Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, we have no ballistic missile defense system. The administration opposed it; vetoed it. Before World War II, many people were stuck in a similar mindset. Leaders in England and elsewhere did not want to develop advanced weaponry. One leader stood alone, though, pushing for England to develop its technology, including radar, in the cause of national defense. His efforts encountered much resistance. Many said that there could be no defense against air power. There was some outright opposition from those who favored disarmament, including Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, as a way of dealing with Germany. Well, history has told us that the dark days England soon suffered through would have been much darker if England had not had Winston Churchill and had not developed radar. Radar, which Churchill tirelessly pushed, was critical to winning the battle of Britain. Sometimes it is not easy exercising foresight and taking preemptive action, but I cannot think of a more pressing issue for this Congress to address than defending our Nation against the emerging threat of ballistic missiles. I commend the authors and especially our chairman for this important resolution.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and the rule. As this resolution states, the U.S. must deploy now and not just develop a national missile defense system but deploy it. This resolution and debate hopefully will spur the deployment because, as has been noted so forcefully here today, we are now defenseless against a single ballistic missile launched against American soil. Defending our Nation against attack is so fundamental a responsibility of ours and the stakes that we are talking about are so high, that I think it is important that we better understand how our country, with its great military, has gotten into our predicament of being defenseless. The American people need to know. The answer is that since Ronald Reagan introduced the idea of missile defense over 15 years ago, every reason in the world has been found to delay. For one, we have heard the threat discounted. In 1995, the administration predicted that no ballistic missile threat would emerge for 15 years. This past August, the administration again assured Congress that the intelligence community would provide the necessary warning of a rogue state's development and deployment of a ballistic missile threat to the United States. Then that same month, that same month, North Korea test-fired its Taepo-Dong missile. The sophistication of this missile unfortunately caught our intelligence community by surprise. North Korea, impoverished, unstable North Korea, a regime about which the Director of Central Intelligence recently said that he could hardly overstate his concern over and which in nearly all respects, according to him, has become more volatile and unpredictable, may soon be able to strike Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention our allies and U.S. troops in Asia. Ominously, North Korea is continuing its work on missile development. This is the very threat that was supposed to be 15 years away. Even before this rosy assessment last July, Iran tested a medium range ballistic missile. Iran is receiving aid from Russia. Not surprisingly, the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission recently concluded that the threat posed by nations seeking to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, quote, is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community. The fact is that we live in a world where even the most impoverished nations can develop ballistic missiles and warheads, especially with Russia's aid, and thus I ask the Members to support the rule and this resolution. This by no way is said to disparage our intelligence efforts. Instead, we just need to appreciate that these threats are difficult to detect, and that we need to react in defense. Pearl Harbor caught us by complete surprise. We have no excuse with today's missile threat. The second excuse to delay is the ABM Treaty. Faced with the very real threats we've heard about, I'm at a complete loss as to why our country would let an outdated treaty keep us from developing a national missile defense system. Essentially, this Administration has allowed Russia to veto our missile defense efforts. This is the same country, Russia, that is contributing to missile proliferation by working with Iran. Fortunately, Secretary of Defense Cohen has suggested that we would not be wedded to the ABM Treaty (Jan. 20)--that this treaty would not preclude our deployment of a defensive system. But this is only a step toward the deployment we need, and others in the Administration persists in calling the ABM Treaty ``the cornerstone of strategic stability'' (Berger, Feb. 8 letter). I believe we need to get beyond a treaty that keeps us from defending our territory in the face of a very real threat--a treaty, I might add, that the Soviets secretly violated. And re-negotiating this treaty in a way that still precludes us from deploying the best missile defense system we can--allowing for a dumbed-down system--which is what the Administration is suggesting, is simply not acceptable. The fact is that the Russians have nothing to fear from us. The United States doesn't start wars. To forgo defending our territory because we're afraid of what the Russians or others may say about our defensive actions is indefensible. Third, we hear that a national missile defense system is too costly. Yes, we have made an investment in missile defense since Ronald Reagan launched his initiative, though this has been a small fraction of what American industry invests in research each year. But let's be honest here, defense is not free. And there have been some failures. But since when does success come without failure? Entering the twentieth century, the United States is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced country in the history of the world. There is no reason beyond the ideology of arms control, complacency or worse not to deploy a national missile defense now. Before World War II, many people were stuck in a similar mindset. Leaders in England and elsewhere didn't want to develop advanced defensive weaponry. One leader stood alone though, pushing for England to develop its technology, including radar, in the cause of its national defense. His efforts encountered much resistance. Many said that there could be no defense against air power. There was some outright opposition from those who favored disarmament, including Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, seeing disarmament as a way of better dealing with Germany. Well, history has told us that the dark days England soon after suffered through would have been much darker if England had not had Winston Churchill. Radar, by the way, which Churchill tirelessly pushed, was critical to winning the Battle of Britain. Sometimes it's not easy exercising foresight and taking preemptive action. But I cannot think of a more pressing issue for this Congress to address than defending our nation against the emerging threat of ballistic missiles. I commend the authors of this important resolution and hope it receives overwhelming support from this body.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, today on this House floor we passed House Resolution 4 which states that the U.S. must deploy and not just develop a national missile defense system, and we must deploy now and not leisurely aim to deploy at some point in the future, and the reason for that is because our country is so vulnerable. The resolution that we debated here today hopefully will spur the development because, as we noted here today, we are now defenseless against a single missile coming into the United States. Defending our Nation against attack is so fundamental a responsibility of ours and the stakes that we are talking about are so high that I think it is important that we understand how our country with its great military has gotten into our predicament of being defenseless. The American people need to know. The answer is that since President Reagan introduced the idea of missile defense over 15 years ago, every reason in the world has been found to delay. For one, we have heard that the threat itself, we have heard the threat being discounted. In 1995 the administration predicted that no ballistic missile threat would emerge for 15 years. This past August the administration again assured Congress that the intelligence community could provide the necessary warning of a rogue state's development and deployment of a ballistic missile threat to the United States. Then that same month, that same month North Korea test fired its Taepo Dong missile. The sophistication of this missile unfortunately caught the intelligence community by surprise. North Korea, impoverished, an unstable North Korea, a regime about which the director of Central Intelligence recently said that he could hardly overstate his concern about it and which in nearly all respects, according to him, has become more volatile and unpredictable, may soon be able to strike Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention our allies and U.S. troops in Korea. Ominously, North Korea is continuing its work on missile development, and this is the very threat that was supposed to be 15 years away. Even before this rosy assessment, last July Iran tested a medium range ballistic missile. Iran is receiving aid from Russia. Not surprisingly the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission recently concluded that the threat posed by nations seeking to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, and I quote from the report, is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community, unquote. The fact is that we live in a world where even the most impoverished nations can develop ballistic missiles and warheads, especially with Russia's aid, and then there is an expanding and ever-more sophisticated Chinese missile force. This, in no way, is said to disparage our intelligence efforts. Instead, we just need to appreciate that these threats are difficult to detect and that we need to react. Pearl Harbor caught us by complete surprise. We have no excuse with today's missile threat. The second excuse that we have heard for delay is the ABM Treaty. Faced with the very real threats that we have heard about, I am at a complete loss as to why our country would let an outdated treaty keep us from developing a national missile defense system. Essentially, the administration has allowed Russia to veto our missile defense efforts. This is the same country, Russia, that is continuing to proliferate missiles by working with Iran. Fortunately, Secretary of Defense Cohen has suggested in January that we would not be wedded to the ABM Treaty. He said that this treaty would not preclude our deployment of a defensive system, but this is only a step toward the deployment we need. Others in the administration persist in calling the ABM Treaty the cornerstone of strategic stability. The ABM Treaty has an escape clause, and I believe we need to get beyond a treaty that keeps us from defending our territory in the face of a very real threat, a treaty, I might add, that the Soviets secretly violated. Renegotiating this treaty in a way that still precludes us from deploying the best missile defense system we can, allowing for a dumbed-down system, which is what the administration is suggesting, is simply not acceptable. The fact is that the Russians have nothing to fear from us. The United States doesn't start wars. To forgo defending our territory because we're afraid of what the Russians may say about our defensive actions is indefensible. Third, we hear that a national missile defense system is too costly. Yes, we have made an investment in missile defense since Ronald Reagan launched his initiative, though a small fraction (some $40 billion) of what American industry invest in research each year. But let's be honest here, defense is not free. And there have been some failures. But since when does success come without failure. Entering the twentieth century, the United States is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced country in the history of the world. There is no reason beyond the ideology of arms control, complacency or worse not to deploy a national missile defense now.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a thoughtful speech given before the Heritage Foundation by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska, on U.S. policy toward Asia. As Chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, on which I am honored to serve, Doug Bereuter has been a leader in shaping U.S. policy toward this critical region. Mr. Bereuter's views, as expressed here, are a significant contribution to our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing our country in Asia. I encourage my colleagues to review this important speech. Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of Mr. Bereuter's address before the Heritage Foundation's Asia Roundtable to be inserted at this point in the Record. Remarks Delivered at the Heritage Foundation, the Honorable Doug Bereuter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, February 9, 1999 I. Introduction I am honored to be invited back, for a fifth year, to participate in the Asia Roundtable sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, and to share my Congressional perspective on U.S. foreign policy objectives in Asia. Seeing many familiar faces here today, I am encouraged that so many ``old hands'' (many of them young)--individuals with wide-ranging experience and expertise--remain committed to studying Asian affairs. No region is more dynamic, or more crucial to the future of America, as we stand on the threshold of the 21st century. In my role as Chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, a position which I have held since January 1995, I have found that your questions and related comments have been helpful in offering some different issues, and I hope that today's session will also have that benefit. I will keep my remarks fairly brief to afford maximum time for dialogue. Thus, I propose: First, to very briefly reiterate the set of principles that have guided my approach to the Asia-Pacific region. Second, to highlight key challenges that we face when viewing the Asian landscape through the larger prism of U.S. ``grand strategy''--even if it isn't clear that our government has one. Third, to offer my thoughts on appropriate Congressional responses to achieve our security objectives in Asia. II. Principles to Guide Foreign Policy Soon after I assumed Chairmanship of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, I established a set of principles to guide goals and initiatives regarding Asia. I believe these principles remain valid today. These include: first, Maintaining regional stability and security-- particularly with respect to potential flashpoints on the Korean peninsula, the Asian subcontinent, and Taiwan--by sustaining our regional security commitments. The presence of American forces strategically forward-positioned in Asia promotes stability, deters aggression and the rise of hegemonic forces, and ensures our strategic agility--the ability to rapidly and flexibly respond to crises. Our forces must remain engaged in Asia to bolster alliances and friendships, build new bonds of trust, and strengthen the joint commitment of the U.S. and regional nations to peace and stability. An increasingly important aspect of the U.S. security responsibility concerns the proliferation and export of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Given recent events on the Korean Peninsula, this priority has become increasingly important. the second principle, Opening and expanding Asian markets, and leading systemic and structural reforms that contribute to long-term Asian economic health and prosperity. Asia's recent financial crisis underscores the need for this dual- track approach. We have engaged economically, for example, by applying public and private resources to our financial and commercial relationships in Asia, and by implementing business strategies that expand our trade and marketing potential. However, we also should provide more leadership in a drive for reforming the economic architecture in Asia. This includes direct assistance in the form of counsel and targeted, limited aid to beleaguered nations, and insistence on appropriate support from multilateral organizations, such as the IMF, and international fora. This integrated approach should help put Asian nations back on their feet and keep them on the path to the robust growth needed for their, and global, economic health. the third principle, Promoting democracy & Protecting human rights. We cannot neglect our historic commitment to the fundamental principles of democracy, pluralism, and respect for human rights. Any Congressional policy based strictly on realpolitik and devoid of moral substance will lose the support of the American people. In these three areas, then, Congress must seek and seize the initiative so that we can now, and amid the uncertainties of the new millennium, shape, prepare effectively for, and respond appropriately to, the challenges and opportunities in Asia. Now, secondly, to move to the challenges, I start with . . . III. Defense Issues A more detailed look at the region shows that the post-Cold War period has not ended threats to a peaceful, stable Asia. Threats to U.S. vital interests abound. Relatedly, I believe that maintaining our 100,000 forward-deployed troops is the responsible, prudent course of action now more than ever. That force is a cornerstone of our security strategy and has both symbolic and real value to our allies, and it should to us as well. It represents our tangible commitment to the region--our sacrifice for the common good that deters aggression and defends U.S. and allied interests in crisis or conflict. The 1998 Defense Authorization Bill included- language, which I authored, reaffirmed both Congressional support for the 100,000 troop level, and explains why this troop commitment is crucial to peace and security in Asia. Indeed, I believe the presence of forward-based U.S. troops is welcomed by everyone in the region . . . . with the notable exception of North Korea. As to North Korea, I remain convinced, as I was in 1995, that there is no more volatile and dangerous spot in Asia, and perhaps the world, than North Korea. The situation on the Korean Peninsula currently is fragile. As you know, the North maintains a huge, standing, million-man army, the bulk of which is forward-deployed within 75 miles of the DMZ. Its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities may threaten South Korea and Japan and, as demonstrated by Pyongyang's August ``98 missile test, they potentially threaten even American soil--yes, the 48 states too. This test launch, coupled with uncertainty over the North's adherence to the 1994 nuclear framework agreement (generated by its continuing refusal to permit U.S. access to a suspected nuclear-related underground facility at Kumchang-ni) has renewed grave questions about Pyongyang's military intentions. The North should realize, but may not, that it now stands at a crossroads and must choose whether to continue its march toward economic and social collapse or to embrace America's exchange of food aid, heavy fuel, and assistance in developing safe nuclear energy for a verifiable commitment that it has not continued--and will not continue--its nuclear weapons program. The Administration's high risk bargaining tactics on this issue require careful oversight; much hangs in the balance--potential war or peace on the Peninsula, large-scale proliferation or its containment. Ultimately, the longer term balance of power and regional stability is at risk. I referred to the Administration's high risk bargaining tactics because the questions we all must ask are: What is the Administration's strategy with regard to North Korea? Why is there no linkage among the Administration's individual initiatives to stem the North's ballistic missile proliferation, to halt its nuclear program, and to forge any peace settlement? Have we substituted individual tactical maneuvers for an overarching strategy, a set of disjointed processes for an integrated policy and real progress? The implications of North Korea's test launch of a three- stage ballistic missile reach far beyond the Peninsula. Tokyo, recognizing the implicit threat, has appeared increasingly receptive to overtures to work with the U.S. to develop a regional missile defense network. Prime Minister Obuchi's hand also has been strengthened in gaining Diet approval for the revised defense guidelines. Once ratified, these guidelines will permit Japan to provide broader and more flexibility non-combat logistical support to U.S. forces in a regional contingency. As a nuclear weapons state, a leading regional military power, and a global player with a permanent U.N. Security Council seat, China, too, has a crucial role in building lasting security in the Asia region. Thus, another key security objective in Asia must be to build a firm foundation for a long-term relationship with China based on comprehensive engagement. Clearly, divergent and sometimes conflicting policies on a variety of issues complicate relations. Continuing concerns regarding China's acquisition and possible proliferation of sophisticated technology with military applications poses challenges to improving relations. As you may know, I served recently on the Congressional Select Committee charged with investigating Chinese acquisition of sensitive U.S. military technologies. Our findings, which I will broadly review with you when I turn to proliferation challenges, almost certainly will strain U.S./ China relations over the near-term once the maximum amount of the report is released. Another weighty U.S. security objective in Asia is to contain the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in South Asia. Indian's and Pakistan's recent nuclear tests, and their continued development of ballistic missiles, have fundamentally changed the strategic balance and increased the risk of nuclear exchange. As you know, the U.S. imposed mandatory unilateral sanctions on these countries following their tests. Major elements of these sanctions have subsequently been waived. We need to specifically examine whether to continue the President's waiver on Arms Export Control Administration (AECA) economic sanctions, which were based on a number of conditions, including both countries signing the CTBT, halting nuclear testing, and ceasing deployment and testing of missiles and nuclear weapons. It is to say the least, unclear whether those conditions will be met. I have included proliferation issues in a number of my subcommittee's past hearings and, during the 106th Congress, I anticipate re-examining some of these concerns and Administration responses. Certainly we will review Presidential certifications on the North's nuclear program as required by the last Congress, and their impact on the KEDO light water reactor project under he Nuclear Framework agreement. It also is clear that Congress will carefully review U.S. export and security policies dealing with sensitive military- related technologies. As I mentioned earlier, I serve on the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, which produced what is commonly referred to as the Cox Report. While the findings of the Select Committee remain highly classified, I can say that we found that the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to China extends beyond the widely publicized Hughes Electronics and Loral cases, to grave and extraordinary losses and severe damage to Amerca's national security through Chinese espionage because of lax security measures. At this point, I cannot provide details as the report is undergoing declassification review. Suffice it to say at this time, however, that the United States must thoroughly, dramatically, and energetically revise its security procedures--no failures to follow-through this time and no half-way, half-hearted efforts are acceptable. IV. Economic Issues Now let's look at Asia's economic security challenges. Over the course of the financial crisis, five Asian economies have contracted by at least 6 percent: Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. During a recent visit to Asia, I heard leading Hong Kong business-men, who once were supremely confident of Hong Kong's continued prosperity, now admit they are in a depression--no, I didn't say recession. I also had the opportunity to visit Indonesia, and witness first-hand the very real difficulties that important nation faces in pursuing economic recovery. Other nations are in recession or close to it. I believe the U.S. now has a more palpable respect for the possibility of economic undertow because of the Asian crisis. We were ``strategically surprised,'' to borrow a military analogy, and ``strategic surprise'' frequently results in tremendous confusion and very bad results. We can't afford to have this happen in the global economy. We need to bolster our economic ``defenses'' now by expanding private and public U.S. economic engagement and leadership in the region, and by paying closer attention to ``indications and warning'' of financial instability. In retrospect, these signs were evident as the crisis built--and even before that if you look at the architectural problems that drove it--but their potential individual and cumulative impact clearly were insufficiently addressed. U.S. economic growth of about 2-3 percent in 1999 has been widely projected--down from about 4 percent 1998 and attributable, in large measure, to the economic problems ignited in Asia. In late '98 the strong U.S. economy was, overall, able to more than compensate for the slump in Asian and other markets. Yet the Asian and other global impacts still are not all played out, and more Asia tides may still await us. To date, the rising U.S. trade deficit, largely resulting from the sizable fall in exports to Asia, has been offset in significant part by capital inflows seeking safe harbor in America and by the Federal Reserve three times lowering interest rates. Nonetheless, the impact of the Asian crisis has been weighty and, as I said, it's certainly not over: Asia's recession has cost U.S. industry $30B in lost exports and resulted in manufacturing lay-offs and shrinking farm income. In addition, despite large IMF bailouts to some Asian nations, continuing financial setbacks in the region are shockingly projected to increase the 1999 U.S. trade deficit another $50-60B deep because of Tokyo's role as the world's second largest economy and a U.S. ally. Japan has been America's largest overseas market for agricultural products. Japan has ranked as the third largest, single- market country for U.S. exports; it also has been the second largest supplier of U.S. imports. Japan's economy has been anemic, and often in decline, for most of the past seven years, and it is now in recession, with nothing encouraging in sight. Recent trends indicate that, barring major shifts in government policies and global economic conditions, Japan's economic growth will be sluggish for at least the near-team. Problematically, the U.S. trade deficit with Japan in fall '98 was $58.2B and nearing its all-time high of $65.7B, which was reached in 1994. Large trade deficits will increase political calls for protectionism. Indeed, we have seen the first shots over the bow on this subjects already: The Administration has threatened to file a suit under Section 301 of US trade law against Tokyo unless its steel imports show substantial declines. Politically, that instinct is hard to resist, but such a response has adverse consequences, forcing Americans to pay more for products and lowering their standard of living. Protectionism also can seriously damage Asian economic recovery efforts, which will pose longer-term risks for U.S. products, services, jobs, and industry. The trick is finding the line between protectionism and appropriate leverage to demand a fair shake in foreign markets. Despite Japan's continuing economic problems, it admittedly has provided financial assistance, structural adjustment loans, and export/import credits to the IMF countries to help contain the financial crisis. Such generosity is to Tokyo's credit, but it is an adequate alternative to restoring a strong Japanese economy. Underlying Japan's market access problems and low productivity in some economic sectors are an abundance of rigid government regulations. While recent governments have promised to undertake deregulation, Tokyo still appears to be ill-prepared to make fundamental changes. Although I have viewed Japan as the economic engine that could pull East Asia back to economic recovery, provide insurance against a worldwide recession and reinforce regional stability and security, this prospect is dimming. Last year, I introduced H.Res. 392, which was passed, calling on Japan to more effectively address its internal economic and financial difficulties, and to open its markets by eliminating regulatory, trade, and investment barriers. Japan must act now to stimulate its fiscal economy and make a decisive break with the regulatory webs and closed markets that slow growth. If Japanese markets aren't open--or opened--Asian countries will rely that much more on U.S. markets for their exports, American exports to Asia will decline, our trade deficits will be pushed even higher, and calls for protectionism will escalate. U.S.-China Trade is part of our larger comprehensive engagement policy with that nation and reinforces our economic security objectives in Asia at large. The 106th Congress, like those previously, probably may once again, after heated debate, extend normal trade relations status to China; however, the renewal process likely will trigger consideration of other trade-related issues. These may include conditioning China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), possibly linking WTO access with permanent NTR status, and taking a variety of initiatives to reverse the increasing U.S.-China trade deficit. Incredibly, WTO negotiations with China are in their 13th year; however, China's formal trade barriers remain high, and some very recently have been placed even higher. Key service sectors, such as distribution, finance, and telecommunications--the infrastructure of a 21st century economy--remain closed. Moreover, the rule of law, which permits enterprises to grow and flourish, remains severely underdeveloped. The Administration still has no effective plan to induce China to make the changes and commitments necessary for WTO eligibility despite our phenomenal trade deficit with that country, which grows by $1B per week! I am convinced that the U.S. must use, in effect, a ``carrot and stick'' approach to push China on WTO membership. the ``carrot'' is permanent NTR; the ``stick'' is snap-back tariffs. This year, I plan to more energetically push the Bereuter- Ewing-Pickering legislation--H.R. 1712: The China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act. It offers a strategic plan that includes snap-back tariffs to compel Beijing to join the WTO. Equally important, unlike repealing NTR, my approach does not invoke the impossible, severe, wide- ranging set of sanctions that would adversely impact American jobs and industry. Neither does it ease, as China has urged, WTO accession restrictions, which could seriously undermine support for free trade. Now to the final category of challenges for the U.S. in the region: V. Human Rights & Democracy There can be no serious discussion of U.S. policy toward Asia--or of challenges and opportunities in that region-- without addressing U.S. democracy and human rights objectives. As you all know, last year was the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In looking back at that half century, an impressive body of international law has been enacted, and the ranks of committed individuals, organizations, and countries have swelled as has their power to command world attention in promoting and protecting the dignity and freedom of all people. It should be noted that in 1998, for example, Beijing signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1998, the U.N. Human Rights Commission and 36 Asian-Pacific nations--representing about one-half the world's people--also signed in 1998 the framework for an agreement on technical cooperation in human rights, which commits them to work together to strengthen national human rights strategies, plans, institutions, and education. Strides have been made, but we must do more to translate the legal instruments--the words--that guarantee human rights into actions that transform the daily lives of those citizenries that still live under oppression. Competing ideologies on the role of democracy versus authoritarian rule in building Asian stability and economic prosperity have impaired the strengthening of democratic institutions and individual freedoms. The Asian economic crisis brought simmering political tensions to a boil, and amplified regional--indeed, worldwide--calls for government accountability and profound social and political change. If equitable recovery measures are not adopted in 1999, the cycles of violence witnessed last year, and for much of history, well may be repeated. Nowhere is that more true than in Indonesia. The widespread protests that brought an end to President Suharto's regime have not abated. President Habibie has lifted some restrictions on freedom of expression and political parties, but sources of political, ethnic, and economic unrest continue to abound. The June '99 parliamentary election process is a key test for democracy and government legitimacy. With political parties blossoming and competing for seats in what hopefully will be the first real election in over three decades, the stakes are very high. Moreover, another important watershed event may be on the horizon: Recently, the Indonesian government announced that it may be willing to consider East Timor's autonomy, perhaps even independence if the East Timorese deem the autonomy plan unacceptable. The jailed rebel leader, Xanana Gusmao, who I visited last month, appears destined for early release. I am told that U.N. Special Envoy Marker has redoubled his efforts to devise a formula that is acceptable to all parties. Portugal and Indonesia must be told it is time to find an acceptable agreement now. The door is opening for an end to this 23 year old violent controversy. In another Southeast Asian example, Cambodia's recent electoral history has been bloody. After the violent July 1997 coup, in which scores of Cambodians were executed, Hun Sen delivered a devastating ``body blow'' to the democratic aspirations of the Cambodian people. Following a very difficult year, where Hun Sen was ostracized from the international community, elections were held last July. These elections resulted in a small majority for the Cambodian People's Party, led by Premier Hun Sen. Extra-judicial killings, co-opting and coercion of political opponents, human rights abuses, and media censorship that led up to the election tarnished the process at large while allegations of election improprieties undercut claims of a democratic process. Moreover, the current power sharing arrangement between Hun Sen and Prince Ranarridh is tenuous at best, and rumors of special deals with Khmer Rouge leaders who recently surrendered have fed additional suspicions. This small, long- suffering country has far to go before Western observers will be convinced it is on the way to democratization. I was the author of an amendment that was passed in the foreign operations appropriation bill that barred aid to the government of Cambodia until democracy is restored. I remain unconvinced that this has occurred. And, finally, as for China, despite its signing of the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it has yet to be ratified. China's desire for improved relations with the West contributed to the release of some high profile political prisoners and slight loosening of limits on public expression in early 1998; however, the crackdown on the newly formed Chinese Democratic Party and other unregistered pro-democracy groups has demonstrated the continuing closed nature of the political system. I want to emphasize here that I continue to support the excellent work of Mr. John Kamm, who has done much to learn the fate, and push for the release, of long-forgotten political prisoners. The physical and psychological lives of these prisoners, and of many other victims of Chinese human rights abuses, hang in the balance. We must continue to vigorously press Beijing to live up to both the letter and spirit of the international agreements it has signed. To this end, the first hearing this year in the House International Relations Committee concerned the recent crackdown on democracy movement leaders; a second hearing already has been held, and more are likely to be scheduled. VI. Conclusion I have reviewed a fraction--although a substantial and important fraction--of challenges and opportunities that will face the United States and Congress in Asia as we move into the 21st century. What I do I recommend, as both a Member of Congress and Chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee to my colleagues and to the Administration? A few bottom lines: Vigorously promote regional security. In addition to maintaining our forward-deployed forces and strengthening our web of security Alliances, we need to explain the requirement for, promote, and collaboratively develop a regional missile defense system, as well as a limited national defense system at home. Push the Administration to develop an effective, long-term strategy for dealing with Pyongyang in concert with our regional Allies. Such a strategy must hold the North to its commitment to the framework agreement if we are to release any of the $35M pledged. Further, it must link the nuclear initiative with other U.S. security objectives related to ballistic missile proliferation and discussions on peace and stability in Korea and in the region. Most importantly, we must replace the reaction stance our actions and policy have become. They are too much like paying blackmail to avoid North Korean aggression or to delay facing a growing threat of weapons of mass destruction. Actively assist Asian countries' recovery plans where possible and appropriate and strengthen U.S. leadership of systemic and structural reform. To do this, we must remain engaged in Asian markets and avoid protectionism, and exert more leadership in pressing for IMF reforms. We also must provide private and public sector expertise for reforming the Asian economic architecture. Adopt the Bereuter-Ewing-Pickering plan for Chinese accession to the WTO through snap-back tariff legislation. Engaging China now, on our terms, in a free market economy, is a key means to encourage it toward responsible domestic and international behavior. Energetically promote the advancement of democracy and freedom throughout Asia. The United States, for example, should support the Indonesian elections in June--free, fair, and transparent elections are too important for the U.S. not to get involved. We also should support the rule of law and village election assistance in the PRC, and not let a few of our misguided colleagues block the effort and discourage further Administration initiatives. While the costs of such programs are minimal, they can make a significant contribution to the evolution of democratic institutions in Asia. Thank you very much for your attention.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to Americans than the education of their children. Schools are one of the prides of our local communities, and we must do all that we can do to strengthen them. It is parents and it is teachers that know what is best for our children, and they are the ones that we must empower. The Dollars to the Classroom Act signals a dramatic shift in how Federal education dollars are delivered to our Nation's schools. In today's system, too many precious education dollars get lost in the bureaucracy, in the red tape. This money must be spent in the classrooms, not on more bureaucracy. That is why the Dollars to the Classroom Act is so important. It represents what our schools should be, schools where parents and local school districts decide what is the best way to teach their children, not Washington. This legislation requires that 95 percent of Federal funds be spent in the classrooms. This is one of our Republican education proposals. Currently only 65 percent of funds actually reach classrooms for our children. They are spent here in the bureaucracy. Our children are our future leaders. It is strong moves like these that will improve our local schools, and improve the quality of life for every American. I urge support for the Dollars to the Classroom Act.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to save the Social Security Trust Fund. And I say that because it has been 30 years that the Federal Government has run chronic budget deficits, until last year. We were looking, 4 years ago, at budget deficits which were $200 billion a year, and we anticipated that they would go out as far as the eye could see. But, instead, we took some actions in the Congress. We slowed the rate of growth of government spending and we reformed welfare. We reformed welfare, and close to 40 percent of the people on welfare are now in working jobs. When we slowed the rate of government growth and brought the revenues and expenditures into balance and eliminated much of the wasteful government spending, we found that the interest rates dropped by 2 full percentage points, and this has helped the economy. When we instituted the cut in the capital gains tax to 20 percent and reduced that capital gains tax, we found that that further stimulated the economy. As a matter of fact, it brought in more in revenue than we had raised off the capital gains tax, a higher tax, the prior year. So we have cut taxes. We have instituted a $500 per child tax credit. At the same time, we have balanced the budget so that now we have a surplus instead of a deficit. So what should we do with that surplus? My bill, H.R. 160, would designate 90 percent of the total budget surplus to buy marketable U.S. securities that are out on the market. They are interest bearing. Right now what we have in that trust fund is $757 billion worth of IOUs, three-quarters of a trillion dollars of IOUs that we print up and put in a drawer, in a file folder, and we say this is an asset. Well, how about replacing those IOUs with marketable U.S. securities, a true asset, which is interest bearing? And we can do this if we show the same discipline that we showed over the last 4 years as we eliminated that budget deficit. That is why I am asking my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. I believe that not a dime of America's social security savings should be used for anything except social security, and that is what this bill will ensure. It will ensure that within the next 10 years the three- quarters of a trillion dollars owed to social security will be replaced with these marketable interest-bearing securities. I also believe that as we look at the projections of $4.5 trillion in surpluses over the next 15 years, it will do us little good to take credit for what we have done in terms of balancing the budget and reducing expenditures if we simply return to the old practice of tax and spend, not putting in place a plan that is dedicated to setting aside money year by year, by statute, with a program which will, by 2013, have refunded this money. Now clearly this is not the only challenge that social security faces, this three-quarters of a trillion dollar debt that has been borrowed out of that trust fund. That is not the only challenge, because we as a society have seen demographic shifts. We know that we used to have more people working for every person who is retired. We used to have four people per family, and now we have two people per family, and that means that the number of people that are working relative to the number of people who are retired are shifting from four-to-one to two-to-one. Then we have a second problem. It is not really a problem. It is something actually we should feel proud about. But when social security came into being, people lived to 68 years of age, and then it went to 78, and then 88. And who knows what the future will bring? But one thing we do know, we cannot continue to borrow out of the Social Security Trust Fund and not have a plan to take care of the fact that a larger and larger percentage of our society are going to be seniors who are living longer and are going to be needing to depend on that social security. So, yes, there are other long-term changes we need to make in the program. But as we begin to plan for those long-term changes, it is absolutely essential that we dig ourselves out of the hole that we have put ourselves in over the last 30 years and replenish the account, starting this year. And we can do it with H.R. 160. And that is why I urge my colleagues, please cosponsor this bill. Let us not just have the rhetoric, let us have a plan in place that starts today, and over the next 10 years replenishes that trust fund.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the 106th Congress started the day with a nationwide consensus that the health of social security is in jeopardy. Millions of American seniors have come to depend on social security, and it is our responsibility to see that a solution is found to address this looming crisis. In the early 1980s, social security faced a similar, more immediate crisis. At that time projections showed that social security would be insolvent by 1983. Within months of that projected insolvency, reforms were enacted that provided for the continued health of the program, and included in these reforms were tax increases which would result in social security receiving more in revenue than it would pay out for benefits for several decades. The surplus was to be placed in the social security trust fund, where it would earn interest and be saved for future retirees. American seniors were assured that the system was saved at least temporarily, and that the massive reserve account being created would ensure the fund's solvency and American seniors' security. It seemed that the crisis had been at least avoided temporarily. Unfortunately, the surplus that was supposed to be placed in trust, ready for American seniors, was spent. Contrary to popular belief, when social security was first established in 1935, social security taxes were not placed in a trust, but instead, became part of the government's operating cash pool. Social security revenues that were not used to pay for social security benefits or administering the system were used for other government spending. This method of financing is commonly referred to as pay-as-you-go. In reality, there is no cash in the trust fund, merely IOUs totaling the amount of money the government has borrowed and spent on other activities. The accumulated amount of IOUs currently stands at $757 billion. That is three-quarters of a trillion dollars in paper IOUs. That is not in dollars. This was highlighted in a recent Washington Post article, which noted that every month bureaucrats at the Bureau of Public Debt turn on a laser printer and ``turn out scores of plain paper certificates that represent the retirement security of millions of Americans.'' It goes on to say that the entire trust fund ``fits in four ordinary brown accordian-style folders that one can easily hold in both hands.'' Only in Washington would four brown folders be considered a trust fund representing the retirement savings of millions of Americans. We are all aware of the projections that show in 2013 social security will begin paying out more in benefits than it will take in. Many take comfort, noting that although the program will begin running deficits at that time, the program will not be completely bankrupt until 2032, since hundreds of billions of dollars have been placed in the trust fund. But as we see, since there is no cash in the fund, it will effectively be bankrupt as soon as it pays out more than it takes in. That is just 14 years from today that insolvency would hit. At that point, benefits will have to be cut or the system will have to be funded through reductions in other spending, or tax increases, or return to chronic deficit spending. That is why today I introduced legislation which honors the commitment made to American taxpayers and seniors. H.R. 160, the Social Security Strengthening and Protection Act, will 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 purchase interest-bearing Treasury bonds. These are negotiable bonds. As opposed to IOUs, these are the same hard assets held by investors throughout the world. The use of 90 percent of the budget surplus in this fashion could continue until all IOUs in the trust fund were replaced with actual Treasury bonds. Essentially, this legislation will create a trust fund in fact, not just in name. Social security revenue would no longer be used for anything except social security. That is how Americans think of social security. That is what they want. I will point out that long-term, there are other challenges to be met in terms of social security. The facts are that in our parents' generation each family had four children, on average. In our generation, each family has 2 children, so clearly there has to be other fundamental changes made long-term for the solvency of social security. But we should not compound the problem by taking a three-quarters of a trillion dollars in IOUs to social security and not having a trust fund there to depend upon. That is why I am sponsoring this legislation today, and ask my colleagues to join me in seeing that this commitment is met.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, around 1920, a developer named Edwin G. Hart had a vision for about 3,500 acres nestled in the hills of my district. Since the early 1800's, this area had been known as ``La Habra Rancho'' and was home to ranchers, farmers, and settlers. Edwin Hart set out to develop this land into a remarkable avocado growing belt, divided into large 5-acre parcels and profitable for all his neighbors. He called it ``La Habra Heights.'' Gradually, La Habra Heights evolved from an avocado producing area to a tranquil residential community. Today the city of just over 7 square miles has maintained its unique rural character amidst urban Los Angeles County. The residents of this pastoral area, including a large horse riding population, have long enjoyed a peaceful environment in the hills and valleys of their community. Scenic riding trails are connected throughout the heights and are maintained by the Highland Riders. A community-based volunteer fire department has provided protection to its residents for 50 years. The city of La Habra Heights incorporated on December 4, 1978, and the city has continued to prosper for 20 years. I would like to extend my congratulations to the over 6,800 residents of this community on the occasion of their 20th anniversary as a city on December 4, 1998.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my support to this resolution, and I want to commend the work of its author, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) my subcommittee colleague, as well as the other members of the Subcommittee on Africa who have worked on it. This is a balanced resolution that sends a loud and clear message that the United States cares about democracy in Gabon. This is a country with which we have growing commercial ties, and it says that we are prepared to support democracy there. This resolution points out some of the achievements of the government's democratic transition, and it points out some of the shortcomings, calling for the U.S. to help improve these conditions. Ultimately, though, democracy is the responsibility of the Gabonese people. The government and democratic opposition will have to continue their work together so that fair and free elections are held and so that democratic aspirations are met. This resolution says that we care about these aspirations and are willing to help.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, today radio broadcasting in much of Africa, as in other places in the world, is dominated by governments which operate national radio stations and all too often frustrate independent radio stations. African governments, those that are repressive, do this because air wave control is real power, the power to control the information that their citizens receive. Radio's power is particularly great in Africa where poverty and logistical difficulties have made radio Africans' primary source of information. Televisions are few and far between in many African countries, and newspapers are largely confined to the cities. Radios, though, in Africa reach everyone. Radio's power is also why African governments often frustrate the licensing of independent radio stations and harass and brutalize and at times even kill independent radio journalists. As long as this situation prevails, as long as some African governments can shape how their citizens think and feel about their country and their lives, many of the achievements we are hoping to see African countries make, like greater democracy, the protection of human rights, economic development, will be frustrated. This resolution brings attention to the importance of radio broadcasting in Africa as a means of realizing these goals, and it lends support to an important administration initiative, Radio Democracy for Africa. Radio Democracy for Africa is designed to increase surrogate radio broadcasting to Africa through the Voice of America. Surrogate radio, the process by which local journalists broadcast to their countrymen about local issues with foreign support, has proved to be effective in promoting the values of freedom and democracy. This was the case behind the iron curtain during the Cold War. It is the case in parts of Asia today. Africa should not be an exception. We should support greater independent radio broadcasting in Africa and that is what this resolution does. Fostering independent radio broadcasting in Africa is all the more important given the specter of genocide by hate radio. Uncontested hate broadcasts contributed to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that claimed more than half a million lives. Ominously hate radio broadcasts are being heard again in Central Africa. While U.S.-supported surrogate radio, that is, radio to help break government monopolies on information, does not guarantee against brutality, it can help combat it. A greater American effort to allow Africans to hear alternative views, views supportive of democracy and reconciliation, is desperately needed. It is my hope that Radio Democracy for Africa will be a start. This House Resolution also calls for the U.S. to provide diplomatic and technical support to independent radio in Africa, all within existing budgets. It also encourages journalistic exchanges. Greater professionalism by Africa radio journalists is needed. This resolution also asks the administration to focus on the protection of African radio journalists, many of whom show tremendous bravery. The committee to Protect Journalists has brought to life the life-threatening conditions that many African journalists face. This resolution asks that these brave men and women be supported in their struggle. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and, Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Robert Menendez), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their support as coauthors.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Advanced Technology Program provides subsidies to multimillion dollar corporations and joint ventures to fund high technology research and development. High-tech R&D has been central to our economy and continued economic growth, and I have the highest praise for these activities. However, I take issue in asking the American taxpayers to foot the bill for these activities which should be left to the market free of politics and free of government meddling. Private industry does not need this program and, quite frankly, competes unfairly, has to compete with these grants, and we have heard from Silicon Valley CEO's who have said that economic rivals, competing firms receive these grants, and then compete with them in the marketplace. In studying ATP, the General Accounting Office found that 65 percent of ATP recipients did not even attempt to secure private funding for the projects before asking for taxpayer subsidies. ATP has created a perverse incentive. Firms come to Washington to seek millions of dollars in subsidies provided by working families, instead of going first to the private market. Proponents of these subsidies claim that cooperation between government and industry is essential to compete in the global marketplace. Well, if this kind of cooperation were indeed the panacea they claim, then Eastern Europe would be the dominant economic superpower in the world. It is not. We commend the American economy for being the most productive in the world. Our economy was not built on government subsidies and those socialist economies that are built on subsidies are economies that are failing and attempting to reform along the lines of a free market. Now, high-tech R&D will continue if they are deemed worthy by those that choose to invest their own money. High definition TV is one of the clearest failures of government targeted handouts. Japanese businesses with subsidies that totalled $1 billion in the 1980's sought to help HDTV using existing analog technology. The French did the same. $1 billion of their taxpayers' money went into that. Luckily, here in the U.S., our administration at the time took a pass at providing $1.2 billion in subsidies to compete with these foreign rivals. As a result of being denied massive subsidies, American companies were forced to develop an alternative with their own money. The alternative that AT&T and Zenith developed was a fully digital system that made analog Japanese and European systems obsolete. Before they were ever put into production, the Japanese and European taxpayers lost $2 billion because their governments directed and handed out the subsidies. We relied on the market, and, again, it showed that the market works. We are the economic leader of the world precisely because of the relative lack of government involvement in the economy, not because of centralization. The market where people choose to put their own money at risk should determine what activities should be funded, not bureaucrats in Washington using other people's money. We have also heard the argument that ATP is the catalyst for high tech R&D and is therefore crucial. Well, ATP was appropriated $192 million, and, as of today, $23 million from last year has not been doled out yet. In contrast, over $133 billion was invested last year in industrial R&D by the private sector. Over $37 billion of this went to applied and basic research. It is obvious the engine driving America's dominance in high technology is the result of our vital private sector, not government picking winners and losers. Many execs in the high tech industry do not support this corporate welfare. A Silicon Valley CEO told the Senate, I am here to say that such subsidies will hurt my company and our industry because they represent tax and spend economics. Another venture capitalist knows that ATP grants undercut his industry. He said, whenever the government doles out money, it is unfair. If money is being offered, you have to apply or else your competitors will get it. It took 9 months from when we applied to when we were answered, leaving the company in limbo. While his company waited, he said, the delay scared off private investors. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, besides the question of the constitutionality of these types of subsidies, let us begin with the task of lifting this enormous burden, this enormous government off the backs of America's taxpayers by taking the small step to reduce wasteful subsidies. I ask my colleagues to join Citizens Against Government Waste, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and other groups in support of this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate about trade or investment. American companies, I think we all know, are free to trade with and invest in Vietnam. We all wish them well in that. This resolution does nothing to change that. What this resolution does is to say, now is not the time to send in government agencies, OPIC and the Eximbank, which is the practical effect of this waiver, and give us more leverage to fight for the many interests we have in Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Since we began normalizing relations with Vietnam, we have extended more and more to the Vietnamese government. As of today, we have given it recognition. We have opened an embassy in Hanoi. We have sent an ambassador to work out the many real interests we have in Vietnam. Today we are looking at letting a Jackson-Vanik waiver to go by and opening the door for OPIC and Eximbank funding, a subsidy to Vietnam. These gradual changes in our policy I thought were to be done with a sense of expectation of the Vietnamese government. My understanding was that this was supposed to be a two-way street. Since we began normalizing relations with Vietnam, we have extended more and more to the Vietnamese government. As of today, we've given it recognition, opened an embassy in Hanoi, and sent an ambassador to work on the many real interests we have in Vietnam, including the POW/MIA issue. Today we're looking at letting a Jackson-Vanik waiver go by and opening the door for OPIC and Ex-Im Bank funding in Vietnam. These gradual changes in our policy. I thought, were to be done with a sense of expectation of the Vietnamese government. My understanding was that this process was supposed to be a two-way street. I also thought we were going to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to the table. We were going to be skeptical, not because of any bitterness over our past in Vietnam, but because we understood the type of government we're dealing with: in simple terms, one of the world's most politically and economically repressive regimes. This is the reality we must deal with in asking whether progress has been made on the issues we care about and also whether it's likely that progress will be made if we give up one more lever of influence we have over the Vietnamese government: American taxpayer subsidized trade benefits. And we should all realize that the Vietnamese government very much wants this waiver. This is real leverage. So, why give it up without human rights progress from Vietnam. And why should U.S. taxpayers support these subsidized U.S. businesses in Vietnam, one of the least open, most state-controlled economies in the world. This economy lacks property rights and suffers from corruption. Patent piracy is a problem. Not surprisingly, the first American corporation licensed to operate in Vietnam (Vatico, Inc.) closed shop and left the country earlier this summer. So let's send in OPIC and Ex-Im to aid U.S. businesses, and even Vietnamese government-controlled businesses in partnership with American firms? This reminds me of another issue before this Congress: funding for the International Monetary Fund. There is debate over whether IMF funding, U.S. taxpayer-supported funding, can be effective in bringing about economic reform in aided countries. Many suggest that IMF support prolongs reform by propping up bad government policies. That's what happened in Indonesia. You know at least the subsidized IMF asks for change. With OPIC and Ex-Im Bank we will support businesses with only the hope that the Vietnamese government will change its policies. This is the type of wishful government-funded engagement we're considering. [By the way, the IMF has canceled loans to Vietnam.] We've heard today that political and religious repression is pervasive in Vietnam. So it's not surprising that the Vietnamese government is jamming Radio Free Asia. Hanoi has done this almost from the beginning of RFA's Vietnamese broadcasting. Radio Free Asia is intended to provide Vietnamese with the range of information we believe will help them build democracy and free-market driven prosperity. The Vietnamese government wants none of this. Let's remember the reaction many of us in this body had last month when Beijing denied Radio Free Asia reporters the right to travel with President Clinton to China. Many of us condemned that. Some of us thought President Clinton should have taken a stronger stand on this fundamental issue. Yet here we have Hanoi attacking the free press, RFA, in even more direct terms. What's our response: send in OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank! Thank you Madam Speaker. This is not a debate about trade or investment. American companies are free to trade with and invest in Vietnam. We wish them well. This Resolution does nothing to change that. What this Resolution does do is to say now is not the time to send in government-agencies, OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank, which is the practical affect of this waiver, and give up more leverage to fight for the many interests we have in Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to support this Resolution.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It will merely freeze grant research funding at the same amount that was appropriated last year. There is no cut in the amendment. Our concern is with some of the grants; do we really think it is a good idea to take $176,000 from working families so that we can figure out the different meaning of smiles, and that was one of the grants. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to see that their tax money is being spent wisely. Asking them to dip just a little further into their pockets to pay $178,000 for a study on maintaining self-esteem does not fulfill that responsibility. During debate on this bill last year, an amendment was adopted that struck $174,000 from the National Science Foundation because of previous inappropriate grant making. As I understand it, this was meant as a demonstration to NSF that they should take greater care of taxpayer money. Given some of the recent grants that it has doled out since that time, it seems that they have not taken heed of that action. Another recent grant for $220,000 was handed over to a researcher for a study entitled ``Status Dominance and Motivational Effects on Nonverbal Sensitivity and Smiling.'' I will submit my finding for free. Spending that much hard-earned money on sensitivity and smiling will wipe the smiles off the taxpayers' faces and make them pretty darn insensitive. Another researcher was given over $476,000 for his study. For this amount he would perform a manufacturing analysis of coffee makers related to the grammar rules and the grammar itself which will be implemented. Now, as we go down these grants, one enterprising researcher has received over $29 million since 1992 in nine different grants. From all indications, the bureaucrats have been busy shoveling out the door in the name of science to make sure we do not slide back into the dark ages. For example, research into the sex selection and evolution of horns in the dung beetle, $331,000 for the study of nitrogen excretion in fish, $113,000 for research into the agenda effects on group decisions. I could go on, but our current agenda calls for a group decision. Two hundred twenty-eight years ago, when the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, they did not declare our independence so that the new government could tax American citizens and hand out $25,000 to study microwave methods for lower fat patties in meatballs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. An argument has been made that we were being out-subsidized 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 per capita 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. We should continue striving to shed those vestiges of central planning instead of defending those that had crept into our economy in the past. Government has no business deciding which companies are worthy of advertising funds. It is the government that must make this decision; in this case, which company gets the funds. That is, frankly, 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 monies from companies to finance the advertising of their competition, which is the direct result of redistribution. The main point is really whether private companies should pay for the promotion of their own products or whether the American taxpayer should be forced to pay. We do not force the American taxpayer to pay for other corporate expenses. We do not force them to pay for furniture or office supplies. In this case, we are having them pay for the advertising budget. Why should they be forced to pay for this cost of doing business? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. They have done excellent work over the past few years 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, and American consumers are benefiting from increased production. And American consumers are benefiting from lower prices. That has been one of the most significant achievements of Congress. However, more work needs to be done. This amendment will prevent money in this bill from being spent on the Market Access Program known as MAP. This program provides $90 million in taxpayer subsidies per year to agribusinesses to support their international advertising. This is a relic from our former government-heavy agriculture system. I have offered this amendment to eliminate one of what I consider the more egregious corporate welfare programs, with the hope that a trend will develop which would further rid the private sector of an intrusive government. The Federal Government first began financing corporate advertising in 1985 with the Targeted Export Assistance or TEA. It was established to encourage commercial export markets for U.S. farm products at the time, and then, after a critical audit of the General Accounting Office, it was changed to the Market Promotion Program or MPP. Then after another critical audit, it was changed to the Market Access Program or MAP in 1996. The names may have changed after every critical audit, but the program has not. Not unlike most good-intentioned Federal programs, Federal funding of advertising turned out to be just another government handout. I do not believe that working men and women should continue to foot the bill for advertising subsidies to multinational corporations. Promotional advertising for products is simply not the role of government. It is the role of those private concerns that benefit from the sale of those products. In the past we have heard that agriculture is one of the most important businesses in America and that is true. No doubt we will hear this again as we debate this amendment. But the question is not whether agriculture and American farmers are important. Without question, they are. The question is whether MAP is a proper use of taxpayer money. It is not proper, and it is not effective. The future and continued performance of American agriculture is not contingent upon handing out taxpayers' money for advertising. The success of American agriculture results from the energy and ingenuity of American farmers. Department of Agriculture studies will no doubt be cited which seem to show that MAP creates jobs and expands the economy by generating several dollars in revenue for each subsidy dollar handed out. These studies are based on inherently flawed methodology. They attribute employment created and exports generated in agriculture to MAP's existence, and this is too good to be true, frankly. What is not taken into consideration is that our economy is strong. It is near full employment. These jobs and exports would have been created anyway. In other words, the rooster is taking credit for the sunrise. The USDA studies also assume that MAP-funded advertising works. Well, the department has no way to verify either assumption. In fact, a General Accounting Office report found there is no clear relationship, says the GAO, between the amounts 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 for advertising. What is obvious on its face is that money handed out by government bureaucrats does not magically multiply through some system of multiplicity. Sure, recipients of MAP will sing its praises; most people that receive free money always will. I urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller- Schumer amendment. The U.S. sugar market is almost entirely controlled by the Department of Agriculture and the owners who benefit from its subsidies. The USDA's commodity loan program provides recipients loans at below market rates making taxpayers bear all the risks while forcing sugar prices on American consumers at twice the cost of the world market. The U.S. sugar program stifles competition by not allowing market forces to work. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year in higher prices for sugar and sugar-containing products, and it is a job killer in the sugar cane refining industry. Since the program was enacted, thousands have lost their jobs. According to the General Accounting Office, this command-and-control policy costs American consumers 1.4 billion annually. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are encouraging foreign countries to implement free-market reforms, American price controls and import quotas should be a thing of the past. The Miller-Schumer amendment will make a modest change by lowering the loan rate 1 cent. This will not end the sugar program nor devastate the sugar producers, but it is a step in the right direction toward ending the sugar subsidy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the peanut program is nuts, just a shell game. It is a hidden tax. It is a hidden tax on American consumers, adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of peanuts. We have not repealed the law of economics. A jar of peanut butter costs 33 cents more because of the peanut program. These higher prices affect all consumers, but particularly low-income Americans, who often substitute peanuts for higher priced sources of protein. Even the Federal Government is feeling the pinch of higher peanut prices. It has cut its purchases of peanut butter for feeding programs such as school lunches. In the 1996 farm bill we were promised real reform. However, in my view, this never was realized. We still have a program of fixed peanut prices, government-sponsored peanut shortages, and it is still illegal to grow peanuts without a license. This amendment is a step in the right direction. It caps the peanut price support at $550 per ton. This is only a 10-percent reduction in the support price. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Nadler substitute and in strong support of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, of which I am a cosponsor. Over the past decade, despite economic growth, despite low unemployment, despite increasing personal income, our Nation has seen an alarming increase in the numbers of bankruptcy filings. And I would just share with my colleagues that filings jumped 20 percent this year. That is 1.3 million, one in every 70 households. The numbers are even greater in my home State of California, where we have the greatest number of bankruptcy petitions filed last year, three times as many as the next highest State, which is New York. I wonder if perhaps the Yellow Pages which reflect these bankruptcy mills, which I am holding in my hand, a stack of yellow pages that basically say, ``Do not pay your debts, just call this number,'' if perhaps this influences these growing numbers of bankruptcies. Mr. Chairman, how is it that bankruptcies are increasing dramatically while the economy is improving? For sure, some people have genuinely bad breaks, and they need and should have protection from creditors. No one here today is questioning that, but we need to realize that there are other people who are taking advantage of the current law to walk away from their responsibility, the personal responsibility that is so important to our Nation. The costs to us from all this are great. Bankruptcy cost our Nation $40 billion last year, and that cost is not solely borne by the creditors and the merchants and the property owners. No, it is borne by the individual families in this country, Mr. Chairman. And that is a cost of $400 per household, higher costs for goods, higher costs for services and for credit. That is a $400 bill that you and I pay when irresponsible spenders who can afford to pay all or some of their debt declare bankruptcy. This is what the bill addresses. I would also like to add, Mr. Chairman, that this bill helps ex- spouses. It helps women and children who rely on child support and alimony payments. Indeed, this legislation makes major improvements in the treatment of ex-spouses and children over present law. First, it makes all domestic and child support and property settlement obligations nondischargeable debts. Second, under this legislation, for the first time child support obligations must be paid before any other nondischargeable debt that survives bankruptcy. I will add that my colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) added an amendment, which I supported, which was adopted, that will provide additional assurance that child support and alimony payments are paid by giving them top priority. That is in the bill. Our bankruptcy laws play an important and necessary role in protecting those who really need them. And that is the key, Mr. Chairman, need. This bill makes the existing bankruptcy system a needs- based one, 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, while protecting those who truly need protection.