[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11284-11286]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 11285]]

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 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

[[Page 11286]]

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.

                          ____________________