Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 75) condemning the National Islamic Front (NIF) government for its genocidal war in southern Sudan, support for terrorism, and continued human rights violations, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 H. Con. Res. 75.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the other members of the committee for their work on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) recently toured Sudan and had an opportunity to visit sites recently bombed, such as the hospital in Yei.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution brings much needed attention to the terrible situation in Sudan where war incredibly has led to the death of 1.9 million Sudanese over the past decade. The vast majority of these Sudanese have not been combatants. They have been innocent women and children in the south who have been cruelly subjected to starvation and disease as food has been used as a weapon against them. As the Subcommittee on Africa and the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations heard 3 weeks ago, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan remains severe and a process of slavery still exists. We heard the personal experiences of southern Sudanese who have lost family members to the horrific process of slavery. This resolution pulls no punch. The Sudanese government, it states, is committing genocide. The Sudanese government has also engaged in slavery. This is consistent with its international behavior. Sudan is classified as a terrorist state by the State Department. This resolution condemns the Sudanese government for its genocidal war in southern Sudan and its support for terrorism. It deplores the government-supported slave trade in Sudan, and it calls for increased and more effective aid efforts in southern Sudan. The United States, this resolution suggests, must play a key role in attempting to bring peace to southern Sudan. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the author of this resolution, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the participants of this debate. I have enjoyed working with Mr. Payne and the other members of the Subcommittee on Africa on this resolution, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has had a special interest in the humanitarian crisis in Sierra Leone, and who has worked with his church to try to urge adoption of this resolution. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution addresses the tragic situation in Sierra Leone where the democratically elected government of President Ahmed Kabbah has been under siege by rebel forces. The RUF rebels, as the Subcommittee on Africa has heard, have used despicable tactics of political terror against civilians, which does throw into serious question these forces' commitment to a peaceful and democratic Sierra Leone. We can only hope that the current cease-fire and ongoing political negotiations between the government and the RUF will produce a lasting political settlement. Today, Sierra Leone is suffering a humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of Sierra Leoneans having had to flee their country. As this resolution notes, Sierra Leoneans are suffering from a lack of food. They are suffering from a lack of medicine. As a matter of fact, the suffering is acute. Many victims have lost their hands, have lost their limbs. Many have severed lips and severed ears because of political terror. Amputation is a part of the tactics used by the RUF in order to terrorize the opposition. This resolution calls for an end to hostilities which, frankly, have the potential of destabilizing all of West Africa. It condemns the gross human rights violations that have shocked the world, and there should be no doubt it is the rebels that have been by far the greatest perpetrators of human rights violations in Sierra Leone. This resolution calls on specific West African countries to cease providing military aid to rebel forces, and that aid, of course, aids and abets their carnage. It calls on the U.S. to provide additional support for ECOMOG forces that are providing a measure of stability in Sierra Leone. Clearly, the U.S. needs to do more for ECOMOG. The situation in Sierra Leone greatly concerns many Members of Congress. Over the last year, the Subcommittee on Africa has held two hearings on this conflict. This resolution introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) reflects what this subcommittee has learned through these hearings. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.)

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 H. Res. 62, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 62) expressing concern over the escalating violence, the gross violations of human rights, and the ongoing attempts to overthrow a democratically elected government in Sierra Leone, as amended.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, since the Great Depression, American farmers were shackled by the Federal Government with programs and regulations that kept them from producing all they could. We all remember how many farmers were paid not to grow certain crops; they were paid subsidies to grow others. Over the last few years, our colleagues on the agriculture and agricultural appropriation committees have done an excellent job in reducing harmful government interference in American agriculture and putting it on the road back to the market system that works so well. American farmers are now unshackled and free to produce as they see fit, not as Washington tells them. However, more work remains to be done. The market access program is a relic of our former government-heavy agricultural system. The MAP program, the Market Access Program, provides millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies per year to agribusinesses to supplement their international advertising and marketing. We have heard that agriculture is one of the most important businesses in America, and we have also heard that advertising American agriculture overseas is critical. And I agree with these points. They are certainly true. The question is not whether agriculture and American farmers are important. Without question, they are very important to this economy. And we all know that advertising is an essential part of doing business. The question is whether MAP is a proper use of taxpayer money. And it is not. The cost of advertising should be borne by the firms which stand to benefit, not the taxpayers. Let me also say that I do not believe that working men and women should continue to foot the bill for advertising subsidies to multinational corporations. Promotional advertising for product is simply not the role of government. It is the role of those private concerns that benefit from the sale of those products. The future and continued performance of American agriculture is not contingent upon handing out taxpayer money for advertising. The success of American agriculture results from the energy and ingenuity of American farmers, not government subsidies. Let me also say that as far as the GAO report, the GAO report found that there is no clear relationship between the amount spent on government export promotion and changes in the level of U.S. exports. In a separate report, the GAO questioned whether funds are actually supporting additional promotional activities or if they are simply replacing private industry funds. What is obvious on its face is that money handed out by government bureaucrats does not magically become several dollars. And let me say that another argument that is often made is that we are being outsubsidized by the European Union and other countries throughout the world. I might point out that our economy is outperforming those countries by every measure. Our gross national product dwarfs most every other country in the world. We have the most productive workers. Our per capita income is highest. Unemployment is almost nonexistent. I, for one, do not wish to follow the European model of subsidies. I do not think that many of my colleagues do either. We should continue striving to shed these vestiges of central planning instead of defending those that have crept into our economy in the past. Government has no business deciding which companies are worthy of advertising funds. That is precisely what the free market is there to do, to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. The government ought not to be taking tax money from companies to finance the advertising of their competition, which is the direct result of redistribution. I make no argument that advertising sells products. This is obvious. The point, however, is whether private conditions should pay for the promotion of their own product or whether the American taxpayer should be forced to do so. We do not force the American taxpayer to pay for other corporate expenses like office supplies. American taxpayers should not pay for this cost of doing business.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong support of this bill, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. I think it is important that we try to put in place a mechanism to try to establish this lockbox to ensure that social security spending is not spent on other government spending. The reason I say that is for 40 years in this institution money was spent on other government spending. There were chronic budget deficits. Just recently we have been able to bring that down and bring this budget into balance, but I think it is important that we protect and set aside $1.8 trillion in cumulative budget surpluses over the next 10 years for social security and Medicare. Since social security was first created it has been a pay-as-you-go system, benefits to retirees are paid from tax revenue. Interest is credited to the social security trust fund, and social security tax surpluses become part, unfortunately, in this process, of general government spending. In reality, there is no cash in the trust fund, merely IOUs. They are printed on an ink jet printer. In fact, they are in three file folders in West Virginia, in a filing cabinet. I think it is important that we set up a mechanism to, frankly, pay back over time the $359 billion that was borrowed over the last 40 years out of this fund. If steps are not taken now, in 15 years social security will be insolvent and benefits will have to be funded through either reductions in other spending, or tax increases, or a return to chronic budget deficits. That is why I will mention that I introduced a bill to pay back the money borrowed from social security and create a real trust fund with real assets. Under my bill, 90 percent of the budget surplus would be used to pay down the debt owed the trust funds. Using the budget surplus in this fashion would continue until all IOUs in the trust fund have been eliminated. I support this. It is a good first step.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we sent a clear bill through this chamber. Through this House, we sent to the other body a clean bill that was focused on making certain that our troops had the munitions that they would need in the field. We were told that our troops were short on issues like cruise missiles, that our fighter pilots needed precision bombs. We were told there are plenty of dumb bombs, there are plenty of cluster bombs in the arsenal but to give them the weapons that will cause least collateral damage in these operations, to give them the weapons that are safest for them to use, that we needed to pass out a supplemental bill, an emergency bill, which we did in this House, a clean bill to make certain that our troops had every piece of weaponry and every bit of training they needed for this operation. And now, after sending that message that our troops were our first priority, we find that the other body and in conference included provisions in this bill having nothing to do with true emergencies, having nothing to do with support of our troops in the field, that they had added pork in this bill. Well, I rise today to support the motion of the gentleman from Michigan. I rise to support the motion which instructs the conferees not to accept any provisions not already in the House or Senate passed supplemental bills and to put this House on record against any new projects or other type of non-emergency spending. I urge all my colleagues in this Chamber to support this motion today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, on December 31, 1999, as that big ball comes down in Times Square, we will be faced with a very real problem that demands a real response from the business community. Knowing of these potential disasters and the time constraint with which we are faced, one would assume that businesses are now laboring feverishly to correct the problem that may result with a single-minded focus. But this has not been the case, unfortunately. Instead of taking a more active approach to solving the Y2K problem, many businesses find themselves expending time and energy on liability issues. In large corporations, the work of software engineers has to be rigorously examined and approved by legal departments. Small entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are faced with the dilemma of funding extensive Y2K-compliant changes or saving for potentially bankrupting legislation and litigation. Given these circumstances, American society could be confronted by an extended period of challenging technological and economic issues; and that is why I have cosponsored this legislation, H.R. 775, and why I rise today in support of its passage. This bipartisan legislation creates incentives for businesses to address the impending Year 2000 problem by creating a legal framework in which Y2K-related disputes will be resolved. The emphasis is placed on mediation and cooperation over litigation. Businesses are encouraged to help each other solve potential problems, rather than sue over something that could have been averted. Finally, the legislation provides entrepreneurs and small businesses with access to small business administration loans for Y2K modification projects. We must not permit a climate to foster in which businesses paralyzed by a fear of unrestrained lawsuits fail to take action that would adequately address the problem. And this bill allows businesses to focus their efforts on finding real solutions, rather than anticipating out-of-control lawsuits that only serve to aggravate the situation. The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act is critical in helping consumers and businesses that may be impacted negatively if the Y2K problem is not resolved in a timely and efficient manner. The Congressional Budget Office indicates that this would save money for the government if we pass this and for the taxpayers. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage today.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde- Conyers amendment. Mr. Chairman, this legislation, H.R. 833, is about personal responsibility. It is about clear standards. It is about correcting a system that was designed to help those who have fallen on hard times, but which is now used to protect those who can afford to pay to repay some of their debt, but they choose not to. H.R. 833 imposes clear objective standards to give debtors, creditors, judges and trustees guidance in applying a means test used to determine who has the ability to repay some of their debt. How is this test based? On the median expenditure levels as determined by the Bureau of Labor Standards and Statistics. This represents what the average American family spends each month and what someone in bankruptcy can afford to repay. This amendment that we are discussing removes this standard and replaces it with an entirely undefined standard of reasonably necessary expenses. Essentially this amendment would put us right back where we started. Yesterday's Washington Post included an article which, in my view, exemplifies what is wrong with the current bankruptcy code. This article reports on a family with an annual income of $180,000. The family apparently fell on hard times and filed for bankruptcy seeking to discharge $140,000 in unsecured debt, but, upon filing, they listed as among their monthly expenses projected $600 for entertainment, $270 for cell phone expenses and so forth. Under H.R. 833, this family would receive the same allowances for mortgage, food, clothing and utilities as they do under current law. However, they would be denied the cell phone and the entertainment allowances that most Americans who pay their bills on time do not enjoy. Under the Conyers-Hyde amendment there would be no clear standard giving the judges the same discretion they have now, and this family and thousands in a similar situation could very well continue with the $600 entertainment and the $270 cell phone calls per month, all at the expense of the consumers who will ultimately pick up the tab. Again, H.R. 833 imposes the clear, consistent national standards that will ensure that those that have the ability to repay their debts are in fact required to do so. This amendment eviscerates those standards, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, enacting a substitute bill on which there has been no hearings or public comment is no way to approach a task as important as reforming the Nation's bankruptcy system. Our bankruptcy laws play an important and necessary role in protecting Americans who really need these laws, and that is the key, need. But what our act intends to do is to make the existing bankruptcy system a needs-based system, addressing the flaw in the current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk away from debts regardless of whether they are able to repay any portion of what they owe, and it does this while protecting those who truly need protection. Between September of 1997 and September of 1998 in my home State of California there were 203,000 personal bankruptcy petitions filed. This translates into one bankruptcy petition filed for every 56 households. Now that is almost three times the next highest State, New York. Moreover, the number of bankruptcies in California has more than doubled since 1990. The cost to all of us is very great for the rest of the country. This is the cost borne not only by the business community but by the consumers who pay their bills responsibly and end up having these costs shifted to them. Last year, the 55 of 56 households in my State who paid their bills on time were forced to pick up the $550 per household tab for those who walked away from their debts. That is a $550 bill that my colleagues and I pay when irresponsible spenders who can afford to pay all or some of their debt declare bankruptcy, and this is the problem that the Bankruptcy Reform Act addresses. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, of which I am a cosponsor, and in opposition to this substitute. The Bankruptcy Reform Act is almost identical to legislation passed by the House of Representatives last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, that legislation ultimately stalled late in the year in the Senate. We have another opportunity today to pass this much-needed reform act and send the Senate a bill with strong bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and defeat this substitute amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, last week in the Committee on International Relations we listened to Secretary of State Albright explain the administration's policy. I expressed my concerns to the Secretary about the difficulty of our objectives, especially given the limited means we are committing. Looking back over time at our Nation's wars, and this is a war, we have been successful when we have had as an objective the destruction of a regime or when we have had clearly-defined territorial objectives such as expelling Iraq from Kuwait. In both of these scenarios, though, in order to accomplish our goals, we used rather massive force, including ground troops. But in Kosovo we are committing American resources and prestige and risking American lives, employing what must be called a very calibrated use of force in order to achieve a very complex objective: restructuring Kosovo's society. Given that, my question to the Secretary was: What precedent for success in our history are we looking at? Are we practicing a theory here in Kosovo without an historical basis for success? The response from her: no cases were cited from the real world. Instead, we heard that the air war is working, when most observers do not believe it to be the case, and that we need to be patient. Well, patience is what we had in Vietnam. Another thing that struck me while listening to the Secretary was that when there was a difficult question, when our strategy was being challenged, we'd hear that she'd rather be answering such difficult questions then answering why we're doing nothing. This response is backwards. The Secretary of State and the President she works for are responsible for the resources of the United States of America, and the lives of our servicemen. I'd rather have the Administration struggle with answering questions about the tragedy in Kosovo than struggle, and that is what it's doing, with explaining why we're committing America's treasure and risking American lives there. Yesterday, and throughout this crisis, I've heard too much struggling with our basic strategy. So, faced with this decision today, I cannot sanction the current policy. Good intentions, and the tragedy in Kosovo is great, cannot mask flawed policy.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) at a press conference for the Dollars to the Classroom Act. And also present were students from around the country and teachers and administrators speaking in support of the bill. Unfortunately, as the system is set up now, as little as 65 cents on the dollar makes it to the classroom. That is wrong. Many children are being shortchanged. Congress must downsize bureaucracy to ensure students get the best possible education. What the Dollars to the Classroom Act would do is to mandate that at least 95 percent of Federal education dollars end up where it is needed most. Teachers, and most importantly our children, will be direct beneficiaries of the spending, and not the bureaucrats. And under this legislation each school would receive an increase of $10,000. Cole Allen is an 8th grader. He is from Pennsylvania. He spoke at today's conference about the need for more money in the classroom. He said his geography book is titled ``World Geography Today,'' but it should be called ``World Geography 13 Years Ago.'' Mr. Speaker, we need the money in the schools for the books.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that the United States encourages economically reforming African countries. One of the ways to do that would be to pass the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a bill that will really put Africa on the course of joining the world economy. Africa is the poorest continent today, largely because of the state- dominated development strategy that predominated for the first three decades of its era of independence. It was called African socialism, and it did not work for Africa. It did not work for Africa any better than it worked in Eastern Europe. Those economic policies help explain the difference today between a country like Ghana in West Africa and South Korea. In the early 1960s these two countries had similar per capita incomes. Ghana and most of Africa took the route of socialism, and they paid a very heavy price as a result. Now, fortunately, many African countries, including Ghana, have changed course ever since the Berlin Wall came down. Ever since the West and Third World countries began to look at what had actually happened in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union, they began liberalizing their economies. They began permitting private ownership of assets and becoming more welcoming of foreign investment and implementing the rule of law. These reforms, which were encouraged by the United States and were undertaken with considerable political difficulty, have produced desirable results in many African countries. Many countries are seeing consistent economic growth of higher than 5 percent. In some, it is 10 percent, up to 17 percent growth rates per year. These reforms advance America's many interests in Africa. It is very important when we think about this to realize that, realistically, the U.S. could not isolate itself from a 21st Century where Africa is suffering with increased war and social upheaval and environmental degradation or international terrorism and drug trafficking. Growing economic means for Africa is an antidote for this scenario, translating into improved educational and health services, better environmental protections and greater social stability. President Museveni said that to meet all of the health and education needs of Uganda, they would have to build the tax base through economic reforms and introduce free enterprise. That is exactly what they have done, with very positive results. So recovering African economies already offer the U.S. significant commercial opportunities. While African countries are still in the early stages of economic reform, America's growing exports, exports to Africa already total $6 billion per year. That supports 100,000 American jobs. American investment on the continent is increasing. American corporations, looking beyond the headlines of civil strife, are clearly recognizing opportunities in Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act would strengthen these positive trends by putting Africa more firmly on the trade and investment map. This legislation would encourage qualifying African countries in annual, high-level trade forums, modeled after forums the U.S. holds with other regions of the world, to continue along this route of reducing tariffs and reforming the economy. These forums would have symbolic value, demonstrating that the world's most powerful economy takes Africa's economic development seriously. American exporters and investors stand to benefit by the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Qualifying African countries would be reducing barriers to American goods and investment, including reducing tariffs and regulatory burdens and protecting private property. In other words, this legislation treats trade and investment as a two-way street. The African Growth and Opportunity Act has received strong support from American businesses, particularly those already engaged in Africa and aware of the opportunities. There should be a sense of urgency about the African Growth and Opportunity Act. There should be a sense of urgency about Africa itself. While several African countries are making encouraging economic progress, others are not. Africa's share of world trade and developing world foreign direct investment is small. Unless these trends are reversed, Africa runs a real risk of becoming economically irrelevant. I urge passage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. AGOA promises to make Africa more relevant to the world economy. That is why it enjoys the support of virtually every African country. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is not a panacea for Africa's many challenges. But it would help. While modest from an American perspective, AGOA promises tangible benefits and a psychological boost to those African countries wishing to become economic partners with the U.S. This is the least we can do for countries fighting their best against the continent's economic marginalization, and worse. Having encouraged difficult market-opening reforms, denying greater market access for a modest amount of African goods disrespects our many interests in Africa. It is also indefensible policy toward the world's poorest continent just as it is developing some momentum. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this Act when it reaches the House floor.