Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak about the consequences of some 80 percent of oil reserves around the world now being controlled by a foreign cartel, a foreign cartel that works in concert with Russia. And if you take Russia into the mix, you now have over 90 percent of the oil reserves of the oil that's being pumped around the world controlled by this cartel, OPEC.

Now, many of us remember when Aramco was nationalized, where the U.S. fields were seized in Saudi Arabia. And we remember when British Petroleum in Iran was nationalized by that government. Not too many years ago, Hugo Chavez seized the European oil companies, their derricks, off the coast of his country.

This is a phenomenon that, as it has occurred, has allowed, according to our former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, the cartel to pick a price. And what he suggested some years ago to us in the Congress was that there was an attempt to set that price at $140 a barrel of oil. And, specifically, what the cartel did, what OPEC did, was to curtail production in order to drive up the price.

Frankly, we need a long-term and a short-term solution to this problem. The long-term solution is to continue the investment in lithium-ion batteries that the market is driving and continue incentives for hybrids so that we reach the point where you can actually go 100 miles per gallon of gasoline used because the first 40 miles that you would use to go to work typically or back will be off a battery. In other words, his argument is that long-term electricity is going to be the solution to this by converting the economy, which today 95 percent of the transportation costs dealing with fuel are petroleum, converting that over to electricity.

But that's 10 years out. And in the meantime, we have a short-term solution that we need in order to break this cartel's ability to hold that price as high as they hold it. And as the price began to dip down the last few weeks, you saw the cartel again doing what? Saying they were going to, again, curtail production in order to increase the price of gasoline. This represents, according to the former CIA Director, a $10 trillion transfer in wealth over the next 10 years out of this economy into their economy, billions of dollars every day going into their sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia or throughout the Persian Gulf and some of it also going into the madrassas, the special religious schools that they're setting up across Central Asia, across Africa, even in Europe, which, frankly, are radicalizing a younger generation.

So how do we take some of the profit out of this? What we do, frankly, is we lift that moratorium on drilling. And our hope on the Republican side was that we might see a series of moratoriums which were put in place lifted.

One which was put in place a little over a year ago was the moratorium on using oil shale from Wyoming and Utah and Colorado. We have more oil shale in this country by threefold in terms of what the Saudis have in reserves in the Persian Gulf. So with 2 trillion in oil shale reserves, frankly, we could do a lot. But there has been a moratorium put by those who do not want to burn fossil fuels.

Then we have the moratorium on drilling offshore. We know that the Cubans are drilling off the coast of Florida; we're not allowed to drill off the coast in those waters.

We know that in the Arctic we have Gazprom, which was nationalized, seized by the Russian government a few years ago. They're bringing their two biggest derricks up to the Arctic. They're going to drill, whereas we can't expand in Alaska, in the Arctic, and drill there on the U.S. side.

So what we are witnessing is the fact that we have hamstrung our ability. Gasification, as the South Africans use a process to transfer coal into gasoline, a moratorium on that. Nuclear, well, France has 80 percent of its grid supported by nuclear power. In my State, California, it's 12.5 percent, and there is no chance of getting more because of the restrictions and moratoriums. And, frankly, when a lease is let, there is a lawsuit that follows it instantaneously.

So the question I have is why are we moving legislation which purports to lift only one of these moratoriums, which is the drilling offshore, but with it says that no State can take a percentage of the profits of that drilling to help its State budget? All that guarantees is that no State will allow drilling offshore. Right now if you're in the State of Louisiana and you have a certain area where drilling is occurring,

part of that goes back to the State of Louisiana.

The fact is that this measure, this legislation, will prevent, will absolutely stop any State from going forward and allowing additional drilling. And that's what it's intended to do because the intention is not to have any energy produced in the United States, not to create jobs here, and not to help the inflation that, frankly, is being driven right now by these high energy prices. And I am very concerned about it.

Well, perhaps I could engage the gentleman from Iowa in a discussion here of the fact that I don't think many were really paying attention in this country over the last few years, but today, 80 percent of oil reserves are owned by nationalized oil companies of foreign governments. We don't think a lot about this, but if we reflect, we will remember that, in many cases, the property has been seized and that OPEC now controls these assets through cartels overseas. As a matter of fact, it controls about 80 percent.

In my view, I think Congress sort of shrugged off the testimony of our former CIA Director, who warned of the OPEC cartel spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, deliberately lowering production levels in order to drive the price of oil up. Now, as it turns out, the price of oil they managed to drive up to $140 a barrel. In his view, this was a bid to siphon $10 trillion over the next 10 years from our economy here into the coffers of the OPEC members.

So I wanted to just touch briefly on the national security component of this. I think Congress watched as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board explained that our supplies in oil are so tight in the United States today that a 1 percent increase in supply could lower costs by 10 percent. Just 2 weeks ago, our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, testified to that point.

So what is the studied indifference as consumers and policymakers lay out the case for more supply?

My concern is that the Democratic leadership has made a commitment to maintain the moratoriums against new drilling, new refineries, new nuclear power, the opportunity to extract oil from shale. Like my colleague from Iowa, I believe that market economics still have consequences and that the American Energy Act, which we have cosponsored which would lift these prohibitions, would increase supply by 33 percent. Now, if a 1 percent increase in supply drives down the price in the estimate of the Federal Reserve Chairman by 10 percent, what would a 33 percent increase in supply do for the price?

You know, a majority of the House of Representatives, I now believe, is feeling enough heat back home that they would vote for increased supply, but the congressional leadership has blocked not only the American Energy Act, but the Democratic leadership has also blocked all other amendments that might lift any of the prohibitions from coming to the House floor.

Well, under this American Energy Act that the gentleman from Iowa and I are supporting, we would open our deep water ocean resources. That would provide another 3 million barrels of oil per day to our domestic supply. Currently, we use 20 million barrels a day. Now, Cuba and Venezuela are already operating in these waters. It would open the Arctic coastal plain. That would provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. Now the Russian oil exploration is already operating in the Arctic today. It would develop our Nation's oil shale resources, providing an additional 2.5 million barrels per day. Canada is developing its oil shale resources.

It would cut the red tape that hinders the construction of new refineries. None have been built in the last 31 years. It would extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind and solar and hydrogen, and it would eliminate barriers to the expansion of nuclear power production. As we know, France gets 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power. My State of California gets 12\1/2\ percent.

So, today, the OPEC cartel controls more than three-quarters of the world's global oil reserves, and it severely restricts both supply and access to its oil fields. This is one of the factors that helps cause this dramatic spike in the price of oil, which not only hits consumers at the pump but which, frankly, harms nearly every aspect of our economy, and the moratoriums here maintained by the Democratic leadership, in my view, help drive up energy costs and risk further sinking this economy.

This is the reason I've come to the floor, to make the case to have our colleagues bring this bill before the floor of the House of Representatives.

I don't know of a case where we have gone so long without an appropriations bill before this Congress. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution says that, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''

Normally, we have the 13 appropriations bills that come out of our committees that fund every government agency, but this is being held off. And one of the reasons why we are not having these votes on the House floor is because of the concern that we might bring up these amendments. We might attach this Act to one of the appropriations bills.

And we've gone over 200 years on this House floor, and the House has never gone into the August recess without passing a single appropriations bill. In fact, the House has always passed at least one appropriations bill prior to July 9.

And I am concerned that the Democrat leadership is so insistent on blocking any votes to increase energy production that they are rolling over until the end of the year all of the work that this Congress--and we will have one omnibus bill in which we cannot bring up any of these amendments to increase energy production in the United States.

I would ask if my colleague from the State of Iowa shares my concern.

If the gentleman would yield, what would the gentleman think the consequence would be over the next 10 years presuming that these moratoriums are kept in place? We can't do anything, presume for a moment, to address the issue that the Federal Reserve Chairman warned, that the supply of energy is so tight that a 1 percent increase in supply would drop prices by 10 percent. Let's say that things remain as they are, we don't get any additional sources for production because of the moratoriums. What do you think the consequences would be of the transfer of $10 trillion out of this economy over the next 10 years into OPEC, into the members of the OPEC cartel?

If the gentleman will yield, I think it's pretty clear at this point that high gas prices are hurting the pocketbook of families across this country. Family budgets are strained. And the bottom line is we are pushing for short- and long-term solutions to lower gas prices and to address our future energy needs.

We're doing that with the American Energy Act, which is going to provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel-efficient carts. It provides tax incentives to those that improve their energy efficiency. It permanently extends the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind and solar and hydrogen. Barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production are eliminated in this piece of legislation. It spurs the development of alternative fuels.

It's a balanced piece of legislation, which gives us more energy, and frankly, with gas prices increasing, it's vital that we utilize our Nation's vast energy supplies, and at the same time, we should continue to develop new, clean technology. And this would significantly reduce our use of foreign oil.

That's what this bill is intended to do, and doing so is an economic necessity. It is vital to our national security. So I encourage our lawmakers, our colleagues to join us in this effort to bring this important piece of legislation to the floor for a vote.

And I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa yielding to me, and I appreciate also his explanation of energy production and energy consumption here in the United States so that people can better understand just how tight the supply is and how great the need is for more energy production, to say nothing of the jobs, by the way, that this would create here in this country if we allowed more production.

Mr. Speaker, today I've got to say, after spending a decade advocating for strong GSE reform, I am shocked to see this attempt to increase moral hazard and socialized risk that we're seeing on the floor today. We're going to reward some of the same institutions which have undermined sound economic principles, which have resisted the reforms that we've tried to push.

I believe good governance and protecting the American taxpayer has got to trump rewarding radical organizations and imprudent lenders and rewarding speculators. And unfortunately, that is what is done in this bill.

And for too long, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have reaped the rewards of the private sector, while enjoying the type of security known only to branches of the Federal Government. Their quasi-governmental status has created a level of moral hazard unseen anywhere else in our capital markets.

You know, in an effort to create a regulator with enough authority to restrain these institutions, in 2003 I introduced the first legislation which sought to put Fannie and Freddie and the Federal home loan bank system under one strong regulator within the Federal Government.

Additionally, in 2005, I offered an amendment on this floor to give the new regulator the authority to review and adjust the GSEs' portfolios to mitigate against a potential systemic shock. And the same groups and organizations that right now stand to benefit from this bill opposed those reforms at the time.

As the systemic risk posed by the GSEs grew, the need for a strong regulator, able to control their risk exposure and ensure they were adequately capitalized, became more and more critical, especially as the mortgage industry began to deteriorate over the last 18 months.

The failure of Congress to pass such critical legislation over the years could end up being one of Washington's greatest oversight mistakes in recent history, and worst yet, we're here today asking, as we do so often, the American taxpayer frankly to pay for the failure here.

Now, I'm angered that today's legislation has been loaded with handouts and improperly funded liabilities, the most obvious of which bails out speculators and investors that incorrectly gambled on the housing industry and the institutions that provided their loans.

The $300 billion plan would allow banks to dump their least appealing loans onto the Federal Housing Administration, and by taking on these mortgages, we are shifting the default risk. That default risk is currently held by institutions and investors around the world, and we're shifting it instead onto the backs of the American taxpayers.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a stunning 35 percent of all of the loans refinanced through mortgage bailouts may eventually default on the Federal Government.

And then we have the affordable housing fund, which would funnel as much as $600 million every year to activist organizations with a long history, frankly, of both voter fraud and anti-free market advocacy throughout the country.

And what is the funding mechanism to prevent taxpayers from footing the bill for these misguided programs? Well, it is a 4.2 basis points tax levied on the same struggling GSEs that this legislation is meant to strengthen. And whether this tax will be enough to cover the 10s of billions of potential losses remains to be seen.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation because of the unprecedented amount of taxpayer liabilities included in this package. This is an affront to good governance. It should be avoided at all costs.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday, July the 20th marked the 34th commemoration of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. That invasion claimed the lives of 5,000 Greek Cypriots while an additional 200,000 were forced from their homes. Today, nearly 36,000 Turkish soldiers, 1 soldier for every 2 Turkish Cypriots, are embedded in Cyprus, occupying 35 percent of the island. It is one of the most militarized areas in the world.

The Turkish and Greek Cypriots, themselves, live in harmony, making the occupation all the more unacceptable and unnecessary. There have been

no recent incidents of violence between the two communities. In a show of friendship, Ledra Street, which connects Greek and Cypriot Cyprus, was recently opened for the first time since 1964. Thirteen million Greek and Turkish Cypriots have crossed the border, each time without incident.

In the House, House Resolution 620, which I cosponsored, cites these crossings as evidence of the goodwill between the two communities, and it refutes the Turkish claim that a military presence is necessary.

As we remember the invasion to split Cyprus in two, it is important to note that there are concrete efforts underway by the heads of the communities to reunify.

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

The world recently celebrated Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday in London, and so much has been said about him. But in a world of division, a world of many deadly divisions, it's appropriate that Congress is once again making note of Mandela's legacy of unity. And I think Mr. Payne and the other authors of this resolution should be commended.

I should note also that I think Chairman Berman's legislation recently signed into law that took Mandela and other African National Congress members off the terrorism list is a move that was long, long overdue.

Nelson Mandela served 27 years in prison for opposing apartheid. At his trial, he stood in the face of the possible sentence of death. After being freed from captivity, which were very hard years on Robben Island, he easily could have let bitterness consume him. He could have sought revenge. Some predicted that South Africa would spiral into chaos suffering racial and tribal violence. So many other countries have. Many predicted a ruined economy. But fortunately for South Africans, it was Nelson Mandela who took the helm.

Mandela is a unifier. He is an exceptional unifier. Consider that he invited a former white jailer of his to attend his presidential inauguration as a guest. He invited the man who prosecuted him to a presidential lunch. He made it a point to learn the language of the Afrikaners, the architects of apartheid, and to embrace their beloved rugby, making it an obsession for the whole South African nation and signaling to all people that they had a place in the country.

With these and countless other acts of reconciliation, Nelson Mandela navigated a very treacherous transition for South Africa into majority rule. Nelson Mandela left power after serving only one term as his country's first president elected by universal suffrage. He was lionized. He could have served longer, but he stepped down. What a contrast, what a contrast to the petty tyrant to the north, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who was a fellow liberation leader who instead of championing democracy as Nelson Mandela did, instead desperately clung to power bringing his country to ruin. Mandela walked away. And he hasn't meddled with his successor's presidency. And Nelson Mandela has spoken out about human rights around the world, including the tyranny of Zimbabwe.

I don't agree with every position that Nelson Mandela the politician took. He opposed America on some important issues. South Africa, in general, is too wedded to a nonaligned ideology. Yet this doesn't diminish this man's tremendous political accomplishment and his character defined by dignity, courage, warmth, humor, and so many other attributes, nor his positive impact worldwide.

South Africa isn't without many difficult challenges. The rule of law is coming under challenge because of rampant crime. Unemployment is high. Economic expectations are unrealistic. The U.S. has an interest in working with South Africa as we are to see that this young democracy meets these challenges. The future will tell. But what is certain is that South Africa would be in a far, far tougher spot were it not for the career of Nelson Mandela.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Jefferson's resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am a coauthor also on this resolution, and I just want to say that this was the worst, most horrific bombing in the history of Argentina.

Their state prosecutor found that this attack was organized by the highest leaders of the government of Iran whom at the same time entrusted the execution of this operation to Hezbollah.

We have watched as Iran has empowered Hezbollah to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and sent this organization out to establish contacts throughout Central America and throughout Latin America. I would remind my colleagues that it was Mahmoud Qomati, the brother of the Hezbollah general who carried out the attacks on Lebanon, the rocket attacks in 2006. That individual was caught in our own country. His brother

was caught in our own country, having been smuggled in in the trunk of a car across California and up to Detroit. And subsequently, he and 50 of his other associates in Hezbollah here in the United States were arrested and are now serving time. They were found to have received their training from the Iranian government. They had been trained in terror tactics. They had been trained in the ability to conduct attacks.

You know, the state prosecutor of Argentina stated that the government of Iran uses terrorism as a mechanism of its foreign policy. As he said, its final link is to export its radicalized vision of Islam and to eliminate the enemies of the regime.

Chairman Berman is right when he says there has to be justice. We have to capture and punish those responsible. This resolution is an attempt to do that. Along with Chairman Berman, one of the architects of this resolution, is the gentlelady from Florida.

I ask unanimous consent to yield the control of the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object, although I do not intend to object. I do so here for the purpose of debate only. I thank the gentlewoman for her request, and I rise in support of this measure, H.R. 5690. I concur in my colleague's request for unanimous consent to pass this measure as amended by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, this bill corrects a longstanding error on U.S. policy towards South Africa. The House passed the bill on May 8 of this year, and the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent just a few moments ago.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to participate in the process of updating U.S. immigration law as it applies to visits to the United States by South African officials, such as former President Nelson Mandela, to reflect the appropriate status of the African National Congress, and I look forward to personally sharing news of passage of this bill with Mr. Mandela and the South African government when I visit South Africa next week with Chairman Berman.

I yield to the gentlelady from California.

We will do that. I thank the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

On this day, on this very day 58 years ago, North Korea invaded South Korea. Over the course of the next 3 years after that invasion until July 27 of 1953, until that armistice brought a halt to the fighting, more than 36,000 Americans died, and more than 1.5 million South Korean soldiers and civilians became casualties of that act of aggression.

In the aftermath of this conflict, the Republic of Korea has flourished, becoming the world's 11th largest economy and becoming the United States' 7th largest trading partner. Seoul is a vibrant city which has hosted the Olympic Games and the World Cup.

As cochairman of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange, I have had the chance to see this miraculous growth up close in South Korea.

Mr. Speaker, as is inscribed in the Korean War Memorial here in Washington, D.C., it is important that we never forget those who nobly sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and liberty.

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

I rise also in support of this legislation. This is the Credit Union, Bank and Thrift Regulatory Relief Act that we have before us.

As our capital markets continue to change and continue to evolve, the regulatory model overseeing our financial institutions must adjust as well. This legislation today is a small example of this effort to improve the regulatory structure overseeing the banks and the credit unions and the thrifts. By reducing the regulatory burdens, H.R. 6312 allows credit unions and banks and thrifts to devote more resources toward better servicing their customers and toward better serving those who use these institutions.

Since the 108th Congress, as Mr. Kanjorski mentioned, he and I have coauthored the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act in an effort to modernize the regulatory model overseeing America's credit unions. We have made tremendous strides over the years. That bill, which is called CURIA now, has the support of 150 Members of this Chamber, and while today's legislation may not go as far as some would like, it is important that we not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Credit Union, Bank and Thrift Regulatory Relief Act has several worthwhile provisions which deserve consideration.

Among other things, this measure clarifies the intent of the Credit Union Membership Access Act, which is that all federally chartered credit unions should be allowed to serve underserved areas around the country. By increasing the field of membership and by exempting member business loans made in these underserved areas, this provision will allow credit unions to extend credit to these areas. Following a hearing in the Financial Services Committee, this provision was adjusted to ensure those areas that benefit are, indeed, underserved.

Additionally, this bill would support the community development work of nonprofit religious institutions by excluding such loans from credit union business lending caps. I introduced legislation to do just this back in 2003 with the intent of closing a longstanding liquidity gap between creditors and nonprofit organizations.

I believe the other major provisions contained in CURIA and which are not in today's legislation are important, and I believe they should not be forgotten. In particular, I am going to continue to push to modernize the capital requirements for our credit unions because we must replace the current one-size-fits-all leverage capital requirement with a more rigorous, two-part, net worth structure that will more closely monitor actual asset risk. This will put credit unions' capital requirements on par with those of other FDIC-insured institutions.

One hundred fifty Members of this Congress have signed on to CURIA, and it will remain the ultimate objective for those of us trying to bring the regulatory structure of overseeing credit unions into the 21st century.

Today's legislation joins regulatory relief for credit unions with improvements geared towards thrifts and towards banks. Representative Moore's reg relief bill, much of which has been incorporated into this measure, will remove several unnecessary regulatory burdens faced by these financial institutions, allowing them to better serve their customers.

Among other things, the bill provides savings institutions with greater lending flexibility by removing limits on small business and on auto loans. The bill also increases the ability of savings associations to invest in small business investment companies and to make commercial real estate loans. Furthermore, this measure 6312 authorizes banks and thrifts to pay interest on business checking accounts for their customers.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Kanjorski, and I would like to thank Representative Moore for their work on this legislation. This bill is an important step toward removing some of the unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on our Nation's financial institutions.

I have no further speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'd also like to just take this opportunity to recognize Chairman Payne not just for this resolution but for all of his long years of work on engagement on the continent against human rights abuses, to end apartheid, to advance the cause of democracy, and I appreciate him introducing this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to also add my view that President Mugabe has destroyed the rule of law now in his country, in Zimbabwe, and 3 million people, as a result of the chaos, have fled. Life expectancy there is down to 34 years.

A bread basket has been turned into a basket case where there's little access for food and certainly no food available for those who are in areas where they're trying to support the Movement for Democratic Change.

It is becoming clear, I think, to many of us that President Mugabe will stop at nothing to prevent being voted out of office next week, and the run-off election comes after the March election in which the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, bested Robert Mugabe in that election, but because of the government's brutal machinations fell short of the 50 percent.

Since that time, what really concerns us as Members of the House is that Mugabe's agents, some of them trained by the North Koreans by the way, by North Korean troops, have been let loose in an effort to terrorize that country. There's an effort to force people to vote for President Mugabe, and we have read and seen the threats and the beatings, the abductions, the burnings of homes, the murders.

Opposition reports indicate that of the opposition of Mugabe, 60 members of the opposition have now been killed, including four who had their eyes and tongues cut out.

Food is being used to reward supporters and obviously punish opponents, and Mugabe's campaign for reelection, frankly, more closely now resembles a war against his own country. You see the attacks there on the human rights groups, the churches, the unions, the rural communities that supported the opposition, and those have been targets for repeated beatings and attacks.

Indeed, Mugabe has promised war, that's his word ``war,'' if his opponent triumphs in the election. So this is no environment right now for a fair and free election, but just as disturbing to me has been the reaction from the international community and the region.

The United Nations gave Robert Mugabe a stage to cynically mock his victims, participating in a food conference in Rome this month while at the same time he is withholding food at home. South African President Thabo Mbeki unfortunately has dedicated himself to shielding Mugabe from criticism. And shortly after the March election, Mbeki flew to Harare to meet with Robert Mugabe and declare ``there is no crisis.''

I think the Washington Post got it right on their editorial page where they clarify Mbeki's role in the crisis very succinctly. And the Post said he shares ``the responsibility for the atrocities being committed in full view of the world because, like Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Mbeki deserves to be condemned and shunned by the democratic world.''

This is the crisis that we face, the crisis in Zimbabwe, and it is a crisis largely of Mugabe's own making. So it is time to let the will of Zimbabweans be heard and end, frankly, what has become a reign of terror and of enormous human suffering. And again, I commend Chairman Payne for bringing this resolution forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, of which I am an original cosponsor. I worked on this draft.

And as we previously discussed during the debate of Mr. Payne's previous resolution, Zimbabwe is in very grim shape. We had a flawed election there in March, and Robert Mugabe launched a campaign of terror on his population as a consequence of that election going against him.

But Madam Speaker, this string of violence really could have turned into a blood bath were it not for the South African dock workers who stood up to say ``No.'' While post-election tensions there were very high, a Chinese ship pulled into the South African port of Durban to unload its cargo that was destined for Zimbabwe. On board were 3 million rounds of assault rifle ammunition, 3,000 mortar rounds, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades. Left to the South African Government, whose President, Mbeki, has worked to protect Mugabe, the shipment would have no doubt been delivered. But fortunately the citizens of South Africa are ahead of their government in realizing the odious nature of the Zimbabwe regime and the members of that dock workers union stood upon and said ``No.'' A newspaper published the details of the shipment. The dock workers refused to unload it, public interest groups obtained a court order preventing the weapons transit. And denied access in South Africa, the ``ship of shame'' as South Africans began to call it, as African civil society dubbed it, went on to Mozambique, where it was turned away, went on to other ports in other countries where it was turned away, and it steamed back to China.

Africans stood up for fellow Africans; an inspiring event, indeed. And frankly, it reminded me in the early 1970s of when we saw a labor leader at a Polish port who stood up, and his name was Lech Walesa. And he faced off against Soviet tyranny and he demanded democracy and freedom for Poland. There were echoes of Lech Walesa in the South African port workers as they said they were not going to play a role in Mugabe's brutality.

Madam Speaker, the ``ship of shame'' also highlights the destructive role of China on the African continent, which has played the role of enabler in other African violence there. During the incident, a Chinese spokesman described the shipment as ``normal trade in military products,'' which speaks volumes about Beijing's policy of supplying weapons to regimes like Zimbabwe and Sudan.

China provided machetes to the Rwandan Government to carry out its 1994 genocide. It does this for political influence and for economic gain. And China is currently Zimbabwe's largest investor and second largest trading partner, where it secures much-needed natural resources.

China will, for the foreseeable future, continue to turn a blind eye to the conflicts that it helps ignite, all the while sticking to its so-called ``principle'' of ``noninterference.'' Clearly, this includes genocide and potential mass violence.

But this resolution is about Africans. We should give credit, as this resolution does, to those countries that have taken a strong stand, refusing to become complicit, no matter how small a role, in the fomentation of violence. And that is what these dock workers and others in civil society in Africa stood up and did. And I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1199, Commending the Orange County Water District and its employees for their sound financial management and innovative groundwater management, water quality, water efficiency, and environmental programs, on its 75th annIversary.

As a cosponsor of this resolution and a representative from Orange County, I know of the valuable service the OCWD has provided to Orange County. The recent drought in California has reminded many of us how imperiled our water supply is. Water demand in California is set to increase by 16 percent between 2010 and 2030, but fortunately, the OCWD is doing much to meet the counties needs.

The new groundwater replenishment system is one of the world's most high-tech, as it produces 70 million gallons per day, enough for half a million people. Innovative thinking such as this has greatly helped our community, and will do much to meet growing demand.

On its 75th anniversary, I'd like to again congratulate the OCWD and its employees for its valuable contributions to Orange County.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1464, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2007.

As an original cosponsor of this bill and co-chair of the International Conservation Caucus, I would like to thank my fellow Caucus co-chair, Representative Udall, for his leadership on this issue.

Endangered species such as lions, cheetahs, leopards, jaguars, and Ethiopian Wolves are not just remarkable creatures, but they play an important role in eco-tourism throughout Africa, bringing in much needed revenue to very poor countries.

Unfortunately, many of these endangered animals are losing their race for survival, as habitats become compromised and poachers decimate populations. This bill will be an important tool for reversing these trends.

Importantly, this bill provides assistance for programs to preserve and protect these remarkable animals. Multinational species funds, such as this one, have enjoyed tremendous success and have played a vital role in the protection of wildlife. On average, private donors have matched 3-1 every U.S. government dollar contributed to conservation programs.

In other words, when the United States leads in conservation, others follow. As the mission of the international Conservation Caucus states, the U.S. has the opportunity to advance the protection of the worldwide environment. This bill is true to that mission.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

This measure before us addresses a number of objectives, I think all of them related to security assistance, and one of those is reform of the State Department's export control office. I think all of us know that it's been far too long that this office has been antiquated. It's been incapable of functioning well in a world of rapidly evolving technology, and what we need to do is a better job facilitating exports by focusing on those items that pose a true risk to our national security. This measure attempts to do that. It prevents those exports, while allowing U.S.-made exports to markets overseas.

I'd also like to thank Chairman Berman for including the key elements of H.R. 5443, which is the United States-Republic of Korea Defense Cooperation Improvement Act, in this underlying legislation. And this bill, which was authored by myself and Representative Tauscher, upgrades South Korea's military procurement status. It streamlines defense sales to South Korea. It puts Seoul basically on the same plane as members of NATO and Australia and New Zealand and Japan, and thus, it improves our defense cooperation. I think it's interesting that our top commander in Korea called it ``bizarre and strange'' to use his words that South Korea doesn't already enjoy this status.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-South Korean alliance I think is quite distinct. With a Mutual Defense Treaty that dates back to 1953, Korea and the U.S. form the most integrated alliance I think of interoperable forces. On the Korean Peninsula, interoperability by the way is not just a buzz word for the military forces there. It's a real life practice, and passage of this legislation would help cement that interoperability.

I'd also like to recognize the ranking member of the committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for the inclusion in this bill of important language regarding North Korea and its nuclear program. The language in the underlying bill smoothes the way for dismantlement activities in North Korea, but it makes it clear that Congress expects a complete declaration on North Korean activities. This includes not just its plutonium program but its uranium program as well and proliferation business as well as the uranium. The intelligence community assesses that this activity, by the way, continues to this day, and indeed, North Korea is helping to fuel an arms race in the Middle East.

So this bill includes important language on verification, which despite the rhetoric has not been taken seriously by the administration to date.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Global Environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this North Korean Human Rights Act.

I think it's very difficult to communicate the conditions of North Korea to those who have not seen those who have survived the torture, have not seen the malnourished children from North Korea. But 2 weeks ago was North Korean Human Rights--North Korean Freedom Week is what we call it now, and I had the opportunity to meet with Shin Dong Hyuk, who was a North Korean defector. And this particular young man was actually born in the prison camp. He was raised in that prison camp. He talked about the torture that was done to him when his parents were executed for trying to escape. And he told me how, after he escaped from the North Korean gulag, he couldn't believe the colors of life outside the prison walls because people in North Korea actually had clothes that were colorful. That's something he had never seen throughout his life living in that gulag.

And that's some statement about the North Korean prison system considering what life itself in North Korea means. It is a total denial of political, civil and religious liberties; no dissent or criticism of Kim Jong-il. The media, of course, is tightly controlled by the regime. There is severe physical abuse dolled out to citizens who violate any restriction. There are, of course, food shortages as the regime distributes food based on perceived loyalty. And in the ``no go'' areas, they don't get the food. The food goes to the ruling elite and the military.

The North Korean Human Rights Act will be an important tool to bring about change in North Korea because this bill places an emphasis, among other things, on broadcasting into North Korea, setting forth a plan to bring 12 hours per day of broadcasting. And the reason I think, Mr. Speaker, that those broadcasts are going to be helpful, those expanded broadcasts, is because of the role they play in bringing objective news and the truth to a closed society.

Fifty years ago, we had the experience with RFE/RL starting its broadcast into the Eastern Bloc, presenting objective news and the democratic ideal over the airwaves. And today we have a situation where Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa both say that those radio broadcasts were essential to Poland and the Czech Republic's freedom struggle.

North Korea is the world's most secluded society, but this is changing. We do a little bit of broadcasting there now. And now, 30 percent of those who escape tell us they're listening to the broadcast; that includes civil servants and military officers. But there are also the cell phones and the DVDs that are making their way over from China. And these broadcasts will be key in shattering the state-sponsored lies that people are listening to.

Lastly, let me mention that we are in the midst of Six-Party Talks here with North Korea trying to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program. A key part of any agreement is verification. There are different standards of verification, and I'm concerned that the administration will settle, frankly, for a low standard.

In deciding what's acceptable in a deal, it's useful to understand the nature of the other party. And I'd just like to close with this thought: A regime that massively abuses its own people, as North Korea does, puts no value on paper agreements. Andrei Sakharov made this point some years ago about the nature of a regime and the way it treats its own citizens, and how, therefore, in dealing with that kind of a regime you better get verification. And we'd better understand that.