the bill. Today, all 50 States have antistalker laws on their books. When I came to Congress, I felt that there was need for a Federal law. Why? Because in the case of restraining orders between the States, there is a situation where those restraining orders often are lost when the victim moves from one State to another State. Why does the victim do that? Because they are told by victim witness programs get away from the stalker. And when they try to do that, they lose the protections under the law. So the Federal antistalker law protected those victims. But now we have a new type of stalking which has come to the fore, and this bill which was prompted by a Justice Department report on the frequency and the seriousness of cyberstalking, will do something about that. It is going to tighten Federal antistalking law to include threats through the Internet, threats through regular mail, and with the passage of this bill, victims of this crime will have further legal recourse. They are going to have an increased sense of security. I talked to one young woman who was stalked for 14 years by a young man she did not even know. He watched her when she was on the high school track team. He began following her, stalking her, threatening her, and there was nothing, again, that law enforcement could do at the time. It culminated with a standoff on her front doorstep for 12 hours with police. He had tried to abduct her with a knife to her throat. Mr. Speaker, these are instances where these individuals let their intent be known. They publish their threats against these victims. There is no reason why we cannot let law enforcement act upon those threats before it is too late, before these victims lose their lives. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, the historic legislation that we are considering today is a win for consumers, a win for the U.S. economy and a win for America's international competitive position abroad. American consumers will benefit from increased access, from better services, from greater convenience and from lower costs. They will be offered the convenience of handling their banking insurance and securities activities at one location. More importantly, with the efficiencies that could be realized from increased competition among banks, insurance and securities providers under this proposal, consumers could ultimately save an estimated $18 billion in the estimates of our U.S. Treasury Department. This reduction in the cost of financial services is, in turn, a big win for the U.S. economy. Finally, this legislation is a win for America's international competitive position, as it will allow U.S. companies to compete more effectively with foreign firms for business around the world. In urging swift passage, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said, we cannot afford to be complacent regarding the future of the U.S. banking industry. This legislation is 30 years overdue, Madam Speaker, and I urge my colleagues not to delay its passage any longer. Let us support the rule and let us support the bill. Madam Speaker, the historic legislation that we are considering today, is a win for the consumer, a win for the U.S. economy and a win for America's international competitive position abroad. American consumers will benefit from increased access, better services, greater convenience and lower costs. They will be offered the convenience of handling their banking, insurance and securities activities at one location. More importantly, with the efficiencies that could be realized from increased competition among banks, insurance, and securities providers under this proposal, consumers could ultimately save an estimated $18 billion annually. This reduction in the cost of financial services, is in turn, a big win for the U.S. economy. Finally, this legislation is a win for America's international competitive position, as it will allow U.S. companies to compete more effectively with foreign firms for business around the world. This legislation is 30 years overdue Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues not to delay its passage a day longer. At this time, I would like to make a few clarifying remarks. Included in Title VI of the bill before us are complex changes in the structure of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) System. I believe these changes will enhance the ability of the System to help member institutions serve their communities, though there is enormous work yet to be done to implement these initiatives. Consequently, at the risk of redundancy, it is important to reiterate the view expressed in the conference regarding related regulatory actions. As noted in the committee report, the conferees acknowledged and supported withdrawal of the Financial Management and Mission Achievement (FMMA) rule proposed earlier this year by the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the FHL Bank System regulator. The FMMA would have made dramatic changes in such areas as mission, investments, liquidity, capital, access to advances and director/senior officer responsibilities. Because of serious concerns over the FMMA's impact on FHLBank earnings, its effect on safety and soundness and its legal basis, the proposal has been intensely controversial among the FHLBanks' membership, with over 20 national and state bank and thrift trade associations calling for a legislated delay on FMMA. Many conferees not only shared these concerns but also felt strongly that the FMMA should not be pursued while the FHLBank System is responding to the statutory changes in this bill. There was great sympathy for a moratorium blocking the FMMA, but prior to the matter coming to a vote, Chairman Morrison of the FHFB sent a letter to Chairmen Gramm and Leach agreeing to withdraw the proposal, which I want to make sure is part of the Record. He also promised to consult with the Banking Committees regarding the content of the capital rules and any rules dealing with investments or advances. The FHFB's commitment not to act precipitously in promulgating regulations in these areas creates the proper framework for effective and timely implementation of the reforms that Congress is seeking to put in place. The regulatory standstill to which the FHFB has committed should apply to any final rules or policies applicable to investments, and the FHFB should maintain the current $9 billion ceiling on member mortgage asset pilot programs or similar activities. In the context of dramatic impending changes in the capital structure of the FHLBanks, I believes it is necessary for the FHFB to refrain from any effort otherwise to rearrange the FHLBanks' investment framework, liquidity structure and balance sheets. It is my understanding that credit enhancement done through the underwriting and reinsurance of the mortgage guaranty insurance after a loan has been closed are secondary market transactions included in the exemption for secondary market transactions in section 502(e)(1)(c) of the S. 900 conference report.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the African Growth and Opportunity Act passed yesterday, overwhelmingly passed, and it has now passed both chambers of Congress. We need to get to work, Mr. Speaker, on putting together a Senate- House conference committee on this bill so we can get it to the President for signature. This legislation is a first step in helping Africa help itself by bringing the continent into a positive trading partnership with the United States. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, as well as an original cosponsor of the bill in the House, I can say that passage of this historic bill is good for Africa and it is good for America. In addition to bringing Africa into a trading partnership with us, it will help open African markets to American goods. America today has only 5 percent of Africa's market. France and other European nations dominate the continent's trade. With this bill, the U.S. will be able to pry some of the African markets away from Europe. This will lead to tens of thousands of new jobs for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I again urge quick formation of a House and Senate conference committee on this bill so we can get it to the President for signature.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, currently employers and employees can set aside pre-tax money that can be used for out-of-pocket health care expenses and co-payments and deductibles, and these are called flexible spending accounts. There is a problem in the current law, Mr. Speaker, and that is, if our constituents use these accounts and they do not completely use them up at the end of the year, that money reverts to the employer. I have a bill, H.R. 3034, that would fix this use-it-or-lose-it provision and would allow this to be rolled over from year to year; and basically under my legislation, which I hope the House will pass, $3,000 annually can be put into these accounts. This would help portability. In other words, these accounts can go from job to job as employees change jobs. It would boost consumer choice because one would not be locked into the current health insurance plan. They could use this money at their own discretion. It would help the doctor-patient relationship by empowering consumers to make their own decisions about their own health care needs, and it would help control health insurance costs. I hope all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, will support this legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this week the Senate is considering a bill that we passed out of this House in July. It is called the Africa growth and opportunity act, and this act says that the United States is not giving up on Africa, that there is a real need, a real opportunity, to bring Africa into the world economy. The Africa bill is an important step in promoting Africa's development, and it is good for America too to open these markets in Africa, to open these export markets for the United States. Trade between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa has been growing for the last several years. We now have 100,000 U.S. jobs involved in exports to Africa at this time, and this bill is also good for my home State of California which is number five in exporting to Africa. We now take more of our oil from Africa than we do from the Persian Gulf, and this Africa bill is the most important trade legislation to pass this House in 5 years. It would be a major accomplishment if signed into law. Mr. Speaker, let us export the free market to Africa. It is a win for Africa and a win for America.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.