Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as has been discussed today, the United Nations is in need of widespread reform. And one area where the United Nations has egregiously failed is its appalling human rights record and its appalling Commission on Human Rights. If this issue were not so serious, it would really be laughable.

The promotion and protection of human rights has been a core task of the United Nations since its founding in 1945. Yet over the years, the Commission on Human Rights has gone from, in fact, being a protector of human rights to an accomplice of dictators throughout the world.

Some of the worst violators of human rights work through their regional blocs to gain nomination and election to this commission in order to protect themselves and their allies from criticism.

This April our ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva said of the process, ``The inmates are very close to being in charge of the asylum.''

Mr. Chairman, the U.N.'s human rights mechanisms frankly are broken. Unless the United Nations recasts its human rights body, it may be unable to renew any level of public confidence. The Hyde bill takes several well-overdue steps to ensure that a future U.N. human rights body does not become the farce that today's is. Under the Hyde legislation, the United Nations would adopt the foundational principle that countries that fail to uphold the universal declaration of human rights would be ineligible for membership in that body as well as those who have been sanctioned by the Security Council.

This amendment would add another important reform in the area of human rights. The amendment simply states that country-specific resolutions shall not be eliminated within the human rights body. And this provision would be subject to the certification and withholding process of the underlying bill.

The amendment's purpose is to thwart attempts to eliminate country- specific resolutions within the Commission on Human Rights or any other future human rights bodies.

Believe it or not, in the recent past, several countries have informally advanced the idea of eliminating these resolutions which highlight the abuses of individual countries. The ``naming and shaming process,'' as it is called, is one of the most effective ways at the U.N. to pressure countries to curtail human rights abuses. Were it to be eliminated, we might as well shut down the human rights body all together, which is exactly what the violator countries would like to have us do.

This issue was brought earlier this year before the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations of which I serve as vice chair. Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Organizations Mark Lagon testified before the subcommittee that ``there has been a disturbing trend against which we have fought for developing countries to turn away from country-specific resolutions that single out and place under international scrutiny those countries with the worst of human rights records. Even more pernicious,'' he says, ``some countries argue for the elimination of all country-specific resolutions,'' and there is a growing consensus among states that practice these abuses, ``except those targeted at Israel under Item 8, the only agenda item devoted exclusively to one country.'' That is what they want to maintain while eliminating all other country-specific resolutions.

The sad reality is that there are countries out there that are working to eliminate what should be the core function of any U.N. human rights body, naming the human rights violators. Unlike this year where there was no resolution on Zimbabwe and no resolution on Sudan, there would not even be the possibility of bringing up a resolution focused on a specific country. Just when you thought it could not get worse. Again, it would be laughable if it were not so serious.

That is why this amendment is important. Some argue that the naming and shaming is too blunt an instrument. Instead, they prefer what they call ``quiet diplomacy.'' More often than not, silent diplomacy is the best friend of states who violate human rights.

When I meet with those who have been beaten and tortured for attempting to stand for election in Zimbabwe or victims of the Janjaweed in Darfur, Sudan, many tell me how much words of support and condemnation from the world mean to them and those in their country who are fighting for freedom.

This important leverage of naming and shaming must be kept if there is hope of reviving the United Nations' standing on human rights. I urge the passage of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think every Member in this House agrees that the United Nations needs reform, and I believe that frankly reform at the U.N. is imperative.

The substitute bill that our esteemed ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), has offered in our markup in many, many ways mirrors the bill we are considering today. It endorses many of the same reforms that the Hyde bill also endorses. But there is a fundamental difference between the two bills, and that goes to the issue of what mechanism do we employ to try to bring about the type of reforms both bills endorse.

Now, the substitute that was offered in committee and will be offered on the floor authorizes the Secretary of State to push for reforms. The Hyde bill is tougher. It requires that reforms be made or U.S. dues are partially withheld. The majority of members on the Committee on International Relations consider that the leverage of dues is the necessary mechanism, and I believe the only mechanism, with a chance of actually bringing about these needed reforms.

Some have suggested that the bill here has too strong a pill in it. This is tough treatment. But I would ask Members to remember that reforming the United Nations is a tough game. Without strong leverage, I am afraid that the Secretary of State's voice would be lost in the din of voices at the U.N. that have resisted reform for years and years.

The Oil-for-Food scandal is the exclamation point when we speak about the need for U.N. reform. I think it is safe to say that we would not be here today promoting broad reform across the U.N. were it not for the magnitude of the malfeasance and graft in the Oil-for-Food program.

It was this scandal that propelled many to take a hard look at the United Nations. The portion of this bill that addresses the U.N.'s systemic weaknesses in its current oversight efforts is particularly welcome. The bipartisan Gingrich-Mitchell report released this week found that ``despite the effort of a few member states, the United Nations remains lacking in oversight and accountability.''

The underlying bill mandates the creation of a well-funded independent oversight board with the authority to initiate investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing. It establishes procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who report allegations of misconduct; and it establishes policies to end single- bid contracts.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on International Relations has been investigating the United Nations Oil-for-Food program since March of 2004. In this Congress, the committee has established the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), on which I serve, which has looked deep into this scandal.

The U.N. Oil-for-Food program was established in December of 1996 to provide relief to Iraqi people who were facing hardships as a result of U.N. sanctions which were imposed on Baghdad after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Under the program, Iraq was permitted to sell oil to purchase food and medicine and humanitarian supplies. We entrusted the U.N. to contain a dictator who had used WMD on his own people and invaded a neighboring country.

By accepting oil for food, we put great trust in the U.N. and it failed. Lax oversight and corruption enabled Saddam's regime to raise billions in illicit revenue by requiring its trading partners to pay kickbacks in exchange for doing business in Iraq.

The seriousness of the Oil-for-Food's corruption cannot be underweighed. This program centered on issues of war and peace. Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated this program which helped the Iraqi dictator stay in power. Our country went to war in Iraq which has come at great cost in American lives and treasure. Those who did not

support this policy put even greater faith in Oil-for-Food.

With Oil-for-Food, we are not talking about run-of-the-mill waste and fraud that is standard at the U.N. We are talking about corruption of a program that seriously impacted our vital national interests, interests vital enough to send our servicemen and -women to Iraq.

The issues surrounding the Oil-for-Food program brings into question the ability of the United Nations to conduct a containment-oriented sanctions regime.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me explain some of the difficulty we face here in the way in which this sanctions regime broke down. Because of the need to maintain consensus within the Security Council and the broader membership in the United Nations, somehow the United Nations inevitably seems to become neutral or perhaps even sympathetic to the very regime being sanctioned, in this case it was Saddam Hussein's regime, and that neutrality inevitably led to loopholes in the program that Saddam Hussein was able to effectively exploit.

When the Committee on International Relations began to look into the Oil-for-Food scandal, I stated that support for similar U.N. administrative programs will be zero unless the United Nations is forthcoming with information needed to investigate this scandal, and that the withholding of this information was a scandal in itself.

We all agree that the credibility of the United Nations is on the line. As reports continue to come to light, and they come to light even this week, they seem to offer more questions than answers. Wherever this investigation leads, the seriousness of this issue cannot be discounted.

Some have argued that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is making reforms, so why push him? The fact is that the Secretary General needs help. For one, he is a lame duck due to his necessity of leaving office in 2006. He may not realize it, he may not even appreciate it, frankly, but this bill will give Secretary General Annan the leverage he needs to make reform in his limited time left, should he choose to use it. Nothing focuses a bureaucracy like a threatened budget cut. Sometimes strong medicine is what is needed. This is needed.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, most Americans probably do not realize it, but most other governments, friends and foes alike, put great stock in the United Nations, for better or for worse, and for this reason the U.N. impacts the United States very significantly. That is why in this era of great challenges, of great threats to our security, we must do all we can to shake the U.N. from the deep failings described by the Gingrich-Mitchell report and referenced in this legislation. That is why I am supporting this bill and asking my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our distinguished chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). The global nuclear nonproliferation regime that has served the world well for many years has developed shortcomings, and the Markey amendment addresses one such shortcoming that I think we must address.

This is an issue that is especially important to me as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation. We held a hearing in April on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and one of the key issues that we looked at was how NPT states should address the noncompliance or attempted withdrawal of a state from the treaty. This amendment takes a step forward in solving this challenge by calling upon the President to work with other International Atomic Energy Agency member states to mandate that any State which is found to be in noncompliance with its NPT obligations, or attempts to withdraw from the NPT, will be compelled to return all the nuclear materials and technology it received as a consequence of being an NPT member. I believe such a provision would be helpful in convincing states to adhere to their NPT obligations.

States such as North Korea and Iran have likely already used their status, past status in the case of North Korea, as NPT states to develop nuclear weapons programs, and I believe it is vital that the United States play a leading role in multilateral efforts to close the loophole in the NPT that allows states to receive nuclear energy assistance, but not pay any penalty if they subsequently withdraw from the treaty, as has North Korea. Compelling the surrender of materials and equipment gained under the NPT would be a positive step forward, so I am pleased to support the Markey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

The 9/11 Commission was constituted in order to tell the American public what we could do to avoid or stave off another attack like the one that occurred on 9/11. I rise in support of this rule taking up the conference report because I think the components that we have included, recommended by the 9/11 Commission, are vital for the purpose of national security for the United States.

Let us look at the consequences of the 19 hijackers who, by violating procedures with respect to identification, were able to shop from State to State, from California to Virginia to Florida, and obtain between them over 60 different types of IDs. I will remind the body that in terms of the aliases used

just by those 19 individuals, they used 364 aliases between them. So as a consequence, it was virtually impossible for authorities to follow or detect as they changed their identities, as they used these documents in order to rent cars, as they used these documents in order to take flight training lessons, to learn how to fly here in the United States, as they used these fraudulent documents even to board airplanes and crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon. We have to ask ourselves is there something we, as an institution, could do to make certain that this did not occur again?

The 9/11 Commission has laid out a strategy for a secure identification system, and basically what we are talking about is simply minimum standards so that all States know the rudimentary requirements to make certain that people are who they say they are. Because the 9/11 hijackers abused the process and went from State to State, we know for a fact that we need minimum standards.

We know that it only makes sense that when Mohamed Atta was given a visa that was valid for only 6 months but could use it to obtain a driver's license that was valid for 6 years, that, in fact, we were not tailoring our laws to fit our national security concerns.

There are other provisions as well, the reform of amnesty, the completion of the border fence, the expedited approval. But as we look at the border security issue with respect to completion of the border fence, I talked to a border agent who had stopped an individual originally from Kyrgyzstan who had trained in Afghanistan, who had trained there in Jihad, at the fence. What this particular border guard told me was that there is a 3-mile gap in that triple barrier fence, and it was within that area of that gap that this individual tried to come into the U.S. and was apprehended and returned.

I think we need to give our border security personnel the assets that they have requested. We need to help them do their job, and the completion of this triple barrier fence will achieve that objective because it is in the interest of national security.

I think it is proper we bring it up and include it in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report includes the REAL ID Act, which I co-sponsored. And of course the goal of this bill is straightforward. It seeks to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil by disrupting terrorist travel. These provisions were called for by the 9/11 Commission. And this legislation uses existing States driver's license systems to ensure we know who is in our country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on a driver's license is the holder's real name, not an alias.

All but one of the 9/11 hijackers used U.S. driver's licenses to board the planes that day because these documents allowed them to circumvent their expired visas. It allowed them to not raise suspicion or concern.

Mohammed Atta received a 6-month visa to stay in the U.S. He received a Florida driver's license good for 6 years. The REAL ID Act will end this by establishing a rule for all States, that temporary driver's licenses for foreign visitors expire when their visa terms expire and establishes tough rules for confirming identity before driver's licenses are issued.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution honoring the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to American society over the past 3 decades. After the events of April 1975, many brave Vietnamese migrated to the United States. Through perseverance and hard work, they rebuilt their lives to form a vibrant community across this country.

I take great pride in representing a part of Orange County's thriving Vietnamese-American community, and I have witnessed the community's growth over the years. There are now more than 3,500 Vietnamese- American-owned businesses straddling the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Westminster. Little Saigon is no longer ``little.'' It is the cultural and commercial capital for close to 300,000 Vietnamese Americans, the largest concentration outside Vietnam.

I have seen the community grow not only economically but politically as well. Van Tran, who used to work for me in the State senate, has now been elected to the State assembly, the highest Vietnamese American elected to public office. Rightly, these Vietnamese Americans are focused on promoting democratic ideals in Vietnam. The U.S. must be a strong advocate of human rights, particularly when basic freedoms are being wantonly disregarded as they are in Vietnam. We must continue to shine a light on repression in that country.

I am sorry to say that in the 30 years, not much has changed in Vietnam. Not much has changed since the Communists launched their disastrous Socialist Republic of Vietnam because political, religious and economic freedoms have been systematically squashed. This is a government that continues to deny citizens of Vietnam the right to change their government. When I visited Vietnam, I saw firsthand the Communist Party's harassment of those Vietnamese citizens who decided to peacefully set forth dissenting political and religious views. When I met with the venerable Thich Quang Do and Le Quang Liem, I was immediately denounced by that Communist government.

But I must share with you that there is a strategy that is working to bring information to Vietnam. Radio Free Asia is an effective tool listened to across the country. I have carried legislation to expand those broadcasts.

But I would share with you in my conversations with Vietnamese that in the same way that Lech Walesa in Poland listened to those radio broadcasts and in the same way the members of solidarity had a chance to have their story told across Poland, in the same way that Vaclav Havel used to tune into Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty broadcasts, today people across Southeast Asia, in Burma and in Vietnam have that same opportunity to listen to the news not only about what is happening in the world but what is happening inside their own country, and that is shaping the values and the attitudes and the knowledge of a new generation of young Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese-American community has not lost sight of the struggle in their original homeland for freedom, for religious freedom, for freedom of speech, even for the right of young people to sit down in an Internet cafe and have a dialogue without censorship. They are a part of this effort to make certain that those ideals stay alive so that in the same way that eastern Europe came to evolve into a democratic, market-oriented, tolerant society, that there will be that opportunity in the future for Vietnam.

In the meantime, this resolution commends the success of the Vietnamese-American community. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the other cosponsors of this resolution and urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 127. This resolution calls on the Government of Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor, the former president of Nigeria, to the Special Court for Sierra Leone so that he can be tried for war crimes. And I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for their support of this resolution and also for their support over the years for the establishment of a Special Court.

Madam Speaker, Charles Taylor has been indicted on 17 counts, 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Special Court for the role that he played during Sierra Leone's brutal war. This hybrid court, which has been supported by this body, has been given jurisdiction over, in the terms of that agreement, ``those who bear the greatest responsibility'' for

the atrocities and human rights violations in this now-past war. Charles Taylor is at the top of that list.

During the late 1990s, then-President Taylor of Liberia supported the Revolutionary United Front, or RUF as it is commonly known, which was designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization. He supported it in neighboring Sierra Leone in West Africa, and the RUF was notorious for hacking the limbs off their political opponents, even young children. When I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, we hosted some of these victims on Capitol Hill. We held numerous hearings dating back to 1998, examining the chaos in West Africa caused, orchestrated by Charles Taylor.

Employed by the RUF were child soldiers. Investigative reporter Doug Farah described what life was like for child soldiers in his book ``Blood from Stones.'' And in his book he said: ``One thing the children do remember vividly is the preparation for what they called `mayhem days,' sprees of killing and raping that lasted until the participants collapsed from exhaustion. They said they were given colored pills, most likely amphetamines, and razor blade slits near their temples, where cocaine was put directly into their bloodstreams. The ensuing days would be a blur. The children often remembered only the feeling of being invincible before the drugs wore off.''

This was Charles Taylor's view of West Africa. Yet today Charles Taylor safely resides in exile in Nigeria.

In August 2003, some believe that removing Taylor from Liberia and giving him exile would prevent Liberia and West Africa from destabilization. Instead of facing justice at the Special Court in Freetown, Sierra Leone, Taylor was given a seaside villa in Calabar, Nigeria. In exchange, Taylor would refrain from engaging in political activity.

Nearly 2 years after the exile deal, Taylor is still very much involved in Liberian politics as that Nation prepares for elections in the fall. According to the United Nations reports, his ``former military commanders and business associates, as well as members of his political party, maintain regular contact with him and are planning to undermine the peace process in Liberia.'' Now, this peace process, incidentally, has been supported by the United States and Congress with hundreds of millions of dollars.

As the resolution points out, David Crane, Chief Prosecutor at the Court, has stated, ``Unless and until Charles Taylor is brought to justice, there will be no peace in Liberia.'' The U.N. Secretary General's Special Representative to Liberia is Jacques Klein. Jacques Klein has said, ``Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer. He is still very much involved in and is intrusive in Liberian politics.''

Madam Speaker, Charles Taylor remains a serious and continuing threat to West African peace and security, which is counter to U.S. interests as well.

I am hopeful that Nigerian President Obasanjo does the right thing and hands Taylor over to the Special Court. Among others, the Nigerian Union of Journalists and the Nigerian Bar Association have criticized the exile deal. President Obasanjo is in Washington this week. By passing this resolution, there will be no question where the U.S. House of Representatives stands.

Madam Speaker, I urge the government of Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone so that he can be tried for war crimes and that justice can be served. It is time for Charles Taylor to face up to his crimes. This resolution deserves the strong support of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to an important provision of S. 256, that is a clarification of Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 1234 restates and strengthens Congress' long- standing intent that an involuntary bankruptcy action should not be predicated on disputed claims. Otherwise, opportunistic litigants seeking to gain advantage in contract disputes may improperly employ the leverage of the bankruptcy court.

Because bankruptcy courts should not be used to resolve disputed claims in involuntary cases, the clarification in Section 1234 reemphasizes that a person who disputes the

amount of, or liability for, a claim should not be disadvantaged by the stigma and expense of an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding. Put simply, the bankruptcy courts in this nation should now uniformly hold that any claim that is subject to a dispute or litigation, or if it is contested, whether as to the amount of the claim, or as to liability for the claim, that claim cannot be used to commence an involuntary bankruptcy case. This is the bright line that Congress intended to create in 1984 because involuntary bankruptcy carries with it, not only a responsibility, but the burden on behalf of petitioning creditors to be accurate and certain that their provable claims are qualified by being without dispute as to either liability or amount before commencing an involuntary bankruptcy case. The consequence of bad faith or even sloppy work here is more disastrous than in garden-variety litigation or through the voluntary use of the bankruptcy laws.

It is incomprehensible that an involuntary bankruptcy petition could be based on claims that are inaccurate as to either liability or amount; the injustice that would result from such a filing is so manifest. Despite this manifest injustice of national significance, judges continue to condone the filing of involuntary petitions brought by creditors using disputed claims. For this reason, section 1234 was made a necessary part of this legislation.

There has never been a vote recorded in opposition to this provision because it clearly expresses the unanimous will of Congress; it is the furthest thing from the mind of any Congressman that an involuntary case could be brought on the basis of claims that are disputed. To the contrary, as expressed by this legislation, it has been the will of Congress since 1984 that any claim used to commence an involuntary case must be without dispute.

The bankruptcy courts should not be enjoyed by involuntary petitioning creditors who cannot then prove up claims as to liability or amount. That party should stand in the most accountable legal position. This clarification is necessary because the intent of Congress has been blurred by judicial decisions that go so far as to split disputed claims into ``disputed'' and ``undisputed'' parts, or to describe disputes as ``potential disputes.'' These decisions are wrong and the damage they have caused to the victims of involuntary bankruptcy cases brought using such claims is incalculable. The remedy for such victims rests on an expansive reading of Section 303(i).

Finally, it is the intent of Congress, as expressed through the unique retroactive application of Section 1234, to require the dismissal of any involuntary petition brought by using disputed claims, including any bankruptcy cases that are pending as a result of the misapplication of Section 303.

Mr. Speaker, today, Congress has the opportunity to finish the task of preventing corporate malfeasance by agreeing to pass S. 256.

Included in this bill is a sensible provision that sharply limits to $125,000 the homestead exemption that many CEOs and corporate officers have used to shield their assets from creditors after they plunder their shareholders' wealth.

By empowering the government to go after the ill-gotten gains that crooked corporate officers tie up in offshore mansions, shareholders and pensioners who have been swindled can have their hard-earned savings returned to them.

In addition, this bill prohibits people convicted of felonies like securities fraud from claiming an unlimited exemption when filing for bankruptcy, protecting taxpayers from having to bear the cost of corporate malfeasance.

It also guards against fraud and abuse by requiring that high-income debtors who have the ability repay a significant portion of their debts do so, preventing them from sticking responsible borrowers with their tab. It accomplishes all of this while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debts to do so.

For far too long, Americans who work hard and pay their bills have been held accountable for the debts incurred by those who irresponsibly file for bankruptcy.

This long-overdue legislation will reform the critically-flawed bankruptcy process, and prevent affluent filers from gaming the system and passing on their bad debt to hard-working families while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debt through bankruptcy to do so.

Bankruptcy should be preserved as a last resort for those who truly need the protections that the bankruptcy system has to offer--not a tool for those who could pay their debts but choose to discharge them instead.

By agreeing to this legislation, Congress will make the existing bankruptcy system a needs-based one and correct the flaw in the current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk away from debts, regardless of whether they are able to repay any portion of what they owe; and it does this while protecting those who truly need protection.

I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this report and help honest taxpayers by closing the loopholes in the current bankruptcy system.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1025) to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material in the Record on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1025. This is the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act, which I have introduced with my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). This carefully written legislation addresses a specific problem for consumers and businesses involved in the mortgage servicing industry by simply clarifying the existing law governing mortgage servicing. This noncontroversial bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. It has been approved for consideration under the suspension of the rules by both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill to fix a problem in the mortgage servicing industry which has hampered the abilities of this industry to serve its clients effectively and to conduct its business efficiently for far too long.

Currently, when a mortgage servicing company acquires the rights to service a portfolio of home loans, it is exempt from the unnecessary strictures of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under the creditor exemption that was also extended to the originator of the mortgage. The new mortgage servicer is extended this exemption because its relationship to the borrower is more like a relationship between a borrower and a lender than like the relationship between a borrower and a true debt collection agency.

The law already recognizes this reality. However, in the typical loan servicing portfolio transfer, a small percentage of the loans acquired by a new servicer will inevitably be delinquent or technically in default at the time of transfer. The law currently treats these loans as being subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and subsequently the new servicers of these loans are required to provide certain form notices, known as Miranda warnings, to the borrower.

The law also currently requires that in every subsequent contact, both written and oral, whether initiated by the servicer or the borrower, the servicer is required to provide a shorter mini-Miranda notice disclosing that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt and that any information provided by the borrower will be used toward that end. The purpose of these cookie-cutter warnings is to prevent unscrupulous debt collectors from using false or misleading tactics, such as a phony winning sweepstakes claim or other such tactics, to trick consumers into divulging private financial information or personal details like their home address or their phone number.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has worked extremely well in preventing bad actors in the debt collections business from using lies and deceit to harm consumers, and this legislation would in no way prevent it from continuing to protect American consumers.

However, as I have already mentioned, mortgage servicers are not like debt collectors. Their role to consumers is much more like that of a mortgage originator; and in the context of the mortgage servicing transfer, these Miranda notices are both detrimental to consumers and unnecessary and inefficient for mortgage servicers' operations.

First, the notice misleads the borrower about the nature of the relationship between him or herself and the new servicer. Unlike true debt collectors, mortgage servicers have a long-term relationship with their client, and these harshly worded notices often have the effect of discouraging a borrower who was slightly late on a mortgage payment from contacting their new servicer for fear that the servicer is a true third-party debt collector. This ends up frustrating the servicer's efforts to work with delinquent borrowers on developing strategies to bring their loans current and keep their credit ratings intact.

A mortgage servicer's biggest hurdle in helping delinquent borrowers to help themselves is getting them on the phone, and these threatening Miranda notices only contribute to that unnecessary fear without doing anything to help the borrower. Additionally, the information protected by the Miranda notices is information already in the servicer's possession. So nothing new is truly protected by requiring these additional legalistic and threatening notices be provided. Additionally, these warnings simply make consumers feel unnecessarily defensive and antagonistic toward their new servicer during the first step of their new association, which can have a chilling effect on the rest of their relationship.

Mortgage servicers typically send these Miranda notices along with a new customer's welcome letter as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and this letter also includes important consumer information about the new servicer and the borrower's monthly payment arrangements. This preliminary contact is the first opportunity that a servicer has to create a positive relationship with a new client, and the harsh language used in the Miranda warning can create animosity toward the servicer where none need exist.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, because the mini-Miranda is required in all subsequent contacts, they can continue for decades, even after customers bring their loans current and keep them that way for years. This bill will resolve that problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his comments and in conclusion just say the way in which H.R. 1025 resolves the problem that we have discussed is that it creates a narrow exemption for Miranda notices for the services of federally related first lien mortgages whose primary function is servicing current loans, not collecting third-party debts. It exempts these servicers only from the Miranda notices, leaving in place all other substantive borrower protections required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

This legislation is consistent with the long-standing recommendations from the Federal Trade Commission to improve the mortgage servicing process, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation to improve the mortgage servicing process for both the consumer and companies who serve them.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I have to ask, Who should be in charge of counterterrorism policy? Should it be the California Coastal Commission or should it be the Department of Homeland Security? That is the crux of this argument.

Now, environmental groups have successfully fought the completion of this fence over the years, claiming that it would have a serious impact on everything from the San Diego fairy shrimp to the San Diego button celery, all that in this 3.5 mile strip of desert along the border.

Does anyone think we can secure the border and save the button celery by putting up a fence to stop people from trampling on it? Yes, we can. Can we protect ourselves from al Qaeda operatives who have joined forces with alien smuggling rings like MS 13 in order to enter the United States through our porous southern border by stopping them from squishing the fairy shrimp as they slip through the gap in the fence? Yes, we can. It is a win-win.

In the interest of national security, we need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule to provide for consideration of this counterterrorism bill of which I am an original cosponsor.

This is the REAL ID Act. It closes, among other things, the 3-mile hole in the fortified U.S.-Mexico border fence near San Diego. Border security must be a pillar of our national security policy. Recent press accounts have reported that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with alien smuggling rings like MS-13 in order to enter the United States, particularly through our porous southern border.

This bill establishes strong security standards for the issuance of driver's licenses that all States must comply with to eliminate weak links in identity security.

The nineteen 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued driver's licenses and other forms of identification between them, and they were using these IDs to move around the country undetected, plotting and planning. In fact, eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used the bogus licenses that they had to board U.S. planes.

H.R. 418 cracks down on asylum fraud by ensuring all terrorism- related grounds of inadmissibility are grounds for deportation. The Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City landmarks, used an asylum application to avoid his deportation. It is a fact that terrorists have continued to use and abuse asylum laws to stay in our country.

As the 9/11 Commission found, abusing our asylum law is ``the primary method,'' in their words, used by terrorist aliens, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombers Ramzi Yousef and Ahmad Ajaj, to remain in the United States. Both, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, ``concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States.'' So if we want to make it harder for terrorists like Yousef and Ajaj to abuse our asylum system, support this counterterrorism bill.

The ninth circuit created an extremely disturbing precedent that has made it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum. The circuit has held that if a foreign government harasses an alien because he has been affiliated with a terrorist group, the alien is eligible for asylum because he could be persecuted on account of the political opinion of that terrorist group. Since members of terrorist organizations are eligible to receive asylum, under this doctrine an alien could receive asylum expressly because he was an admitted member of a terrorist organization.

The bill returns the law to its original understanding and overturns this ninth circuit precedent by requiring that asylum applicants establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be a central reason for their claimed persecution.

These are commonsense changes to national security and to border security.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution celebrating the free elections held in Iraq this past weekend. I think it is important that the world watched as millions of Iraqis defied the edict of Zarkawi and other terrorist leaders, defied their edict not to participate and went forward to cast what for most was the first meaningful vote in their lives.

Thousands of Iraqis served as poll workers. There were thousands of observers, as this resolution notes. The

turnout exceeded all expectations. Iraqis of all backgrounds celebrated this milestone in the history of their country, but I believe it was a milestone for the Middle East and a milestone for the world. Tyrants and dictators would have people believe that democracy is a charade. Tell that to the Iraqis celebrating in the streets throughout Iraq. They rejected Saddam Hussein in a way that they had not had an opportunity to before, and they actually rejected him with an exclamation point in this election. What we saw was yet more evidence that the yearning to shape the political life of one's community and one's nation is universal. Freedom truly is a human aspiration.

Voting, as we have heard, is a step. The ballots have not yet been counted. A constitution needs to be drafted. Democracy, if it is going to work, must respect the interests of minorities. Otherwise, it is the tyranny of the majority.

In general, everyone wants their own rights respected. The challenge is to get people to respect the next person's rights. Kurdish rights must be protected, Sunni rights must be respected, and the rights of the Iraqi down the street must be respected. As President Bush has told the American people, this will be a long struggle. Iraq is very difficult terrain.

The stars of last weekend clearly were the Iraqi people. They put their lives on the line for a better future. Some were killed. But, make no mistake about it, there was a key supporting cast. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the many members of our Armed Forces, our diplomats and other Americans in Iraq who are also risking their lives and in some cases sacrificing their lives to help Iraqis and also Americans.

We have a strong national interest in seeing Iraq become a success. If this happens, when the history of this era in Iraq is written, these men and women will be widely revered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of this resolution. I think we all watched in shock at the devastation caused by the December 26 earthquake and the subsequent tsunami. I led a delegation to Gujarat in 2001 to assess the damage after the earthquake that shook India, and that devastation, that tragedy, was indescribable. And after that quake, the world community pulled together, as did the people of India, including Indian Americans, to address the humanitarian disaster. But the quake there in magnitude was less than this quake. This quake was 9.0. And the effect has been such that the death toll today is over 150,000.

As we have heard on the floor, millions have been left homeless. Indeed the images of death and destruction that we have seen on television are sobering. It is difficult to comprehend the extent of the damage because the devastation stretches across 5,000 miles and 12 countries. It stretches across geographical and cultural and religious lines.

As is often the case in extreme disaster, we also see the best in the human spirit. There has been an outpouring of support across our country from both individuals and from businesses. Members from the Los Angeles County Fire Department's disaster response team have been dispatched to Sri Lanka. Niagara Water Company of Irvine, California, has donated 55,000 gallons of water.

The actions taken by the United States Government speak louder than any statement can. Not surprisingly, first on the scene was the United States military. An aircraft carrier task force was immediately diverted from Hong Kong to the Gulf of Thailand, and a Marine Expeditionary Force from Guam was dispatched to the Bay of Bengal. No other organization in the world can tackle the logistical challenge of getting these types of assets on location to assist the people in need. As a matter of fact, the local governor in Aceh said that the U.S. Navy helicopters appeared to him like ``angels,'' in his words, as they arrived to deliver supplies to those people in need.

Through this challenge we see opportunities for the United States to make a lasting impression in South and in Southeast Asia. Cooperation between the U.S. and India is expanding like never before. The U.S. regional command center for this unprecedented relief operation has been established in Thailand. And the U.S. and Indonesian military forces are working together for the first time in many years.

The United States stands by the people of South and Southeast Asia during this catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report because I strongly believe that all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be in it. The commission itself has said that all of its recommendations should be adopted in their entirety to ensure success in deterring terrorism. The law that we passed establishing the 9/11 Commission directed them to investigate all of the failures that led to 9/11, which included significant lapses and loopholes in our immigration and border control system. The commission made recommendations to fix our immigration and border system. We put them in the House bill. It was passed out of this House with 68 percent of this body voting in favor. They have now been stripped out in the conference report.

Why are we not adopting all of the commission's recommendations to strengthen America's ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats? How quickly we forget that the 9/11 Commission found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were, in their words, potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. So why does this bill not address the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for a secure identification system? The 19 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued U.S. driver's licenses between them. What were they using that many for? They were moving around the country undetected and plotting and planning. In fact, as many as eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used those bogus licenses to board U.S. planes.

Why are we not addressing the commission's recommendations to crack down on asylum fraud? The 9/11 Commission cited the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He used an asylum application to avoid deportation. How about Ramzi Yousef who masterminded the first World Trade Center attack while free after applying for asylum? It is a fact that terrorists have and continue to abuse our asylum laws to stay in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of these immigration and border security provisions that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission was a grave mistake. They are central to any legislation designed to prevent future terrorist attacks. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote this bill down so we can include all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations in it and not just the politically convenient ones.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we set up a 9/11 Commission if we were not going to take their provisions in their entirety.

When the 9/11 Commission tells us that border security is national security; when the commission finds that our border system has two systemic weaknesses, a lack of a well-developed counterterrorism measure as a part of border security and, to quote them, ``an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments when they look at the case of Mohammed Atta and others and then find and tell us that targeting their travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money, and then lays out a plan for our U.S. border security to be reformed, and we pick up those reforms, put them in the House bill that we pass over to the Senate and now find that those very reforms are stripped out, I do not know how we back away from that argument. Border security is national security; how we acquiesce to those that say no, you cannot touch border security.

You know, I do not know with certainty that moving around the organizational boxes of the intelligence community will make things better. It may. But one thing we can be sure of is that the driver's license provisions that have been stripped at the insistence of the other body would have made a difference. Driver's licenses were the 9/ 11 terrorists' license to kill and to kill massively. We know that.

They had 63 of these driver's licenses between them, for the 19 of them. And these identification documents gave these hijackers unfettered access to nearly everything they needed to plan and carry out their attacks on Washington, D.C. and on New York City. And the identification cards also allowed them to remain in the country with the appearance of legitimacy long after their visas had expired and their presence in the United States became illegal.

Sixty-eight percent of this body voted for these reforms and 87 percent of the American people support them. They should be in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Paul Leland Bateman, a constituent of mine from Cypress, California. Mr. Bateman passed away recently at the age of 94 from natural causes.

He was born in Redlands, California. He attended Gardena High School and participated in football and track. He went to Compton College where he also participated in football and track eventually winning a track scholarship to the University of Southern California (USC). At USC, he played on the 1931 and 1932 National Champion Trojan football teams under Howard Jones. As a member of the ``Thundering Herd,'' he helped to break Notre Dame's 26 game winning streak and chalk up the Trojan's first victory in South Bend.

He met his future wife, Ruth Loupe when he was the driver for her school bus at Compton High School. They married in 1932 and moved to Lynwood. Mr. Bateman taught at Lynwood Jr. High School beginning in 1939 and then transferred to Compton College where he taught physics and coached football, baseball, basketball and track for 33 years until his retirement.

During World War II he taught pre-flight ground school at Independence, California for the Army Air Corp. He also earned his wings, although he was never officially in the military.

He also worked as an engineering consultant in the development of specialized electrical motors for aircraft and aerospace applications. He owned and farmed dates at a large ranch near Hemet, California. Mr. Bateman was a life-long train hobbyist and traveled extensively on U.S. Railroads to see America.

Mr. Bateman participated in Compton Jr. Chamber of Commerce, served on a water board and was president of the Tanglewood Homeowners Association in Cypress, California.

He is survived by three daughters, Marcia Gilchrist, Patricia Pearce, and Linda Baham, as well as six grandchildren and four great- grandchildren. He is remembered for his achievements in athletics and engineering as well as his lifelong dedication to education.