Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution. My colleagues have spoken eloquently about this tragic conflict. I can ensure them that what the U.S. Congress says about this conflict matters. Eritrea and Ethiopia are listening to our expression of enough is enough. Compromise is needed. And as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), stated this conflict severely undermines U.S. support for these countries. With that in mind, I urge support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), who has invested so much personal time and energy in attempting to resolve this conflict.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 46) urging an end of the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia and calling on the United Nations Human Rights Commission and other human rights organizations to investigate human rights abuses in connection with the Eritrean and Ethiopian conflict.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) General Leave

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution was authored by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). It urges an end to the 17-month-long war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. That war has resulted in the loss of more than 70,000 lives. This resolution calls for an investigation of human rights abuses in connection with that conflict. I want to share with the Members here today that both Ethiopia and Eritrea continue to obtain arms. They continue to train troops, they continue to mobilize, and they continue to engage in a furious propaganda war. Frankly, the conflict is spreading. It is spreading into Somalia. The international community, including those calling for debt relief, have to say at this point, enough. That is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) attempts to do with this resolution. Hopefully, this resolution will help to bring home to both sides in that conflict that Congress has lost patience with Eritrea and Congress has lost patience with Ethiopia. We have lost patience with the intransigence that keeps a war going that neither side can afford. This resolution recognizes the OAU framework. It provides an equitable basis to end the devastating conflict. I would like to commend not only the author, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), but the other members of the Subcommittee on Africa as well that worked on this resolution, and specifically the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the Members here that this resolution draws a much needed sense of attention by this Congress to Somalia, which has ceased to exist as a nation. And so, the nation's state, basically, has ended in a situation of near anarchy as a result of fighting between factions led by self-serving warlords there. But this resolution authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) recognizes that the northernmost part of Somalia has achieved a significant level of economic and social stability. I would just like to share with the Members that November 1 in Newsweek Magazine they report: ``The people here in the north call their territory Somaliland and they want no part of the thuggery to the south. In the north, children in crisp, white shirts attend school and play cheerful games of soccer. Their parents busily rebuild broken homes, hammering new roofs or white-washing walls. And, astonishingly, not a gun is in sight.'' The article in Newsweek goes on to quote the Deputy Parliament Speaker, who says, ``We want a nod from Uncle Sam that we're going in the right direction. We've established a healthy haven in a very rough neighborhood.'' Well, this should be a given and this resolution does that. However, the resolution should not be construed as a call for diplomatic recognition of Somaliland per se. In fact, the resolution calls for all Somalia parties to work with the international community to achieve a permanent end to the civil strife there and the adoption of a permanent government structure most conducive to the well-being and basic human rights of all Somalia people. I would like to commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for offering this resolution and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa. I would also like to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), our full committee chairman, for his work on this resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in my view, nothing is more important to the future of this country than the education of our children. Our kids are going to be the future doctors, the future scientists. They are going to be our future leaders. As such, we want to assure that they have the best education possible. This comes down to a question of who knows best how to develop that curriculum. Who should be developing that curriculum? Should it be the teachers? They are in the classroom. Or should it be some bureaucrat miles and miles away? Should it be some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. that develops that curriculum? The Federal Government today operates 760 Federal education programs, 39 different Federal education agencies. This is $100 billion that we spend on education. Yet, public education for some reason is worse than it was 20 years ago. It is worse. We can improve education by shifting decision-making power towards principals, teachers, parents, and people who have a direct impact on learning. That is why I am pleased to have cosponsored the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, which urges the Department of Education to spend 95 percent in the classroom.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, flexible spending accounts allow employers and employees to contribute pretax money to accounts which they can then use to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses and insurance costs and to pay for deductibles. But there is a problem in the Tax Code with the way in which these accounts work today, and that is there is a use it or lose it provision where it reverts back to the employer. So, typically, people put down $750 of pretax to use for these flexible spending accounts, and at the end of the year about $140 reverts back that they are not able to use. My bill, House bill 3034, would allow this to be expanded, would allow this to be carried over into the following year so that that would not be lost. A lot more people would utilize this provision if they did not lose it. Many employees would choose less expensive, high-deductible insurance policies and put the premium savings then in their flexible spending accounts if they knew they could roll that over into the following year. It also reinforces the doctor-patient relationship. Madam Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 3034.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the reprehensible practice of slavery in Sudan entered American homes on Sunday evening. Touched By An Angel, a television series, performed an important service by broadcasting the ugly reality of slavery in that country to millions of Americans. Slavery is just one ugly aspect of the rule of Sudan's National Islamic Front Regime, which overthrew a democratically elected government. This regime has given support to international terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, who masterminded the cowardly bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The countries bordering Sudan are also under attack from Sudan-supported terrorists. Many of my colleagues have committed themselves to spotlighting slavery and religious persecution in Sudan. This Congress has passed a resolution condemning the genocide in Sudan. We need to do more. It is important that the U.S. and its allies keep up the pressure on this repressive and dangerous regime.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton will not release documents detailing the decision to grant 16 members of the FALN terrorist group clemency. The Clinton administration has an obligation to explain why it has let these terrorists out of prison. They claim the decision was not political and that it had been in the process for years. If so, show us the papers. By claiming executive privilege, he is telling the American people that it is none of their business. This is not right. It is the business of the American people. It is certainly the business of Detective Anthony Semft, a victim of FALN terrorism. The terrorism bomb left the police officer without sight in one eye, a 60 percent hearing loss and a fractured hip. The House opposed and the Senate deplored the President's actions. Virtually every law enforcement agency in the country opposed clemency for the FALN terrorists. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee asked President Clinton to explain himself to the American people, to release the papers that showed why this was done, and not hide behind executive privilege. Mr. President, release those papers.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, over the last 7 years, the IMF, with the backing of the Clinton administration, has loaned the Russian Government $20 billion. All the while, the administration assured Congress and the American people that they were working with Russia to facilitate reforms. Yet as details of the vast money laundering out of Russia unraveled this month, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said, quote, ``calm down, world. We have been aware from the beginning that crime and corruption are a huge problem in Russia and a huge obstacle to Russian reform.'' Indeed, in 1995, the CIA met with Vice President Gore to present evidence on the personal corruption of Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin with whom Vice President Gore led a joint American-Russian commission. According to the New York Times, Mr. Gore rejected that report. It is time that the Clinton-Gore administration tell Congress and the American people what else they have rejected and why they have turned a blind eye for so long.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the issue is one of free markets, in my view. Will we allow producers on a volunteer basis to enter into a private contract with a private processor? The Stenholm amendment says that if one happens to be a producer selling to a fluid milk bottler, the answer to that question is no. The underlying bill, H.R. 1402, would increase the power basically of dairy cartels and, in the long run, the underlying bill not only would hurt producers because of over-supply, in my view, but it also hurts consumers, and it would do so through higher prices, and it would do so through higher price volatility. Subsidies create excess production. Creating surplus dairy products eventually will create products that will be dumped into the markets and ultimately the Government will be asked to step in and buy surplus dairy products, and Congress did just that over a decade ago in the 1980s; and it cost Americans $17 billion, causing many to say that we should stop milking our taxpayers. The Dooley amendment, if adopted, would help alleviate basically this situation by allowing producers and processors to contract for price and supply. Under that type of an arrangement, in my view, everyone is a winner, including the consumer. So let us work to implement free market reforms. There is a reason why Citizens Against Government Waste, why groups like Americans for Tax Reform and Taxpayers for Common Sense oppose the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same and to oppose this amendment as it is currently drafted.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the price Americans pay for a gallon of milk is dependent upon how far they live from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Now, this is moodoo economics. In 1996, Congress passed and I supported the Freedom to Farm Act, which directed the Department of Agriculture to create a more market-oriented dairy program. Yet today some in Congress want us to take a step backwards away from reform. Today's bill would create a costly, burdensome bureaucracy. Dairy cartels are economically inefficient. They are protectionist. They are unfair. They cost the consumer $1 billion a year. Government should not be subsidizing businesses. We do not do it for computer chip factories or convenience stores. So instead of protecting dairy cartels, we ought to protect America's 250 million American taxpayers and consumers, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1402. Stop milking our taxpayers. Do not kowtow to special interests.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, this body at the urging of the administration approved $18 billion in new payments to the International Monetary Fund. At that time, some of us called for reforms to this flawed institution, reforms that would have required real transparency and would have provided greater accountability for the IMF. But at that time, the administration's position was that it was not the time to institute reforms, that it was critical to send the money first, they said, reform it later. So that is what Congress did, not with my vote; but that is what Congress did. Congress sent a check for $18 billion, only to find out last month that billions of dollars in IMF loans to Russia, the fund's largest borrower over the last 7 years, likely was diverted and laundered through U.S. and other Western banks. The IMF states that they have no evidence that their money is involved and that they are investigating. Well, it is time that this Congress conducts its own investigation and holds the IMF accountable. Its largest donors, the U.S. taxpayers, deserve no less.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I could not believe my eyes when I read the newspaper this morning that President Clinton had given clemency to 12 imprisoned members of the Puerto Rican terrorist organization, the FALN. U.S. policy to terrorists has always been very consistent; it has always been very clear. We must make no concessions to terrorists. That has been the policy, not to pardon terrorists. We should be sending a strong message that terrorism would not be tolerated. As my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), has pointed out, the FALN was responsible for 130 bombings in the United States that killed six people, at least; injured scores of other Americans; three police officers were maimed for life; two were blinded; one lost a leg while trying to diffuse one of the bombs that the FALN planted in 1982. What does the President have to say to these victims and their families? What does Vice President Gore have to say about releasing these law breakers? All 12 terrorists given clemency were convicted on charges of seditious conspiracy and possession of weapons and possession of explosives. They belong in prison.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is an organization of sovereign states funded with voluntary contributions. It lacks any authority to impose taxes on its member states. Yet, the U.N.'s development program has proposed $70 billion in taxes on e-mail, 35 times more than it currently receives in contributions. Why has it done this? Because it believes countries are poor because they lack the Internet. The U.N. should be more concerned about real problems in developing countries, like political mismanagement and repressive economic policies. Giving away computers does nothing for the poor if their countries lack the economic fundamentals to take advantage of the Internet. The Internet offers tremendous potential to small businesses seeking an efficient way to gain new markets. Internet taxes and the bureaucracy needed to administer them would cripple this commerce. Congress has had a hands off policy when it comes to Internet taxes, and the U.N. should do the same. Hands off the Internet for the U.N.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, opponents of this resolution say they are opposed to this resolution because they support a more free and open Vietnam. Well, I too support a more free and open Vietnam, but I support this resolution because by passing it we send a clear signal that business as usual is not acceptable. No one is looking to take away the right of American corporations to do business in Vietnam. First, let us be clear. Since the U.S. trade embargo on Vietnam was lifted in 1994, businesses have had the ability to trade with and invest in Vietnam, and some have done so. The debate over Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam is not about trade and investment. This is about government subsidies for companies operating in Vietnam. This resolution is also about maintaining the focus on changes we would like to see in Vietnam. And I thought this was why we first normalized relations with Vietnam, with the expectation that the government would make a genuine reform, a genuine effort at progress. It is no secret that the Vietnamese government wants this waiver, but in granting the waiver once again we are saying it is okay that religious freedom continues to be restricted, it is okay that there is minimal political freedom, it is okay to have repression and to have it intensified this past year. If this waiver is upheld or rejected, American companies will be no more or less free to invest in Vietnam. It should be noted, however, that the investment climate in Vietnam is not good and that several American companies have pulled out and several others are considering pulling out. We should realize that one simply cannot do business, whether a foreigner or as a Vietnamese, in a place where the rule of law is disregarded. For the U.S. to subsidize companies that do business in Vietnam through OPIC or Ex-Im would be for us to ignore this reality. As long as the Vietnamese government continues to jam Radio Free Asia, which is an attempt to deny the Vietnamese people access to objective news, and as long as it violates human rights and disrespects economic freedom, we should not waive Jackson-Vanik. It is only through taking these steps that we can leverage and bring about the necessary changes concerning respect for individual rights, religious freedom and liberalized markets in one of the world's most politically and economically repressive countries.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress has reduced the debt by 51 billion this last year, by 102 billion as the sum that we will reduce the debt by this year. Over the next 10 years under the budget plan that we have put forward, we will reduce it by another $2 trillion. Now the question that we are actually debating is whether we should use $1 out of every 4 of the surplus, of the budget surplus, in order to also give some tax relief, because as my colleagues know, what the Republicans want to do is to eliminate the marriage penalty and give a 10 percent reduction on tax rates as well as phase down the death tax and reduce the capital gains tax. The question is whether we will use this $1 out of every 4 in the extra surplus to give this tax relief or whether the President and the administration is going to get its way and spend the additional dollars. They are not going to use it to pay down the debt; they want more social spending. Mr. Speaker, to that end, let me just remind my colleagues we have a trigger that if the surplus starts to decline, we do not phase in our tax reductions. So I wanted to make that point clear.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. OPIC, as we have heard, offers insurance and credit services to American companies operating overseas, and for me, having our government provide these services is just not defensible. The U.S. has the most efficient financial markets in the world. The simple fact is that American businesses receiving OPIC services could receive these same services from the private financial markets. OPIC provides insurance; so does the American private sector. In fact, 2 years ago, a consortium of private insurers submitted to Congress a proposal to privatize 5 billion of OPIC's insurance options. The U.S. private sector wants to offer American businesses the very same services that OPIC is providing. In other words, the U.S. private sector wants to put OPIC out of business. So why is Congress standing in the way? We hear that OPIC offers American companies insurance backed with the full faith and credit of the United States Government. This supposedly tells foreign governments that Uncle Sam is serious about protecting OPIC-backed investments. Is that the signal we want to send, that the protection of some American businesses abroad, those formerly backed by OPIC, matter more than non-OPIC American investments. We should be in the business of protecting all American investments. OPIC backs investment funds; so does the American private sector. OPIC has a south Asia capital fund. Well, so does T. Rowe Price. It has a new Asia fund, and so do many other private companies. Just look at the financial pages of the newspaper. There are hundreds of capital funds devoted to the developing world. Mr. Chairman, 150 billion in private capital flows to emerging markets every year, so why in the world is OPIC playing in the capital fund field? Mr. Chairman, this debate is really about whether we believe in the market, or whether we believe that American businesses should be guided by the government. OPIC claims that there is no way right now that the private sector on its own can go into many regions that the U.S. wants them to go into, and this means, of course, going where U.S. Government agencies want American companies to go. Are U.S. businesses really there to be directed to where Washington wants them to go? I do not think so. I would also dispute the notion that the American private sector will not go anywhere in the world where it can do business profitably. A spokesman for a major American bank, in discussing its use of OPIC for the Caribbean and Central America recently stated, quote, the credit and insurance support provided by OPIC will allow us to better serve customers by noticeably increasing our already extensive lending activities in the targeted countries. Note those words. The bank is already in the Caribbean and Central American markets doing excessive lending and doing it without OPIC. OPIC may be a nicety, but it is certainly not a necessity. Every year, we hear the argument that the U.S. needs OPIC because European countries and Japan provide their businesses with similar services. It is, I would remind my colleagues, U.S. policy to work against such trade-distorting policies. We have come to understand that the world economy works better, that living standards rise, when governments are not in the business of subsidizing their national businesses. But each year, we continue supporting OPIC, renewing this cycle of inefficiency. American companies have private creditors and insurance providers to rely on. I bet they would serve OPIC clients better. Let us support this amendment. Show some world leadership, scale back OPIC. The greatest economy in the history of the world I guarantee my colleagues will not miss a beat if we cut out this government program.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, $30,000 should be enough to purchase a nice car or make a down payment on a house or pay for a couple of years of college, but $30,000 should not be enough to buy a $9 million supercomputer especially when the technology has the potential to be exported for nuclear weapons research. But that is exactly what the Department of Energy has allowed to happen, and when the DOE officials realized their mistake, they scrambled to buy the computer back for three times the sales price. Now this just does not compute. The Department has proven time and time again that it does not put a premium on national security, and that is why I have introduced my bill, H.R. 2411, which would eliminate this multibillion-dollar bureaucracy with confused missions and questionable priorities. Frankly, these are responsibilities that should be handled again by the Department of Defense. We should abolish this agency. It is time we stopped the Department of Energy from turning our national labs into garage sales. I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this risk to America's national security interests.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the memory of Betty Lou Stevenson by submitting the following article from the Fullerton Observer, honoring her ``life of inspiration'', for the Record. [From the Fullerton Observer, Issue Number 322, July 1999] Betty Lou Stevenson--A Life of Inspiration ``Service Above Self'' best summarizes the extraordinary life of Betty Lou Stevenson. Over 300 community members attended her memorial at St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Fullerton on June 7, 1999 to honor her enormous contributions and positive, energetic spirit. She was very proud of her Scottish heritage and a bagpiper performed at her memorial service. Those in attendance also learned some of the following about this remarkable lady. Betty Lou was born in Portland, Oregon. Her father being a construction engineer, the family moved on average of once a year, meaning Betty Lou was perpetually the ``new student'' in school. She learned to ``go with the flow'' and be comfortable in almost any social situation Betty Lou attended the University of Oregon from 1937-40, where as President of her Chi Omega sorority and of the Heads of Houses she was listed in Who's Who in America Universities and Colleges (1939-40). Upon graduating from college, Betty Lou and her family moved to Fullerton. The town has never been the same. Many of Betty Lou's accomplishments occurred while acting in the capacity of single parent to her two sons after her 19-year marriage ended in divorce. While holding down her full-time teaching positions, donating hours of volunteer time and being a single mother she somehow managed to attend night school classes at Whittier College ultimately earning her Master's degree. Betty Lou Stevenson loved teaching. During her 35 years as a 7th grade math teacher a minimum of 5,000 students passed through her classes and achieved success. Irving Wright, Betty Lou's principal at Wilshire Jr. High, spoke for most of those who knew her when he stated that he admired her tremendously and considered her a wonderful lady. In addition to teaching math at both Wilshire and Nicholas Junior Highs, Betty Lou worked on the yearly Christmas program. Her tireless devotion to her students, school and fellow staff, earned her recognition from the school board for ``Distinguished Service to the Fullerton School District.'' In 1972 Betty Lou became President of the Fullerton Elementary Teachers Association (FETA). The only walkout in the history of the Fullerton School District occurred the following year. A key factor in the resolution of the negotiations impasse was her participation and leadership. Volunteering was an essential part of Betty Lou's life. She was a charter member and supporter of the Heritage House at the Fullerton Arboretum spending many a Sunday as a docent, sharing her love of Victorian history with visitors. During the week she often led tours through the House for school groups. Betty Lou loved working at the Heritage House because it reminded her of her happy childhood in Portland and the house that she was born in, which still stands today in a historical neighborhood. Betty Lou also served as a docent for the Art Alliance at Cal State Fullerton, leading groups of high school students through the art galleries. Upon her retirement Betty Lou devoted even more time to her volunteer efforts. She kept a daily calendar by her telephone to keep track of all her activities. As her calendar shows, being involved in up to four separate activities in one day was not unusual. At the time of her death, she was an active member in 9 major organizations, including the California Retired Teachers Association; PEO; Continuing Learning Experience at Cal State; Delta Kappa Gamma; charter member of AAUW. In all these groups Betty Lou served as President and helped out in any way she was needed, from serving as an officer to serving on the clean-up committee. In short, Betty Lou was a truly dedicated volunteer. Betty Lou had many varied interests from her decorated egg collection featured in an exhibit at the library, to bridge, to reading and traveling to learn about different cultures. Betty Lou was stylish and hats were one of her trademarks. At St. Andrew's church where she was a member for over 50 years, she was affectionately referred to as the ``hat lady.'' She organized and worked in the parish Clothes Closet from its inception in 1986 distributing clothes to the homeless. Some of the essence of Betty Lou can be understood from her own words in 1998. Thararat Charconsonthichai, a graduate student at Cal State who extensively interviewed Betty Lou for ``The Life Story of Elizabeth Louise Stevenson,'' said, ``Optimism, or the belief that whatever happens will be good, is the essential theme she employed in explaining herself and her life to me.'' Betty Lou put it this way: ``I am an optimist even when I face troubles. I was disappointed that my marriage did not work. That was difficult for me. But I never looked at the bad side. I am basically not a down person. Of course I have disappointments; we all have those. But I always look for something that helps. Nowadays it is not easy to live without an education, especially for women. Women should develop skills to help themselves if such a thing as divorce happens.'' Betty Lou's career as a teacher and lifelong volunteer for groups with educational missions, underscored her commitment to seeing ideal realized. At the memorial service, the eulogy was delivered by Father Mark Shier, Rector of St. Andrews. Most fittingly, at the conclusion the audience rose and gave a standing ovation for the life of Betty Lou Stevenson--a life from which we can all gain inspiration. The family asks that in lieu of flowers donations in Betty Lou's name be made to Fullerton Arboretum or CLE.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton recently announced that we have $1 trillion in non-Social Security surpluses. Now, these surpluses are not the creation of Washington. They came from the hard-working Americans who have created a thriving economy and have been overtaxed. Americans pay more in taxes than at any time since World War II. Americans deserve some of the surplus back. They earned it. It is their money. They deserve one-third of that surplus, at least, back. If we do not return a portion of the surplus to the taxpayers, I guarantee that very soon special interests here will spend it, or they will waste it. Americans should be allowed to take care of their own needs first before being asked to finance more government. With tax relief, individuals will be able to obtain better health care, invest in education, save for retirement, or do any number of things they are currently prohibited from doing because of the heavy tax burden. It is time to end the overtaxation in America. Support the Financial Freedom Act.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, because in order for education to succeed, our teachers must first succeed. In spite of what some people want us to believe, there is no one student-to-teacher ratio and no magic number that guarantees academic success in our classrooms. As long as some teachers are hampered by red tape, ill-trained and ill-equipped, they will not be able to accomplish their objective, which is to educate. This bill backs local initiatives to meet class size reduction plans and give teachers more flexibility to choose their professional development programs. This bill shifts 95 percent of funds directly to the local level, sending the money to the people who need it most, the students. And this bill maintains the focus on math and science without sacrificing accountability. I urge my colleagues to give students the resources they need to succeed. We owe it to them to support this important legislation.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, a strong education system is one of the pillars of a strong America. Our youth deserve the opportunity to reach their fullest potential, and it is our responsibility to provide the necessary resources. But before we challenge our students to be the best they can, we must first challenge our educators to be the best they can. As long as some classrooms continue to be staffed by ineffective teachers who do little more than satisfy a ratio, some students will suffer. That is why I support the Teacher Empowerment Act that will be up today. This bill gives more flexibility in the use of Federal funds, allowing teachers to choose the training programs that best suit their classrooms needs without sacrificing accountability. This bill also includes funding for new teachers, but the focus is on quality over quantity. I urge my colleagues to empower our educators for a brighter future and to vote for passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday July 15, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 302. If I had been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on this amendment.