Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. At a time like this, I tend to think of who are the people I respect the most and who are the people that have had impact over the world and my country as I have grown up and become an adult. I think of someone like Winston Churchill. I think of someone like Martin Luther King. I think of someone like Coretta Scott King. I think of someone like Nelson Mandela. And I think about my colleague John Lewis. These are my heroes. And it is interesting to me that most of them are men and women of color. I think of, when I was first elected in 1987, whom did I want to meet? I wanted to meet our President, Ronald Reagan; and I wanted to meet a man called John Lewis, who, when I was in college, led a civil rights movement with Martin Luther King and crossed the Selma Bridge. There were only two people I wanted to meet: one was Ronald Reagan and the other was John Lewis. I think of Martin Luther King, Sr., whom some people refer to as Daddy King, who lost his younger son A.D., in a drowning; and then he lost his older son, Martin Luther King, Jr., in an assassination; and then he lost his wife in a bombing in our country. This precious woman's life was snuffed out. And I think of Martin Luther King, Sr., eulogizing his wife and saying, I have lost two sons; I have lost my wife. And then he looked out in the audience, and he said, in so many words, but I am a grateful man because I have my daughter, Christine, and her family and I have Coretta and her family. And the focus of his presentation was how grateful he was to have her. Well, he had her; we all had Coretta Scott King. We all had her, and we have all been blessed by her leadership. Coretta Scott King was a hero of the civil rights movement as a partner to Martin Luther King, clearly; but in her own right she played an absolutely instrumental role in her husband's work and carried on his legacy of fighting for human rights and equality. Their legacy is one of lasting change, making for a Nation that is freer, more compassionate, and more accepting. And while I was not by their side, I got to see what they did in my lifetime. I have had a number of opportunities to meet her and be in her presence, including my trip in 2005 with John Lewis and others to Birmingham, Montgomery, and Selma, where I heard her speak for the last time. She led by quiet example, and her personal strength was truly an inspiration. Yes, she was a woman of extraordinary grace. She was dignified. But she had a presence that said, I have experienced so much in my life and I want a different country. And we are a different country. We are not where she may want us to be, but we are a different and better country because of Coretta Scott King and the other heroes that I love deeply.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of this resolution and urge its swift passage. Some will argue violence perpetrated by Hamas is only undertaken by the militant wing of the organization and that its political arm can otherwise be a legitimate player in Palestinian politics. I reject that argument. We have seen nations throughout recent history require organizations that formerly endorsed violence to formally renounce such tactics before participating in electoral politics. President Abbas should insist upon such action before allowing Hamas to participate in the upcoming legislative elections. Secretary Rice stated recently that participants in a democratic political process cannot simultaneously keep an option on politics and an option on violence. Unfortunately, that is the case we now see unfolding in the Palestinian territories. I support the establishment of a Palestinian state that can live side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors in the Middle East. How, though, will the United States be able to deal honestly and in good faith with a government composed of unrepentant members of an organization that advocates terror and the dissolution of our greatest ally in the Middle East--Israel? And perhaps more importantly, how will the Palestinian Government ever be able to negotiate with Israel? This is of profound concern to me because the United States should help the Palestinian Government get on its feet and should help it develop an infrastructure that well serves its people. Certainly the Israelis need a legitimate body with which they can negotiate. The bottom line is a Palestinian legislature with members representing Hamas is a weakened body that will be stymied by serious questions about its legitimacy. The peace process requires a sustained Palestinian effort to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. President Abbas can take a bold stand by insisting Hamas cease incitement, condemn terrorism, and permanently disarm and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure before participating in the January elections.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 280, which would allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make grants to assist in the environmental cleanup and economic development of Brownfields sites. I believe the Brownfields program is one of the most successful programs the Federal Government has to help revitalize urban areas. These sites, typically in the heart of urban areas, lie idle because no one wants to incur the large costs associated with Superfund cleanups. As a result, cities are marked by abandoned buildings and vacant lots while developers construct new buildings on what was previously open space in the suburbs. Specifically, this legislation ensures that communities that have traditionally had trouble obtaining financing for Brownfields Redevelopment activities have access to needed capital. Though small, these grants have served as seed money, enabling dozens of communities to leverage millions of state and private dollars to move into actual cleanup phase. By reusing Brownfields sites we not only rebuild blighted communities, but also target development in city centers and avoid unnecessary urbanization on the fringes of metropolitan areas.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the hard work that took place to bring the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision Act to the floor and urge my colleagues to support its passage today. Extending TRIA is important for so many facets of our economy; and revising the Act by requiring insurers to take on greater responsibility in the event of a catastrophic attack is a prudent measure for the taxpayers. As a strong believer in free markets, I am fully aware and sympathetic to concerns that TRIA exposes the government and taxpayers to a risk that should be fully assumed by the marketplace. TRIA was never intended to be a permanent program, and we are wise to include in this legislation provisions directing the Treasury Department to work on the creation of risk sharing mechanisms and requiring a full payback to the Treasury in the event that TRIA is triggered. I also strongly support the creation of a commission to study how best to reduce the Federal Government's role and increase the private sector's capacity to underwrite terrorism risk. It is crucial we maintain this provision in the final version of this legislation. While this legislation takes several important steps to place greater responsibilities on insurance companies, in my judgment it is appropriate and wise for us to expand the program to include group life insurance. Quite simply, those who provide group life insurance face the same challenges as property and casualty and other insurers that were covered under the original TRIA Act. Failure to include group life has placed these insurers in a precarious position of choosing to remain in the marketplace without reinsurance or exiting from the market. Although TRIA has not yet been triggered, it is important we both extend and improve it for the future. Again, I appreciate the Chairman's hard work and urge my colleagues to support passage.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4440, the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, which provides tax incentives for businesses to invest in and rebuild the Gulf Coast communities ravaged by hurricanes. I am pleased these federal resources will not be used to support the gambling facilities, liquor stores and massage parlors. I don't believe the federal government should help interests that have dubious value to these communities. I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form. During my 14 years in the state legislature I voted against every gambling bill. Gambling financially cripples those who can least afford it--the poor--through the cruel and misleading lure of ``winning it big.'' With the budget deficits growing to historic levels, we need to make sure tax dollars are being used in the wisest possible manner to rebuild the region's businesses and housing. Fair-minded Americans support tax incentives to spur business reinvestment along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf coast to help victims there rebuild their lives. Tax breaks for the gaming industry simply do not make sense. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3963, which would reauthorize appropriations through fiscal year 2010 for the Office of Management Conference of the Long Island Sound Study and for grants to implement the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Protecting and preserving the environment is one of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. Long Island Sound, which contributes more than $5 billion annually to the regional economy, is one of the most populated and visited areas of our country. In fact, approximately 10 percent of the American population lives within the Long Island Sound watershed. It is a source of livelihood, nourishment and recreation for many in Connecticut and elsewhere, and it is critical that we treat it well. In the interest of preserving open space, increasing access to the Sound, and protecting and managing important habitats, the reauthorization of this funding is needed to identify and protect coastal areas along this precious estuary with significant biological, scientific or recreational value. I am pleased this legislation is being considered so we ensure funding for this critical habitat will continue to be preserved and urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 535, and appreciate this opportunity to honor the life, legacy, and example of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his death. My first trip to Israel was to attend Mr. Rabin's funeral. During my most recent trip to Israel I joined with thousands of Israelis and other international guests in a moving tribute to his distinguished life. Yitzhak Rabin said that, ``politicians are elected by adults to represent the children.'' In my eyes, Rabin was a man that politicians could look up to for his tremendous valor and courage. During the peace rally in Tel Aviv where he was brutally assassinated his last words were: ``I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace, are prepared to take risks for peace. Peace is what the Jewish People aspire to.'' Mr. Rabin served in war and was a man of peace. His death was a tremendous loss for Israel and the whole world. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution honoring his life and legacy.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 273, which recognizes and honors the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott and the historical significance of the boycott to the United States. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a seamstress and wife, boarded a Montgomery bus to begin her usual journey home. Nothing was particularly different about this day, except that she wanted to sit after a long day's work. When ordered by the white bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger, she simply refused, and her action led to a boycott of the city's bus system. This event was the straw that broke the back of segregation in the South. This was a stunning moment in time, not just a step along the way. It ultimately resulted in two of our nation's landmark pieces of legislation, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The bus boycott was a memorable example of how Dr. Martin Luther King's tradition of nonviolent protests have brought about important policy changes in our world. In our nation's ongoing struggle for civil rights, this boycott was a watershed event, and it is appropriate to be honoring it here today on the House floor.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there is concern on the floor tonight about the way in which this resolution was brought up. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, is one of the finest members of this body and has given his heart to our nation and his wisdom to this Congress. But underlying concerns about the process tonight, is the critically important issue regarding the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The United States' commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq is essential for the future of the region, for the larger war on terrorism and for the Iraqi people. In my ten trips to Iraq, four times outside the umbrella of the military, I've had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of Iraqis and can tell you with some certainty about their greatest fear . . . It is not the suicide bombs and other terrorist attacks brought against their countrymen. It is the concern that the United States, which has helped give them a taste of freedom and democracy, will leave them before they are ready to fend for themselves. Tonight we have the opportunity to proclaim, ``We will not leave you.'' When I hear the critics on this floor or in the news media say our policy is a disaster, that we are in a mess in Iraq, I think of the transfer of power in June 2004, the election in January 2005, the referendum this past October and what I believe will be a huge success in December with the election of a permanent Iraqi government. I am in awe of what the Iraqis have accomplished in such a short period of time. Regretfully, the administration has done a very poor job explaining to the American people why we are there and when and how we intend to leave, but this does not mean we don't have an exit strategy. We have a strategy but regretfully it has had to be amended more than once. The United States' strategy is to assist the Iraqis in creating a secure environment so they can develop their new democratic government with a competent police, border patrol and army to defend that government. American forces will be reduced when enough Iraqi security forces can take our place and their new government is fully functioning. Haven't we learned from the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut that if we leave without finishing the job those that wish us harm will come at us again? Didn't we learn any lessons from the attacks against our military personnel in Saudi Arabia and our diplomats in Africa and our sailors on the USS Cole? And didn't we learn that the Islamist extremists would come at us again when they attacked the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and attempted to attack our Capitol on September 11, 2001 ? Yes they will be back again and again and again. If we leave Iraq without completing our mission, what type of message will this send to the people who need our help? To them and the rest of the world the message will be clear . . . if you put up a strong enough resistance, the United States will eventually tire of its efforts and leave before its mission is accomplished. John McCain was correct when he asked the same questions during debate of the Defense Authorization bill: ``Are these the messages we wish to send? Do we wish to respond to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who have put their faith and trust in American and the Iraqi Government, that our number one priority is now bringing our people home?'' Mr. Speaker, although some may feel otherwise, this is a serious debate about a serious issue. I strongly urge all members to vote against this resolution and against the premature withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 302 and appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California and our distinguished war hero who just has given me this time. Many employers have gone above and beyond what the law requires of them, either by making up the loss in income that may occur when their employee is called to active duty or through a variety of other initiatives that recognize this special burden our National Guard and Reservists take upon themselves. Quite simply, those employers who are already recognizing the sacrifices of the Reserve components deserve our sincere praise. But this body can go further, as Representative Kind points out. We should enact incentives through tax credits for private employers to make up the pay gap; and the Federal Government, the largest single employer of the citizens who make up the Guard and Reserve, should match the examples set by employers throughout this country and pay the difference when a citizen soldier experiences a loss of salary when he or she is activated. Congressmen Lantos, Graves, McGovern, and my legislation would do exactly just that, and I hope this body would consider it soon. Again, I support this resolution, I thank the gentleman from California, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606, the so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act. The legislation will exempt the Internet from campaign finance laws, thus opening up a major loophole for unlimited union dues money, corporate treasury money and large individual donations to once again corrupt federal elections. I understand that many web loggers are concerned that somehow campaign finance law will restrict their speech, and I believe allowing bloggers the assurance that they will not be so burdened is something that we can ensure. Unfortunately, H.R. 1606 goes far beyond exempting bloggers and allows federal candidates and political parties to again make use of soft money in federal campaigns. That is why Marty Meehan and I introduced legislation that would preserve the soft money ban and protect bloggers from unnecessary regulation. Because H.R. 1606 was considered under suspension of the rules, though, we were not allowed to offer this alternative approach. That is why we must defeat this bill. If this law were to pass, a member of Congress could simply go to a large donor, corporation or union and control their spending of $1 million in soft money to pay for political advertising all over the Internet. This is precisely the type of behavior prevented when Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. By all accounts, the law is working--despite concerns about the law being the death knell of the parties, the parties were strengthened as they raised more in hard money in 2004 than they raised in hard and soft money combined in 2002 and greatly expanded their donor base. Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606 and oppose the return of corrupting soft money to our political process.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations celebrated its 60th Anniversary last week. It seems appropriate to me that in reaching this landmark, the world body can reflect upon both its significant accomplishments over the years, as well as how it must improve in order to be a more effective actor in global interests. While we must continue examining its operations and demanding operational improvements, the United Nations also deserves U.S. support as it continues to combat terrorism, promote economic growth and assist countries in moving towards democracy. In recognition of the 60th Anniversary and celebration of United Nations Day, Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, gave an address at the Hall of the House of Representatives in the Connecticut State Capitol. I submit the text of Mr. Reed's address to be entered into the Record. Remarks by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Governor Rell, Speaker of the House Amann, Mr. Stolberg, President, United Nations Association of the United States of America Connecticut Chapter, Distinguished Members of the Government of the State of Connecticut, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and privilege as a life long citizen of the State of Connecticut to be present at the Hall of the House of Representatives to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. The Secretary General, Kofi Annan has sent to the people of Connecticut a message on the occasion of United Nations Day: ``I send my greetings to the people of Connecticut on the 60th anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Charter. As you mark this historic occasion and reflect on the Organization's many accomplishments, I encourage you also to look to the future. Today's world is very different from that of our founders. The United Nations must reflect this new age, and respond to its challenges--including, first and foremost, the knowledge that hundreds of millions of people are left defenceless against hunger, disease and environmental degradation, even though the world has the means to rescue them. Last month, world leaders met in New York to try and forge a common response to these challenges. Leaders of both rich and poor countries committed themselves to detailed policies which, if fully implemented, could reduce hunger and poverty by 50 per cent in the next ten years. They decided to create new UN bodies for promoting human rights and building lasting peace in war-torn countries. They promised to fight terrorism in all its forms, and to take collective action, when needed, to save populations from genocide and other heinous crimes. They decided on important reforms of the UN Secretariat. But on climate change and Security Council reform they could make only weak statements. And on nuclear proliferation and disarmament they could not agree at all. They have left us a great deal of work to do. Today, as we mark the 60th anniversary of our indispensable institution, I promise you that I will do my part, and that I will be working with Member States to help them do theirs. I am glad the United Nations can count on the continued support and commitment of you all as we pursue our shared mission.'' That concludes the message from the Secretary-General. Ladies and gentlemen, ``the time to reform the United Nations is now. And we must seize this opportunity together.'' These are words from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her first speech before the United Nations General Assembly in September. The 2005 World Summit lived up to being a once-in-a- generation event for the United Nations. With breakthroughs in adopting strategies to fight poverty and disease, creating new machinery to win the peace in war-torn countries, and pledging collective action to prevent genocide, progress was made across a broader front than on any other single occasion in the 60 year history of the organization. Major advancements were made on terrorism, human rights, democracy, management of the Secretariat, peacekeeping and humanitarian response. And doors were opened to further action on global public health, global warming and mediation. Now, member states will turn to the tough task of implementing what was agreed, and to continue work on the critical differences that remain. Many items must be completed during the 60th session of the General Assembly, ending next September. With so much to do in such a short period of time, civil society will be essential to keeping tabs on progress and keeping all parties involved accountable. While the Summit has come and gone, the hard work is just beginning. First, on management reform, world leaders committed to reviewing extensive management reforms to make the Secretariat more efficient, more effective and more accountable. This will include a review by the Secretary- General of all ongoing mandates in the first 55 years of the organization, as well as a thorough assessment of the organization's antiquated human resources and budget rules. The Secretary-General is moving forward expeditiously on his own authority to establish an independent ethics office, which will protect whistleblowers and ensure more extensive financial disclosure. Second, world leaders agreed to strengthen the organization's human rights machinery across the board. The High Commissioner for Human Rights is moving ahead to implement her plan of action, supported by the Summit's commitment to double the office's regular budget. Building on the groundbreaking agreement to create a new Human Rights Council, the President of the General Assembly will soon begin conducting negotiations to finalize agreement on important details. Third, progress must continue on terrorism. The Summit outcome produced for the first time, an unqualified condemnation of terrorism ``in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes.'' The work in the coming months will be to build on that simple statement to complete a comprehensive convention against terrorism by the end of September, and forge a global counter-terrorism strategy that weakens terrorists and strengthens the international community. Fourth, the final details must be locked down on the Peace- building Commission to get it up and running by the end of the year. Almost all the key details have now been agreed, but the next few months will be critical to operationalizing the commission. The Secretariat is already moving forward to set up a support office and a standing fund to support the commission. Fifth, with an ambitious commitment to add $50 billion a year for development, the Summit removed any doubt about the global support for the Millennium Development Goals. Every developing country is now pledged to formulate and implement a national strategy bold enough to achieve those development objectives by 2015. For their part, developed countries must now deliver on their pledges to boost financing for development and relieve debt. With each passing week it becomes dramatically clearer how much the world's leaders agreed to at the Summit. This is equally true about the sheer amount of work ahead. Every effort must be made to see the promise outlined by world leaders fulfilled. If we do that, we will help save millions of lives, and give hope to billions of people--a fitting achievement to mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations, and a platform from which to do even more in the years ahead. Let us celebrate United Nations Day.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for the United States' greatest ally, Israel, to be wiped off the map. Unfortunately, these vile words are not new, nor were they his own. He was quoting Iran's self- proclaimed enemy of the United States and Israel, Ayatollah Khomeini. But perhaps even more disturbing is a place you can find those words written, on their Shahab-3 ballistic missile. These missiles have a range of 1,250 miles and could easily strike Israel. Our Nation is blessed with a vibrant Jewish constituency, and I value my interaction with Jews in my district and during the many trips I have made to Israel. We can learn from the Jewish people that when your enemy says he is going to kill you, you better pay attention. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge this body to issue a sharp rebuke of the Iranian President's words. Further, we should immediately consider proposals to strengthen sanctions under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and authorize the President to provide financial and political assistance to prodemocracy groups within Iran.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in honoring and celebrating the life of Rosa Parks, whose simple act of taking a seat on a bus woke our Nation's conscience and galvanized our civil rights movement. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks, a seamstress and wife, boarded a Montgomery, Alabama bus to begin her usual journey home. Nothing was particularly different about this day, except that she wanted to sit after a long day's work. When ordered by the white bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger, she simply refused, and her action set in motion a series of events that led to the desegregation of the South. This was a stunning moment in time, not just a step along the way. This was the moment for our civil rights movement and ultimately resulted in two of our Nation's landmark pieces of legislation, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I am amazed too by this woman's fortitude, her inner strength and her calm demeanor in the face of these injustices. Her reaction stands in stark contrast to so many feelings we associate with that era--she was resolute, quiet and full of determination. I've read that on the day of her court appearance, a girl there yelled, ``Oh, she's so sweet. They've messed with the wrong one now!'' I'm sure that this girl, looking back on that same moment, cannot now believe how right she was. Today, we offer our condolences to Rosa Parks' family. It seems to me it is a fitting tribute to honor the mother of the civil rights movement by making her the first woman to lie in honor at the Capitol.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. The simple fact is, we have too many junk lawsuits being filed. It is imperative we reform our tort system, and it seems to me this legislation is an important step in this direction. The House has passed several common sense bills that will help make our court system less prone to abuse and more fair for victims, such as medical malpractice reform and class action reform. Today's legislation would restore mandatory sanctions on lawyers and law firms filing frivolous lawsuits and eliminate the current safe harbor provision that allows lawyers to avoid sanctions by quickly withdrawing meritless claims. The legislation also prevents forum shopping by requiring suits to be filed where a plaintiff resides, where an injury occurred, or where the defendant's principal place of business is located. Tort reform will make American businesses more competitive and lower costs to consumers while ensuring true victims' rights to sue for damages. Frivolous lawsuits have discouraged product development, stifled innovative research and cost millions in insurance and legal fees--costs that often get passed on to consumers. Making the system less costly will increase job creation, benefiting businesses and consumers alike. I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for his efforts for years in this area and for the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) work and the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Frank) work as well. When Enron was collapsing and Sarbanes-Oxley was created, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) said to me, But you know what? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not even come under these laws because they do not come under the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. So we thought let us try to get them under it. And I cannot tell the Members the grief that ensued after that. All of a sudden Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac considered us enemies because we wanted them to play by the same rules that everyone else had to play by. And through the work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and others, Fannie Mae was forced to come under, voluntarily as they said, the 1934 act. And when they did that, all of a sudden all this information about all of their problems started to come out because information was being provided to us. This action we are taking today is in response to the information that we have learned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am grateful that the new administrations of these agencies are no longer arrogant like the previous ones. I am grateful that we are starting to say that they should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And because of that, the taxpayers will be protected, and the investors will be protected. There are parts of this law that I would like strengthened, but this is a good act. It deserves our support. And, again, I thank our chairman for moving forward, as he always does, in a bipartisan way and for listening to the wisdom of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). I rise in strong support of this legislation and appreciate Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker's efforts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a vital role in our housing finance market, yet for far too long these companies have been playing by their own set of rules. During this time we've witnessed massive earning restatements, accounting irregularities, frequent challenges to their regulator's judgment and authority, and a cookie jar reserve. These were all part of a culture of arrogance at the GSEs, and were enabled by a weak and ineffective regulator. With this legislation, we are beginning to correct this very serious situation. How serious is the issue of GSE oversight? What's at stake if one or both companies fail? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have $1.6 trillion in combined assets; $1.4 trillion in retained mortgages in portfolio; $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt; and $1.5 trillion in notional derivatives. In addition, outstanding mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, but held by third parties, total $1.7 trillion. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of a world-class regulator to oversee these institutions, we are truly playing Russian roulette. Creating a new regulator is not about punishing the GSEs--it is in fact vital to the safety and soundness of our Nation's housing market. Both investors and taxpayers have a right to know the financial condition of the GSEs and they deserve a strong, independent regulator that has the resources to oversee their operations. There has been and will continue to be vigorous debate about this legislation. I want to address a few key issues surrounding this legislation, and share my thoughts on what I hope is ultimately included in the bill that is sent to the President. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only two publicly- traded companies in the Fortune 500 that are exempt from regulation by the SEC. The only reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to reveal their accounting errors is because in July 2002, under pressure from Congress and the Administration, the two companies finally agreed to comply with certain reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Fannie Mae followed through and registered in 2003, but failed to file a report in the third quarter of 2004, and is now in the process of restating those reports it did file. Freddie Mac simply never lived up to the agreement. I believe all publicly traded firms should play by the same set of rules, and am pleased this legislation codifies the 2002 agreement. This legislation should go even further by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to comply fully with the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Regarding the powers of the new regulator, due to the enormity of the GSEs' holdings, it seems to me we should go even further in empowering this new office. Economic experts, most notably Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, have warned this Congress that the tremendous concentration of mortgage assets at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coupled with the dangers associated with interest rate risk may pose a systemic risk, not only to the U.S. capital markets, but indeed the global financial system. Later today, I intend to support an amendment to empower the regulator to reduce Fannie and Freddie's mortgage assets if it determines these assets pose a systemic risk. I oppose placing statutory or hard caps on the GSEs' portfolios, but consistent with the Treasury Department's recommendation, it is prudent we provide the new regulator with the authority to consider systemic risk. Finally, regarding the affordable housing fund, despite my concern that creating this fund will only deepen the perception the GSEs are backed by the Federal government, those concerns are outweighed by the pressing need for more affordable housing in Connecticut and around the country. Year after year, we vigorously debate the amount of Federal funds to allocate for public housing, Section 8 and other housing programs, and it is my strong conviction that we must creatively address the affordable housing crisis. It seems to me this fund is a worthy solution. Non-profit organizations and social service providers in Connecticut do an amazing job and are continually finding ways to do more with less. But the needs are tremendous, and families continue to struggle to find housing where they can safely raise their children and still afford to feed them too. It's time we empowered housing organizations with additional resources to build more affordable units, including in the Gulf Coast region devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mr. Chairman, while there is more work to be done before Congress sends this legislation to the President, I support what we have before us today and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am motivated to come because of the comments made by the previous speaker, by an incident that happened today in my committee, and listening on TV to a previous speaker on Iraq. All three of them, to the best of my knowledge, have not been to Iraq since the war, and yet, they profess to know so much about what is going on in Iraq. I have not quite understood why our colleague would go and meet with Saddam Hussein before the war and not seek to understand and meet with our people in Iraq and the Iraqis after the war. I voted to remove Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 because I believed we could not allow Iraq, and Saddam Hussein in particular, to control 19 percent of the world's oil, the 10 percent that was in Iraq and the 9 percent in Kuwait, and then threaten over 40 percent of the world's oil in Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirate, Qatar and even Iran. So even more than 40 percent. It is almost like a James Bond movie that we would somehow think that we would want that to happen. People say it is all about oil. No. It is about our being able to light a room, heat a room, provide power in a hospital, to be able to move. Basically, it is about our lifeblood. So we went in and removed Saddam, and we had an agreement, which he did not abide with for 12 years. In fact, we encircled Iraq, hoping, I guess, that he would eventually comply. We had inspections that we sought to have him comply to, and he did not. At the time, we did not think he had a nuclear program; in fact, our CIA did not think he had it, and then his 2 sons-in-law went to Jordan and told us exactly where we would find his nuclear program. And then we were able to get Hans Blix and others to go to those areas and we found that he did, in fact, have a nuclear program. So our faith in the CIA, at least mine, sure was impacted significantly, frankly, by the failure of our people to know that, in fact, he had not just chemicals which he used on his own people. I have been to Iraq 10 times since the removal of Saddam in 2003. I have spoken to Kurdish families that lost loved ones. They described to me how those killings took place. The helicopters flying over, the mists that they saw, their families that collapsed in utter pain. I have also seen the killing fields that existed courtesy of Saddam Hussein. Regretfully, we almost gave him a playroom in which to do these things, because we encircled him with a no-fly zone. I voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 2002, and we did that in 2003 because, like President Bush, former President Clinton, Senator Clinton, my 2 democratic senators, Senators Dodd and Lieberman, I believed he had weapons of mass destruction. I went to Hans Blix and asked him in his own country why Saddam wanted us to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. And he said, he wanted his neighbors to fear him and he said, he never believed that we would come in. I thought, that is kind of hard to believe. But then, when I thought about it, it is not hard to believe. He never thought we would remove him from Kuwait. He never thought we would do that, which is a real lesson that a military power that you have, as powerful as it is, if your adversaries do not think you will use it, becomes a power you ultimately may use; whereas the threat of using it if they believe you will use it means that you can get a change in behavior. But he also believed we would not attack because we learned that the Oil For Food program had enabled him basically, as the Dulfer Report says, yes, he said, no weapons of mass destruction, but then he said that in his interviews with Iraqi officials, that Saddam believed that he had the vote of France, Russia, and China because of the Oil For Food program, and because of the Oil For Food program, he figured that the Security Council would not allow the United States to go in. Well, they did not. And he figured if France and Russia and China would not vote for us to go in, we would not go in. The President kept telling Saddam, cooperate, or we will come in. My wife would say to me, why is the President saying that? She said, I know he is going to do that. I said honey, he is not speaking to you, he is speaking to Saddam, because we do not want him to go in; we want him to comply. Now, the bottom line is, we went in. And, in April 2003, being a Peace Corps volunteer and someone who was not in Vietnam and yet, here I am, of Vietnam age sending other troops to Iraq, I thought, well, what could I bring to the table? I realized that what I could bring is what I was trained in the Peace Corps to do: it is to understand their culture, understand how we are able to appreciate them, an Arab Nation, and to see how we could help them have the opportunity to decide for themselves ultimately how to rule their own country. In Mukasa, I was there in April 2003, and I think I was the first Member of Congress to go into Iraq; in fact, I know I was, and I had conversations with a number of people, but one of them was with a gentleman named Mohammed Abdul Hassan, and I said to him, what do we do that makes you uncomfortable. He said, when you throw candy on the ground and our children pick it up as if they are chickens or dogs. He said, when an Arab woman puts her hand to her heart, a Muslim woman, and your soldier is offended, when really she is saying, thank your for honoring me, but Muslim women do not shake hands with men, but particularly with strangers, and you are offended. You should not be offended. She is honoring you by saying, ``thank you, but.'' And, at one point, which seemed a little out of character, he put his hands on my shoulders and looked at me and said, you do not know us and we do not know you. Well, I could not wait to get back home, because when I go to Iraq, I do it for 3 reasons. I want to see firsthand what is happening so I am not looking at it through the press. Because when you look at it through the press, it is like you look at it through a little scope. It is wherever they focus attention. I wanted to learn firsthand, because I had learned from my concern about his having weapons of mass destruction that I wanted to know firsthand, not through other sources. I wanted to see for myself. But I also wanted to come back home to be able to tell my own government things that I think they needed to do. One of them was very clear as soon as I came back. I said to our own government, we need Iraqi-Americans there, and we need Arabic speakers. Now, at that time, Iraq was under the control of the military and Mr. Bremmer, and I think they were insensitive to the cultural differences. I think that they did not pay attention to what the State Department had said about looting, about the need for Arab speakers. The second time I went there, I went outside the umbrella of the military. I want to make this point. I went on my own. Well, actually, I went with some nongovernment organizations that enabled me to stay in Basra, meet with Iraqis, stay in Al Gut, meet with folks in Al Gut, go to Hanacan, Sulaymania, Irbul, speak to every day Iraqis, spend the night, talk to them. The second time I went there, I started hearing, why are you putting my father and my brother and my uncle out of work? Why are you doing that? What did they do? They did not know I was a Member of Congress; they thought I was evaluating the programs provided by these nongovernment organizations, and it was honest, that is what I was doing. I just did not tell them I also happened to be a Member of Congress. They made such a strong case. They said, why can't we at least guard the hospitals. That rings in my ear, because we have lost 3 American soldiers in my district, the first one guarding the hospital, which is to acknowledge to my colleague who just spoke that we did make mistakes, huge mistakes, and we dug a deep hole. We basically created a void because we disbanded their Army, their police, their Border Patrol, and their government. We put over 400,000 people out of work and, in the process, all of their family members became a bit angry. So we are talking about nearly 2 million Iraqis who were basically told by our government, you have no future role in Iraq. And I say that and I wish the administration would acknowledge it, because rather than making me more concerned about where we are today, it makes me appreciate where we are today. If we were up here in April 2003 and were a little ahead or a little behind; we dug ourselves a huge hole by disbanding their Army, their police, and their Border Patrol. But when you see how far we were down, you realize now that we have come a long way. We, the Iraqi people, and we, the United States, in the incredible dedication of our troops, we lost nearly 2,000 Americans, but we have had over 14,000 who have been injured, and some of them quite severely. The bottom line is, though, if you appreciate that we have come a long way from the hole we dug, you do see the progress that my colleague does not seem to want to see or acknowledge, which I think has been quite significant. Another time I went to Iraq, I had one of Mr. Bremmer's people pull me aside and say, we do not have any resources. I only have one person here: me. And it is all centrally controlled. And we need money. I need at least 50 people. The Marines are leaving and they did kind of the work I was doing, interacting with the populace and the polls are coming in and they are not going to do it the same way. We need resources. I came back and said, we need resources. I was a little shocked to find a month later that we saw tens of billions of dollars being added. A little resources was a lot more than I thought. And I do feel that if I had it to do over again, I would have wanted to have a clearer picture of the potential costs. I still would have been very strongly an advocate of going into Iraq, but I would have liked to have known the costs better. And that is one area when I look back and I say, why did I not try to determine those better. Another time I went in, I met with our folks who take the weapons, the IEDs, the improvised explosive devices and they break them down, and I went and saw a room filled with hundreds of these tiny mechanisms. And the people that were there, there were about 2 to 3 of them, I know 2 in particular, and they said, we only have a handful of people. We need 50 to 100 folks to help us break these down. They were key chains, the keys that would open the door, they were the car door openers, they were timers in washing machines. They said, if we had more people we could break down where they were made, because we could identify the type of unit that is made to make these bombs and we would know where to go in Iraq. When I came back, I frankly asked to meet with the President and had an opportunity to share my concerns with the President and other officials about the need to get people in that area, which is to say that, and then that happened. We got those individuals. And we were able to break down a lot more of these weapons. I believe, as I point out in other criticism, before I talk about some of the amazing things that have happened, I believe that if the White House had been more open to legislative oversight, and we in Congress had been more aggressive on legislative oversight, Abu Ghraib never would have happened, because this is what would have happened. One of us would have been in Abu Ghraib, and a soldier would have come up to us and probably use stronger language than I am going to use, and he or she would have said, I do not know a darn thing about overseeing prisoners. I am a cook. I am in artillery. I do not know how to do it. By the way, Congressman, some pretty bad things are going on here by a few people. And we would have then raised questions, and it would have been looked into. So one of the sad things from my standpoint is in summary, I wish that our military had listened more to what the State Department said would happen, which did: the looting, do not disband the Army, the police, or the military, or the government; I wish that we had done oversight in a stronger way. But this is the amazing thing that has happened. It is absolutely amazing. Those who have voted against the war have been in strong criticism of the President. So almost everything he does, they are critical of. And yet, when they are critical of it and it turns out right, they just kind of fade into the woodwork. They said, do not transfer power to the Iraqis in June, do not rush them. And we did, and it was a huge success, the transfer of power in June of last year. Every critic of the President said do not do it, it will be a failure. When it succeeded, they just acted like nothing happened. Well, a huge thing happened. We transferred power. I can tell my colleagues that it worked and it was significant because when I was there for one of my visits and I had met with the President and I had met with the Prime Minister and I had met with the foreign minister, the Foreign Minister Negroponte, and what was crucial about the transfer of power, besides giving the Iraqis the authority, was we took it away from Defense to run the government, Mr. Bremmer, and let them fight the war, and we gave it to State Department to be our liaison with a legitimate government, or at least a government that now was in Iraqi hands. I will say legitimate in parentheses since there was not any election. So we went out on this press conference and there was all this Iraqi press, and I have to tell you, I thought, this is kind of a kick, I am going to have a press conference with Iraqis. The first thing I said was, ``we made some mistakes, but.'' And there was nodding of heads by the Iraqis because I knew that they all agreed and knew that it was a mistake to disband the Army, the police, the Border Patrol and the government, at least most of them felt that way. Well, the first question was to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, so I stepped aside and he answered the question. I asked, is there another question. The second was to the Foreign Minister. I stepped aside and he answered that. This went on for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times and I finally said to Mr. Negroponte, I said, Ambassador, what better proof do we have that the Iraqis believe, and with justification, that their own people are now in charge. That was a huge, huge success, for which the President basically got no credit. Then there was the election in January 2005, and all of the critics said do not have this election, it is going to be a big failure. There is going to be violence. It is not going to work. Well, I was there on election day. And it was one of my most thrilling moments as a Member of Congress, because I was getting affirmation that we were clearly on the right track. Clearly on the right track. I was in Irbil. And I met with the Democratic Institute, and the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute that are funded to help countries all around the world understand democracy. And in these institutes were not Americans; they were all of the people we had helped in different places, in Yugoslavia and South America. They were all there to help Iraqis. It was thrilling to see all of this world community to come to help. But at any rate, I am going and witness the vote. And I had a badge on that gave me the privilege of serving, and in Irbil there was this school, and there were three classrooms on one side, and three classrooms on the other. And people were going in, and registration was running pretty well. Under Saddam if you did not register, you were likely to get killed. So we had a pretty good registration list. But what was amazing was in every one of those rooms the furniture was the same; it was corrugated cardboard, but so firm it was like furniture. And people were given their local, their state, and their Federal ballot. They went behind a protected area. They voted and then they came up to the person who was right there with the three ballot boxes. The person took their ballots, folded them up and put them on top of each ballot. And then took their finger and stuck it in the ink jar. And I am thinking, well, this is interesting. You get killed, I am told if you vote, and yet those folks are putting their finger in an ink jar. And I learned from some from South America, they use that system in South America in some of the countries. If you try to erase the ink it gets darker. The only way you can take it off is to take your finger off. You just have to wait until the skin dies. So it is there for many, many, many days. And I am watching this. Give the ballot. Put your finger in the ink jar. And I wanted to bond with the Iraqis. I was in a Kurdish village. And I went up, I think somewhat meekly, and I said, would it be all right if I stuck my finger in that ink jar? Well, the woman who was in charge of the election there looked up at me, looked down at the ink jar, looked up at me again, looked down, then looked up at me again and then she said, no, you are not an Iraqi. I was embarrassed. Everybody looked at me. I sure was not an Iraqi. And then I welled up with this incredible emotion, for two reasons. The pride that she had, and I was not one of her. But she was a Kurd, and she said I was not an Iraqi. She did not say I was not a Kurd. I saw Iraqis line up to vote. They were dressed up. And they brought their men with them, the Iraqi women, because they wanted to vote. And I saw them carry their children, just like we would do. Later that day, I met with the President of Iraq. The election is in January. This was to elect an assembly which would then select people for a panel for the Constitution, that then had to be ready by September for a vote in October. And he told me he got there half an hour early. And they made him wait a half an hour. And then he smiled, and he said, is that not terrific? But then he got angry, and he said, I was fined $1,000 for campaigning the day before the election. And I said, well, Mr. President what did you do? He described to me what he did. And I am thinking to myself, it sure sounded like campaigning to me. And then he said, But, you know, they fined everybody else too. And I thought, you know what, this is amazing. When I met with the election officials later that day, I learned there were 160,000 Iraqis who ran this election. Contrary to what my colleague said previously, this was not run by Americans. We taught them, Yugoslavians taught them, South Americans taught them, the English taught them, some in the eastern European nations, other Eastern European nations had come to tell them about democracy. They set it up, and they ran it almost flawlessly. Frankly, better than happened in some of my own urban communities in my own district. There was immense pride, and there should have been pride. So it took them a while to get their government, but they did. And they were a few weeks late in getting their Constitution. What did the press say? The press said, they are failing. That is what they said. All of the major newspapers on TV, they are failing. And I am thinking to myself, they have failed because they missed a deadline by a week or two? They failed? So I began to think. Let me think. 1776. Declaration of Independence. Articles of Confederation. Constitution of the United States. I think that was like 13 years. And then as Condoleezza Rice pointed out to me, besides the failure of the Articles of Confederation, in our Constitution, if you were black you were three-fifths a person and a slave. Women did not have the right to vote. And there were a few other things. We punted on a few issues. Now, the Iraqis have given women the right to vote. The Iraqis have even guaranteed 25 percent of their seats in their assembly will be women. That is what they have done. The Iraqis have said Sharia law exists if you declare under Shiia or Sunni, Sharia law. If you declare you are a Shiia or a Sunni. But if you choose to be under common law, then you are under common law. They then have tried to draw in the Sunnis, who in the negotiations were allowed to participate even though they did not vote in the last election, they did not vote. But they were still there. But the Sunnis would tell us that they did not have this authority to say, yes, we put our stamp of approval on this, because they said we were not elected like you were, Shiias and Kurds. But they agreed with so much in private as to what was done. And the Shiias and the Kurds kept trying to say, well, if we do this, do this. And then we hear in the press that somehow this is a bad thing. And then I began to think about our Constitution. When we had the Constitution, it did not include the 10 Bill of Rights, and fortunately, Virginia, in particular, said we want the Bill of Rights. And Jefferson said, we want the Bill of Rights. We had to change our Constitution 10 times in order to become these United States. We had to amend what had been already agreed to. And yet we are not even saying that the Iraqis can do the same thing? And we are saying they have to do it in 2\1/2\ to 3 years, when we took many, many years, and along the way had the Articles of Confederation. So I look at the transfer of power in June of 2004 and say what a huge thing. Then the elections in 2005. So what about the election that just happened? I kept turning to the press to see what happened. And I did not hear what happened. And then it dawned on me: you know, it must have been a success, because the press was not talking about it. What a horrible thing to say and have to admit, but it is so true. If it is a success, it is not going to be talked about, which is to say, frankly, if the press moves to al-Kut, that is where the bombing would be, not in Baghdad. If the press moved to Basra, that is where all of the bombing would be. If the press moved to Kadhimain, that is where all of bombing would be because the bombing is not for domestic consumption; it is for international consumption. The Iraqis are used to bombings. They have 400,000 people in the killing fields. They have the dead in the Kurdish areas because of the chemical weapons Saddam used. I met a woman who for 10 years was not allowed to go out of her house. I do not say out of her property, out of her house. Because her parents were so fearful, given her looks, she was attractive, that Udai and Qusay would choose her as their woman of pleasure some night, Saddam's two sons. It was a horrific place to be. And now Iraqis are forming their government. When I asked Iraqis during any number of my 10 visits, what is your biggest fear, their biggest fear is, and it is hard to tell you how I feel when I say it, but they say that you will leave us. That you will have us taste what you have, give us an idea, give us a sense of how life could be without Saddam, give us a sense to have our own destiny determined by the majority, that you will leave us. I say to them, we will not leave you. Now, you know what, I do not think we will. But when I hear the talk and I look at CNN and I look at other newscasts and I hear the blind, we are in a mess in Iraq, and I see the transfer of power, the election in January, the referendum now, and what I believe will be a huge participation in December, I am saying, I am in awe of what the Iraqis have done. I am in awe of what our Americans have done. Because while we never should have disbanded the army, the police, the border patrol, their government, we did, and the Americans, the limited number of Americans had to fill in the void and pay a huge price. But they also have done something else besides trying to maintain security, trying to teach about democracy, trying to build an economy. They have trained their army, their police, their border patrol, they are training their government officials. Six months ago, I would have had to tell you honestly, and I would have been honest, that the police were not professionals, because they were not. They did not have enough training. They did not have enough experience. They did not have enough equipment. But now we are giving them the training, the equipment. They have the cars, the uniforms, the places, the weapons, the training clearly; and now they are getting the experience. They are getting the experience. The military was able in the last town that we were able to free, the Iraqis went in. We followed. The Iraqis freed the town. We followed. The bottom line is, we followed and the Iraqis are now able to hold it. Let me get toward the conclusion here and just say to you that we may fail or we may succeed, but we have a better chance. We have a better chance in Iraq than we had when we formed our own country. Dave McCullough in ``1776'' said we needed lots of miracles. We needed the miracle to make sure the wind was blowing in the right way so George Washington could leave and escape the British in New York. We needed a miracle to get Massachusetts and Virginia to agree. We did not have three parties. We did not have the Kurds, the Shiias and the Sunnis. We had 13 very independent States. We had large States; we had small States. How are you going to get them all to agree? Are Rhode Island and Delaware going to agree to let Virginia and New York or Pennsylvania govern? No. But we did it. They do not need a miracle. What they do need is a little more time. What they do need is the possibility that they can have their elections, that they can refine their Constitution, and that they can make sure their military has the capability to provide the security. So when people say, what is our exit strategy? I say it a hundred times, it is very simple. And when they say we do not have an exit strategy, that is simply not true. We have had an exit strategy from day one. It has been revised a few times, but we have had an exit strategy. It has been revised because we underestimated the strength of the insurgency. We underestimated the consequence of disbanding their army, their police and their border patrol; but our strategy is so basic, so simple, and it does not need to be doubted. Our strategy is to train their police, to train their border patrol, to train their military so they have the capability to keep order. To train their government so that they not only know about majority rule, but minority rights. To give them more time to experience the government, to give them more time to have their military be engaged in a fight with help from the United States. Will we leave? We will leave probably sooner than we should. In my judgment, Senator McCain and others have been right. We have been understaffed in Iraq. We will leave probably sooner than we should but we will not leave completely because Iraqis will still need logistical support. Their military will not have the cooks, the people who can do the transportation, and all the other things that they need besides that fighting force. They will not have the air power that they will need. And frankly, I do not think they are going to want us to leave from Iraq completely when they have neighbors like Syria, the Turks who fear the Kurds, the Iranians that fear the Kurds and are trying to wrap their arms around the Shias, and the Saudis who do not want democracy to succeed. When my colleague, the previous speaker, talked about how people predicted bad things, I know darn well that the President of Egypt predicted the election in January would not succeed. He was wrong. He predicted the constitution would not pass and I think he is wrong. And I think it relates more to not the United States but more to the idea that Sunnis are having to give up power in Iraq to Shias, and that is of concern to many. Have there been other benefits from our being there? I do not think that you would have seen Qadhafi and Libya do a 180 degree turn. It was around the time we captured Saddam Hussein that Qadhafi I think probably thought, you know, I have billions of dollars. Why would I want to end up like Saddam Hussein? Why in the world would I want that to happen? And in Syria even the Israelis were saying the Syrians will not leave Lebanon but they left Lebanon. I do not think they would have left Lebanon if we were not in Iraq. Fortunately, the Syrians fear we might do something in Syria. Now to some in my district they think that would be the craziest thing in the world to do something in Syria. No, the craziest thing would be for the Syrians to fear that we would not do something. The craziest thing would be for us to say that we will not do something in Syria. The smartest thing is to keep the Syrians wondering so we can have a change of behavior without using military. When I met with the Syrian ambassador he said, We want to be your friends. Just tell us what we are doing wrong and we will stop. And I said to the ambassador, Mr. Ambassador, we will not want to tell you the things we know you are doing wrong and then just have you stop the things we know you are doing wrong. We want to you stop even the things we do not know you are doing. We want you to stop allowing insurgents to come into Damascus who are terrorist bombers who then come into Iraq to blow themselves up. When my colleague said only 10 percent of the insurgency are foreigners. I thought, yes, there are only 10 percent of them but 98 percent of them are bombers, people who blow themselves up. If we could get rid of that 10 percent, we would get rid of 98 percent of the suicide bombers. Most Iraqis do not have any interest in blowing themselves up. So there is more I could say about Iraq. I am in awe of what our troops have done. I am in awe of the Iraqi men and women that I have met. I believe that most Iraqis who are involved in this government believe they are the Madisons, the Benjamin Franklins, the George Washingtons. They believe they are helping to create a new nation that not unlike its fledgling democracy in the United States, where you could have said, you know, tell me a country that has been a democracy, a country where there have been some States. Tell me a country. You could have used the same argument against the United States. Nobody has it. It is not a natural thing. We in this world have kings and queens and dictators. Well, what I found at least with the Iraqis is they take to democracy. They love the debate, the dialogue. They love to barter. They love it. And there are a lot of things we could criticize what they have done, but I think in two and a half years they do not need a miracle, but they make me feel like they are doing something that will have unbelievable significance in the long run for peace and prosperity.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 248, which honors the life of Simon Wiesenthal, and appreciate the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Wiesenthal lived through one of the darkest eras of world history. Yet out of the suffering he and millions of other Jews experienced, he found purpose by dedicating the last 60 years of his life to the pursuit of justice for the victims of the Holocaust. Simon Wiesenthal was determined to ensure that those who exacted horrific crimes on their fellow man be held accountable. If a former Nazi war criminal was not caught and brought to justice, Mr. Wiesenthal's dogged work ensured they would live their life in fear of being caught. The bottom line is war criminals should not be allowed to live out their lives with impunity and Mr. Wiesenthal worked to see this would not happen. Simon Wiesenthal's legacy sends a message that continues to be heard around the world--perpetrators of genocide cannot and will not be allowed to hide from their crimes. His memory is forever preserved in the work of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which was founded in 1977 to promote awareness of anti-Semitism, monitor neo-Nazi and other extremist groups, and help bring surviving Nazi war criminals to justice. The Center has done tremendous work in his name, including opening the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles in 1993, which has received over two million visitors, and making major contributions to the June 2005 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Conference on AntiSemitism and on Other Forms of Intolerance. I join with all of colleagues in recognizing Simon Wiesenthal's compassionate commitment to justice and urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Boehlert substitute amendment because I believe we will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. The Endangered Species Act has been a guiding force for the preservation of species threatened with extinction for over 30 years. It is vitally important that we not alter it in any way that could result in the protection it provides from being compromised. The Endangered Species Act is working. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the species ever listed under the ESA have been prevented from going extinct, and 68 percent are stable or improving; but the recovery plans in place may need 50 years to restore these to relative abundance. The amendment would prevent the creation of a mandatory entitlement program for private property owners which is likely to be hugely expensive. The substitute also restores the role of science in the Endangered Species Act. The underlying bill appears to give the opinions of individuals without any scientific expertise equal standing with those of scientists and repeals protections against hazardous pesticides. I oppose H.R. 3824 and any efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act. I support the Miller-Boehlert substitute.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise it support of H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009, particularly the sections which re-authorizes portions of the Violence Against Women Act that are under the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee. I am a long-time supporter of programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. I believe Congress must proactively work to combat crimes against women including domestic violence, rape and other sex crimes. In 1994, I voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which incorporated VAWA. This legislation established a number of grant programs designed to aid law enforcement officers and prosecutors, encourage arrest policies, stem domestic violence and child abuse, and establish training programs for victim advocates and counselors. I am deeply concerned about the scourge of domestic violence and other crimes against women, and recognize the need for support services and tough prosecution guidelines. Each year, approximately 2 million women are physically or sexually assaulted or stalked by an intimate partner in the United States. Perpetrators of these reprehensible crimes must be punished, and victims must have the services available to help transition to a normal life. Passing H.R. 3402 will ensure the development and continuation of programs that work to prevent violence and assist survivors and their families regain their safety and self-sufficiency. I strongly support these programs and encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as September is National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, I would like to share the story of a resident of the Fourth Congressional District, Walter Ginter, who is recovering from a drug addiction. I recently met with Mr. Ginter and heard of his struggle to overcome his addiction. In addition to wanting to call attention to the plight of recovering addicts, he was particularly concerned that as we consider the plight of many victims of Hurricane Katrina, we ensure that we pay particular attention to those recovering from dependency. Since many are in treatment programs, interruption from these programs can result in setbacks. This is one of the many, many things that we need to consider as we go forward in rebuilding the lives of those affected in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Our country has improved greatly, but we still have work to do in providing access to treatment and eliminating the stigma surrounding chemical dependency. I hope this month of awareness will help us accomplish this worthy goal. The following is Mr. Ginter's story: My name is Walter Ginter. I am 56 years old. I own a house in Westport CT. I participate in civic activities, have a subscription to the Westport Country Playhouse, and I am a registered Republican. Most days, along with hundreds of other Westport residents, I commute on Metro North Railroad to NYC. I am indistinguishable from the other commuters and completely typical in every way but one. Each day I take medication for a chronic medical condition. Taking a maintenance medication is hardly atypical, I am sure that other commuters take maintenance medications. The difference is that I take a medication to treat my opiate dependence. I first became opiate dependent in 1971, when I was in the army. I spent much of the next 20 years in and out of various treatment programs in my effort to stop using heroin. For me, the only treatment that was effective was methadone maintenance. While on methadone I got my life together and attained the goal promised by the SAMSHA matrix, ``a life in the community for everyone.'' However, every few years, no matter how well my life was going I felt pressured to leave methadone treatment. Sometimes the pressure came from well meaning friends but mostly from myself. I felt inadequate, weak; even cowardly. . . . I tried again and again . . . but each time I left methadone treatment I relapsed. Eventually, through advocacy, I learned that opiate addiction wasn't a moral issue or a matter of strength or weakness but primarily a brain disorder. The reason I did well on methadone was because it restored my normal brain function. Today, I am Director of Training for the National Alliance of Methadone Advocates. Through training and education we are trying to end the stigma experienced by patients on medication. Some methadone advocates like to say, ``Methadone is Recovery.'' They are wrong! Methadone is not Recovery. Recovery has nothing to do with taking medication or not taking medication. Recovery is living a sober, happy, productive lifestyle. However, thousands of methadone patients are living that life and haven't been taught anything about recovery. That is what recovery advocacy is for me. Teaching and training so that my brothers and sisters who take medications can start enjoying life as recovering persons.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 472 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, a disaster of this magnitude can be hard to comprehend. Convinced of our mastery of the physical world, we too often underestimate Nature's horrible, irresistible power. A storm like Hurricane Katrina should puncture that hubris and occasion in its wake a humble assessment of our plans and preparations to meet the catastrophes Mother Nature sends our way. As our fellow citizens in affected States struggle to cope, now is not the time to compound their fears with criticisms and second guessing about rescue and recovery efforts. But gaps and flaws in the joint local, State and Federal response are clearly showing. Today the President concluded those efforts so far were ``not acceptable.'' They are not acceptable. In the weeks and months ahead, those of us charged with oversight of homeland security issues will be asking hard questions about the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, commonly referred to as FEMA, for their response, planning and execution. Streams of refugees and reports of lawless gangs terrorizing the streets of New Orleans convey images more commonly associated with the Third World than with a major commercial port in the New World. When a catastrophe, natural or man-made, rips through the social fabric, the first obligation of governments at all levels is to maintain order and deal with the short-term needs of the populace. The capability to reestablish public safety and protect the lives and property of law-abiding citizens must be brought to bear visibly and promptly. Katrina's destruction took just hours, but reconstruction will take months and years. Together, we must work overtime until homes are built and people are back to work. We must continue to provide all the government support, money and manpower they need. We must continue to encourage private donations of food, blood, funding and services. Although the burden of this storm has been borne by those who live in the region, this is truly a national challenge. I have heard from so many of my constituents, and all want to express their love and concern and convey their desire to be of help by lending their skills, opening their homes, providing financial assistance, and doing whatever else they can. Two wonderful organizations in our district, Save the Children and AmeriCares, are working around the clock to provide relief. On our Web site, we have provided information on ways to donate money, food and water to the efforts. Since Katrina washed away homes, businesses, families and lives, America has grieved deeply. We all mourn those who lost their lives, and we grieve with those who have lost their loved ones and friends. While we cannot reverse Katrina's damage, we can begin to repair the region, which sustains millions of Americans and is vital to our Nation. Today's legislation will help us begin that process of rebuilding the area, providing support to law enforcement and getting Gulf Coast residents back to the business of their lives. In the days and weeks to come, there will be much more that follows.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the hedge fund industry plays a critical and special role in our capital markets and is enormously important to helping institutional investors diversify their investment portfolios and meet their future funding needs. While the numbers fluctuate some, there are believed to be close to 8,000 hedge funds that manage approximately $1 trillion in assets. Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, which I'm very proud to represent, is the home to several hundred of the most successful hedge funds. Over the past few years, the industry has received increasing attention from the media, Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). I happen to believe that strong oversight of our financial markets is critical to our nation's economic well-being, but recognize that with sophisticated and knowledgeable investors, hedge funds do not require the same level of scrutiny as is paid to the mutual fund industry. Nevertheless, it seems to me that more transparency and better government and regulator understanding of the industry will ultimately benefit investors and managers alike. The Greenwich Roundtable is a not-for-profit organization, based in Greenwich, Connecticut with a mission to promote education in alternative investments. This thoroughly professional and thoughtful institution has produced a report entitled, ``Best Practices in Hedge Fund Investing: Due Diligence for Equity Strategies,'' that I hope will serve as an important reference for this body, for investors and for others interested in our capital markets. The goal of the publication is to ``help demystify a topic that has been shrouded in myth and, by doing so, help improve the level of education among those who wish to better understand the community of active hedge fund investors.'' It seems to me this is a very important document and would recommend it to any of my colleagues with an interest or concern about the industry to review it. An abstract of this report is below, and I again would like to express my appreciation to the Greenwich Roundtable for this important and timely publication. Best Practice in Hedge Fund Investing: Due Diligence This publication is the first collaboration of its kind, between investors and managers. The goal of this publication is to help demystify a topic that has been shrouded in myth and, by doing so, help improve the level of education among those who wish to better understand the community of active hedge fund investors, This is the first issue of the planned series of Best Practices in Hedge Fund Investing. Inside this first issue, you will be treated to an informed examination into the art of due diligence. The scope will be confined to examining equity-oriented strategies. The universe of hedge fund strategies is enormously broad and diverse. Any single method of inquiry applied to all due diligence would become generic. Future issues will cover strategies in other areas such as managed fixtures, fixed income and asset-backed markets. The investors who created this publication are members of our Education Committee. Their backgrounds are broad and diverse. They hail from the family office, bank proprietary capital, or fund of funds communities. They are all seasoned investors in a broad range of strategies. For two years, our purpose has been to uncover ``soft'' aspects of performing hedge fund due diligence. Our emphasis is on developing an interpretative discussion whenever a flag is raised. There have been many generic investor questionnaires circulated. Most were focused on collecting quantitative data. Quantitative analysis is backward looking. Qualitative analysis is more useful as a forward looking tool. Selected Excerpts Strategy, Investment Process, and Market Opportunity--A critical first step in any evaluation of a hedge fund investment is the establishment of a proper context for the evaluation. Once the context for the evaluation is properly understood, it is possible to proceed with a more nuanced investigation of the investment strategy, the portfolio manager's edge, and other relevant fund particulars. Team and Organization--The quality of a firm's human capital will contain, perhaps the strongest clues about its prospects for sustainable success. Moreover, the success of the organization requires both investment and business management acumen, skills that rarely reside in equal proportion in any single investment professional. Fee Structure and Terms--The evaluation of a fund's fee structure and terms is essentially an exercise in understanding the value proposition of a particular hedge fund investment. Much of this will depend on the circumstances and environment in which the investment opportunity is presented. In the end, an investor must ultimately determine whether the terms and conditions for this investment are reasonable and fair. Management Company, Fund Structure and Asset Base--An evaluation of the hedge fund's management company should be focused on the question of what kind of business it is. In the final analysis, an investor needs to understand if there is a true alignment of incentives between the prospective investor and the portfolio manager in regards to their investment objective. Quantitative Review--Many experienced hedge fund investors appear to view quantitative analysis as a valuable complement, rather than a substitute, for more qualitatively drawn judgments. Deployed intelligently, certain quantitative disciplines can help confirm the wisdom of more qualitatively drawn judgments and assist in highlighting aspects of the investment strategy that warrant further investigation. Operations and Transparency--There is a big difference between portfolio transparency and translucency. Transparency implies a more substantially active role on the part of the manager in identifying and clarifying key risks for investors. Translucency implies a simple commitment to provide a clear view of the portfolio holdings and may not be very helpful in informing the investor. Third Parties--Evaluating the quality of the third-party vendors, as well as understanding the intersection of in- house and third-party business management, is critical to understanding how disciplined the hedge fund business and investment processes truly are. Intuition, Judgment, and Experience--No amount of due diligence can completely replace the importance of experience and intuition when investing with a hedge fund manager. Finally and most importantly, would you invest your own money or your family's money with this manager?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.