Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1036, recognizing the contributions of Korean Americans to the United States.

There are more than 1 million Korean-Americans living in the United States. From the first hundred who immigrated to the United States in the early 20th century, Koreans have become an integral part of our country. Today, one out of every eight Korean-Americans owns his or her own business.

In my own district, I have had the opportunity to work hand in hand with the Korean community and I have seen their commitment in upholding their own rich heritage. The United States, and California in particular, have been enriched and defined by the contributions of Korean-Americans in a wide variety of fields.

Korean-Americans have invigorated businesses, civic institutions, and academic communities across the country. Korean-owned businesses employ more than 333,000 men and women, generating sales and receipts of over $46 billion. This resolution gives Congress the chance to recognize the importance Korean-Americans play in our communities.

Abroad, our relationship with South Korea has steadily grown and is now better than ever. Our trade relations are strong, and stand to be only further strengthened by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, a deal that stands to grow both of our economies. In the previous Congress, I was proud to have authored legislation that granted Korea NATO +3 status in terms of military sales. These measures are important, but the strongest bridge between our two societies remains the Korean-American community, which continues to flourish.

In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that it is all too easy to overlook the invaluable contributions that Korean-Americans have made, not just in my home state of California, but to our Nation as a whole. This resolution provides well-deserved recognition to the Korean- American community for the indelible mark they have made upon the diversity and prominence of our great Nation.

My colleague, Judge Poe, the Representative from Texas, has told you some of the examples about women who have found themselves in this dire situation. We had in my county, Orange County, California, a total of four young women in 1990 who were, in the span of 6 weeks, all confronted by the same situation. They were being stalked by an acquaintance or a former beau, someone they knew. Each knew they were going to be attacked. Each had been threatened that they would be attacked.

I spoke after the attack with a law enforcement officer there who said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life was to tell one of these young women, I know you feel he's going to attack you, but there's nothing we can do until you're physically attacked. Despite the threats he's made, there's nothing we can do. So he said, I took it upon myself to follow this individual because I knew he intended to carry out that attack. He said, I came within 2 minutes of preventing him from killing her. But, unfortunately, he took her life, and then when he saw me, he took his own. This was the example given in this one case, but there were four cases within that 6 weeks in 1990.

I had previously passed legislation in the State senate on terrorism as it related to credible threats made against synagogues and churches by those who threatened to blow up synagogues. And I thought, Well, perhaps we can extend this and actually give law enforcement the chance to step in. Since that other law had been upheld by the State supreme court, perhaps it would uphold a law if we passed an anti-stalker law that said if you threatened the victim with a credible threat of great bodily harm, it became a stalking crime, and thereby perhaps you would have the deterrent effect of having law enforcement able to go to these victims or go, more importantly, to perpetrators and tell them, You may not understand this, but under this new law you face 3 years or more in State prison if you do this.

We passed the legislation in California after some debate. We had particularly effective testimony from one young woman who had been stalked for

years by a high school acquaintance who she didn't even know, and finally taken at knifepoint. There was a 12-hour standoff. But because he didn't drag her more than the allotted number of feet, it was not a kidnapping. So, finally, with her testimony, we got that through the State house.

And then we found that the very advice we were giving these victims-- get away from your stalker; move, because there's little we can do-- meant that when they moved from the State of California to another State--let's say Florida, an example that I'm familiar with--the restraining order was no longer in effect, which meant that he couldn't be charged with stalking.

So the answer to that was a Federal law. By that time, we had used the California law as a template. We passed it in all 50 States. Japan had adopted the law. Parliaments in Europe adopted the law. But the question was: How do you protect those who go from State to State when those restraining orders are no longer in effect?

So in the United States House of Representatives I introduced that legislation. As a result, this new law provides a uniform Federal law protecting stalking victims when they cross State lines either to travel or work or to get away from their stalkers, or for any other purpose; and when they're on Federal property; if they're on a military base, for example; if they're at a post office.

It was signed into law in 1996. And I will tell you now why I am appreciative of these Members bringing this law up to date, of which I am a cosponsor. Our key problem is getting people aware of the existence of this law. Our key challenge today is deterrence. As mentioned, you have a case today where one out of every four young women who is killed is being murdered by someone who formerly stalked her. And there is a deterrent effect to law enforcement coming to you and saying you could be serving 3 years in a Federal penitentiary or in jail. You've got 3.4 million people being stalked every year, according to the Department of Justice.

If we had those in law enforcement, if judges were more cognizant of the challenges of this problem, we'd be better able to handle this situation.

Many communities have come to understand that stalking is a serious problem. Many have come up with programs that can support victims and combat this crime, but we really need law enforcement to have more focus because how many times can you look at a situation and say, All right. There's something we could have done to help deter this. We know the incidences where that has been effective here.

Most stalkers are known by their victims. It isn't always the case, but most are known.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And in today's world, stalkers, unfortunately, are using a very new and upgraded type of technology from what, traditionally, they used. It used to be that, you know, they'd leave a message on the phone. Today it's computers, it's GPS units, it's cell phones, it's social networking, and all of this can be used to harass victims.

If anyone would like more information on National Stalking Awareness Month, I urge you to visit www.stalkingawarenessmonth.org, and try--for those out there in law enforcement--try to understand just how devastating this can be to victims, and try to give them a hand, and try to deter these attacks before they occur.

I rise in support of this resolution commemorating the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I'm an original cosponsor of this bill. But I'd like to thank the author of this resolution, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Chairman Berman as well for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, during World War II, my father was part of the Allied Forces who liberated Dachau. It was a concentration camp of similar horrors to that of Auschwitz, as Mr. Poe expressed. And when they took the camp, he took pictures to document the tragedy, to document the horror of what he witnessed, and he has used them ever since, even to this day, in terms of lecturing to high school classes.

Mr. Speaker, importantly, we are marking this anniversary. We do so to remember the Holocaust and its victims. Inevitably the refrain ``Never Again'' comes to our lips. But, unfortunately, we know that this type of terror continues. Maybe not on the magnitude that it occurred during the Holocaust, but in the North Korean police state, where 200,000 are held in a system of political concentration camps which are modern day gulags, and the pictures of those imprisoned in North Korea, malnourished, with striped pajamas, are jarringly familiar to those of us who saw those photographs, either at Dachau or at Auschwitz.

Of course, like Nazi Germany, many of the regimes that have no respect for their own, like North Korea, are hostile also to us. High school students my father has lectured about World War II often ask why the world was so asleep to Adolf Hitler's horrors. Of course the world was only slowly learning about the depth of what was occurring in camps like Auschwitz. But with respect to today's tragedies, we don't have such an excuse.

Mr. Speaker, on the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, all of us, Congress and the administration, can resolve to do more in the cause of freedom, to do more to commit the United States to make certain that nothing like the Holocaust ever occurs again. And we can do more to remember the victims of that senseless slaughter.

Madam Speaker, time is not on our side. Today's Washington Post reports that Iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon. It is mastering the technology to enrich uranium which would fuel that weapon. A secret nuclear facility located on an Iranian military base was recently revealed. For years, Iran has been slapping away all of our diplomatic overtures. ``Our outreach has produced very little.'' Secretary Clinton's words, not mine.

Today, the world's top terrorist state has its tentacles throughout the region. Its tentacles are Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan. Its agents and proxies are practically everywhere in its aspiration for regional dominance, not to mention our own backyard. Tomorrow's nuclear Iran would have a compounding effect with severe consequences for regional security and for U.S. security. The time for action is long past. This bill would help address this threat, targeting the regime's Achilles' heel.

But we need a broad-based Iran policy that focuses not just on Iran's nuclear program, but one that aims to protect the U.S. and our allies from the Iranian missile threat and speaks out against its human rights abuses and bolsters its democracy supporters.

Disturbingly, this administration has backed away from missile defense in Europe and the democratic movement inside Iran. The administration must realize that promoting democracy in Iran and improving our national security go hand-in-hand.

I would just mention that sanctions helped bring down apartheid in South Africa and ended the South African program to develop nuclear weapons.

As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, I strongly support the passage of this legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor.

Madam Speaker, more than 190,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States this year, and more than 40,000 will die. In the last 20 years, there have been declines in the breast cancer mortality rate, and those declines are attributed to increases in early detection and improvements in breast cancer treatment.

Today, when breast cancer is found before it spreads, the 5-year relative survival rate is 98 percent, but that rate will decline to 84 percent for regional disease and to 23 percent when cancer has metastasized, or has spread, to other parts of the body.

In November, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released new guidelines for screening mammography. These changes have again reignited the controversy over mammography screening--a debate that has remained for a number years.

However, it is important for us to remember that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization agreed that mammograms save lives in women 40 to 49 as well as in women over 50. Additionally, while the USPSTF has chosen to make revisions in its guidelines for screening, patient advocates and professional organizations, not just the Susan G. Komen for the Cure but also the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, have reviewed the same evidence and have continued to recommend annual screenings beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier for women with known risks of breast cancer.

Our real focus should be on the fact that one-third of the women, some 23

million, who qualify for screening under today's guidelines are not being screened. They are not being screened due to a lack of education, of awareness, or access. That issue needs focus and attention. If we can make progress with screening in susceptible populations, we can make more progress in the fight against breast cancer.

Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another year, another Andean trade preference extension, another year of the Colombian trade agreement held up. Another missed opportunity.

Let's be clear: The Colombia agreement, which the majority is not moving, would be a job creator for Americans. If we passed it, Colombian tariffs, the tariffs that they place on U.S. exports, would be cut. If you reduced that export tariff, it would create more jobs here in the United States.

With the Colombia FTA, we could get two-way trade between the United States and Colombia. Right now, U.S. exporters sending to Colombia are mainly small- and medium-sized businesses. A lot of them are in my area in Southern California. They are our economic engine.

Let's help them. It's very ironic that many who routinely attack trade agreements are giving Colombia preferential treatment here today, asking for nothing in return, which is especially galling when there is a good agreement sitting on ice which would help our exporters in that market.

I think it's time to stand up for the American worker; certainly past time to get an agreement that's a two-way agreement here.

Of course, Colombia is our closest partner in an important region. It is locked in a very deadly struggle with well-financed forces, in this case terrorists and drug traffickers that are called the FARC. This bill today is better than nothing, but the majority is missing a good opportunity, an opportunity to help a friend in Colombia and to help American workers by passing the Colombia FTA.

This bill has another shortcoming that I wanted to speak on briefly, and that is Ecuador. A beneficiary, Ecuador is far, far from living up to this program's conditions. To be a beneficiary

of this agreement, there should be certain requirements. Yet it hasn't been cooperative in combating narco-terrorism, and Ecuador is very close to the FARC, which is warring against the Colombian Government. Its independent media has come under government attack. Its government has corrupted its legal system, harming U.S. companies.

Just to go into some of the specifics, the President of Ecuador, President Correa, has dissolved the Parliament there, the Congress. He has replaced all the judges in the country. He's censored the media and seized control of the television stations there. The State Department's 2009 human rights report cites concerns with what the State Department calls corruption and the denial of due process within Ecuador's judicial system. Transparency International ranked this country as one of the worst surveyed for 2008 in terms of its corruption perceptions index, one of the worst in corruption. And it has announced that it will withdraw from its bilateral investment treaty with the United States.

This bill frankly would be better without Ecuador. Instead, the majority rejected using these benefits as leverage. I think that's also a missed opportunity. Rejecting this bill would hurt Colombia and our strategic interests there, so let's pass it; but it should be noted that we should have done so much better for American jobs.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Let me briefly read a quote on this issue from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens--who tends to be a left-leaning member of the Court. In 1993, Justice Stevens said:

At first blush it seems somewhat strange that the

Bankruptcy Code should provide less protection to an

individual's interest in retaining possession of his or her

home than of other assets . . . [but] favorable treatment of

residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of

capital into the home lending market.

As Justice Stevens indicates--there is a reason why the bankruptcy code does not treat residential mortgages like it treats credit cards or auto loans. We want to ensure investment certainty and encourage the flow of capital into this market.

The government makes up the secondary mortgage market right now-- there is no private market.

As our housing market continues to struggle through one of the worst shocks in our nation's history, certainty and investment security is essential to a recovery. This amendment prevents that.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Democratic bill is silent on the root cause of the financial collapse. It was the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie, that were at the heart of the housing market and largely responsible for the proliferation of subprime and Alt-A mortgages throughout the financial system. Over the years, they loaded up on over $1 trillion worth of these junk loans.

Frankly, Fannie and Freddie also infected capital markets and spread through every sector of our banking system. Before the bursting of the housing bubble, GSE securities constituted more than 150 percent of core capital for insured banks. More than 40 percent of money market mutual fund holdings were in the form of GSE securities. That is why Senator Chuck Hagel offered legislation for stronger regulation which passed the Senate Banking Committee on a party-line vote but was blocked by the Senate Democrats from coming to the floor. My amendment was also defeated.

The affordable housing goals were put in by the Democratic-controlled Congress. They mandated it in 1992. These affordable housing goals led the GSEs into the subprime and Alt-A market, and ultimately led to their collapse.

Former President Bill Clinton understands this epic blunder. He 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.''

Let it be clear: This is the main reason why our economy is where it is today, and this is why we must reform the GSEs. Instead, the Democrats keep them in conservatorship, bail them out forever in their legislation. The Republicans, on the other hand, end bailouts, and the Republicans also reform the GSEs.

Madam Chair, again, in 1992, it was the Democrats that put in place the legislation that led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the subprime and Alt-A loans. And every time there was an amendment up, and I remember specifically my amendment up on this House floor that tried to do what was requested by the Federal Reserve to stop the systemic risk, there was opposition to it.

Now, the legislation before us today, to compound this problem, exempts Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac again from this reform. And every time there was legislation that was actually backed by the Federal Reserve, the chairman opposed that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to this legislation because, for the first time in history, Washington will be at the center of our financial system. This is not the way our Founders intended this system to work. They didn't intend for the decisions and the political pull to come out of Washington. For the first time in history, we will institutionalize the ``too big to fail'' doctrine that has plagued our economy for too long. For the first time in history, Congress is authorizing perpetual bailout authority by those in Washington.

I have opposed these bailouts, and I have opposed the bailouts put forward over the last 14 months because of the concern I had with the precedent that would be set by using tax dollars to bail out failed institutions. Now we are going to do it far into the future. Unfortunately, it appears that that precedent that was set last fall could become official U.S. policy should this legislation become law.

Our Democratic colleagues have controlled the Congress for the last 3 years. I think, while some will try to portray this resolution fund as something other than taxpayers paying for the mistakes of failed financial firms, I would direct my colleagues to the very language in this bill, to page 406, line 22, Borrowing from Treasury: ``The Corporation may borrow from the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to lend to the Corporation on such terms as may be fixed by the Corporation and the Secretary, such funds as in the judgment of the Board of Directors of the Corporation are required.''

This is saying the resolution fund in every institution that falls under its purview has the support of--who?--the U.S. taxpayer, and that you are going to be on the hook for these loans.

My colleague from California (Mr. Sherman) referred to this authority as ``TARP on steroids.'' Well, considering that the bill fails to even put a cap on potential taxpayer exposure, I think Mr. Sherman is spot on. It is, indeed, TARP on steroids. While some have compared this model to the FDIC insurance fund, folks, that's like comparing apples to oranges. The FDIC fund is backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal Government to protect insured deposits inside the fund. That's what the FDIC fund does.

While there is a level of moral hazard that comes with this support, insured deposits are only a small portion of our financial system. Here it extends far beyond that. This bill gives that type of government support to the vast majority of our capital markets. It is a fundamentally flawed approach. It is what economists call ``moral hazard'' for a reason. It is a hazard. We need to scale back that government safety net under our financial system, not expand it to every possible institution, and we need to signal to markets that the Federal Government is out of the business of bailing out failed firms. That is the only way to officially put an end to the ``too big to fail'' problem. This legislation fails to take that critical step.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the underlying legislation for a second reason as well, which is my concern with the Consumer Protection Agency, also known as the ``credit czar.'' It weakens our regulatory model.

Every one of our banking regulators has come in to testify before the Financial Services Committee on this issue of separating ``safety and soundness'' regulation from consumer protection regulation. Many have raised the comparison between this model and the regulatory model over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which failed and lost $1 trillion, you had the regulator focused on safety and soundness who was saying one thing, but you had HUD enforcing the affordable housing goals that Congress had given HUD. Those housing goals were to have one half of the portfolio in subprime lending, in Alt-A loans, and in zero downpayment loans. This was what Congress was muscling through HUD.

These things made the regulators very, very nervous. We had the Federal Reserve regulators come up and tell us that what is happening here is a systemic risk to the entire financial system. Now the over- leveraging through this arbitrage is over 100 to 1. You had to allow the regulators to deleverage this, but Congress would not.

So, to meet these affordable housing mandates, Fannie and Freddie strayed into the junk mortgage market. They piled up over $1 trillion worth of subprime and Alt-A loans. The affordable housing goals were at odds with the long-term viability of these firms, and they led to 85 percent of their losses.

As this past example has shown us, separating these two responsibilities can lead to unintended consequences--like systemic financial failure down the road. If the ultimate objective of our regulatory reform effort is to ensure a more resilient and stable financial system, creating another agency with broad, unchecked authority is not the right approach.

I brought an amendment to the Rules Committee which would have solved this problem by ensuring that safety and soundness regulators have a say on the rule-writing process at the CFPA. Guess what? It's unfortunate. My amendment was not made in order. It won't even be heard on this floor.

I urge my colleagues to listen to those regulators, every one of whom urges us to adopt that type of approach--the approach that was in my amendment which was not allowed to go forward on this floor today.

The safety and soundness of our financial institutions is critical. Instead, we have undercut that, and we are walking down that same path that Congress took, against the advice of the regulators, with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The result of that, as you all know, was the collapse of our housing market as a consequence of the collapse of those institutions.

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points here.

One is that the Democrats have been in control of this institution-- of the House and the Senate. If anybody remembers back in November of 2006, the Republicans lost control of the House and Senate. So, for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the Democrats have controlled this process. Every spending bill originates in this House, and under that Democratic leadership in this House, we have watched the unemployment rate more than double for the American public.

As far as those of us attempting to do something about the cockamamie schemes put forward years ago in 1992--and it was under Democratic leadership in this Congress that this was done--we gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the ability to go out there and participate in arbitrage at a 100-1 leverage for affordable housing. That was the goal. Yet look at the consequences of it when you pushed that zero down payment loan on them, when you pushed the requirement that 50 percent of their mortgage portfolio be in subprime and in Alt-A. Well, we see those results today.

Let me speak to another issue, which is the opposition to this bill. I voted against the bailouts. Regardless of what you call it, this is an extension of bailouts. While the new language regarding the preemption of State consumer financial laws in the manager's amendment represents a step in the right direction, I believe it is far from sufficient and should be improved.

For example, there are aspects of the preemption standard and process for reaching preemption decisions which need to be clarified. In addition, the visitation provisions dealing with the authority of State officials over federally chartered banks and thrifts continue to contain serious problems. These provisions are an unnecessary extension of State jurisdiction over federally chartered institutions which are already subject to Federal oversight, which raise significant new potential liabilities and uncertainties and which go far beyond the standards recognized in the recent Supreme Court decision in the Cuomo case.

I raise this issue because, as it is currently written, the underlying legislation will move us in the wrong direction in terms of Federal preemption.

The architects of our Constitution threw out the Articles of Confederation and added the commerce clause precisely to prevent a fragmented economy. They envisioned one national market, not a market where local and State governments could strangle free trade among the States. We have seen the ill-effects of an inconsistent regulatory framework in our insurance market where we have 50 separate markets with 50 sets of rules. It is inefficient, anticompetitive, and it fails to provide adequate, consistent consumer protections.

If we are looking for the most effective regulatory model for our financial sector, we should not move toward a regulatory framework with varying standards from State to State for federally chartered institutions.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as our colleague has said, this crisis occurred over the last several years. I will remind the body that the Democrats have controlled this Congress over the last 3 years, and I agree here tonight with my Republican colleagues who oppose permanent bailout authority which is put in this bill, and the fact that this legislation institutionalizes the ``too big to fail'' model. I would like to focus on one other critical shortcoming in this legislation, and that's the failure of this bill to address one of the key causes of this financial collapse.

While others may claim it was a lack of government involvement in the market, I think history is going to show that government intervention in the market also had a major role. And let me show you how. It was government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that were at the heart of the housing market and largely responsible for the proliferation of subprime and Alt-A mortgages throughout the financial system. Over the years, they loaded up on over $1 trillion of these junk loans, pushed by initiatives on the other side of the aisle, and they signaled to the market that these were safe loans when we know, in fact, they were not. There was $1 trillion in losses out of this.

It was the Federal Reserve also, and the central banks around the world setting negative real interest rates, when measured against inflation, for 4 years running. And the effect of those negative interest rates was devastating, because instead of mitigating the ups and downs in the economy, the Fed's actions had the opposite effect. The negative real interest rates intensified the boom-and-bust cycle, and it encouraged excessive risk-taking throughout the economy, especially in the financial sector and in housing, something economists have been warning about for decades.

While there have been other blunders that contributed to the crisis, these two steps taken by the Federal Government were at the heart of the boom and subsequent bust in the housing market and the broader financial system. And until we address these market distortions, we are simply treating the symptoms rather than the disease.

Thank you.

The gentleman from California referred to the Wild West earlier. No two institutions better fit that description than the government- sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Over the years, some of us pleaded for additional regulation. You may recall, in 2005, we tried to pass strong legislation to fix this problem and bring reforms to the government-sponsored enterprises. I brought an amendment to this floor to give the regulator the ability to rein in their mortgage portfolios that were spiraling out of control. The Federal Reserve came to us and said, These institutions at the heart of the U.S. mortgage market pose a systemic threat to our economy.

That is why I offered my amendment, which was defeated, as were others, that would have provided stronger regulation. That is why Senator Chuck Hagel offered similar legislation which passed the Senate Banking Committee on a party-line vote but was blocked by the Senate Democrats from coming to the floor.

We understood the risks posed by those government companies, especially when it came to the affordable housing goals the Democratic- controlled Congress mandated in 1992. Those affordable housing goals led the GSEs into the subprime Alt-A market, and they ultimately led to their collapse.

Former President Bill Clinton understands this epic blunder. Last September, the former President said in an interview, ``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.''

This is one of the main reasons why our economy is where it is today. And this is why we must reform the GSEs, which this bill does not do. Instead, this bill creates a perpetual bailout fund and ensures that the ``too big to fail'' doctrine is with us definitely.

For the first time in its history, Washington will officially become the center of our financial system.

Regulators will be able to rescue certain companies and liquidate others. They will be able to pay off some creditors and counterparties and not others, and keep failed or failing companies operating and competing in the market for years. They will even be able to dismantle a healthy institution that they believe may pose a risk.

If there is any doubt that this type of authority will be abused, look at how the administration handled the Chrysler bankruptcy earlier this year. It was their desire to do away with the clearly defined rules of the road found in the bankruptcy code in order to reward their political allies. Those rules of the

road that were so easily dismissed by the administration have acted as the bedrock of our capital markets for decades. They differentiate us from much of the world and serve to attract capital from all corners of the globe. This bill throws that model out the window. It replaces objectivity with subjectivity, market discipline with political pull.

What is the likely outcome of all of this? The larger, politically connected institutions will have the edge over their competitors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 55, authored by myself and my colleague from the State of California, Congresswoman Jane Harman.

This resolution calls for the establishment of a National Prader- Willi Syndrome Awareness Month, and it encourages continued Federal research of this syndrome. Now, this syndrome is recognized as a common genetic cause of childhood obesity, and for too many children, it is an affliction which causes them not even to be able to reach their teens. Many of them don't reach their 20th birthday as a result of this malady.

Mr. Speaker, 7\1/2\ years ago I was in the position of most Members of this House and most Americans in that I had never heard of Prader- Willi syndrome. Then a little girl named Abby Porter was born. I can still remember

that day and the phone call that came telling me that Abby had arrived but that something was wrong. Abby was sleeping almost 24 hours a day, was unable to eat on her own, and had almost no muscle tone at all.

Thanks to the persistence and strong will of Abby's parents, she was sent to Children's Hospital in Denver where she underwent extensive testing. At 2 weeks of age we all learned that Abby had a genetic disorder called Prader-Willi syndrome.

Many of you are now asking what I asked on that day of the phone call. What is Prader-Willi syndrome? In short, it is a complex condition characterized by morbid obesity, by insatiable appetite, by poor muscle tone and failure to thrive during infancy, among many other maladies. Twenty years ago a child with Prader-Willi syndrome was likely to die of morbid obesity before they reached adulthood. Most of these children were either never diagnosed or diagnosed later in life when treatment was far less effective.

Abby Porter is actually one of the lucky ones, as she received a very early diagnosis. As a result of this early diagnosis she was able to begin human growth hormone treatments at the age of 3 months. A relatively new treatment for Prader-Willi at the time of her birth, growth hormone enabled Abby to begin building the muscle tone she needed to eat, to hold up her head, to sit up, crawl, and finally to walk. As a result she was able to reach all of her developmental milestones at roughly the appropriate times. She was also able to develop cognitively at a more normal rate than she would have without this treatment.

Abby and I want every child with Prader-Willi syndrome to have this same opportunity. We want to increase awareness of this genetic disorder among health care providers and pediatricians and parents and teachers and communities. We want children to get diagnosed early so that they can begin immediate treatment.

We want parents to be able to find out the information that they need to make decisions about the treatment and development of their children. We want teachers to understand the cognitive and emotional struggles that come with Prader-Willi and that must be dealt with in order for these children to learn.

We want neighbors and community members to learn about this syndrome so that they will understand the actions and behavior of some of the children with Prader-Willi; thus, they will not reject them outright and will instead teach their own children about the acceptance of differences.

Abby and I want these families with Prader-Willi children to know that the families are not alone in this fight to search for cures and treatments that will improve the future of their children.

For that reason, we are both proud today to see this House call for a National Prader-Willi Syndrome Awareness Month and to express support for further research in this disorder.

I want to again thank my colleague, Congresswoman Jane Harman from California, for her support and efforts on behalf of this resolution. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 928 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I want to thank Mr. McDermott, my cochairman of the India Caucus.

Indian Prime Minister Singh's visit to Washington for an official visit is an important signal of deepening relations between the United States and India. His visit sends a signal to the Indian people that their country is a valued partner. This resolution recognizes this relationship--its past successes, and hopes for its future.

Significantly, Prime Minister Singh's visit will come almost to the day of the horrific terrorist attacks on Mumbai carried out by Islamist militants. On that day 163 people were cut down in a bloody rampage. Our thoughts will be with Indian people on that anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, relations between the U.S. and India have undergone a renaissance. Prime Minister Singh has done much to bring the United States and India together, but perhaps nothing more consequential than signing the landmark civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the two countries.

Indian officials have told me about their ambitious plans to expand nuclear power. India needs additional electricity to fuel its growing economy and nuclear energy is a clean source. With this deal, the Indian nuclear industry is overcoming the international restrictions that have curtailed it since 1974, to reach its full potential. India will still rely on other energy sources, but it is smart policy for any country to diversify. We in the U.S. should learn that lesson. We are expecting U.S. companies to be part of the Indian nuclear industry. We should give them more opportunities at home too.

Official visits should lead to concrete policy improvements. If this relationship is to move ahead, progress must be made on trade. Right now, the signs aren't good. Both countries need to get serious on advancing trade, or we'll both lose.

The U.S.-India relationship has made great strides, but progress can't be taken for granted. We have many common interests: economics, counter-terrorism, energy. While President Obama was in China this week, India is another very important country. The India Caucus will be watching next week's visit in hopes that specific advances will be made.