Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the State News at Michigan State University.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The motion to instruct conferees is very simple. Madam Speaker. It would prohibit the transfer of Gitmo prisoners to the United States. It ensures the detainee pictures are never made public, and it mandates the conference report is made public at least 72 hours before being considered on the floor. It's that simple. And that's exactly what the Homeland Security appropriation bill is all about, protecting the American people from all threats, including the warped intentions of terrorists and radical extremists.

Let me state my sincere gratitude to Subcommittee Chairman David Price for listening to the views of the minority during all of these proceedings, during our preconference deliberations especially over the last few weeks. I truly appreciate his bipartisanship and consideration of our concerns.

Madam Speaker, this motion strengthens the House bill's current restrictions on Guantanamo Bay detainees by ensuring their names have been put on the No Fly List and by clearly prohibiting their transfer to the United States for whatever reason. For 9 months, the Obama administration has insisted the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be shuttered within the year. But what have we seen during that time in preparation for that? Absolutely nothing, no plan, no idea of how to proceed, no instructions to the Congress, no instructions to the public about where these prisoners would be moved to.

Now we read in the press that the administration is thinking of releasing up to 75 of the detainees there. Where will they go? Europe, Fiji, maybe somewhere closer. Maybe in Michigan, maybe in Kansas, maybe somewhere else in the U.S. Who knows. Certainly the Members in those districts in the U.S. don't know. So this motion prohibits the granting of any immigration benefit for any reason to these detainees. Without such a benefit, there is no legal way to bring these terrorists to American soil and in our constituents' backyards. That means these terrorists cannot be granted the same constitutional rights as American citizens. After all, these detainees are enemy combatants caught on the battlefield. They are not common criminals, and they should not be granted legal standing in our criminal courts by bringing them onto U.S. soil.

From my point of view, we can't waiver on this issue, nor can we be weak. There is no reason these terrorists, who pose a serious and documented threat to this Nation, cannot be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay. If we want to try them, there is the place. I certainly think that that is where the American people stand on this issue as well. They don't want these terrorists in their hometowns, inciting fellow prisoners in our prisons, abusing our legal system and terrorizing their communities.

In addition, Madam Speaker, this motion insists upon the Senate's language prohibiting the release of detainee pictures, language unanimously adopted in the Senate, supported by this Chamber in June and endorsed by President Obama himself by way of his letter to the Senate on July 29. In that letter, I think the President said it best himself: ``Nothing would be gained

by the release of the detainee photos other than allowing our enemies to paint our troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush.'' I frankly couldn't agree more.

And finally, Madam Speaker, this motion also requires the conference report to be made public at least 72 hours before being brought to the floor for consideration. We want to read the bill before we vote.

So Madam Speaker, the ongoing terrorist investigations ranging from Denver to New York to Dallas over the last few weeks and the persistent attacks by radical extremists upon our citizens, our soldiers and our interests overseas remind us of why there is absolutely no reason to bring a terrorist to American soil or to release images that endanger this great country and its Armed Forces.

I urge support of the motion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, this motion prohibits the granting of any benefits to the detainees at Guantanamo to be brought here for criminal prosecution.

As Mr. Obey has just said, these are enemy combatants caught, captured on a battlefield. They are not criminal defendants; they are prisoners in a war. Prisoners in a war.

They can and have been tried by the military tribunals at Guantanamo. My understanding is that there were five military tribunal proceedings ongoing until this administration halted those proceedings, trying to figure out what they want to do next.

But my point is these are not criminal defendants; these are enemy combatants captured on a battlefield. They are prisoners of war and should be treated as such, as they have been at Guantanamo. Do not bring them to the U.S. for any purpose. Why would you bring an enemy captured prisoner of war to your country, give them the Miranda warnings, and proceed to a trial as you would an American citizen? It's beyond any question, I think.

These detainees, many of them, those who posed a minimal security threat, have been shuttled off to other foreign countries, leaving hundreds of suspected terrorists, hardened killers that are unwelcome by any place on Earth to be potentially bound for American soil.

Madam Speaker, we need to take a very serious step back and closely examine what we are thinking of doing.

I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

This motion clarifies and says they would not be brought here for any, any, purpose, including prosecution.

Now, if you have any doubts about the kind of people we are talking about, read the resumes of these detainees. Read them, and you will have no doubt that these are enemy combatants sworn to kill you and every American they can find. And you want to bring them to the U.S.? It's insane, Madam Speaker. It's insane.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a very distinguished former trial judge in the State of Texas for 21 years, Judge Carter.

May I inquire of the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

We have no further speakers, Madam Speaker, and I would be prepared to yield to the gentleman for a close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, this is a very simple motion to instruct the conferees on Homeland Security. One, prohibit the transfer of Gitmo prisoners to the U.S., period. Two, insist on the Senate language prohibiting the release of detainee photographs. And three, require that this bill be available at least 72 hours before the bill is brought to the floor so that Members may have a chance to read and consider before they vote on the conference report. That's simple.

These people in Gitmo, if you read their resumes, and study their history, they are not criminal defendants in the sense that most people understand that phrase to be in the U.S. These are hardened killers captured on the battlefield, and they are prisoners of war subject to a military tribunal hearing at Gitmo, which was proceeding until stopped by this administration. They are not criminal defendants. They are hardened criminals on the battlefield captured in the process of trying to kill American soldiers. Pure and simple.

Now, this motion to instruct is in line with Chairman Inouye in the Senate, who has similar prohibitions in his bill for the Defense appropriations bill. This mirrors what the Senate leadership wants the policy of the country to be. And so I would hope all Members would vote for this motion to instruct conferees and keep our position in line with the Senate in prohibiting prisoners at Gitmo from being brought to the U.S., period.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Kentucky and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by echoing the words of the ranking member. We have, indeed, enjoyed fruitful cooperation in formulating this bill and bringing it to this point. Mr. Rogers is a distinguished ranking member. He was the founding chairman of this subcommittee, and I think on both sides, we take pride in the process that we've developed that involves full consultation and, of course, not always perfect agreement, but a respect for each other's views and a product that can rightfully be called the fruit of our common labor.

Having said that, I do want to oppose this motion to instruct. I don't oppose it in its entirety. It has some positive features, but I want to concentrate in my brief remarks this morning on what leads me to ask for a ``no'' vote. This mainly has to do with some parts of items two and three of this motion.

The motion to instruct would basically prevent us from bringing anyone held in Guantanamo Bay to the United States for the purpose of prosecution. This provision is more restrictive than the House-passed bill, which allowed persons detained at the naval station at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution.

Accepting a more narrow provision goes against basic American principles, as well as basic American interests. People are to be given due process and access to a fair trial in this country, and it is certainly in this country's interest to bring these people to trial, to dispose of their cases. I must say, this motion also goes against a perfecting amendment that the distinguished ranking member himself voluntarily accepted--in fact, eagerly accepted--in our full committee markup.

So I have to ask, what would have made the other side change its mind all of a sudden? It appears that even when they get ``yes'' for an answer, it's hard to accept ``yes'' for an answer. Without allowing these detainees to come to the United States for prosecution, we're basically saying that our judicial and law enforcement officials are unable to handle these criminals here in the United States, and that our country's core values and interests do not apply in these cases. That's just wrong.

The U.S. has successfully tried dangerous terrorists before--in fact, many times, executing some, putting others behind bars to fade into obscurity. The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center and Murrah Federal Building bombings are perfect examples.

Treating these individuals as though they are so dangerous that we cannot possibly put them on trial or punish them or lock them up and throw away the key, the way we deal with our most savage criminals here in the United States, gives these detainees an exalted status. Why do we want to do that? An exalted status is far from what they deserve.

We can handle this, Madam Speaker. We're up to this challenge, and the last thing we ought to be doing is elevating these Guantanamo prisoners in the eyes of the world. The amendment that was accepted in committee, to permit us to bring these people into the United States for the purpose of prosecution, most certainly should remain.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say a word about the process by which this bill is being brought to the floor. We, of course, want to make certain that Members have ample time to study and understand bills before we vote on them. At the same time, I have to say, this bill has been a long time in the making. There has been a long period of discussion and debate and deliberation, and Members of this body should be assured that a full range of interested parties have been involved in crafting this bill in a bipartisan fashion since we received the budget in May.

Even before receiving the budget, we held 15 days of hearings on a wide variety of topics, including responses to natural disasters, technology and efficiency improvements, immigration enforcement, and border security. We had testimony from DHS as well as GAO and other non-Department sources. So it's a thoroughly vetted bill, and the issues in this bill have been thoroughly examined. They've been given their proper due diligence. There are no surprises, and we are, indeed, ready to go to conference.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of our full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I am still trying to process the notion that we have in our high-security prisons a population that is just waiting to be corrupted.

We are all aware of the kind of people who are in these high-security prisons. They are already corrupted and they are dangerous, and we have proven our capacity to deal with them. I don't think that it behooves this body to cast such doubt on our capacities, the capacities of the judicial and penal systems of this country. We are up to this, Madam Speaker, and yet the motion before us would say that we cannot bring these people into this country for prosecution when it is clearly in our interest to do so. It is in our interest to close Guantanamo within a reasonable period of time and to bring these people before the bar of justice.

I would like to yield 30 seconds to our full committee chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reiterate my request to our Members to vote against this motion to recommit. The motion is long and complex and by no means totally objectionable. But we have highlighted here today a feature of the Guantanamo provisions which not only is objectionable, but fundamentally runs counter to our country's interest--our country's interest in closing Guantanamo in a timely fashion and bringing the detainees there to trial.

It also, in a strange way, seems to question our country's capacity, the capacity of our judicial system and our penal system, to handle hardened criminals, whereas I think that our capacity to handle even the most dangerous criminals is beyond question. And I believe this motion also risks elevating these criminals in the eyes of the world, suggesting that we can not handle them through our normal processes of justice. For all these reasons, I believe this motion to instruct is unwise, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this debate goes on, and I hearken back to how did this all start. It started with enemies of the United States killing American citizens on American soil. By the grace of God, they didn't kill the number they were hoping to kill because they were hoping to bring down those towers in New York completely full of people, and potentially hundreds of thousands of people could have died. But because of the braveness of the police force and the fire department and others, we were able to evacuate those buildings and the casualty toll was not in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of thousands. But, still, every single American life lost there we care about.

I think most people thought we're going to war, world war. That's what I thought. That's what the people I was with in Taos, New Mexico, at the time thought. And we wanted to do something about it. The American soldiers in two fields of battle have done something about it. They continue to do something about it today. And through the work of our intelligence people and the American soldier and the American Marine Corps, we have brought many of these terrorists to captivity. They are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

We're not talking about people who have rights to Miranda warnings. My Lord, how can you fight a war if you're going to have to have Miranda warnings every time you come in contact with an enemy soldier? It makes no sense. Neither our Founding Fathers nor the Supreme Court, I would say, ever envisioned us giving Miranda warnings on the battlefield.

But I believe and I think Americans believe that these people mean us harm and by their very presence on the sacred soil of the United States they bring harm to this country. Because I would argue, as we all know, the recruiting of radical Islam is going on in our prisons right now. Witness just recently some arrests that were made inside this country and how those American citizens got to be influenced by radical Islam. Much of it comes out of the prison systems. And we are going to put people that are being held properly in Guantanamo, we're going to bring them to our soil, give them the rights of an American defendant and put them in the prison system of this country where they can continue--even if they are in solitary confinement, their very presence can make them a hero of the recruiters inside the prison.

Gangs are bad enough in the prisons without us creating gangs that are part of an international plot to destroy the United States of America. These people have no business being on the sacred soil of the United States. They certainly don't have the rights that are being argued for here. They are in the right place, where they belong. The military justice system is fair and they will get a fair trial, and I would argue that they belong in Guantanamo and they should stay in Guantanamo.

Yes, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we have

maximum security prisons that we could put them in. There is one that was featured in ``60 Minutes'' awhile back in Colorado where we put the worst of the worst; but did anybody listen to how much it costs us to put the worst of the worst in those maximum security prisons?

We are spending enough money around here without going out and spending that kind of money on prisoners where we already have them in a secure facility, where they are being humanely treated, and where they are able to meet with their lawyers and they are able to prepare for the defense of their case. There is no reason on God's green Earth to bring them over here and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars incarcerating each and every one of them in a Federal maximum security prison. It makes no sense in light of the fact that we are practically bankrupting our country with spending in the last 8 months.

So I think Mr. Rogers has a very good bill here. I think what he is asking in this motion to instruct the conferees is common sense that the American people understand. Now, we get in this political world up here and common sense seems to go out the window. But I think if you stop the average American on the street, they will tell you that these people intend to kill us and as far as we are concerned, we don't care where they stay, but we don't want them in our neighborhood.

I certainly don't want them in Texas, and I would argue that each Member who represents their district in this august body does not want them in their neighborhood. I have a Federal prison that is within 30 miles of my home, and I promise you, my friends and neighbors do not want one of these detainees in that Federal prison because they are evil and they will corrupt those who are already there.

Madam Speaker, we spend most of our time in the courtroom giving people their constitutional rights as criminal defendants. And I have spent, in a criminal case, at least 50 percent of the time spent on every criminal case, my job was to protect those people's rights and make sure that they got every one of them. I did the very best I could. But at some point in time, in a criminal trial, upon the finding of guilt, those rights convert over to the State and to the people to make decisions on punishment.

I would argue these people don't start with those rights, and the American people have in mind what they think should happen to these people that would kill more American citizens on American soil.

Don't we have the courage of our Greater Generation forefathers to stand up to evil when it addresses our country and do something about that evil? Why would we want to coddle people who have a proven track record of being part of the network that attacked the United States of America?

Madam Speaker, I would argue this is an excellent instruction to the conferees, and I believe Mr. Rogers and what he has stated here has expressed the will of the American people.

To address just one of the other issues about photographs, I think that pretty well has been decided.

But, you know, one more thing, as we bring these people here and we put them into the American justice system, which I treasure, the American justice system, but in turn the defense lawyers will be able to use the discovery process to find out about covert operations of the United States intelligence. We have already put our intelligence folks in bad places by our bad behavior around this place many times before. But to put our intelligence people in the courtroom with everybody to see, and out those people, if you will, would be absolutely a travesty of justice.

So this is a good thing to do, and I support Mr. Rogers in his effort, and I would hope that everybody who cares about this country will support this motion.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, from time to time, people in this House know that I quote my old favorite philosopher, Archie the Cockroach, and Archie said, or maybe it was Will Rogers--I've forgotten exactly which--but one of them noted that there is nothing more pitiful than the sight of a flock of politicians in full flight. They can look as panicked as a loon trying to take off from choppy lake water. And if you've ever watched one of those, it takes them a long time, they make a lot of ruckus, and they look like an unjointed turkey in the process. That's the way the Congress has looked, in my judgment, with respect to this Guantanamo Bay issue.

Now, this country has a problem. After September 11 we picked up a lot of bad and dangerous characters and shipped a lot of them to Guantanamo. We also picked up, on the basis of bad information, some who didn't belong there. From what I can tell, it would appear like virtually every single person there now deserves to be there.

But the problem is that the previous administration had no process by which to separate the merely criminal or the merely misguided from the truly evil. And as a result, thanks in part to the unrelated chaos of Abu Ghraib, the United States, which has rightly prided itself on being the principal advocate of due process and human rights in the world, has come to be seen by some these days as a pretty major apologist for torture and imprisonment without review or remedy. I don't think that's what America really stands for.

President Obama has tried to deal with the fact that Guantanamo has become a major liability to this country in the court of world opinion and in some cases has become a recruiting ground for the very forces that we wish to contain.

In the Presidential campaign, to their credit, both candidates called for closing Guantanamo because they recognized the damage being done to our influence and our security. President Obama won that election and announced his intention to close the facility.

Admittedly, the administration did not demonstrate a high degree of skill in implementing that decision. They had a credible goal, but they clearly had not thought through how to get there. That's why this committee insisted in the 2009 supplemental that the administration present its analysis to the Congress before people who were imprisoned in Guantanamo could be shipped elsewhere and before any detainees could be brought to the U.S. or transferred to another country.

Very frankly, the administration has received very little help from Capitol Hill in thinking through this problem. A number of Members have had legitimate concerns, but they could not come up with any reasonable set of criteria by which transfers could be effected.

Now, this motion would have this body declare that no prisoners can be

transferred anywhere in this country even for prosecution, which they so richly deserve. That means the detainees would have to be transferred to other countries or that Guantanamo would have to remain open as a permanent stain on our reputation for due process.

I think we can do better than that.

Has this country, this country that has even tried the worst criminals in the history of the world at Nuremberg, has this country experienced such a pitiful decline of modern thoughtful political leadership that we now have no capacity except to say lock them up forever, no questions asked, and no due process provided under any circumstances? We may want to lock them up. I'm sure we do. But we can do better in the way we do it.

In America we do not provide due process for the benefit of criminals; we provide it for our own safety's sake.

I don't know how many Members are familiar with the play ``A Man for All Seasons'' about Sir Thomas More, who was martyred by King Henry VIII. When More's son-in-law, Richard Roper, in that famous play, said that he would cut down every law in England to get at the devil, More replied, ``And where would you hide then, the laws all being flat? Yes, I give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.''

That's why it's important that we have a process that will allow us to lock up and throw away the key on everyone in Guantanamo who deserves it; but we cannot tell the world that just because this process is difficult, we are simply going to take the easy road and step over the valleys that make this Nation great.

I refuse to believe, as the gentleman from North Carolina has already indicated, I refuse to believe that our law enforcement officials, our prison officials, and our Justice Department officials are not skilled enough and thoughtful enough to imprison these thugs in high-security facilities at minimal or no danger to our citizens and our communities. Our prisons keep us safe from the likes of Charles Manson; David Berkowitz, the ``Son of Sam'' killer; the World Trade Center bombers; and the Kenyan Embassy bombers, whom I detest because they killed several friends of mine. What we want to propose in conference will be built on the faith that we do have that capacity.

Now, we can either let somebody else deal with our problems, or we can let them fester because we don't want to deal with them and make hard choices ourselves. That's unacceptable, and I think it's time that we face up to that.

What will emerge from conference, I suspect, will be language that any reasonable person will be able to say is a good-faith, effective process by which we can keep Americans safe and still continue to stand for the due process principles that we have always stood for.

I know these people are enemy combatants and they don't deserve it. But we don't make our decisions on the basis of what we think of defendants. We make our decisions on the basis of what we think of ourselves. And that's what makes us the greatest country in the world. And I do not want, as this motion would have us do, to depart from that high standard today.

Again, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I thank the gentleman.

I find it quite humorous to think that we are doing these Guantanamo prisoners a favor by exposing them to the ``gentle niceties'' of the prison population in our high-security prisons. In fact, I would suspect that those prisoners at Guantanamo, if they knew what kind of people they would be finding, would much prefer to stay in Guantanamo than wind up in some of those high-security

Madam Speaker, last week, on January 13, we marked the 107th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to the United States. From those few Korean individuals who came in 1903 to Hawai'i, then a U.S. territory, the Korean American community has grown to nearly two million people.

For the first few decades of the 20th century, Korean immigration was impeded by U.S. law. Regrettably, until the 1960s, U.S. law refused to admit immigrants from East Asia. Fortunately, as attitudes about race and ethnicity changed and matured in the wake of the civil rights movement, these shameful barriers were removed. America became a land of opportunity not just for Europeans seeking refuge and comfort, but for people from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well.

Korean Americans have contributed immeasurably to our society and culture. They have raised families and built successful businesses, strong neighborhoods, active civic associations, churches, and charities. Korean Americans have served in the armed forces, been elected to public office, and been appointed to positions of authority in President Obama's administration.

In my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, I have paid close attention to issues of concern to the Korean American community. With many Korean Americans still having family ties to the Korean Peninsula, they care deeply about the continuing resilience of the U.S.-Korea alliance. When I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam in the 1960s, I met many Korean soldiers who fought side by side with Americans, just as Americans had fought side-by-side with Koreans in the Korean War a decade and a half earlier.

The close alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea has included South Korea's important contributions to fighting terrorism around the world and promoting democracy and liberal values. The Republic of Korea has remained a steadfast ally of the United States and ought be considered America's greatest foreign policy success in the post-World War II era.

It is worth noting today that, later this year, we will be commemorating the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War. Veterans of that conflict, both Korean and American, have strong feelings about the U.S.-Korea alliance. I have attended many ceremonies at which Korean War veterans pay tribute to their fallen comrades and share their memories of the battlefield. Many of them have returned to Korea in peacetime to visit the friends they made and--in some cases-- the families of their spouses.

Korean War veterans and members of the Korean American community are significant stakeholders in the maturation of the U.S.-Korea alliance, whether that means a security alliance in our mutual effort to denuclearize North Korea, whether it means growth in the number of Korean students who attend American colleges and universities, or whether it means broader and deeper business and trade ties.

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which was signed in June 2007 and awaits ratification and implementation, will bring substantial benefits to both of our countries. The U.S. International Trade Commission has forecast that the elimination of tariffs on U.S. goods under the KORUS FTA would increase the GDP of the United States by over $10 billion annually. The agreement will also eliminate regulatory and other non-tariff barriers that have historically restricted access by American farmers, manufacturers, and service providers to the South Korean market.

Korea's economy is beginning to recover from the worldwide recession, with a special emphasis on creating ``green jobs'' and encouraging growth in 21st century industries that look to the future. At the same time, Korea remains a major market for American goods and services, for agricultural products, raw materials, and finished goods.

With growing uncertainty about our economy, it is critically important that we make every effort to spur U.S. economic growth and create new American jobs through securing access to markets in which U.S. farmers and businesses can compete and succeed. The KORUS FTA stands to further increase U.S. exports to Korea and will generate new jobs for Americans. This agreement will be a triple-win--a win for workers, a win for businesses, and a win for consumers.

Beyond trade, the United States and Korea share similar values and goals. Both countries are democratic republics, both desire peace on the Korean Peninsula and work to assure that nuclear weapons do not proliferate in Northeast Asia, and both want to see economic growth and opportunity throughout the world.

It is in this context that Korea will host and chair a meeting of the G-20 in November 2010. It is a remarkable achievement and one that is emblematic of how far Korea has come considering that 60 years ago, it was a war torn nation. I am confident that Korea will set an ambitious agenda for the G-20 to include how nations can turn to ``Low Carbon, Green Growth'' sectors to spur economic growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Last August, I had the privilege of visiting Korea to receive an Honorary Doctorate from Chonbuk National University. I had numerous opportunities to engage in meaningful dialogue with our Korean friends on a host of issues. But above all, I was struck by the kind generosity and hospitality of the Korean people. The same has always been true of our Korean American friends as well.

Madam Speaker, this is why it is my honor to recognize January 13 as Korean American Day pursuant to House Resolution 487, which was passed in 2005 and introduced by my good friend Representative Tom Davis of Virginia. I urge my colleagues to offer their own expressions of support in recognizing the Korean American community and their achievements and the importance of a comprehensive U.S.-Korea alliance in diplomacy, business, and culture.