[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 107 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4627-S4629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EAST ASIA RELATIONS
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, we spend probably the majority of the time
when we discuss foreign policy on this floor talking about the crises
in places such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. If we talk about East Asia
at all, we generally are discussing the economic situation as it
portends to the future, especially with China.
But I would like to make a strong point here today; that is, if we
don't get it right with our relations in East Asia, we are in very
serious trouble as a nation. It is vitally important for the United
States to continue to invigorate our relations with all the countries
with East and Southeast Asia on economic, security, and cultural
levels.
Today, I would like to talk about a few of these issues that are
affecting our relations in that part of the world. This weekend, there
will be a regional forum for the Asian countries in Bali. Our Secretary
of State will be there.
This forum is coming at a pivotal moment with respect to our
relations in Southeast Asia and the rest of East Asia. The recent
military provocations by China against the Philippines and Vietnam in
the South China Sea, which this body passed a resolution deploring,
affect the mood of the entire region at this moment. There also have
been political transitions in Thailand and in Burma and there are
consistent ecological threats in the Mekong River, with hydropower dams
up river beginning in China and now also being proposed in Laos.
All of these issues underscore the need for vigorous multilateral
engagement in this part of the world and the development of new
strategic relationships and the continuity of balance the United States
has been bringing to this vital region since the end of World War II.
We are going to be reauthorizing a piece of legislation called the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act in this session of Congress. I have
an amendment to this act. I think it is an extremely important
amendment in terms of our relationship with friends and allies,
particularly in East Asia, and with representatives of highly developed
governmental systems that have a lot of problems with the way we have
implemented this act in the past.
I, similar to everyone in the Senate, fully support the intentions of
this legislation and the intentions of the State Department to prevent
human trafficking and to assist trafficking victims. But under our
present policy, we have a great deal of confusion and, quite frankly,
resentment from many of these more developed governmental systems. This
present policy requires that a country be ranked against the progress
it has made in the past year. In other words, a country is ranked
against itself over a period of yearly behavior. This practice doesn't
provide countries with a consistent standard by which they might truly
measure their efforts against human trafficking versus other countries
around the world, and it creates a lot of misunderstandings.
The criteria used to judge a country's efforts are difficult to
estimate with any precision. They are often very subjective. For
example by placing prosecutions for trafficking as a part of this
evaluation over actual successes in areas such as the protection of
victims and the prevention of acts in the first place, we get a total
misreading of the success that many of these governmental systems
actually have been able to bring about.
This is an excerpt from a press release that came out of Singapore's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs on June 28 of this year, talking about
their ranking under this Trafficking in Persons Report, the TIP Report.
They say: We note that the United States has again unabashedly
awarded itself a tier 1 ranking. Yet the New York Times observed--this
is from their press statement--that teenage girls coerced into
prostitution in the United States are treated not as trafficking
victims but as miscreants who are arrested and prosecuted. This is
directly opposite to Singapore's approach. The United States also
suffers from serious problems with illegal immigrants, many of whom are
trafficked by well-organized criminal gangs which seem to operate with
impunity.
Singapore, our friend, our ally, and an advanced governmental system
by any determination, then says:
On any objective criteria, the United States has a more
serious TIP problem compared with Singapore.
Why are they angry? Why do they feel they have not been fairly
evaluated? Because they are evaluated against themselves by standards
that may not apply. They are not alone, by the way. Singapore is not
alone.
The last year's reporting showed Nigeria got a tier 1 rating. Japan,
another highly advanced governmental system and culture, got a tier 2
rating. Singapore got a tier 2 watch list rating, which means that they
could be in danger of losing a lot of the governmental interactions
between our two countries if this continued. How would they rate a tier
2 if we had a standard where we were evaluating all country systems
against one another, rather than this approach we are now using?
Here is a good objective way to see if we cannot answer that
question. These are the worldwide ratings from an organization called
Transparency International. This is called the Corruption Perception
Index, from the same year. From the country rankings for corruption
perception, internationally, Singapore is tied for first as the most
transparent governmental system. The United States is down here at No.
22--again, below Japan. I mention Japan because under this TIP system,
Japan got a tier 2 rating. Nigeria is over here tied for 134th. This is
not meant to be critical of the attempts of the Nigerian governmental
system to fix their problems, but clearly, if we were evaluating these
countries among each other rather than by this very confusing standard,
you would not be seeing Singapore with a tier 2 watch list category and
Nigeria as a tier 1.
I will have a simple but I think very important amendment to the
legislation when it comes forward. It basically will require the State
Department to categorize countries, first of all, as either in
compliance or not with our legislation and then rank countries on a
single scale rather than by year-to-year progress against themselves
and to eliminate the special watch list category. It maintains all the
other existing criteria we have used in terms of examining whether
trafficking in persons is being addressed in these different countries;
the extent to which a country is a country of origin, transit, or
destination; the extent of noncompliance by the governments, including
government officials; and what measures are reasonable to bring the
government into compliance. This may seem a small matter on the floor
of the Senate, but I can assure you this is not a small matter to
countries that have been our friends and allies and have advanced
governmental systems and believe they are being wrongly categorized for
the rest of the world to see.
I would like to raise one other point today with respect to this part
of the world--it goes back to what I said when I first began speaking--
regarding
[[Page S4628]]
issues of sovereignty and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea
and recent activities which could quickly reach a level of volatility
that we would not like to see and to emphasize again that our country
is the No. 1 reason we have had the kind of stability that has existed
for the most part in this very volatile region since the end of World
War II.
The red lines on this map are the areas in which China claims
sovereignty in the South China Sea. As you can see from these lines, it
goes all the way past the coast of the Philippines, down into Borneo
and Malaysia, up the coast of Vietnam, back into China.
Over the last 10 years, we have seen incidents that people in the
United States, including military officials, too often seem to
recognize or deal with as tactical challenges rather than strategic
data points in terms of the ongoing issues of who actually controls
these areas.
These areas are claimed by many different countries. They are the
most highly trafficked sealanes, in terms of trade, in the world. Just
in the last 1\1/2\ years, we have seen an incident off the coast of
Okinawa, with a dispute between the Japanese and the Chinese
Governments. We have seen a military incident, a provocation by the
Chinese off the coast of the Philippines, which was protested by the
Philippines. We have seen two incidents off the coast of Vietnam, one
in May and one in June. If you look at where these incidents have
occurred, they mark the boundaries of the sovereignty claims that have
been made by the Chinese.
This body unanimously passed a resolution condemning this use of
military actions in disputes that should be resolved in a multilateral
way. I am very hopeful that Secretary Clinton will reinforce our
concerns in this area.
When I was on ``Meet The Press'' a couple of weeks ago, I said we
could be approaching a Munich moment in this region. That comment has
been widely circulated. Let me explain what I mean by that. That
doesn't mean I see a Hitler out there; that doesn't mean I see a
Neville Chamberlain here. What this means is when you have an
expansionist power that is making claims that it owns land in disputed
areas and is provoking these other countries through the use of
military force, you are reaching the edge of a country unilaterally
claiming sovereignty over areas that require multilateral solutions.
That is not healthy. It is not healthy internationally.
This region historically has been a very volatile region, and the
United States is the most important ingredient in making sure these
issues are resolved multilaterally and without the use of force. Again,
I strongly hope our Secretary of State will reinforce the comments she
made last year to the effect that the United States does have a vital
interest in resolving these issues in a multilateral way, just as we
do, by the way, in resolving the issues with respect to the Mekong
River. Rather than having a strong, powerful country insisting only on
bilateral adjustments with countries that it totally overpowers. We are
the essential ingredient. No one wants to see this issue go the wrong
way.
We have the potential of resolving this with China and resolving our
relationships with the Chinese Government in a positive way, looking
into the future, but it is going to require clear, consistent comments
and a credible approach by the U.S. Government.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Executive Nomination Referral
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I was very pleased that
the Senate recently acted to confirm the nomination of David Cohen to
be Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
I would like to pose a brief parliamentary inquiry as a followup to the
Senate's action. For future nominees by the President to the position
of Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, would
all such nominees be referred, under current law and precedents of the
Senate, to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is my understanding the Senator is
correct.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. President.
Wall Street Reform
Mr. President, Thursday marks the first anniversary of President
Obama signing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act into law. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I have a
responsibility to oversee implementation of this critical new law.
The Wall Street Reform Act was a direct response to the worst
financial crisis since the Great Depression. While it appears that many
on Wall Street, and even some here in Washington, have already
forgotten the painful costs of inadequate financial regulations, I have
not. And neither have the millions of Americans who lost their jobs,
their homes, or their savings, and who are still waiting for the
recovery.
The financial crisis didn't just happen by itself. It was the result
of reckless and irresponsible behavior on Wall Street, lack of consumer
protections, and failure by financial regulators to take action even as
the warning signs grew ever larger.
In response to the devastation, Congress passed new financial reforms
that created a sound regulatory foundation to protect consumers and
help prevent future crises.
However, these reforms have been under constant attack since their
inception. Opponents of Wall Street reform continually repeat
misleading claims that the new law was hastily conceived and will harm
our economy.
The truth is the Wall Street reform law is a product of nearly 50
Senate hearings, and scores more in the House, that identified the
abuses and loopholes that fueled the catastrophe and helped develop
clear proposals to end them.
After a long series of hearings that began in 2007 and 2008 with
examination of the turmoil in the mortgage and credit markets, and
after months of hard work by bipartisan working groups of Senators, the
Banking Committee reported out a Wall Street reform bill that
incorporated many Republican ideas.
On the Senate floor, the bill had a thorough debate in an open
process that lasted more than 3 weeks. Fifty-six amendments were
considered and 32 amendments were approved, 15 of which were
Republican-sponsored amendments and 22 were bipartisan amendments.
Finally, the bill was reconciled with the House version at an open
conference committee which worked through more than 100 additional
amendments.
In short, through a rigorous, bipartisan, and transparent process, we
produced a comprehensive reform bill that the times demanded and the
American people deserved.
The Wall Street reform law enhances consumer protections to help
ensure people can make financial decisions with honest information, and
it roots out predatory lenders who fueled the subprime mortgage bubble.
The reforms we passed 1 year ago will no longer allow the shadow
banking system that nearly destroyed our economy to continue to escape
the light of day.
The Wall Street reform law also enhances investor protections.
During the financial crisis, investors suffered enormous losses when
their retirement accounts or other assets were decimated. Some had
invested in companies with compensation systems that encouraged
executives to take on unmanageable risks. Some relied on mutual funds
or pension funds that had bought mortgage-backed securities based on
predatory loans that borrowers could not repay. New reforms will
enhance transparency, increase accountability and allow oversight of
previously hidden parts of the financial system.
Unfortunately, some powerful Wall Street apologists are trying to
rewrite history. They are claiming that new regulations are overly
burdensome and
[[Page S4629]]
will hurt their bottom line and the economy. Gaps in regulation hurt
the economy. Bad, reckless decisions on Wall Street hurt the economy.
But many top financial executives have apparently forgotten that the
only reason they are still in business is that the American taxpayer
saved them.
Now, many of these financial institutions have nearly fully
recovered, while Main Street Americans continue to pay the price for
those bad decisions and inadequate regulations.
The Wall Street Reform Act established responsible rules to make our
financial system work for the benefit of all Americans, so that we
never return to the days of too big to fail bailouts, backroom
derivatives deals, predatory subprime mortgages, and the threat of
economic collapse. Passing the Wall Street Reform Act was a monumental
achievement, but there is much work left to be done. Now the financial
regulators, the experts who have made it their life's work to
understand these issues, must work to write rules and implement these
reforms. This will take time, and we must get it right.
If the attacks on the law and its implementation are successful in
weakening or eliminating these new protections, however, our economy
will once again be at risk. Since I became chairman earlier this year,
the Banking Committee has held more than 25 hearings and bipartisan
briefings on financial reform. We are exercising our oversight
authority, following the regulators' progress closely, and are
committed to seeing the process of reforming Wall Street through to
completion.
We all remember the economic nightmare we lived though 3 years ago,
and we should never forget it. That is why I take my responsibility as
chairman of the Banking Committee and custodian of this new law so
seriously. I am fully committed to helping ensure Congress does its
part to hold our regulators accountable and to providing Americans with
a financial system they can trust.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________