Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 744, a resolution introduced by International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde. H. Res. 744 expresses support by the House for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland. In addition, it supports continued police reform in Northern Ireland, which is a critical element in the implementation of the Good Friday Accords. At this time, I would like to commend Chairman Henry Hyde, as well as Representatives Elton Gallegly and Chris Smith as well as our distinguished ranking members Tom Lantos and Joe Crowley for their work on this measure and more importantly their commitment to this singularly important peace process. I would like to also note the important role of Mr. Walsh of New York and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts as the Chair and Cochair of Ireland-related caucuses. H. Res. 744 also has broad-based support among those House Members who long have been concerned about finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Madam Speaker, since 1969, over 3,200 have died as a result of terrorism and political violence in Northern Ireland. For years, the British and Irish governments, assisted by the United States, sought to facilitate a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Finally, in April of 1998, the long-warring Catholic and Protestant factions in Northern Ireland signed the Good Friday Agreement. Just over a month later, strong majorities in both the north and south of Ireland endorsed the agreement in a referendum. The Good Friday Agreement calls for the transfer of power from London to Belfast and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive Committee, in which Unionists and Nationalists share power. It also contains provisions on disarmament, reformed policing, human rights, prisoners, and demilitarization by British Armed Forces. Madam Speaker, while the Good Friday Agreement provides a blueprint for achieving peace and justice in Northern Ireland, its full implementation has proved difficult. The devolved Northern Ireland government has been suspended since October 2002 amid a loss of trust on both sides of the conflict. Unionists remain skeptical about the IRA's commitment to disarmament and nonviolence. As a result, they have so far refused to join the power-sharing institutions such as the Executive Committee, which was created by the Good Friday Agreement for the purpose of exercising executive authority in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, Nationalists worry about the pace of police reforms. They have refused to join the Policing Board, the independent oversight body that ensures the Police Service of Northern Ireland is effective, accountable and impartial. That leaves us at a standstill in the peace process. The Unionists do not have confidence as to the IRA's intentions and commitment to nonviolence. The Nationalists still do not have confidence in the police service and they question the Unionists' commitment to share power with Catholics. This legislation directly addresses these issues and clearly endorses the Good Friday Agreement as the exclusive framework for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Specifically, House Resolution 744 states that it is the sense of the House that all groups and both communities should end their involvement and paramilitary activity. Second, the legislation calls on all political parties to agree to share power and work in good faith with the power-sharing institutions established by the Good Friday Agreement. Third, since police reform is a significant part of winning public confidence in the new government in Northern Ireland, all political parties should cooperate fully with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Lastly, House Resolution 744 calls on the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland to work together to achieve full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The language of the resolution puts a shared onus on both sides, Nationalists and Unionists alike, to take the difficult next steps that will move the peace process forward and lead to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Madam Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation that provides support for the Northern Ireland peace process at a critical time. Again, I commend Chairman Hyde for introducing this resolution and for quickly bringing it to the floor for consideration. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 744) expressing support for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on September 19, 2005, China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the U.S. signed a Joint Statement of principles under which North Korea committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. In contrast to the hopes surrounding that pledge, the intervening 6 months have brought no substantive progress toward that end, and the Six Party process is beginning to appear moribund. This circumstance is particularly regrettable because time is on no one's side. Every day of the status quo is another day for the North Korean regime to produce additional fissile material, and another day that the people of North Korea fall further behind the remarkable economic and social march of the rest of Asia. At the same time that the malfeasance of the North Korean government has brought us to this impasse, it remains in the interest of the U.S. to initiate additional dialogue, even if prospects for its success are uncertain. Alternatively, to continue to maintain a reactive approach--such as placing unrealistic conditions on high-level contacts and other forms of meaningful engagement with the DPRK--cedes too much control to hard- liners in a regime that does not yet feel sufficient pressure or incentive to denuclearize. We must continually test the intent of North Korea and not miss any opportunity for progress, however improbable. We are also obligated to consistently demonstrate to the other parties in the region that the intransigence impeding progress is not ours. Both of these priorities presuppose dialogue. Because we control what we say, we ought not fear additional discussions or supplementary avenues of discussion. Conversation is never concession if one is speaking the truth, advancing the national interest. At all levels of human interaction, including the international strategic level, there exists a significant psychological dimension: Between nations, as between people, the stronger party has greater strategic confidence and thus capacity to take the first conciliatory steps when intransigent differences arise. Given the enormity of the stakes at issue, it behooves the U.S. to take advantage of the greater flexibility we possess to creatively explore possibilities for resolving the challenges posed by North Korea. One has the sense that due to understandable frustrations relative to past North Korean actions, including cheating on international commitments, the White House has given exceedingly constrained options to our negotiators. But clear-headedness about the nature of the North Korean regime should not cloud the mind about devising techniques and processes to overcome differences. We have many assets, not the least of which is our professional diplomatic corps. American professionalism is exemplified by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who has developed a constructive relationship with all of the parties to the Six Party Talks, including North Korea. The case for sending him to Pyongyang to test the boundaries--and push the implementation--of the Joint Statement is compelling. In particular, we should not be hesitant to begin considering the utility of negotiat[ing] a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum, as envisioned by the Joint Statement and the recent U.S.-ROK strategic dialogue. Taking the initiative to formally end the Korean War would underscore our peaceful intent in an unparalleled fashion, and remind the Korean people that the U.S. singularly and unequivocally supports the peaceful reunification of the Peninsula. There may be sequencing concerns but forging ahead on this aspect of the statement of principles may increase the willingness of the other parties to exert greater pressure to enforce its critical core--the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula--and provide North Korea greater psychological as well as strategic comfort to accede to concerns of the outside world. While we speak directly to the North Korean delegation in Beijing at the Six Party Talks and have certain contacts with the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations, there is clearly a problem of communication between our two governments. Accordingly, it is time, perhaps with appropriate quid pro quos, that we explore the feasibility of establishing liaison offices in our two capitals. For the U.S. to continue to stand pat is to transfer initiative to others, indebting us to the diplomacy of countries that may have different interests, or simply ensconcing the status quo. It's time for the U.S. to lead.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Eugene Bell Foundation, the Korean American Coalition of the Midwest, and other involved churches, community leaders and organizations on the occasion of their launch of the Saemsori initiative last week. By seeking to promote reunion between Korean- Americans and their family members in North Korea, it is a project with potential ramifications that are both personal and global. As Members of this body are well aware, there currently exist many challenging issues between the United States and North Korea. In the current context, the most reasonable place to begin seeking a more positive dynamic is in the field of people-to-people relation. And the most natural and urgent way to seek those improvements is to pursue the reunion of Korean families. Although detailed statistics are not available, an estimated quarter of the 1.5 to 2 million strong Korean- American community have familial and historical ties to the North. The pains of separation are felt acutely by many Americans. One of the most unique aspects of our Nation is that we are a society of immigrants with ties to many parts of the world. Traditionally, second and third generation American citizens have taken the lead in advising Congress and the executive branch on ways and means of forging closer, more mutually beneficial relations with their ancestral homelands, and in focusing American concern on the circumstances and challenges facing their former countrymen. In our unique, citizen- centered democracy, leadership on initiatives eventually undertaken by any administration often comes from outside government. For this reason, I believe that the launch of Saemsori is an appropriate occasion to reflect on the singular role that Korean- American churches, civic organizations, and business leaders are playing in the way that the United States relates to the entire Korean peninsula, both North and South. Those who pursue reunion for the sake of their families are reflecting basic American values and rendering a service to the imperative of peaceful relations between peoples of the world.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, every society has a historian who suggests that failure to study history is an invitation to repeat its mistakes. With his recent utterances, the newly elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be presenting the world with a more dangerous conundrum. He has apparently looked at history and denied it, which requires each of us to come to grips with preposterousness as an international reality. To refuse to study history may invite repetition; but to deny it, particularly when it involves the greatest crime in human history, is an assault on civilized values and portends an attack on civilization itself. Last week, President Ahmadinejad suggested that the murder of six million European Jews by the Nazis did not occur and called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.'' This week, after time to reconsider, he made it perfectly clear that he did not flippantly, accidentally or remorsefully express a misunderstanding. He again publicly denied the Holocaust, calling it a ``myth'' designed to be ``above God, religion and the prophets.'' Condemning such vitriol is important, but insufficient. Anti-semitism demands rebuttal; but the stakes here are not just one man's prejudice. At issue is the legitimacy and viability of the Israeli state. The United States in this circumstance has no moral option except to make unequivocally clear that Israel's survival is a bedrock American commitment. There can and should be a role and place for a Palestinian state in the Middle East. But there never should be a question about the legitimacy of Israel. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if irrational aspirations such as those flaunted by President Ahmadinejad are perceived as realistic options. It is false and counter-productive to think that Jewish-Muslim history begins after the Holocaust or that the rationale for a Jewish state comes exclusively from the Shoah. While the holocaust stamps a moral imprimatur on modern Israel, the cause of Israel's statehood predates the world's most capricious act of inhumanity. The conflict that has emerged around the establishment of an Israeli state involves a multicentury exodus of a people from their homeland. But while the Bible is punctuated with wars and traumas, it is impressive how doing most of the last several millennia, Jews and Muslims have faced less hostility than Jews living in predominantly Christian countries. Since biblical times, Jewish communities have thrived without interruption in Arab lands, in Persia and in historical Palestine. When Islam arrived in the Middle East in 633 A.D., intermarriage and even conversion were not uncommon. In fact, throughout the Middle East Jews experienced less Persecution and discrimination than they did in Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their Jewish neighbors from European crusaders; in one instance at least, Jews fought alongside Muslims to prevent crusaders from landing in Haifa; and Saladin, after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, invited Jews back into the city. The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilization and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada-- the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands--when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century. Most of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under Ottoman rule and continued their largely peaceful co-existence with Muslims in those countries. What should he taken from this history is not that there is no case for an Israeli state in the Holy Land, but that individuals of the Jewish and Muslim faiths have a long record of successfully living together respecting each other's beliefs and culture. Yes, President Ahmadinejad, there is a Western responsibility to help and defend Israel. But there is an Eastern imperative to enhance the prospect of a more dignified life for all people in the region. What should also be taken from the history of the last two millennia is that the Jewish people generally found themselves in a position of vulnerability precisely because they lacked a state of their own. Relations within the Muslim world were usually better than within most parts of the Christian world, but dependency and the potential of violence characterized inter-faith power relationships. Security was always in doubt. In this historical context, the case for a Jewish state is profound. The only thing that comes from statements like those of President Ahmadinejad is less respect for Iranian leadership, more distrust between peoples, and abundant concerns that violence will accelerate. History is an accumulated product to which each generation adds. If any generation allows acts of hatred to become the dominant theme of interpersonal relations, it is harder for the next to break out of an angry memory cycle. Thus the challenge in the Middle East today is to give harmony a chance, recognizing that current Jewish-Muslim tension is an aberration. Peace is the historical norm. Because the past is often more controversial and volatile than current events, it is essential that we study history both from our own perspective and that of others. Denial is not simply obtuse; it is hate inspiring. Iran and the world, deserve better.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reluctantly I rise to oppose a bill which has a number of provisions I support and others which I might have been inclined to back in a different economic and historical context. But this Congress jeopardizes America's fiscal house as it continues to ``pay'' for a war with tax cuts. This is, after all, the first time in our history--and perhaps the history of the world--in which a government has sent soldiers into combat at the same time it has reduced the public's tax burden. And just as war cannot be paid for with tax cuts, social balance cannot be maintained if the costs of rebuilding one region of the country devastated by hurricanes are coupled with the reduction of support for needy citizens in other areas. I am an advocate of tax simplification--the replacement of a deduction-centric tax code with a simplified lower rate system. But I have doubts about taking the radical step of eliminating social progressivity with a flat, single-rate tax. The complexity of the current system is the result of a myriad of tax rules, not the fact that rates are slightly staggered. What has been missed in today's debate is that the taxation of dividend income at substantially lower levels than earned income means that the working middle class will be taxed at much steeper rates than upper-income citizens. The approach on the table today will not only eliminate tax progressivity, it will create an inverted tax system, one that is profoundly regressive. No tax system can stand the test of common sense if a high school principal, electrician, or registered nurse are taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire who receives his income from dividends. Yes, there is an argument that taxing dividend income may, in some cases, represent ``double'' taxation, but this concern is not as compelling as many assume because the deduction-oriented tax codes allow many large companies to have negligible income tax liabilities. This is why, according to a University of Michigan study, many of America's largest estates have been subjected to surprisingly little, if any, taxation in the accumulating years. Priorities are askew. When Congress attempts to cover the cost of man-made wars and nature-made hurricanes while expanding tax breaks that disproportionately benefit higher income individuals, it is forced to limit spending on programs for low-income students and our needier citizens to keep the fiscal deficit from skyrocketing. As long as this war continues, Congress is obligated to keep its eye not only on fiscal responsibility, but social justice. If it does not pay attention to fairness, the kind of internal strife that has broken out in recent weeks in France and the kind of internal division which was evidenced in the wake of Katrina in New Orleans will be magnified at great social cost. A thriftier government may be a credible goal, but Congress is obligated to pay for whatever commitments it makes. I did not vote for the Iraq war primarily because of policy rather than expense concerns. But there is a cost dimension and the burden of responsibility for funding public commitments falls at this time particularly on those who chose to authorize this war. Failure to accept this responsibility weighs down the public balance sheet and pushes payment of debt obligations to future generations. Accordingly, I am compelled to register my opposition to the fiscal irresponsibility implicit in this resolution.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1886.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1886) to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1886, the Naval Vessels Transfer Act of 2005, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent on October 18, 2005. S. 1886 would authorize the transfers of eight decommissioned United States Naval vessels to other countries. Two ships would be transferred by grant to Egypt and one each to Greece, Pakistan and Turkey. Three would be transferred by sale, one to India, one to Greece and one to Turkey. The bill's provisions are nearly identical to those contained in section 751 of H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, which would also authorize transfer of eight vessels to the same countries and on the same terms. H.R. 2601 passed the House on July 20 by recorded vote of 351 to 78. The Senate has not yet completed floor consideration in this session of a Foreign Relations Authorization Act. It passed a stand-alone bill, S. 1886, authorizing the transfer of these eight vessels. Since timely action was necessary to ensure the smooth operation and effective use of the decommissioned ship assets of the United States Navy, this limited purpose bill is before us. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, at a time the world is crying out for leadership and too frequently finds it lacking in political life, I would like to take a moment to comment on an individual who has never been elected to any post but is leading in ways beyond those who have. He is a musician. His name is Bono. In the history of celebrity, no one has used his stature for greater social effect than this Irish songwriter and performer. While the nightly news centers on problems of terrorism and other hate-inspired acts, Bono has recognized that the greatest public challenge of our time is disease control, and the greatest social issue is the division in the world between the haves and the have-nots. He has worked without ideological blinders with Republicans and Democrats in power in America; with liberals and conservatives in Europe; and with religious groups around the world to raise public consciousness and enhance public commitments to stem the onslaught of HIV/AIDS and reduce indebtedness of the poorest countries in the world. Based on the movements that he has singularly helped lead, Bono is the first celebrity that merits serious consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a personal level, Bono has assiduously eschewed the pomp of overdressing and honed an ``everyman'' appearance which masks a razor- sharp IQ. As a songwriter, he is a poet with lyrics and as an advocate of political causes, he utilizes a profound observance capacity to articulate issues in ways which energize and uplift. He is a star because he does not act like one and a supernova advocate because his vision is so compelling. To understand Bono, one must look to aspects of his background, including in particular, a love for a sport that I also played for many years: rugby. Bono was a hooker. A hooker plants himself in the middle of the first row of a scrum, a position analogous in American football to a center. Hookers are generally the shorter, broad-shouldered leaders of the pack. They are the first to charge into a scrum. They balance themselves on the shoulders of their front row teammates called ``props'' and bend in a gymnastic-like contortion attempting nimble- footedly to kick the ball backwards with their heels as their teammates push forward so that their side can control the subsequent movement of the ball. Hookers in rugby are the center of team effort and generally end each game with the most noticeable badges of the struggle: welts and bruises on foreheads and chins. As a celebrity, Bono is the obverse of spoiled Hollywood prettiness. He is the member of the cast who succeeds because of unyielding determination, yet interacts with others as if he fully understands their plight and has received himself significant licks in life. I once took my daughter to a U2 concert in Washington and was impressed with the way Bono used an oblong walkway jutting out from the main stage to engage the audience. Repeatedly, he would sprint from one side to the other and then stop and bellow a vibrant melody with no evidence that he had exerted himself physically. His physical condition appeared closer to that of a world-class athlete than night club crooner. My wife and I have had the good fortune to welcome Bono to our home in Iowa City and, in turn, to visit him in his studio in Dublin. We were struck by his genuineness, by the collegial banter of his band and by the sophistication and discipline with which they produce music. Bono has enormous artistic talent, but his success is rooted in a work ethic. Practice and refinement hallmark his efforts. Bono speaks to a new generation of youth because he understands that their yearnings and dreams include a common concern for the human condition and a desire to tap the idealistic side of human nature. It is Bono's idealism and capacity to communicate that define his leadership. When Bono sings, people join in; when he speaks, he inspires people to care. The world is obligated to take note of this hooker with an international conscience.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3269) to amend the International Organizations Immunities Act to provide for the applicability of that Act to the Bank for International Settlements.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3269.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in support of this bill which would designate the Bank For International Settlements, otherwise known as the BIS, as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunity Act, otherwise known as IOIA, thus allowing the President to extend appropriate immunities to the BIS. I should note at the outset that this legislation was requested by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and it is also strongly supported by the Department of State and the Department of the Treasury. As Members may be aware, the BIS is an international organization that functions as a bank for central banks and is owned exclusively by central banks. Following consultation with the Executive Branch and Congressional leadership, the Federal Reserve formally joined the BIS Board of Directors in 1994. The Federal Reserve currently holds two seats on the BIS board and participates actively in the important work of the BIS to promote international financial stability. Because the BIS is indirectly owned by more than one foreign government, the immunities granted by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act are not available to the BIS absent legislative action by the Congress under the framework provided by the IOIA for international organizations. I concur with the Federal Reserve as well as the Departments of State and Treasury in concluding that providing appropriate immunities to the BIS has significant merit at this time. The BIS plays a critical role in financing large volumes of U.S. dollar transactions in the United States daily for its central bank customers. It has also been integral to international efforts to promote global financial stability in the face of emerging market financial crises, such as those that hallmarked much of the last decade. Without extending immunities to the BIS, these transactions could be disrupted by mischievous lawsuits. This may create disincentives to conduct international transactions in dollars. Moreover, an extension of immunity to the BIS in accordance with the provisions of the IOIA would provide protection of its assets held in the United States equivalent to the protection currently enjoyed by the European Central Bank and other international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Indeed, Congress addressed a parallel situation in 2002 when it passed legislation allowing for the President to extend immunities under the IOIA to the European Central Bank. As I noted previously, the Federal Reserve and the Departments of State and Treasury strongly support this legislative initiative to designate the BIS as an international organization under the IOIA. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments, and I would only add that the BIS plays a critical role in attempting to combat money laundering and to block the transfer of terrorist financing. It is a critical institution, although little known to the public; but it clearly deserves the immunities that are established for other international organizations and other foreign governments. I urge adoption of this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, today's debate should not be about the character of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, whose service to his country is above reproach. It should also no be about a resolution introduced by one member ascribing it to the position of another. It should be about the profoundness of the dilemma we face in our Iraqi policy. All wars evoke analogies to prior conflicts. Vietnam is on everyone's mind. My sense is that references to our Southeast Asian experience are somewhat oblique, but important to ponder. Of particular relevance is the advice of a former Vermont Senator, George Aiken, who suggested we just declare victory and get out of Vietnam. Aiken's advice was rooted in frustration, but wise as it was, represented more spin than reality. Given the strategies in play, victory wasn't close at hand. For may Americans, including me, the war in Iraq has been difficult to justify. But all Americans, except perhaps a few who may be partisanly vindictive, should want as positive a result as possible, given the circumstances we now face. The decision to go to war may have been misguided and strategies involved in conducting it mistake-ridden; nonetheless there should be clarity of purpose in ending the conflict, with the goal neither to cut and run, nor simply to cut losses. At this junction of involvement we should define cogently our purposes and by so doing create a basis both for a viable future for Iraq and for a U.S. disengagement that respects the sacrifices of those who have served so valiantly in our armed forces and those of our coalition allies. The key at this point is to recognize the WMD threat proved not to be a compelling rationalization for the war and emphasize instead the moral and philosophical case for overturning a repressive and cruel regime and replacing it with a constitutional democracy. This latter emphasis need not suggest or imply that all repressive regimes are fair game for intervention, nor that regime change is the principal American way, nor that other rationales for intervention don't exist. But it is the case for intervention that shows the most concern for the Iraqi people as they look both to their past and to the new challenges of Al Qaeda. Accordingly, in today's circumstances, my advice, as one who voted against authorizing military intervention in Iraq, is for the Administration to emphasize its commentment to democracy, not as a rationale for continuing the war, but as the reason for disengagement. Let me amplify. All Americans, however wary they may be of the political judgments that have to date been made, should concur that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and that it is positive that a dictatorial regime is being replaced with a democratically elected government. The cost of the undertaking may have been too high and the results counter- productive in many ways, but before the international situation worsens further, the administration would be wise, perhaps noting with pride the elections to be held under a constitution this December, announce that a new sovereign circumstance allows for comprehensive troop drawdowns next year. The more definitions and forthright the plan the better, but announcing a precise time table is less important than making firm commitment to leave, with articulation of a clear rationale for so doing. If we don't get out of Iraq at a time of our own choosing and on our own terms, we will eventually be asked to leave, possibly ignominiously, by the Iraqi government, or be seen as forced to leave because of terrorist acts, which can be expected to continue as long as we maintain a military presence in the heart of the Muslim world. The key is that we must control and be seen as controlling our own fate. All Americans should be respectful of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. They have been placed in an untenable situation. If they had not been so heroic and in many cases so helpful in rebuilding neighborhoods and schools, the U.S. would face a far more difficult dilemma today. But we have no choice except to assess whether Osama Bin Laden and his movement have not been given added momentum by our intervention in Iraq, and whether the ideologically advocated policy of establishing long-term bases or one of returning our troops home is likely to be the more effective strategy in prevailing in the world-wide war on terror. Here, it should not be hard to understand that prolonged occupation of a country which encompasses an area of land where one of the world's oldest civilizations prospered is humiliating to a proud people and those elsewhere who share its great religion. It should also not be hard to understand that the neo-con strategy of establishing a long- term military presence in Iraq with semi-permanent bases raises the risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Indeed, according to the University of Chicago scholar, Robert Pape, in his definitive book on suicide bombers, Dying to Win, the principal reason anarchists choose to wrap themselves in explosives and kill innocent civilians is to register martyred objection to the occupation of countries or territories by the armed forces of Western or other Democratic governments. Suicide bombing, by implication, will exist as long as occupations continue. In this regard, a note about Al Qaeda is in order. Just as neither Iraq with its secular leanings nor any Iraqis were responsible for 9/ 11, so Saddam Hussein apparently considered Osama Bin Laden as much a rival as a soul brother. It is Western military intervention that has precipitated Al Qaeda's rapid growth in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a ``cause celebre'' for its singularly malevolent actions. If American withdrawal policy comes to turn on the question of anarchy--i.e., troops can't be drawn down as long as suicide bombers continue to wreak havoc--we place ourselves in a catch 22 and, in effect, hand over decision-making discretion to those who wantonly kill. We allow the radical few to use our presence as the reason for their actions and at the same time cause our involvement to be held hostage to their villainy. The irony is that as conflicted as the Iraqi police and army appear to be, we are fact reaching a stage where the anarchists may be more credibly dealth with by Iraqis themselves, particularly if the principal rationale for violence--i.e., the American presence-- disappears. Hence, the case for a change in strategy is compelling, not as the resolution under consideration tonight envisions, but in an orderly manner, protecting our troops, our values and the gains we have helped make for the Iraqi people. Sometimes it is as difficult to know when to end as it is when to start a war. In this context I am hard pressed to believe anything except that a mistake of historical proportions will occur if the administration fails to recognize the opportunity presented by next month's elections to effectively bring our involvement in this war to a close. It may be true as the Secretary of State told the Senate several weeks ago, that democratic elections alone don't create a viable government. But the assertion of the Secretary, however, valid, should not be used as a rationale for an unending American occupation. It is possible, of course that civil strife will ensue when we withdraw, but this is just as likely to be the case in 2026 as 2006. In any regard, civil union is for the Iraqi people to manage. It's not for American troops to sustain. The authorization this Congress gave to the Executive to use force contemplated the clear prospect of military intervention in Iraq. It did not, however, contemplate prolonged occupation. If this is not understood by the Executive branch, the current overwhelming Iraqi polling sentiment favoring American troop withdrawal will be more than matched by shared American sentiment. And in a democracy no one can be a leader without followers. The issue is no longer, as is so frequently asserted, the need ``to stay the course;'' it is to avoid ``overstaying'' our presence.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern about heightened threats to fundamental freedoms in Cambodia. As my colleagues know, since the 2004 formation of a new coalition government, Prime Minister Hun Sen of the dominant Cambodia People's Party (CPP) has steadily consolidated his authority. According to credible nongovernmental organizations like Human Rights Watch, threats to opposition figures, trade unionists, journalists, human rights defenders and civil society leaders have intensified. Freedom of assembly has become increasingly restricted, while freedoms of speech and association have likewise been significantly curtailed. Meanwhile, the government's long-standing influence over the judiciary has been extended through a so-called ``Iron Fist'' policy which has included the dismissal or suspension of judges and prosecutors. The courts are increasingly being used to harass and silence government critics. The coalition between the CPP and the former Royalist opposition party FUNCIPEC has also resulted in ominous new pressures on Cambodia's political opposition, the Sam Rainsy Party, SRP. The immunity of three SRP parliamentarians, including its leader Sam Rainsy, was lifted in February. One of them, Mr. Cheam Channy, was convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment in August for the alleged creation of an illegal army. Party leader Sam Rainsy fled Cambodia when his immunity was lifted in February and, fearing arrest because of criminal defamation lawsuits against him, has not since returned. Here it should be noted that the United States condemned the August 9 conviction by a military court of Cheam Channy and conviction in absentia of Kong Piseth on charges of fraud and establishment of an illegal armed group. According to a State Department spokesperson, the conduct of the trial appeared to violate international standards, again raised questions about the competence and independence of Cambodia's judiciary and constituted further intimidation of opposition voices. The U.S. urged appropriate review of this case. In addition, the U.S. also called on the Cambodian National Assembly to immediately restore the immunity of the Sam Rainsy Party, SRP, parliamentarians that was stripped by the National Assembly on February 3, an action which Washington strongly condemned. In the view of many observers, the current deteriorating environment in Cambodia is not an isolated event but part of an ongoing trend toward silencing dissident voices and cementing the power the incumbent Prime Minister. According to reports from the field, attacks on freedom of speech have escalated significantly since the signing of a border treaty between Cambodia and Vietnam on October 10. Relations with their larger neighbor Vietnam has traditionally been a neuralgic issue for many Cambodians, and as a consequence the treaty (the terms of which have not been revealed to the Cambodian public) has been highly controversial. In response, the government of Hun Sen has filed criminal defamation complaints against persons who have criticized the treaty. The Prime Minister appears to be particularly sensitive to accusations of having surrendered Cambodian territory to Vietnam. Two arrests have been made in connection with criticism of the treaty. Mam Sonando, director of the independent Beehive Radio station in Phnom Penh, was arrested earlier this month on charges of criminal defamation for broadcasting an interview with a Cambodian activist in France who criticized the border treaty. Rong Chhun, president of Cambodia's Independent Teacher's Association, was also arrested this month in connection with a press statement issued by a coalition of groups that was critical of the treaty. He has been charged with criminal defamation and incitement to commit a crime. According to Peter Leuprecht, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Human Rights in Cambodia, these arrests appear to be procedurally unlawful. Both men are now detained in Phnom Penh's Prey Sar prison. It is my understanding that other Cambodian figures also fear imprisonment because of widespread rumors about further imminent arrests. At least four persons are believed to have entered Thailand for safe haven, and a number of others have apparently gone to other countries. According to credible sources, among those who may be subject to possible arrest are at least two human rights NGOs, several opposition parliamentarians, and a number of political party and trade union activists. Indeed, it would appear that the current climate of fear in Cambodia among civil society leaders and the political opposition is worse than it has been since the violence of 1997, when the current Prime Minister first sought to consolidate his power, and the subsequent 1998 elections. Mr. Speaker, while Cambodian-Vietnamese relations are of an historically sensitive nature, that issue should not be used by the government in Phnom Penh as a pretext to imprison critics of the Prime Minister or to further manipulate the Cambodian judiciary. More broadly, concern is widespread that the current attacks on free speech are not an isolated event related solely to the border issue, but part of an ongoing campaign to silence political opponents and stifle other critical voices. In this context, it is incumbent on the United States and other interested countries to urge in the strongest possible terms that the Prime Minister take immediate, credible steps to strengthen Cambodia's democratic institutions, fight corruption, and respect basic human rights. Absent such steps, Cambodia's backsliding on human rights can only have negative implications for Phnom Penh's relations with the United States and other members of the international donor community.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. That is correct. But secondly, if you do not have concern for competitive equity, you put the taxpayer at greater risk because you will have weaker standards. You also drive a system that we will be putting all assets of a given kind of industry within a governmentally privileged institution. That is what the trends are. So this is both a taxpayer protection and free market protection.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is to strengthen the capital requirements of the bill. But first, let me acknowledge that between passage in the committee and the bringing of the bill to the floor, the capital standard provision has been strengthened, and I congratulate the committee for doing that. But secondly, let me stress that still at this point in time, even though the bill itself got a strong bipartisan committee vote, it lacks the support of the administration. The principal reason does not relate to some of the debate that has occurred earlier on a very important issue, it relates to the fact that the Department of the Treasury, that is the administration, does not want to have accountability for regulation if it is not given adequate authority. And, lacking adequate authority, it feels that this approach is not one that produces greater safety and soundness for the American financial system. So what this amendment does is strengthens the capital standard provision. Minimum capital is the amount of capital needed to protect financial institutions against broad categories of business risk, so when a crisis strikes, there is a reserve to fall back upon. Capital is especially important for GSEs because their short-term obligations are large, and they are single-industry-intensive. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance, have debt obligations due within a year of about 45 percent of their debt liabilities. Any problem with capital markets affecting these firms could become very large, very quickly. What might ``very quickly'' mean? Because of the scale of short-term obligations of the GSEs, the GSEs are rolling over many billions of dollars of obligations each week. For this reason, a market crisis could become acute in a matter of days, and this is something the country has to think through. Today's House vote comes nearly a year after Federal regulators ordered Fannie Mae to restate $10.8 billion in previously reported earnings because of accounting problems several years ago, and this is not long after Freddie Mac restated about $5 billion in earnings. The stakes are significant, given that these two GSEs carry together about $1.5 trillion in debt. The failure of either institution could potentially make the savings and loan crisis of a generation ago look somewhat minor. I would stress here that Fannie and Freddie are very unique institutions. They are, on the one hand, secondary market institutions serving as intermediaries primary markets as well as a tertiary market. On the other hand, when they hold mortgages in their portfolios, they are, in effect, simply another S&L. Hence, while financial risk management tools are much greater than they were a generation ago when we had the S&L crisis, in one sense, for these two institutions, their use is a little bit more problematic, because in the housing industry risk is transferred to Fannie and Freddie disproportionately. They become receivers of risk and as risk becomes concentrated within these institutions, they disproportionately become on the hook if very extraordinary things happen in the economy, something that is not beyond thinking. In the 1980s, without sufficient capital, S&Ls grew larger and entered new lines of business as their capital basis shrunk, and, when things got bad, the taxpayer was on the hook for $250 billion. Fannie and Freddie today operate on a capital base much less than S&Ls did just before their collapse in the 1980s. It has been suggested by some--actually, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter has been circulated--that opponents believe that my amendment would limit the discretion of the new regulator. I would only suggest that that is not my intent, and it is clearly not the intent of the language. Let me just describe what the Federal Reserve says about this. In a letter dated October 5, 2005, Chairman Greenspan wrote, ``This amendment would improve the proposed legislation. . . The regulators for the GSEs should have a free hand in determining . . . minimum risk- based capital standards for these enterprises. Your amendment would give the regulator greater discretion in this critical area.'' It is one thing to have institutions established to have an advantage in cost of money provided by the United States Government, and another thing to also have advantage in leverage ratio provided by the United States Congress. So because the growing presence of GSEs in our markets and the possible risk they pose to our financial system are significant, it is clear we need a strong regulator, and I would urge that this regulator be given this additional authority.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to make clear that what the amendment does is say, ``which may include'' consideration for what the gentleman has just indicated.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.