Floor Statements

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

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. 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. Speaker, is this the legislation extending time for the transportation bill?

Then, Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a dialogue with the gentleman bringing out the bill, but first will express my reservation of objection.

In the full bill that we will be considering, there is a section 1942 entitled Opening of Airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. It reads: ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall, (1) open the Air Field At Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; and (2) enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.''

My objection is that I understand this resolution extension will only go until August 14. That means that the President is forced to sign the bill, the ultimate bill that we pass, even if he has objections to the bill. I have deep concern that we are basically forcing the President to agree to an act that will reopen a base closed under BRAC without any options.

And if the President does the right thing, which would be to veto this bill so that stuff like this is not made into law, then our government transportation shuts down. My reservation is that the extension is not long enough.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentleman, and will yield to him for a response to this question: Does the President know that in this transportation bill there is legislation language that will undo a BRAC closing? Is he aware that this language is in this?

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confide with my colleague that I am told that this is language that will basically reopen a base that was closed under BRAC, and that while the gentleman is under the interpretation he is under, there are many of us who believe it is quite different. While I greatly respect the gentleman, it seems to me this House of Representatives has to someday stand up to the Senate when they do this kind of stuff, sir.

What we are seeing here is absolutely outrageous, and what would have been a preferred extension, in my judgment, with all due respect to my colleagues, would be to have allowed the President such time that he could have had an extension until he signed this legislation. And if he did not sign this legislation, we could have come back and corrected this.

I am hopeful that before the night is out that we are going to delete section 1942. I do not know how it is going to happen, but, Lord knows, if it does not, we have basically done something that I think is shameful to the process and reflects badly not just on the Senate, but on the House that we would allow them.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making a case well beyond this issue.

I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and would be happy to yield to him to respond. It was my understanding that this provision of 60 days had been shorter, and somehow people felt that by extending to 60 days, they had solved the objection to this bill. Is it true that when this bill came out of conference, it was less than 60 days?

Does the gentleman know the provision I am talking about? It says, ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall open the air field at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.'' Open it.

``And enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.'' It is opening a base. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make a closing comment, and if I am not allowed to, I would object. And my closing comment is this. This is to open a base that was closed. This 60 days was added as a sop to the House, in my judgment, with all due respect, to somehow allow everybody to save face. We are not in session for all 60 days.

Mr. Speaker, on July 25, I was returning to Washington from an oversight trip in Iraq and, therefore, missed three recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted yes on recorded vote No. 417, yes on recorded vote No. 418, and yes on recorded vote No. 419.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for their focus on this legislation.

This is a very exciting time. I know it is a contentious time. I just returned from my ninth visit to Iraq yesterday morning. My purpose in going was to meet with the drafters of the new Constitution, to express our gratitude for their work and appreciation for their bravery, but also to make sure they realize that they have an awesome opportunity to a create successful country if they recognize that when they move toward democracy, it has to include certain vital components.

Democracy obviously involves majority rule. That comes easy to folks. They get majority rule but they also need to recognize the importance of minority rights. And right along with that is the fact that democratic countries that succeed are those democracies that recognize women are an equal part.

When you look at the gross domestic product of the Arab nations, it is astounding to recognize when you take in aggregate their total GNP and in spite of controlling nearly two-thirds of the world's oil, they still have a collective gross domestic product only equal to Spains'.

The message is clear, when you cut out half of your populace, you are not going to prosper and grow. So it is in the self-interest of every man and woman in Iraq to make sure women have an equal role in the activities of their country.

When I met this past weekend with Iraqi women in Amman and in Baghdad, and met with men and women who were participating in their constitutional convention, it was clear they feel like they are the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins and the Shermans. They know they have this unbelievable opportunity to shape a great nation.

It is right for our country to encourage them to do the right thing, to tell them we know what has helped us succeed. But in the end, it is their country and they will decide what is in their best interest.

They are going to decide, but if they want to succeed, and Lord knows we want them to, they need to make sure that along with guaranteeing majority rule and minority rights, right along with that there is the very real need to guarantee women are not only protected as equal but have an active role in their government.

Last June when the President demanded we transfer power to the Iraqis, there were many who did not agree with him. We took this American face and transferred it to Iraqis, and Iraqis began to be in charge of their own country. They had their election this January. More Iraqis participated in their election on a percentage basis than Americans participate in their own elections.

And now they will met this August 15 deadline. They have assured me they are going to have their constitutional draft done, they are going to have their referendum on the 15th of October, and elect their new government in December. They will succeed.

What is astounding is in spite of the bombings, in spite of the chaos, it has not deterred the Iraqis from moving their country forward.

I am going to conclude my remarks by again thanking the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for their work, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for his work.

I believe Iraqis know the importance of what they are doing, and that this little nudge from us is important, but ultimately they get it. They recognize women have a huge role to play in this potentially powerful country, with 10 percent of the world's oil, with all the water that a Middle East country could want. God bless our country, and God bless our new fledgling democracy in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

The Government Reform Committee, of which I am vice-chairman, has held hearings and briefings on postal reform for several years now, and I am glad to see our efforts come to fruition today.

The United States Postal Service has been forced to cut back on its service due to serious financial challenges. H.R. 22 is an effort to modernize our Nation's postal laws for the first time in 35 years. It is intended to help ensure the United States Postal Service can survive in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Due to the increasing use of electronic forms of communication, such as email, first-class mail volume is declining, but postal addresses are increasing. In lieu of simply increasing rates, an entire reform of the postal service is necessary.

H.R. 22 would require the Postal Service to operate in a more business-like manner by creating a modem system of rate regulation, establishing fair competition rules and a more powerful regulatory commission.

H.R. 22 will also promote both price stability and pricing flexibility. Giving the Postal Service pricing flexibility will allow USPS to price its core mail products in a way that keeps them competitive and, quite literally, in the mail. By limiting the amount of future postage rate increases, however, the bill also takes an important step towards encouraging the Postal Service to increase mail volume and keep the mailbags full while giving mailers predictability and stability.

Universal postal service should be the first and foremost goal of reform. This can only be accomplished if the financial and operational crisis facing the United States Postal Service is met with innovative and bold action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. There are a whole host of reasons to support this legislation.

CAFTA will benefit both the U.S. economy and the economies of the Central American nations. Opponents of CAFTA would have us believe the North American Free Trade Agreement moved all our jobs to Mexico and seriously harmed the American economy. Contrary to their assertion, our economy's strength is due in no small part to the advancement of free trade.

Expanding trade is critical to strengthening our economy. This is especially true in Connecticut where our businesses exported $8.3 billion in 2002, up $1.1 billion since 1999. In fact, export-supported jobs accounted for an estimated 7.5 percent of the state's total private-sector employment.

Many of my friends in the labor and environmental communities have expressed concern that signing this agreement will be bad for their interests. I strongly believe by integrating ourselves with these countries, we give ourselves greater leverage to work on enforcing labor standards and environmental safeguards. Only through isolation do we risk letting these countries slip down the very path these groups are concerned about.

Furthermore, I believe the best way the United States can facilitate social and economic reforms in other countries is through an open dialogue and greater trade. Free trade leads to a richer and more educated populace, which leads to the expansion of democracy and a desire to be accepted as a full member in the world community.

Leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are advancing an anti-American, anti-Western agenda in our hemisphere. It amazes me we would turn our back on leaders who are standing up and asking to be more closely linked with the United States.

CAFTA is good for our economy and our workers, it's good for the economies of these countries and their workers, and it's good for the stability of our continent by promoting democratic governments. I urge this legislation's passage.