Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I rise in opposition to the financing of an affordable housing fund.

I don't believe that this fund should be included in legislation to update and improve the Federal Housing Administration. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the underlying bill if this provision is included in the legislation.

In 2005, I offered an amendment in the Committee on Financial Services to strike the creation of an affordable housing fund. Part of this is philosophical, but ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences in the long run. As I said 2 years ago, this fund is straight out of central planning 101. It should not be supported by this body.

I think by now we should be able to agree that government housing grants do little to increase homeownership levels in this country. If these funds must be derived, they should be geared towards ensuring that the FHA remains solvent rather than supporting an experiment in socialism here.

Furthermore, this fund could not be proposed at a worse time, as we see the current spike in foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market, many of which are backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Homeownership rates improve when real interest rates are low and when consumer incomes are rising, are going up. I believe free market policies are the most effective way to generate those results, creeping towards socialism will not. This fund will waste resources and provide false hope for those who wish to increase homeownership.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007.

I join Congressman Smith, and the efforts made by others here that have been tireless, the strategy of trying to shine some light on Vietnam, trying to get the international community to look at what is happening there.

I've worked with Congressman Smith on this legislation since 2001, and I know the importance of having it passed, but also, I know the trouble that it has been met with in the other body. And if we can overcome the objections of a few in the other body, this bill will be an important tool in pressing Hanoi to end its wanton disregard for human rights.

I think the necessity of this legislation is because since early this year the crackdown has intensified in Hanoi, in Vietnam to such an extent that especially students, especially spokesmen for religious organizations there are receiving these one-hour show trials where afterwards they're being sent to a penitentiary, 8 years in the case of Father Ly. It was 14-some years ago when he was sent away the first time. And Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity there, in Vietnam, to meet with the venerable Thich Quang Do, when he was under house arrest, and Le Quang Liem and see the incredible repression that they face, and to

see what is really a slow strangulation of the culture and of the traditional religion as the state attempts to rewrite religion without the support of the religious leaders, and thus come down hard on those religious leaders and try to remove them from society and try to imprison them certainly when they speak out.

As Human Rights Watch said, this is the worst crackdown that we have seen in Vietnam in 20 years. In the past year, Vietnamese officials brought this harassment to religious leaders and political dissidents and student activists to these new draconian levels that, unfortunately, force us to act here.

This bill's focus on Vietnam suppression of the democratic movement and its tight control over the media will be an important component in bringing change. Why? Because with this legislation, Radio Free Asia will now better be able to bring objective news and to be a surrogate voice for opinions and news outside of the state-sponsored propaganda, so the Vietnamese people will hear of the spread of democratic values in Asia.

Frankly, the spread of democratic values in Asia is critical to U.S. security interests. It is important to note that Vietnam has recently ratcheted up its efforts to block radio broadcasts from Radio Free Asia. This tells me that not only are these broadcasts having a positive effect in combating state propaganda, but Hanoi is feeling increased political pressure. This bill provides the means to overcome radio jamming and the funds for continued broadcasts.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill. I think it sends a firm message to Hanoi that abuse of this kind to nonviolent citizens in the country will not be met with silence, but, frankly, that we will take action not only in terms of the broadcasting, but this also authorizes our administration to provide U.S. assistance through appropriate nongovernmental organizations and the Human Rights Defenders Fund for the support of the individuals and organizations to promote human rights and to promote nonviolent democratic change inside the country.

So besides capping U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance, this other leverage will be very helpful in terms of trying to protect the human rights and dignity of the students and of the religious leaders right now that are facing such persecution inside Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 121, the Comfort Women Resolution--a resolution that I have supported since its initial introduction in the 109th Congress.

Beginning in the 1930s, the Imperial Government of Japan orchestrated the enslavement of up to 200,000 young Korean women. Many were abducted from their homes and sent to Japanese military brothels. Others were lured from their homes under the false pretense of employment. In what was one of the worst cases of human trafficking of the 20th century, the trauma that these women suffered drove many to conceal their past, either too embarrassed or scared to speak of it. The surviving victims deserve the recognition that they so desire.

To this day, Japan maintains that this issue is closed and the sufferings of individuals inflicted in the war have already been dealt by treaties normalizing its ties with other Asian countries. Some have pointed to Prime Minister Abe's April 27th statement as a formal apology, yet both the Prime Minister himself and Japan's Foreign Ministry went on record to disavow any alleged apology. It is important that the Japanese government confronts this dark part of Japanese history.

This resolution is as much about today as it is about yesterday. The world's strength to oppose killing today is made greater by accountability, for actions present, but also past. It's weakened by denial of accountability and obfuscation of past acts. History is a continuum that affects today and tomorrow. It's much harder to get tomorrow right if we get yesterday wrong.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to keep the subsidies for sugar from increasing in this bill.

The inflation of sugar prices that our misguided sugar policy drives costs U.S. families a total of almost $2 billion every year. Every time you buy chocolate or breakfast cereal or any product that contains sugar, you pay a premium, and these subsidies inflate the price of sugar for Americans to twice the world price.

The subsidies are driving businesses out of the country. A GAO study confirms that 42 percent of these subsidies, by the way, go to just 1 percent. So I urge my colleagues to put an end to these harmful handouts.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the expenditures of any funds for the purpose of enforcing the judgment or imposing the sentences handed down in the case of United States v. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

As most of you know, President Bush so far has rejected appeals by many of us for a pardon for these two Border Patrol agents who are now sitting in Federal prison for shooting a professional drug smuggler who worked for the cartels, who was fleeing back across the Rio Grande. These two agents are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively.

I have talked to many Border Patrol agents about these cases, about the circumstances they face down there. I haven't found any that don't support Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and certainly their association supports them fully.

In the meantime, of course, the great irony here is the smuggler they apprehended for attempting to smuggle some 750 pounds of drugs into our country is free.

The U.S. attorney here claimed that the agents fired on an unarmed man, but how do we know that? Because the U.S. attorney asked the jury to take the smuggler's word for that and to disbelieve the two Border Patrol agents who testified they thought he had a gun.

I can tell you I held numerous hearings down there on the border in Texas in the past, over 400 attacks on our Border Patrol agents. The family members of the individual here who was smuggling say he would not move drugs without a gun on him. That is what his own family says about him.

Frankly, it does take a stretch of the imagination to believe that an employee of a cartel down there would not have a gun somewhere near him moving this quantity of drugs.

Now, the U.S. attorney said the agents failed to file a report for their actions, and that proved they tried to cover up the shooting. I am not sure that was true. Two of their supervisors were on the scene within minutes, and the agents made a verbal report to them, according to Ramos and Compean.

Failing to file a written report is an administration violation and normally punishable by a 3-day suspension, but it is the supervisor who is supposed to file that report, as I understand it, not the agents.

The U.S. attorney says that Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury in Texas after all the evidence was presented. But, the U.S. Attorney, his team, prevented crucial evidence from being admitted in the trial. For example, the jury did not learn that the smuggler committed a second smuggling operation while he was under the grant of immunity given by the U.S. attorney. That information was withheld from the jury while it was argued that the agents, that the Border Patrol agents, couldn't have known he was a drug smuggler, even though there was this quantity of drugs in his van.

The U.S. attorney had prosecutorial discretion in choosing to do this, and he chose to throw the book at Ramos and Compean while giving the professional drug smuggler a visa that allowed him free passage across our border to smuggle again. The attorneys for Ramos and Compean have filed an appeal with the U.S. circuit court asking for a new trial. They deserve a new trial. Yet the quickest and surest way to manifest this injustice is for President Bush to grant a full pardon or, at a minimum, a commutation of the prison sentence.

These men deserve better, and today we have an opportunity to right that wrong. By voting for this amendment to free these men, Congress will not only be correcting a terrible mistake, it will begin repairing the morale and effectiveness of our Border Patrol that have been damaged by, frankly, these reckless actions.

It's time to send a different message to both the courageous men and women of the Border Patrol and to the mules and to the bosses in the drug cartels. Let's send that message today by telling the cartels that our Border Patrol means business, not business as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Subcommittee Chairman Sherman for his work on this legislation. He worked this bill thoroughly, and while we disagree on OPIC's merits, he supported my text to reform its investment funds.

OPIC's investment funds, as some may remember, have a troubled history. In the 1990s, then-OPIC president Ruth Harkin said, ``If you're an investor in an OPIC-supported fund, the worst you can do is get your money back at the need of 10 years.'' That's not the free market OPIC professes to support and not surprisingly, these funds were subject to political cronyism.

There have been reforms to the funds of late, including competitively selecting fund managers, but we should mandate them. My language does this.

Fundamentally though, I remain unconvinced that OPIC is doing something worthwhile that the private sector wouldn't do. The burden of proof should be on OPIC, especially in times of accelerating change in financial markets. Several companies have jumped into the political risk insurance business, for example, offering increasingly sophisticated products, . . . so why are we reauthorizing government- backed OPIC to continue competing against them?

We have heard much on the floor trumpeting OPIC's supposed benefits. However, most economists believe that subsidizing investment--which is what OPIC does--merely shifts it around, often to lesser productive locations and uses. The Congressional Research Service has reported, ``From the point of view of the U.S. economy as a whole, there is little theoretical support or empirical evidence that supports claims that subsidizing exports or overseas investment offers a positive net gain in jobs to the U.S. economy.'' That's persuasive evidence against OPIC's claims, and its case for reauthorization.

OPIC makes much of the fact that it returns money to the U.S. Treasury. OK. But let's consider that this money is held against potential liabilities stemming from OPIC's activities. And give most anybody U.S. government-backing to trade on, and they'd turn a profit in financial markets.

One OPIC critic gave a useful description. Investment is like a rope. Less developed countries can only pull it in with good policies; efforts to push in investment, which is OPIC's mandate, are bound to be inefficient.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the reasons I oppose this legislation reauthorizing OPIC.

Mr. Speaker, S. 966 will help provide relief for the massive influx of passport applications due to a change in passport rules. This problem has frustrated many constituents in all of our districts.

Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing focusing on this issue. As a result of questions I raised, it became apparent to Members of the Committee that the demands on the Bureau of Consular Affairs to get passports to Americans as fast as possible does raise fraud concerns. While the number of adjudicators has gone up, the number charged with investigating passport fraud, has not.

In that respect, I'd like to thank Chairman Lantos for including additional language that would allow for the hiring of retirees to assist in investigation of fraud in connection with an application for a passport. These additional investigators are critical, as many times they uncover a broader fraud ring. We should be able to serve Americans in a timely matter and ensure their security. This bill will help do that.

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of a great American, Mr. Jim Bowman, of the United States Air Force Academy.

After 49 years of service to the Academy, Mr. Bowman has announced his retirement from his position of Assistant Athletic Director in charge of recruiting support for 27 varsity sports teams. Throughout his tenure, Bowman has led numerous sports teams, and has held various positions within the athletic department.

Jim Bowman first came to the Air Force Academy in 1958 and was head junior varsity football coach for 4 years before becoming head freshman coach. He served as frosh coach until the 1975 season when he again assumed the J.V. program. In his five seasons as J.V. Head Coach, his teams compiled a 24-4-1 record and his 1963 and 1975 teams were undefeated. After the 1975 season, he retired as a coach to devote his full duties to the candidate counseling and admissions support program.

His successes as a coach stem from his own on-field prowess, as Jim Bowman was a successful high school and collegiate athlete. Bowman, an all-conference player for Charlevoix High School, went undefeated all 4 years he played. He later attended the University of Michigan, and received his varsity letter as a center in his senior year.

Over his tenure at the Air Force Academy, he was a member of the staff that participated

in 17 bowl games, including the 1959 Cotton Bowl and the 1971 Sugar Bowl. He coached over 1,000 Academy football players and helped over 11,000 athletes receive appointments to the Academy. Jim estimates that he has seen over 38,000 Cadets graduate. Indeed, his lifelong dedication is as commendable as it is astonishing.

While he will undoubtedly be missed on the Air Force Academy campus and among the scores that have worked with him to place cadets at the Academy, his legacy will live on.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to start off by thanking Mrs. Blackburn, Messrs. King, Hunter, Franks, Bilbray, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito, and Mrs. Drake for all coming together and working towards this amendment.

This amendment will give badly needed funding to the border security fence as provided by the law in the Secure Fence Act. Congress authorized it last year, provided funding to get it started in the 2007 DHS spending bill.

The point I would like to make, although Congress mandated the construction of 847 miles of fencing, to date only 13.01 miles have been completed. And as you know, it is supposed to be a double-border fence, and only one-half of the 13.01 miles is completed in the sense it is only one side of the fence.

So the amendment being offered today takes funding made available in

the bill for border protection and directs it to the fencing.

This amendment will give the administration, I think, what it needs to construct the remaining portions of the border fence. It is vital to national security. I had a number of hearings down on the border when I was chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. But Border Patrol told me about the effectiveness of the fence. There are over 400 attacks on Border Patrol agents a year. They need this fence. They find it is a great force multiplier. It extends their capacity. It allows them the discretion to redeploy agents to areas where they are not vulnerable or at risk.

Frankly, I think we have a difference of opinion on how important it is to follow the law under the Secure Fence Act with the administration.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, yielding myself the time, I chaired the committee meetings down on the border. Mahmoud Qurani crossed that border in the trunk of a car, an agent for Hezbollah, whose brother, by the way, was in charge of the southern front in the attack on Israel recently. He came across in the trunk of a car.

I have talked to Border Patrol agents who have made apprehensions on that border, and I can tell you the San Diego fence has not only cut the crime rate by half in San Diego, but also on the Mexican side, and nobody has designed a way to get around the San Diego fence. This double-border fence works. It is what the Border Patrol has asked me for and testified up here for.

And 69 percent in the polling last night by Rasmussen, actually the polling was on the 12th, 69 percent of the public say they want, they favor an approach focusing on securing the border with this kind of approach. Only 20 percent of people want Congress to try to pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Royce

Amendment No. 131: Page 11, line 24, insert before the

first comma the following: ``(in accordance with clauses (i),

(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) of section 102(b)(1)(A) of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

of 1996)''.

Page 11, line 25 strike ``:'' and all that follows through

page 16, line 2 and insert ``.''.

Before I begin my general statement, if I could, I would like to engage Chairman Frank and thank him for agreeing to engage in a colloquy on the receivership provision of the legislation.

Chairman Frank, with your consent, with your consent I would like to introduce into the Record a statement that has been agreed to by your staff and by my staff, and I look forward to working on these issues going forward with you, and I would just yield to you for your affirmation.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 1427.

H.R. 1427 is supposed to be legislation to reform oversight of the Nation's 14 housing government-sponsored enterprises. That would be our two GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and 12 Federal Home Loan Banks.

Over the past number of years, I have worked very hard to reform legislation of these GSEs. I believe better oversight is needed to protect our Nation's housing sector from disruption should one of the GSEs face financial difficulty.

I am disappointed that I will not be able to support the bill authored by our committee's chairman. However, to be fair, I do acknowledge that the chairman has added a number of positive provisions to this year's bill. And I would also like to thank the chairman for his willingness to work on improving the section on receivership.

Improvements aside, I am deeply troubled that legislation intended to improve the safety and soundness of the GSEs has become a vehicle to redistribute wealth. The Affordable Housing Fund in this bill unnecessarily confiscates money from the mortgage market. I adamantly oppose the creation of an Affordable Housing Fund today, as I have since its inception.

In 2005, I was the first Member of Congress to offer an amendment in a Financial Services Committee to strike the reform from GSE legislation. Since then, I have continuously and consistently opposed the housing fund in any form, shape or size. As I said over 2 years ago, the creation of this fund is an experiment in socialism, and anyone supporting its adoption is attempting to countermand the basic principles of free markets and limited government.

With that expression, I will yield back to the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, I serve as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. What this underlying bill cuts is the funding for European missile defense that would be situated in Poland, which would catch an attack from Iran in the boost phase.

Now, the reason this is important, why are we worried about Iran in this, the IAEA inspectors, if you recall, this last weekend were shocked to find that Iran had made very fast progress on enrichment of uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb. They said this made it clear that technological advances in Iran are coming on very, very fast.

The proposed missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic that this amendment supports would thus help the United States and Europe. It's supported by Poland, the Czech Republic, the U.K., and frankly to cut it right now makes no sense.

Sixteen of the last 17 tests have been successful. This Congress, again, should not weaken our missile defense, especially at a time when we found North Korea transferring this missile technology to Iran. We can see this coming. Pass this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I wanted to share with this body is that Ramzi Yousef used a stolen passport to carry out the murderous attack that was conducted on the World Trade Center back in 1993. He used that stolen passport to enter the United States and claim asylum and then carry out that attack.

Three years after the 9/11 Commission recommended that our border officers have access to Interpol's lost and stolen passport data as an automatic check at our ports of entry, we still do not have a situation where we are utilizing that data, and this amendment would change that.

Now, there are many, many examples in Europe where these stolen passports have created a crisis. Fraudulent passports were used in the 2004 Madrid bombing. In the 2005 London subway attacks, again, stolen passports were used, and as argued recently in congressional testimony by the Secretary General of Interpol, and I will quote from that testimony before the Senate, ``Terrorist use of fraudulent travel documents was one of the most dangerous gaps in global security back around the time of September 2001. Unfortunately, it still is today.''

I can share with you as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism Non-Proliferation and Trade, this remains a concern.

It has been a concern for Interpol since 2002. They started their stolen and lost travel document database at that time. There were several thousand passports that were stolen in blank form. This was a particular problem. They posed a severe threat, given that these can be easily made into bogus passports that are very, very easy to use and difficult for law enforcement to detect. A stolen blank passport from a visa waiver country raises the stakes, of course, because the holder is subject to considerably less scrutiny because it is a visa waiver country. So, if you look at the number of hits last year, 2,543, generated by Interpol's database, 62 percent were from visa waiver countries.

So the United States, we have some access to stolen passport information through our own systems and through bilateral agreements, but there is a gaping hole here. We need access to this system. There are 2\1/2\ million stolen passports that are not on our radar screen.

This amendment then would ensure that DHS implement the Interpol stolen passport database at primary inspection points at U.S. ports of entry. The system developed by Interpol would enable U.S. border security officials to check the passport database at the port of entry. The same swipe of the passport would check the Interpol database with a simultaneous check of the appropriate U.S. database. That is going to enhance our security.

I will just share with the members of this body that the Swiss now use this; 20,000 Swiss officers conduct between 300,000 and 400,000 database searches every month, and every month they detect over 100 people attempting to enter their country with stolen passports. The French have the same experience.

It is very important that the U.S. access this database, and that is what this amendment will do.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, if I could just sum up on my time, again, the 9/11 Commission recognized the importance of Interpol's database. Janice Kephart, who was a counsel to the 9/11 Commission, testified recently that U.S. support and engagement with Interpol is key to fully implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations on terrorist travel.

I would just also share with the body that yesterday we dodged a bullet. It is significant that there have been no terrorist attacks against our country since 9/11, but yesterday's disrupted plot shows there is much work left to be done.

Adoption of this database will help combat the threat of terrorists and criminals crossing our borders. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the 40th Anniversary of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU). Founded in my home state of California on April 26, 1967, NAFCU's current member credit unions stretch from coast-to-coast and are more than 1,000 in number. These credit unions in turn represent more than 30 million individual credit union members.

From 1967 until today, NAFCU has been a strong voice in Washington on behalf of Federal credit unions. The NAFCU members in my district tell me that this association does an excellent job providing them with representation, information, education, and assistance to meet the challenges that cooperative financial institutions face in today's economic environment.

It is with this in mind, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Federal Credit Unions on their 40th Anniversary. I have worked with NAFCU on issues that are important to the credit unions in my congressional district, and I look forward to doing so in the future. Congratulations NAFCU on your 40th Anniversary.

Madam Speaker, January 30, 2007, marked the 5-year anniversary of Radio

Free Afghanistan's first broadcast. Five years ago, this service of Radio Free Europe began broadcasting 12 hours a day in Dari and Pashto, to millions of Afghans who had been thirsting for legitimate news and information.

Radio Free Afghanistan had operated during the Soviet invasion, but was then unwisely stopped. The Taliban's Radio Shariat filled the vacuum--broadcasting a steady stream of hate. After the Taliban's fall, Radio Free Afghanistan was restarted and has established itself as the leading broadcaster, with nearly 60 percent of Afghan adults listening.

Madam Speaker, it was Congress who took the lead in creating this essential service. A bipartisan group of Members passed my Radio Free Afghanistan Act of 2001 quickly after September 11th.

As Afghans have confronted many challenges over the past 5 years, Radio Free Afghanistan has been there--and will continue to be in the years to come, offering a voice of freedom and moderation.