Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in terms of a lack of regulation, I think it's interesting to note that it was the Republicans who attempted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the Republicans who were attempting to bring regulation against those government-sponsored enterprises because the Federal Reserve had approached us and told us that we faced a systemic economic consequence that might bring down, not only the housing sector, but the other sectors of the economy.

And who was it that pushed for those zero down payment loans? Who was it who pushed for the arbitrage over at Fannie and Freddie?

Now, here's the reality. The SEC has always had the ability to prosecute securities fraud. But what happened under Madoff for, what, 18 years, 20 years under President Clinton and under President Bush is that you had an inability on the part of the young lawyers at the SEC to find that fraud. And this is something I and others have pushed for.

One of the things we tried to do during the Dodd-Frank bill was to get a reform of the culture over at the SEC. Why? Because that over- lawyered institution was incapable of even understanding what Madoff and others had done with these Ponzi schemes. And when we tried to push those reforms through, what did we get out of it on the other side of the aisle? They agreed to a study, a study, of the SEC culture.

Now, in the meantime, we have 3,800 people over at the SEC. At a time when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit, we're going to have to have haircuts. We cannot ramp up everybody's salary around here. We can't give promotions to everybody all the time. Everybody's going to have to take a little bit of the cut in order for us to get this budget back into balance.

And I can share with you a couple of other thoughts, too, about the way in which we've approached this, because we've magnified too big to fail with what we've done with Dodd-Frank.

Ask any economist about some of the consequences of this legislation. We've reduced the cost of capital for the largest institutions at the expense of their community bank competitors or their credit union competitors. It is the large institutions that have a 100 basis point, a 1 percent interest point advantage now in the market, because now we have made them too big to fail under this legislation.

If we don't reform this, if we don't change our system in a way in which we get some commonsense regulations out there, it's not as though we're not competing around the world. Think for a minute about what's happening in Germany. Think about what's happening in Britain and Brazil and Singapore. They are competing against us because of the antibusiness environment we have created, and not only in terms of regulations that don't make sense many times. But I appreciate the opportunity to point this out.

Madam Speaker, we do get $179 million back into the Treasury, which the CBO does not count as a savings, but if we pass this, we do get the money back. It is obvious that these security upgrades should be funded through the U.N. capital master plan, that is, the $2 billion 5-year effort to renovate the U.N. headquarters in New York. We do know that by raiding the TEF overpayments owed to American taxpayers, rather than funding the construction properly through the capital master plan, we do know that the State Department and the U.N. will stick American taxpayers with 100 percent of the bill rather than the 22 percent we would owe if it was funded through proper channels.

That is what this debate is about. It is not about whether U.N. headquarters in New York should have adequate security. It is about how the costs of that security should be apportioned and whether the funding process can bear even minimal scrutiny. U.S. overpayments into the tax equalization fund are owed to the United States and the State Department should instruct the U.N. to return that money.

Now, when the U.N. is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars--in this case the U.N. actually told us about it. That is good to know. But one thing has kept it from being returned to the Treasury, and that is the U.S. hasn't asked for its money back. When we Americans are overassessed or overpay the IRS, we get a refund. Well, when the Obama administration overpays the United Nations, they say, keep the check.

We had a Foreign Affairs meeting the other week. We were told the U.N. can't really give us an honest accounting of their annual budget. The budget is somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion annually. Hundreds of millions is literally considered a rounding error there. But this is no rounding error to U.S. taxpayers. It is $179 million.

We carry 22 percent of that budget over there. China carries less than 3 percent. They should at least be asked to carry their 3 percent of the costs going forward.

So let's take this step. Let's ask for the money back that they have told us at the U.N. that we have overpaid, and let's put it into Treasury at a time when we are running a $1.5 trillion budget deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemorating President Ronald Reagan's centennial.

President Reagan served as an inspiration for an entire generation of us to get involved in politics. I first had the

honor of meeting Ronald Reagan as a young student in California, and in fact, this meeting led to my getting active in Youth for Reagan. He had a powerful message of economic freedom and limited government. Yet it was his ability to translate powerful messages like this into real reforms that set him apart from past leaders.

At the heart of all of Reagan's policies, from supply-side economics to promoting democracy overseas, was the importance of the individual, not the collective. It was the importance of freedom, not statism. This great legacy is what we celebrate today.

I remember, following the Carter administration, our economy was in a state of economic malaise--high unemployment and high inflation. In fact, that legacy led to the creation of the concept of the misery index--inflation plus unemployment--and that reached an all-time high. But through the enactment of a pro-growth agenda, Reagan was able to cut that number in half in that era of stagflation and lead us into prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, in late 2009, Iranian dissidents took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in what would become Iran's Green Movement. These protesters stood up to hard-line government militias, which fired on crowds and raided universities, killing dozens, injuring scores more, and imprisoning thousands.

Today, the thuggish Iranian regime went a step further. In what was undoubtedly meant as a message to the pro-democracy opposition, two political activists who had protested the 2009 election--Ja'far Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaie--were executed. Hanged, Mr. Speaker. Death by hanging. . . .

Last Congress, the President signed into law an Iran sanctions bill. One provision targets those in Iran committing the human rights abuses. So far, the Administration has targeted just eight individuals for their involvement in beatings and torture. Sadly, Monday's events show there are many, many more human rights abusers to target. Anybody who has quashed the human rights of those seeking democracy deserves to be on this list.

Mr. Speaker, the claim that this new health care law will somehow cut our budget deficit is proof that logic does not always prevail here in Washington, DC.

This is a $2 trillion additional entitlement; and just like past entitlement programs, this one will be far more costly than projected.

As a result, our budget deficit is going to increase unless we repeal this. It's going to increase our dependence on China and Japan to finance our debt.

The credit-rating agencies say we are on the verge of losing our AAA credit rating and this debt contagion, you all see it, is continuing to spread across Europe. Let us take this important step. Repeal this $2 trillion fiscal train wreck and begin work on market-based solutions that will actually lower health care costs.

This will give us some hope in the future of bringing that budget into balance and not hitting that fiscal train wreck.

``. . . but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment.''

Section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, as author of this resolution, I rise in support of House Resolution 20, calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern with respect to religious freedom.

I also want to say I appreciate very much the assistance of Chairman Berman in bringing this to the House floor, the assistance of Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Burton, but also the assistance of Congressman Joseph Cao in his support and his concern about this issue.

I would like to share with the Members in this body today that the House of Representatives has an opportunity to send a very strong message to the Communist government in Vietnam. And that message, if we pass this resolution, is that its abuses against peaceful religious practitioners of all faiths and all creeds are unacceptable.

As we reflect for a minute on some of the conditions that those who practice their faith have to contend with in Vietnam, you think about the 350 Montagnard Christians who remain imprisoned for their beliefs, other religious groups like the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Hoa Hao Buddhists, the Cao Dai Buddhists. They face severe persecution from the Communist government of Vietnam.

Recently, residents of Con Dau, Da Nang, have suffered severe violence, including beatings with batons, beatings with electric rods during a May assault at the hands of Vietnamese government officials. And what was the charge? Attempting to protect their historic Catholic cemetery from government seizure.

I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do in Vietnam. I had several conversations with him. He was under house arrest. He has spent the last 33 years of his life either in prison or under house arrest.

I think for a minute about Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh whose picture is right here. He has been interrogated more than 300 times, he has been beaten over 20 times, and this is a photograph after one of those beatings. He is one of the many faces, I would say battered faces, of religious freedom in Vietnam.

In its 2010 annual report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found as follows:

``Vietnam's overall human rights record remains poor and has deteriorated.'' They cite police officers and plainclothesmen and the Religious Security Police--yes, the Religious Security Police-- routinely harassing and intimidating those who pray outside of government-approved religions. They cite beatings with electric batons, sexual assault of monks, and confiscation of property and forced evictions.

While the State Department has documented some of these abuses, real action is needed. By re-listing Vietnam as a CPC, as this resolution instructs, the State Department could bring about real change. In addition to the naming and shaming aspect of the report, a wide range of sanctions, from limitations on foreign aid to denial of visas for those in the government, can be levied on the regimes that carry out these abuses. Unfortunately, the Obama administration hasn't used this tool. This will make that tool available.

Some will ask if a CPC redesignation can have any impact. Well, let's look at the prior experience on this. After being listed as a CPC in 2004, Vietnam immediately released several prominent dissidents and democracy advocates, and issued ordinances that prohibited the forced renunciation of faith. These were concrete results achieved with a CPC designation, and more can be achieved with a re-listing of Vietnam. Sadly, after Vietnam was permanently removed from the list in 2006, religious freedom and tolerance has been on a continuous downward slide.

The Vietnam War is history. We have deepening relations with Vietnam. But that fact doesn't mean we should short-change religious liberty. Frankly, we know that raising these issues with Hanoi isn't on the top of our diplomats' list. They are uncomfortable with raising these human rights abuses. But by putting Vietnam on this list, where it belongs, we are at least giving promoting religious freedom a chance of being part of our policy towards Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to put the House on record in support of the Vietnamese people and religious freedom in Vietnam. Indeed, the right to freely practice your religion is a universal sacred right.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has one job, and that is to monitor religious freedom around the world. The conclusion they have come to is that the situation is so egregious in Vietnam today that that government needs to be put back on the Country of Particular Concern list now.

What they cite as the reason, as the rationale, is that, over the past 2 years, those speaking out against restrictions on religious freedom and human rights continue to be arrested; they continue to be detained. Over the past year, they have said violence by contract thugs against peaceful prayer vigils and religious leaders continues. As a matter of fact, they cite it is accelerating.

We are not talking about deaths that occurred in 1838 right now. My colleagues and I are talking about what happened 2 months ago in terms of people losing their lives in Vietnam because they are speaking out for religious freedom.

Lastly, in terms of what was shared with me by the Venerable Thich Quang Do, he said, They are not allowing us to practice our Buddhist faith. The Communist government is trying to change the faith. That is why we are speaking out.

I thank the gentlelady.

I rise to oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker. What happened to openness and transparency? We are operating here under same day consideration with no opportunity for a motion to recommit. We are in the 11th hour of this Congress, and even if we and even if the American people really had had a chance to read what was in this bill, it doesn't really matter what the seeming requirements are that have been explained here because the bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the requirements--to waive the requirements.

Under this bill, any illegal immigrant may apply for an application for cancellation of removal and for conditional non-immigrant status. DHS may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status. This status is valid for 5 years. It can be extended by DHS for another 5 years. All the while, the individual will be allowed to work in the United States and travel outside of the U.S.

With every amnesty, we have had a problem with massive fraud. About one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 law received amnesty fraudulently. As one former U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service employee told us, the system that exists now can't handle the workload that exists now. There is a backlog now with 3 million people waiting to get their cases decided. What do you think is going to happen when we have millions of new cases on top of that that USCIS has to investigate?

The fact is that right now you can go online and you can buy a fraudulent document. You can buy a fraudulent diploma for $180, along with a fraudulent GED. There is no additional staffing in this bill, no funding to actually authenticate it. The additional personnel necessary to handle the increase in the number of cases is not in this bill.

So how do we prevent the type of fraud we saw in 1986? How do we deal with the fact that since 1986 we have had three times as many illegal immigrants come into the country as a result of passing that amnesty, many of them coming in fraudulently?

Madam Speaker, since the Taiwanese election of President Ma Ying-jeou in March 2008, leaders in Beijing and Taipei have promoted cross-strait engagement. Yet it

is important to realize that ``there have been no meaningful actions on the part of the mainland, however, to reduce [China's'] military presence opposite the island.'' That is a finding of the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on Chinese military capabilities, released last month.

With its rapidly expanding arsenal of ships, missiles and aircraft, the cross-strait military balance continues to ``shift in the mainland's favor,'' according to the report. Indeed, in 2001, China had 250 missiles aimed at Taiwan. Today that number is over 1,400.

This summer's Pentagon report comes months after the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Taiwan's air defenses are showing increasing vulnerability due to the aging of its fighter aircraft. While China rapidly builds its military forces, Taiwan is struggling.

To help close this gap, Taiwan has had a pending request to buy additional F-16 fighter jets. In May, over 130 members of Congress wrote to President Obama and asked that the Administration ``move ahead immediately'' with the sale of these airplanes. The Administration is still ``studying'' this proposal.

Taiwan faces one of the most complex and lethal military threats in the world. Across the region, in response to China's build-up and increasing assertiveness, China's neighbors are moving to strengthen their security relationships with the United States. This gravitation to the U.S. will only last as long as the U.S. is seen as a credible guarantor of stability. Moving forward with this F-16 sale would be an appropriate signal to Taiwan, and the region.

Madam Speaker, if we want cross strait detente to succeed--Taiwan will have to do so from a position of strength.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 266.

For too long, Taiwan has been left out of international organizations at the demand of China. Taiwan was denied access to the World Health Organization, unable to participate as even an observer for over forty years. Thankfully, that changed last year as a Taiwanese delegation was able to observe meetings in Geneva. Infectious disease knows no borders.

Congress had long pressed for this action through bills and resolutions, so it is fitting that we once again take to the floor to press for Taiwan's inclusion in the International Civil Aviation Organization. Despite being home to the world's 18th busiest airport, Taiwan has been kept out of an organization that aims to keep passengers safe.

Indeed, as this resolution finds, Taiwan's exclusion from the ICAO has impeded Taiwan's government from keeping up to date with aviation standards, and prevented the implementation of new systems and procedures. The 35 million passengers that travel to and from Taiwan each year are done a great disservice by Taiwan's exclusion.

Mr. Speaker, in merely decades, Taiwan has gone from poverty to prosperity and autocracy to democracy. We have a strong relationship that stretches back over half a century. Today, our relations remain strong. Passage of this resolution will only serve to strengthen this relationship, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, today marks the 35th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The 1974 invasion claimed the lives of approximately 5,000 Greek Cypriots, while 200,000 were forcefully expelled from their homes. This is a dark chapter not only for Hellenes, but for all of Europe.

As this occupation continues, nearly 43,000 Turkish soldiers--nearly one soldier for every two Turkish Cypriots--are embedded in Cyprus, occupying over 35 percent of the island. This occupied area is one of the most militarized areas in the world.

Yet despite this military presence, Turkish and Greek Cypriots live in relative harmony. Since Ledra Street was opened, connecting occupied Cyprus to the south, over 13 million Greek and Turkish Cypriots have crossed the partition without incident. One can't help but wonder whom the Turkish military is protecting.

While Turkey's influence continues to wreak havoc on reunification negotiations, Cypriot President Demetrius Christofias continues to make the solution to the Cyprus problem his top priority. Having met with him in Nicosia last year, his commitment to finding a solution greatly impressed me. There was certainly no lack of will on the Greek Cypriot side.

To conclude, as we remember the invasion that split Cyprus in two, it is important to note that there are concrete efforts underway by the heads of the respective communities to reunify. Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike want to see a solution. What stands in the way is Turkey. If it still cares about ascending to the European Union, Turkey would be wise to remove its troops and stop impeding progress. For the sake of Cyprus, I hope Turkey wakes up.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. I rise because reform is desperately needed, but the reforms needed most are not in this bill.

For example, this legislation fails to reform the government- sponsored enterprises, and when you think about it, the housing crisis and the meltdown that we saw in that sector, and most of the losses, were in the government-sponsored enterprises.

That was not caused by a lack of government intervention. Each of those failed institutions had a regulator overseeing it, but it was Congress, especially with the GSE Act, actively tying the hands of those regulators in what amounted to a failed attempt, maybe for a good social end, the idea was to get everybody into a home. But to do that by putting these mandates on the GSEs that 50 percent of the portfolios that they held, 50 percent of that $1.7 trillion in portfolios that they held be in subprime and Alt-A, obviously, obviously created very real problems.

The political intervention to get the 20 percent down payment down to 3 percent and then down to zero obviously had an effect. These institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were at the center of the housing market, and they were largely responsible for some 70 percent of subprime and Alt-A mortgages throughout our financial system.

In order to reach the affordable housing mandates that Congress enacted in 1992, Fannie and Freddie became the largest purchasers of these junk loans, ending up with $1.8 trillion. In essence, they made the junk loan market.

Knowing of the systemic threat posed by these institutions, the Federal Reserve actually came to Congress, came to us a number of times, over a dozen times, and asked us to rein in their excessive risk taking. And when you hear the arguments back and forth about, well, at one point or another we tried to have legislation to address this, ask yourself this. I will remind you of this. What the Fed wanted was the ability to deleverage these portfolios. What the Fed wanted was the ability to control Fannie and Freddie for systemic risk, and that is a responsibility that Congress would not give them.

In 2005, that debate came to a head, and under the leadership of Chuck Hagel and Richard Shelby, Senate Republicans moved a bill, supported by the Fed, through the Banking Committee that attacked the heart of the problem, the excessive buildup of leverage and risk within the mortgage portfolios. And, as the Wall Street Journal said, the White House, Treasury Department and Federal Reserve lined up behind Mr. Shelby. But he was never able to bring his bill to the floor because of opposition from Democrats. Both in the House and Senate, Democrats were aggressively trying to defeat our efforts under the guise of protecting affordable housing. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Sarbanes blocked those reforms in the Senate.

Luckily, some Members from the other side have noted this failure. In

2008, President Clinton said, ``I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.''

It is unfortunate that we lost that battle. Our housing market, our financial sector and the broader economy are dealing with the consequences of that very systemic shock that the Fed had anticipated and warned us about.

Today, despite what some may claim, we are not advocating for the elimination of the GSEs tomorrow, but we want them addressed in this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am ready to recognize, Chairman Frank, that you were successful in defeating that amendment. You were successful, and certainly a majority of this body, including many Republicans, joined you, and I think in 2003 you stated it well in terms of this perspective. You said, ``I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC and OTS. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.''

This was an argument that gained ground on both of sides of the aisle, there is no doubt about it, but at the same time, it was the Fed that supported my amendment that I brought before this body in order to try to give the Federal Reserve the ability to deleverage these portfolios in the interest of safety and soundness.

This is a debate we have had many times. We had a different perspective. But today going forward, we are expanding systemic risk in many ways in this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't know why it should be a surprise to the Left that this financial system collapsed. The reason I say that is because in 1992, the GSE Act passed this Congress, under a Democratic majority passed this Congress. And the GSE Act specifically was an attempt to get every American into a home.

I understand the thought behind it. But the irrationality behind it, in terms of creating these mandates on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs, mandates that 50 percent of their portfolio of $1.7 trillion be in subprime and Alt-A loans.

What did they expect would happen? The leverage, the political pull that went into getting the down payments down from 20 percent to 3 percent to zero. And now we have the very result that the Federal Reserve warned us about when they came to Congress in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and warned us that if we did not take corrective action, if we did not allow the regulators to have the ability to deregulate or to regulate and deleverage these portfolios, that we were going to create systemic risk and the financial collapse could be a consequence of this.

And blocking repeatedly the efforts in the Senate, which the Democrats did, to address this issue. And then in 2007, finally in 2007 the Democratic majority here brought to the floor a bill which they say attempted to address this issue. But, again, in that legislation it tied the hands of the regulators so that they could not deleverage the portfolios, so that they could not put it into receivership, so that they couldn't regulate for systemic risk.

The other reason they brought the bill to the floor was because it had a $300 billion provision in it for affordable housing. That's why the bill got out of here; but it was opposed by the Treasury, and it was opposed by the Fed.

So the point I want to make is after all of that history, and after watching the collapse--which we were warned about by the regulators-- and albeit, with good intentions because I know the thought was everybody would be able to have a house if you could get down to zero down payment loans and if you could force the GSEs to buy that junk that was sold by Countrywide, who do you think created the market? It was 70 percent of the market. It was because there was an intention here to circumvent the rules of economics.

And now in this legislation, what is not addressed? This very duopoly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When you say we address the problems, no we don't. We compound the problems in this legislation.

Now, what we do with this legislation is we make the largest institutions too big to fail, and we do so by putting in a provision that is going to allow them to borrow at a lower cost than their smaller competitors, who I guess we would say are too small to save. Right. They are going to borrow at a hundred basis points less because of the government backstop you're putting in place and because you're not allowing them to go through a regular bankruptcy process. We would like to see enhanced bankruptcy on the Republican side. We'd like to see firms actually fail.

Instead, we're going to have a process here where creditors are going to get a hundred cents on the dollar, potentially. They are going to loan to big firms; these big firms are going to become overleveraged. You did the same thing here that you did with the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie, that then forced their competition out of the market. And as a consequence of that, they became duopolies and then failed.

So this is what we're trying to get across to our friends on the other side of the aisle. This is why we oppose your approach. We've seen where it's headed from before.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a small community banker in Ohio by the name of Sarah Wallace wrote a letter. She wrote about what she believed will be the end of community banking as we know it. And Sarah Wallace notes, in her words: ``Going forward, we will no longer be able to evaluate loan applications based solely on the creditworthiness of the borrower. We will be making regulation compliance decisions instead of credit decisions.''

And this gets to the heart of the issue with the underlying legislation that we're discussing. Despite the fact that every failed financial firm had some type of Federal regulator overseeing it, the answer put forward in this bill is to give broad, largely undefined powers to those regulators and not, by the way, in the interest of safety and soundness. If the objective was safety and soundness, the amendment that I put forward to allow the safety and soundness regulator to overrule the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in cases where safety and soundness was at stake, that would have been upheld. No, that's not the goal here.

And to get back to the point that Sarah Wallace makes, her observation is that instead of focusing on providing credit and providing the best possible service to the customers in these small towns that need that credit, these institutions will instead focus their efforts on appeasing the Federal Government and on appeasing their allies in Congress.

Well, why should that give us concern? It should worry us because whether it is striving toward another altruistic goal, such as Congress' interest in subsidizing housing--and by the way, that's what happened during the housing crisis--or whether it's funneling cash into friendly community activist organizations, like ACORN, the fact is, the closer big government gets to business, the more likely these favors will become the rule instead of the exception.

What I don't like about this is the political pull that comes out of it. What I don't like about it is the market discipline being replaced. And I think on a massive scale, this bill replaces objectivity with subjectivity. It replaces the market discipline on Main Street with political pull in Washington, and regulators will now decide which firms will be treated differently and, therefore, moved through the resolution process and which firms should be left to the bankruptcy courts.

Why would we care about that in terms of these big firms having this ability now to have this alternative means of resolution? Well, once in the resolution process, the government will have the authority to provide a 100 percent bailout to whichever creditor it favors while imposing severe losses on other institutions who bought the exact same bonds. Should we be concerned about abuse in this respect? I think so, because this type of bureaucratic discretion has led to abuse in the past.

We have already seen that abuse in the Obama administration's handling of the Chrysler bankruptcy last year. Secured creditors, typically entitled to first priority payment under the absolute priority rule, ended up receiving less than the union allies of the administration who held junior creditor claims. The fact that the regulatory reform approach injects politics into the process ensures this kind of favoritism in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, for all that he has attempted to do to bring this resolution before us and also for bringing this issue into the international community. And Congresswoman Diane Watson, we appreciate your leadership on this as well.

I think for any of us who try to contemplate the impact of modern-day slavery--I was thinking, I was just talking to Congressman Smith about the movie ``Amazing Grace'' about William Wilberforce and the attempt in Britain so long ago to try to eliminate the slave trade. And when we think about the fact that in this century this type of slavery still exists, I think that when we consider the magnitude of it, the misery of the people, especially the children that are subjected to this, we think about this range of sexual servitude across this planet affecting some 12 million adults but also millions of children.

And this is what is happening every day. People are trafficked into this type of servitude. You think about the fact that many of these children are 6, 7 years old. And, sadly, as the State Department tells us in this report that was just released, the majority of transnational trafficking, the majority of these victims are being trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation. So that is the reality that the world faces today.

Now, importantly, this resolution commends the Government of South Africa for taking some steps because it has tried to combat this problem. It has brought to justice, it has successfully convicted its human traffickers here in a trial that has gotten some attention. So it is important to note such improvements.

But at the same time, it's important for us to realize how much remains to be done, how much the international community needs to work and come together to go after these criminal syndicates that are involved in this kind of activity.

And I only wish we could be celebrating the achievement of countries like Vietnam; but, unfortunately, we've read the report. Some countries are actually being downgraded in this report. In Vietnam, women and children are routinely misled by fraudulent job opportunities where they find themselves, instead, sold into brothels. Sadly, while some conditions are improving, other states, like Vietnam, are falling far, far behind.

And it is also our hope that the release of this report will do much in the international community, along with the help by NGOs that have come forward, in order to try to put a spotlight on this issue, in order to try to get every government involved and moving in the correct direction and prosecuting those who are involved in the criminal syndicates for trying to advance this kind of inhumanity across this planet.

I again commend all of the cosponsors of this legislation, including my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.