Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, while we were in our districts late June and early July, celebrating the anniversary of our independence day, we handed over to the citizens of Iraq the gift of their independence, 2 days early no less.

Barely on anyone's radar screen, sovereignty passed from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the new Iraqi provisional government. By most barometers, except for the naysayers of this administration, this was a big success. In the United States, we kept our word of giving the Iraqi people back their country. On Wall Street, in Asia and in Europe, the stock markets rallied. Gas prices continued their slide down: Average gasoline prices tumbled 7 cents a gallon from mid June to mid July, according to the new report from AAA. But to whom was this triumph most important? The free Iraqi people.

As I say, there are naysayers who likely did not celebrate this good news: The radical Islamist world, terrorists, al Qaeda, and a few political partisans. To them, it is not about Iraq, the people, it is about the President they want to see fail.

On what grounds do I say this? Well, on Monday, June 28, CNN heard Wendy Sherman, a former State Department counselor in the Clinton administration, say ``I hope we have turned a corner, but obviously I think we need a change in presidents to really change the corner.''

The President overthrew a brutal dictatorship, he arrested Saddam Hussein, he has since handed him over to Iraqi courts, restored or built new infrastructure, and set up a provisional government within 1 year following the attacks, and we need a change in the Presidency? Mr. Speaker, if you had to pick a team, would you rather play with those who see victory or those who see defeat?

Now, back to the Iraqi people. A recent poll of 2,200 Iraqi households by an Iraqi firm shows that half of Iraqis interviewed believe Iraq is headed in the right direction; 65 percent think they will be better off; 73 percent believe the handover of authority to the interim government will improve the current situation.

The Iraqi people now enjoy an administrative law system with sovereignty, justice, and rights of free expression, justice, thought, and conscience. That such optimism abounds following decades of tyranny, war, and terror reminds me of a speech by a citizen of a former colony of the British empire at its waning days, spoken at their handover, a citizen who made an impassioned plea for his countrymen to march into the destiny before them and create a land of democracy and freedom. That was August 14, 1947, by the eventual prime minister, Mr. Nehru, when he gave his speech on the granting of Indian independence.

Of course, there are spectacular differences, Mr. Speaker, between the two countries and the situation. India was a colony of another nation, not a sovereign country; whereas, Iraq has been hostage to an internal tyrant of their own blood and nationality. However, the mood of a nation and a people on the cusp of a new day, standing in the sun on their own, with the blessings of the free world, is somewhat transferable.

Mr. Nehru's entire speech is inspiring and lyrical, but there are two particular passages I find applicable to the handover the world is watching now. Nehru begins, ``A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.''

Mr. Speaker, the Iraqis too are the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finding utterance, and I wish them the joys and the blessings of liberty. And I close with this uplifting benediction of Mr. Nehru's. ``To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom, and democracy.''

Nehru admonished his fellow Indians that it would not be enough to work for peace within India's border, or the border with Pakistan, but that to be truly

peaceful citizens of the world, Indians must cooperate with their international neighbors in ``furthering peace, freedom, and democracy.''

I wish and I hope that citizens of Iraq will think this, and think not only of civil rest within their great nation, but the opportunity for the dawning of a new day across the troubled swath of their neighborhood of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an American hero. Staff Sergeant Adam Sykes decided not to attend Georgetown University so that he could serve our Nation in Iraq.

In a tense battle in April 2003, Sykes's unit was pinned down by an Iraqi ambush. He quickly rallied two of his squads in a counterattack. He positioned both squads and charged an enemy stronghold all by himself, bounding over 70 meters of fire as it swept across the ground. He reached his objective and cleared it with a grenade and a machine gun. Then, while still exposed to the enemy, he climbed to the third floor of a building so that he could get a good vantage point to call in mortar fire. Additionally, he moved to a squad that had taken casualties and managed himself to help in their evacuation.

After the awards ceremony, Sykes said, ``So many people are pouring out their hearts over there trying to make things right.''

May God bless the men and women of our Armed Forces and may God bless America.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues that this is a very interesting amendment and perhaps I would use the word ``clever,'' because it is really a back-door attempt to change our energy policy, to really take it away from the President of the United States and to use it so that we can use the reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to manipulate crude oil prices for political gain, I think.

I really think the premise of the amendment is false. It says that this amendment can reduce gasoline prices by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. We asked the Department of Energy if they agreed, and they said no. The effect would be between zero and 1 cent per gallon.

Now, all of my colleagues remember when President Clinton did this. What was the effect of what President Clinton did? What, 1 or 2 cents? And I think the people who support this amendment will agree. It is going to have a very negligible effect.

The world is a much more dangerous place than it was previously. Terrorists have attacked oil installations in Saudi Arabia. We have seen that recently. The bulk of Iraq's exports were shut down on Tuesday by terrorist attacks on two oil pipelines in southern Iraq. So, I say to my colleagues, we need to preserve what we have in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the event, in the event of a true supply emergency, and I think this is more of a political emergency.

If we want to truly lower gasoline prices, we need to encourage the Senate to pass H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. In this House we passed it by almost 240 votes. When a vote was on the floor to really do something about gasoline prices, the cosponsors of this amendment said no.

No individual should cash in his life insurance policy to pay his reoccurring, reoccurring monthly expenses. Neither should we, I say to my colleagues, the Federal Government cash in its oil insurance policy to make a one-time payment on a reoccurring expense; namely, gasoline prices.

My colleagues, we have seen how turbulent the world has become in just the

past few months. We should have the foresight to see how much more so the world could become in the coming months, and we have had threats already presented to us. We need to be sure and to ensure that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is there in the case of these emergencies. It is simply an emergency policy. We do not want to go and deplete it because of high gasoline prices. We should attack it in a way which is meaningful. The energy bill that we passed out of the House of Representatives, ask the Senate to do it.

Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of leadership by President Bush,

I believe our Nation is safer, stronger and better. We are fighting and winning a war on terror on many fronts, including Iraq and Afghanistan; Afghanistan is free; Libya is disarmed; and Iraq is well on its way to becoming a free country in the heart of the Middle East. The spread of democracy in this part of the world will help ensure our safety here in the United States.

Recent economic data is a powerful confirmation that the President's pro-growth economic policies are working. Home ownership rates are up, and minority home ownership is at its highest level ever. Real GDP has grown at its fastest rate in almost 20 years over the last three quarters. Productivity has grown at its fastest 3-year rate in 40 years during the past 12 quarters.

Mr. Speaker, we have overcome the triple shock of terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and recession, and we are a stronger country on many fronts, thanks to the leadership of President George Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). I would point out to the gentleman that the gentleman who was the author of this bill originally, H.R. 6, and who has been the propelling force on H.R. 4503, which I support which is identical to the conference report, had 80 hearings on this. When we have 80 hearings, that is exceptional. For the gentleman to say this is a bill which is a sorry piece of mishmash is downright wrong because we cannot have 80 hearings and listen to everybody, and the patience that it requires. I would urge the gentleman to reconsider his thinking on this.

In fact, 46 Democrats supported this when the bill passed the floor before. Those 46 Democrats agree with the bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is from the same State as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and so I am surprised the gentleman does not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I believe when we look at the other 246 people who actually support

this bill, all of us will realize that it is very important that we pass it today. It provides incentives, renewable energy production, clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, provides for certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets, and increased domestic production.

Mr. Speaker, it is a comprehensive energy bill. It is vital to our national security. All of us realize not too long ago we had the blackouts. We also are so dependent on other countries for our oil. Why not take this bill and pass it and realize if we do so with one-half of the United States' homes relying on natural gas as their main heating fuel, this energy bill allows for more oil and natural gas exploration.

Mr. Speaker, what distinguished President Reagan among American Presidents in the last century? Where many Chief Executives saw gray and moral relativism on the international landscape, he saw good and evil, right and wrong.

What relationship should we in the United States have with the Soviet Union, a tyranny that trampled freedom, starved its people, imprisoned dissidents, choked its economy and wrapped its tentacles around its neighbors? Do we engage them? Do we fight them in one corner of the world while doing business with them in the other? Can we coexist under the constant threat of mutual destruction and endless arms races? Do we practice detente, containment?

Ronald Reagan was the President who said, Americans cannot live like this, and I do not think the world's other citizens should. The day he stood at the Berlin Wall and defiantly challenged the Soviet tyranny with the unforgettable words, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall, was the beginning of the end of the Cold War. God bless President Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all about the prescription drug card being available this month for the most disadvantaged, but there has been some discussion about how much this prescription drug benefit costs and whose estimates are the best estimates.

The Democrats are saying this program costs way too much money. But, Mr. Speaker, remember last year they introduced their own Medicare prescription drug benefit plan? Theirs would have cost $1 trillion. Luckily, we passed a more responsible yet critical bill that offers prescription drugs for our seniors for a lot less than what the Democrats proposed. Yet in the last few weeks, the Democrats have been complaining that the Republican plan is too expensive and that we should take prescription drug coverage back from our seniors.

Let us not forget the Democrats support a candidate for President who has proposed a health insurance plan that would cost the Nation almost $1 trillion. So there it is.

How come the Democrats complain about the cost of the prescription drug plan when they and their standard bearer want to spend much, much more?

Mr. Speaker, today the United States proved that we are a

Nation of laws and a Nation of justice. In Baghdad, Army Specialist Jeremy Sivits pleaded guilty to three charges surrounding his mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. The judge in the case sentenced him to confinement for 1 year, reduced his rank to private, and gave him a dishonorable discharge from the Army. Three other soldiers have appeared for arraignment of charges regarding their roles in these incidents.

While the outrage over the abuses at the prison are justified, I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we will see greater justice for those murderers who committed the disgusting, vile act in the killing of American civilian Nick Berg. I hope the Iraqis and the Arab world realize that law and justice are universal values for all nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for two reasons. One, of course, is to acknowledge the misconduct of a few American soldiers in the Iraqi prison, conduct we all abhor. Unfortunately, war is an ugly thing, and there will always be egregious behavior under the expediency of war.

But, Mr. Speaker, my other purpose is to implore that we do not forget the nobility and heroism with which our soldiers serve this country. Millions and millions of Iraqis have been liberated from a murdering, raping dictator, thanks to American soldiers. We cannot let the sins of a few tarnish the good work of the many.

Despite the current negative attention, we will not lose faith in the rightness of our purpose or the ability of our troops to be victorious.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a constituent of

mine who received the 2004 Safety Education Hero Award from the Home Safety Council. Shirley Copeland, a safety educator from Alachua County, Florida, is this year's hero. The Safety Education Hero Award recognizes excellence in home safety education each year, and is presented for fire safety education that saves a life or avoids a disaster. The Home Safety Council in partnership with the Congressional Fire Services Institute (CFSI) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) sponsor this distinction. Copeland conducted a fire safety lesson with the children at Terwilliger Elementary School as part of the Alachua County Fire Department's 2003 Fire Prevention Month outreach program. She used NFPA's Fire Prevention Week (FPW) campaign materials, ``When Fire Strikes: Get Out! Stay Out!'' During her presentation, Copeland explained the importance creating and practicing a family home fire escape plan, with an emphasis on conducting nighttime fire drills. Students received fire escape worksheets, which they took home to complete with their families.

Copeland's lessons made quite an impression on Paul Jones (age 11) and Paige Jones (age 10) who immediately shared Copeland's information with their mother. The family discussed the steps of their fire escape plan, including quickly exiting the home, calling 9-1-1 from a neighbor's home and meeting at a designated area. Remembering Copeland's message about the importance of nighttime fire drills, the siblings asked their mother to awaken them in the middle of the night to put their home fire escape plan into action.

Less than a month later on December 6, 2003, the family's preparation was put to the test. In the middle of the night as the family slept, sparks from the fireplace ignited a piece of furniture. Following the family's rehearsed escape plan, they swiftly fled to a neighbor's home, met at their designated meeting spot and dialed 9-1-1.

Brenda Proctor now attributes her family's safe escape to Shirley Copeland's informative and memorable teachings. Learning of the incident, Copeland visited the family at their temporary home where she made sure they had working smoke alarms and a new fire escape plan. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Copeland received the 2004 Safety Education Hero Award on May 5, 2004 from the Home Safety Council during the annual CFSI National Fire and Emergency Services Banquet here in Washington, DC. I had the honor of meeting Ms. Copeland and am proud that this hero will continue to work and promote fire safety in the 6th District of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk today about a little known crime that has an enormous impact on all of our congressional districts.

Every day our country loses millions of dollars to interstate cargo theft, a crime that is occurring on highways across our country. Any crime that threatens this flow of goods should be dealt with quickly.

The fact that cargo theft is now being tied to the funding of terror makes it critical that we address this crime on the Federal level. I have introduced a bill, the Cargo Theft Prevention Act, which seeks to bring this crime out of the shadows and to finally hold criminals accountable.

With stricter criminal penalties and better information sharing, this bill will finally give both lawmakers and law enforcement officials the tools they need to combat this growing crime. With support from the American Trucking Association and multiple law enforcement groups, I hope all of you will join me in cosponsoring H.R. 3563, The Cargo Theft Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate today to talk about the economy. Today, Chairman Greenspan is meeting with members of the Federal Reserve to determine whether to increase interest rates. Part of my talk will include excerpts from the Wall Street Journal of April 11, 2004, their editorial.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a lot of good economic news of late. In March, the economy added 308,000 new jobs. U.S. factories have expanded for the llth consecutive month. For the first quarter of 2004, the gross domestic product increased by 4.2 percent. It is continuing the strongest growth in 20 years.

And we have seen that Federal tax cuts of the last few years have put the United States near the top, or at the top of the advanced large economies in their growth. We have offered incentives to work, to save, and invest, according to the Joint Economic Committee.

But instead, the media have done a terrific job of convincing everybody these are the worst of times. A poll, conducted by the American Research Group in mid-March, found that 44 percent of Americans believe that the country was still in a recession. That is strange when you consider that the last recession ended way back in the year 2001. And for the last two quarters of 2003, the U.S. economy grew at an annualized rate of 6.1 percent, the fastest growth in 20 years. Even more remarkable, the percentage of gloomsters was higher in March, when we created 308,000 new jobs.

By nearly every objective measure, the U.S. economy is stronger and is getting stronger. Let us look at the Misery Index, the measure created by the late economist, Arthur Okun. He added the rates of unemployment and inflation. This may not be the most sophisticated metric to use, but it does capture the two greatest threats to household wealth and security, that is inflation and unemployment. Comparisons to the 1990s' bubble years excepted, the U.S. economy is doing very, very well.

Today's unemployment is 5.7 percent, close to the level President Bill Clinton boasted about as he sought reelection in 1996. Meanwhile, inflation has fallen by a full percentage point over the past 8 years. I have a table which indicates that the economy compares favorably by reelection standards and President Bush's policies should be enjoying at least a modicum of respect.

In 1976 under President Ford, the Misery Index was 14.5 percent. In 1980 under President Carter, it was 20.6 percent. In 1984 under President Reagan, 11.8 percent. Under Bush I in 1992, it

was 10.5 percent. In 1996 under Clinton, 8.4 percent. This year under Bush II, it is 7.7 percent. It is the lowest of all those Presidents at the time they were seeking Presidential reelection.

In conclusion, in 2003, the United States economy grew at a faster pace than the eight other largest advanced economies: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom. We are seeing steady increase in manufacturing and overall productivity. Retail sales increased strongly in March, rising 1.8 percent, the largest monthly gain in a year.

In conclusion, we are seeing the economic policies of the Bush administration and the resulting action by this Congress are enabling the economy to expand, offer new jobs, new opportunities, and increase the quality of life for all Americans. That is the good news for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago a Vietnam veteran went to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and he delivered a stinging indictment of our American troops, all of the American troops serving in Vietnam. He stated that murders and other crimes were ``not isolated instances, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.''

That individual who alleged that our military openly and systematically violated the Geneva Conventions more than any other body is now running for President, and that is Senator Kerry.

Many of these charges rose from the Winter Soldier Investigation, where activists gathered to describe these war crimes. It was later learned that many of those who confessed these war crimes never served near a battlefield. It was a fraud.

Senator Kerry disparaged the honorable service of all the countless veterans who served in Vietnam with these charges, and he should apologize for what he said against his fellow veterans.

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Honorable Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation and distinguished former member of this House, I am pleased to introduce the Administration's requested legislation reauthorizing the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. I include with this statement a copy of the letter transmitting this legislation to Speaker Hastert by the Secretary.

I particularly want to commend the Administrator, Dr. Jeff Runge, for his fine leadership of the Agency.

I have concerns with some aspects of this proposal, but I believe it deserves a fair hearing.

I believe that provisions in the legislation facilitating the President's hydrogen initiative, provisions promoting international harmonization of safety standards, and provisions to encourage the development of crash avoidance technologies are particularly meritorious.

The Secretary of Transportation,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2004.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to transmit to you for

introduction and referral to the appropriate committee a

proposed bill: To authorize appropriations for the motor

vehicle safety and information and cost savings programs of

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal

years 2005-2007, and for other purposes.

The bill includes two titles. Title I, ``Motor Vehicle

Safety,'' contains an authorization of appropriations for the

motor vehicle safety law (chapter 301 of title 49, United

States Code) administered by the Department's National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and seven

additional sections that would amend that law. Title II,

``Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings,'' contains an

authorization of appropriations for the motor vehicle

information and cost savings law (part C of subchapter VI of

title 49, United States Code) administered by NHTSA and five

additional sections that would amend that law.

Highway and motor vehicle safety programs and enforcement

have succeeded in reducing the highway fatality rate despite

significant increases in the number of vehicles and the

number of vehicle miles traveled. Our most recent data show a

rate of 1.5 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled, nearly

half the rate of 20 years ago. The bill's proposed

authorizations would provide the resources needed to continue

this record of success for fiscal years 2005-2007.

Title I (``Motor Vehicle Safety'') would authorize

appropriations for NHTSA's motor vehicle safety programs of

$125,221,000 in fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be

necessary in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

Title II (``Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings'')

would authorize appropriations for NHTSA's motor vehicle

information and cost savings programs of $14,080,000 in

fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary in fiscal

years 2006 and 2007.

The bill contains a number of amendments to the motor

vehicle safety and information and cost savings laws,

including provisions to (i) authorize the Secretary to

participate and cooperate in international activities that

enhance motor vehicle and traffic safety, (ii) authorize $5

million a year to support the President's Hydrogen Fuel

Initiative and the FreedomCAR Program by a safety research

initiative for alternate fuel vehicles that includes risk-

assessment studies of hydrogen-fueled and other alternatively

fueled vehicles, the development of test and evaluation

procedures and performance criteria to assess the likelihood

of potential failures that could indicate unsafe conditions,

and the development of suitable countermeasures; and (iii)

authorize $10 million a year for research into vehicle-based

driver-assistance technologies such as electronic stability

control, telematics, radar braking and similar vehicle

advances, and to develop safety standards and consumer

education programs, to ensure that appropriate safety

benefits are derived from these technologies. Additional

details describing these and other amendments are provided in

the enclosed analysis.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's

program, to the submission of this proposed legislation to

Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the

program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

Norman Y. Mineta.

Madam Speaker, today I reflect on some of the recent elections held in other countries. While citizens of other countries may have different values about the level of government intervention in areas, let us say in economics or labor rights, overwhelmingly, most citizens of the world would prefer to live in a democracy than a totalitarian-run system. This was presented last summer by the Pew Research Center for the People in the Press. Pew Research Center interviewed over 66,000 people in 44 countries over 2 years. The majority demonstrated strong preferences in democratic governments, even in Muslim countries.

Over the past 3 weeks, other people have elected leaders, sometimes new, sometimes the incumbent. I wish for all, of course, to live under the same sunshine of freedom that we in the United States have here.

In Taiwan Saturday, March 20, incumbent President Chen, Taiwan's pro- independence leader, was declared to have won by a slim margin, just a hair over 50 percent. This election was preceded by threats from mainland China and Chen's international detractors, and jittery nerves by many who urged ``don't rock the boat.'' On election eve, President Chen and his Vice President were shot in a craven attack.

The aftermath of the election is a little calmer: there are street protests and a recount is imminent. Also, in a win for China, though, election authorities nullified the results of a controversial referendum championed by the President because too few voters took part in it.

However, I still see some optimism. The apparent reelection of Chen is sending a message both to Beijing and Washington: while not outright declaring independence, China's people are standing up for their status as a sovereign body; they are not completely buying into Beijing's domineering ``One China'' policy. Further, I find it telling that while an insufficient number voted in the referendum, of those who did, 90 percent pulled the yes lever to the two questions: one, whether to try to set up a framework for direct talks with China; and, two, whether to buy more advanced weapons if China refuses to move missiles aimed at their island. I wish President Chen every success in my support of his leading his people to a democracy.

Now, let us look at Spain. I understand the emotional and political tumult in which Spain found themselves on March 11 and after. However, I am discouraged that circumstances influenced the election the way they did, for the singular reason that the Spaniards appear to think that the Socialist Party will bring them relief from the retributions of extreme Islamic fundamentalists. I sadly believe they are wrong. Gustavo de Aristegui wrote in The Washington Post on Sunday, March 21: ``In 1984, I had a long talk with a high-ranking Sunni cleric in a mosque in Damascus. He was very friendly when he learned that I was a Spaniard. After 2 hours of conversation about politics and theology, which are very much intertwined in that part of the world, he said to me: `Don't worry, we will liberate Spain from Western corruption.' ''

The writer emphasized that this was a moderate, respected clergyman. Now, that is a chilling, foreshadowing, looking into the minds of those who would destroy that way of life in Spain.

Yet, what did Spaniards sacrifice in their election of the Socialist Party candidate? Since 1986, the Partido Popular turned from 21 percent unemployment down to 9 percent, foreign debt from 80 percent to less than 50 percent GDP, a deficit of 6.7 percent of GDP in 1996 to a 0.5 percent surplus in 2002, and a growing economy while much of the world experienced a downturn. This is the stuff that democracies are made of: living economically securely, planning futures, and thriving.

Like President Chen, I support our ally Spain and the new leadership that they have openly and fairly chosen. I only ponder that democracies also value economic prosperity, and capitulation to bullies may compromise that for which they have worked.

Heading east, President Putin won reelection in Russia this month. He has promised to translate his landslide reelection into concrete reforms: modernizing the economy, the bureaucracy,

the banking system, utilities, health and social services. Last Monday President Bush called him to congratulate him and urge him to follow through on his reforms, to move forward towards his promises of market- based and democratic reform.

Madam Speaker, let us hope so. Like the leader of Taiwan, the leader of Spain, I wish the leader of Russia, President Putin, success; but I will define success as: how free are your people?