Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I had not planned on coming to join you tonight, but I was inspired by the comments from our colleagues. I heard an example of kind of the issues that we are talking about today from one of our other colleagues, because I think it is so important to point out that we really are not talking about cutting anything.

We simply are talking about slowing the growth of government in the future. One of our colleagues that shared an example, I think, resonates and is identifiable to all the people in this country. The example goes something like this:

Mr. Speaker, imagine that you have a child, let us say your daughter, who mows the lawn and does a great job. Let us say for the last year, you have paid your daughter a $10-a-week allowance for mowing the lawn, and she has done a good job. After that year she comes to you and says, Dad, you know, I think I need a raise. She has been doing a good job. So you say, honey, I probably might consider that raise. How much do you think you deserve? Your daughter looks at you and says, you know, well, I have been doing a good job. I think maybe I deserve $20 a week. You say, well, that is kind of generous. How about if we compromise at $15 a week?

Now, you will probably be able to determine your daughter's political future by her response. If your daughter says, well, jeez, you know, $15, that is a 50 percent raise, that is pretty generous, I think I can live with that, probably has not a great future in politics, probably should consider going into the business world. But if your daughter says, well, jeez, Dad, I was expecting $20, $15 would be a 25 percent cut, she would certainly understand the rhetoric that we hear so many times and too often here in Washington.

When we talk about reforming government, when we talk about fiscal responsibility, when we talk about a plan to reform government and attain savings, we are not talking about cuts at all. We simply are talking about doing the responsible thing, slowing the growth of government by tenths of a percent.

As an example, HUD in 2001 had 10 percent of their budget, $3.3 billion, was paid in overpayments. Now, we are talking about tenths of a percent that we might be able to find savings by rooting out fraud, waste and abuse when many Federal programs already waste a significant percentage of their budgets in overpayments, erroneous payments, and simply wasted money.

I commend the gentleman from Texas for continually reminding us that this is a responsible thing to do to find the savings, to make sure that we do not pass along huge deficits to our children that they will not be able to pay and they will look back at us and recognize that we did not do the fiscally responsible thing by simply managing the taxpayer monies better and being better stewards of the taxpayer dollar.

I thank the gentleman for letting me join him for a few seconds. Again, I commend him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider H.R. 3770, legislation to designate the newly opened post office in Knox, Indiana, as the ``Grant W. Green Post Office Building.''

Grant Green worked as a postal carrier in Knox, Indiana from 1920 to 1970, making him the longest-serving postal employee in the community's history. For 23 years, he delivered mail to all houses located North of the Nickel Plate Railroad tracks, which ran through the center of Knox. He spent the remaining 27 years of his career delivering mail on rural routes at a time most rural homes were located on dirt or gravel roads.

A native of North Judson, Indiana, Grant moved to Knox as a young boy and attended Knox High School. Grant was hired by the local post office in 1920 and he quickly became the quintessential public servant: hardworking, passionate about his job, and dedicated to the people and country he served. Twenty years later, he married Margie Gaede. Together, they raised five children, all graduates of Knox High School. Grant was active throughout the community, including his nearly 70-year membership in the local Masonic Lodge. He died on December 29, 1990 and was buried on his 50th wedding anniversary, December 31, 1990.

For more than half a century, Grant refused to let anything, ``neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor dark of night,'' keep him from his appointed routes. Naming the new post office in Knox after a local courier and pillar of the community will honor not only Grant Green, but also the hard working postal employees with whom he served. It will recognize an era unique in the American experience, and it will make a statement to future generations about the importance Knox places on a strong work ethic and public service. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Hank Aaron, baseball's all-time homerun champion, once said, ``It took me seventeen years to get 3,000 hits in baseball. I did it in one afternoon on the golf course.''

As Mr. Aaron can attest, playing golf and being skilled at golf are two very different things. Which is why I rise today--to note the accomplishment of six young women in my District who attend Penn High School in Mishawaka, Indiana.

These six young women--seniors Julia Potter, Laura Ormson, Erin Buttrey, Michelle Fleischman, Courtney Jelinski, and freshman Anne Ormson--recently won their second consecutive championship at the 33rd Annual Indiana High School Athletic Association Girls Golf State Finals tournament.

The 2-day tournament was held at the Legends of Indiana Golf Course in Franklin, Indiana, where the Penn Kingsmen finished first among a field of nine talented golf teams.

And they did so in dramatic fashion. The team set Indiana State finals records for their 18-hole and 36-hole leads, ultimately defeating runner-up Noblesville by 32 strokes.

This was the team's third State title in 4 years under Coach Jim Garrett, with three team members--Julia Potter, Anne Ormson, and Laura Ormson--finishing among the top nine individual golfers in the entire State.

Mr. Speaker, former President Gerald Ford once expressed this sentiment on golf: ``The pat on the back, the arm around the shoulder, the praise for what was done right and the sympathetic nod for what wasn't are as much a part of golf as life itself.''

I couldn't agree more. And I'm sure the parents of these six young women agree that the character building lessons they learned on the golf course will benefit them throughout their lives.

On behalf of the constituents of the Second District of Indiana, I would like to express our heartfelt congratulations to the Penn High School girls golf team for winning the 2005 State title.

Mr. Speaker, Hank Aaron, baseball's all-time homerun champion, once said, ``It took me seventeen years to get 3,000 hits in baseball. I did it in one afternoon on the golf course.''

As Mr. Aaron can attest, playing golf and being skilled at golf are two very different things. Which is why I rise today to note the accomplishment of five young women in my district who attend Penn High School in Mishawaka, IN.

These five young women--seniors Julia Potter, Laura Ormson, Erin Buttrey, Michelle Fleischman, and freshman Anne Ormson--recently won their second consecutive championship at the 33rd Annual Indiana High School Athletic Association Girls Golf State Finals tournament.

The 2-day tournament was held at the Legends of Indiana Golf Course in Franklin, IN, where the Penn Kingsmen finished first among a field of nine talented golf teams.

And they did so in dramatic fashion. The team set Indiana State finals records for their 18-hole and 36-hole leads, ultimately defeating runner-up Noblesville by 32 strokes.

This was the team's third State title in 4 years under Coach Jim Garrett, with three team members--Julia Potter, Anne Ormson, and Laura Ormson--finishing among the top nine individual golfers in the entire State.

Mr. Speaker, former President Gerald Ford once expressed this sentiment on golf: ``The pat on the back, the arm around the shoulder, the praise for what was done right and the sympathetic nod for what wasn't are as much a part of golf as life itself.''

I couldn't agree more. And I'm sure the parents of these five young women agree that the character building lessons they learned on the golf course will benefit them throughout their lives.

On behalf of the constituents of the Second District of Indiana, I would like to express our heartfelt congratulations to the Penn High School girls golf team for winning the 2005 State title.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his leadership on these matters and for bringing us together here tonight to discuss these important issues.

Madam Speaker, I think we can probably find bipartisan agreement here tonight that the deficit is too big. Where we probably part ways is what do we do about it?

I think it is important when we discuss what do we do about it to recognize the fact that the result of the deficit comes from one of two things: Either we spend too much, or we tax too little. I have to say that the people of the Second District of Indiana do not feel like they are taxed too little, and I do not think they are really any different from the people of every congressional district around this country.

Unfortunately, too many times here in Washington we use as the only measurement of success how much we spend, not how well we spend. But I think it is clear to say that the Federal Government spends enough money. What we did do too little of is prioritize the spending and root out waste, fraud and abuse.

Madam Speaker, tonight we have heard that we really cannot cut spending, it would just be an onerous thing to do. There is no way we can find savings or root out waste, fraud and abuse. We have also heard a little bit about the reconciliation process, where we are trying to find savings over future government growth. So the fact of the matter is, when it comes to reconciliation, we are not talking about cuts at all; we are simply talking about slowing down the future growth of government by a very small amount.

As an example, we can find $100 billion in savings over the next 5 years by simply slowing the growth of government by 3/10 of 1 percent. But, still, even with that marginal savings, we hear that there is just no way that we can even slow the growth of government. It would be simply impossible to do.

Let us look at a few examples, Madam Speaker, on where we might find that money. As an example, as reported by the Social Security Administration inspector general in 2002, more than $31 million in Social Security payments had been made to dead people. Another example, in 2003, the food stamp program spent $1.1 billion in overpayments to program beneficiaries. Another example is that Medicare overpayments in 2001, get this, totaled $12.1 billion. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: Medicare overpayments totaled $12.1 billion in 2001.

The Federal Government cannot account for $17.3 billion spent in 2001. They simply do not know where the money went. That does not include the $12.1 billion in Medicare I just mentioned, because we know where that money went, to overpayments. But there is another $17.3 billion that the Federal Government simply does not know where it went, and that leads the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, to refuse to certify the government's own accounting books because the bookkeeping is so poor.

Madam Speaker, no business could operate under those management practices; no family could operate under those management practices. In fact, if the Federal Government was a publicly traded company, there would be criminal charges brought for those management practices.

Those that say we cannot find savings and slow down the future growth of government simply do not want to do the hard work of management and being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. The American people understand that spending money is easy and managing money is hard.

I certainly believe that I was elected, and every Member of this body was elected, to do the hard things, to find a way to manage money better, to get a good return for taxpayer investment, and not fall back on the easy thing of saying if we slow the growth of government, we are balancing the budget on the backs of those people that can least afford it.

Madam Speaker, I ask, what is compassionate about wasting $12.1 billion in Medicare? That is money that is not going to any beneficiaries, it is not providing health care to any senior. It is simply mismanagement and wasted money.

Madam Speaker, I want to yield back to the gentleman from Texas, and I want to thank him again for his leadership on this issue. I certainly encourage all of my colleagues to do the hard work we are elected to do by providing better fiscal responsibility, better stewardship and better management on behalf of the people of this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again. Just very quickly, I appreciate the facts that the gentleman is pointing out.

Let me draw the gentleman's attention to a couple other facts. The Wall Street Journal last week had a very important editorial when they pointed out the fact that during the period of 2001 to 2005, inflation on a cumulative basis was 12 percent. The Federal spending in transportation increased 24 percent; employment benefits, 26 percent; general government spending, 32 percent; income security programs, 39 percent; health spending, 42 percent; community development, 71 percent; housing and commerce, 86 percent; international affairs, 94 percent; education, 99 percent. Remember, inflation over that period of time was 12 percent.

Before being elected to Congress, I ran a business. Every year we would go through a budget process. Every year all the general managers would come into my office, and we would talk about the next year's budget. In almost every case we would find ways to save over the last year in our spending budget.

I will have to say, Madam Speaker, if I would have that meeting with general managers, and I would ask them to find \1/2\ of 1 percent savings next year, they would frankly laugh in my face. They would be very relieved, because they would have expected to hear 10 percent.

Every American business and family has found ways to find substantial savings in their budget when they are faced with budget challenges. The Federal Government should be no different. There is no reason that we cannot find these savings, that we cannot act more responsibly on behalf of the American people and provide a good return and sound investment for the American taxpayer. Saying we cannot do it is simply shirking our responsibilities and not wanting to do the hard work of management. We are elected to do oversight and be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars.

Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about manufacturing jobs and about the trade deficit tonight. I think we will probably hear more.

As one of the very few Members of this body who actually spent my entire adult life in manufacturing, I rise in strong support of DR- CAFTA. The reason I support it is because during my business career, I learned a couple things. One of the first things I learned is that when you are trying to export your goods outside the United States, no tariffs is a good thing. When you do not have to pay tariffs for your products you are exporting, you are more competitive, you sell more of your products, and you create more jobs.

The other thing I learned is that in business you have to make your decisions based on facts. If you make your decisions based on rhetoric, you will go out of business pretty darn quickly. When it comes to the trade deficit, the facts are that 82 percent of our trade deficit comes from countries we do not have trade agreements with. Thirty percent of our imports come from countries we do have trade agreements with, while 40 percent of our exports go to countries we do have trade agreements with. And 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are if we are serious about creating jobs, if we are serious about reducing our trade deficit, we must tear down trade barriers and give American companies access to the world's consumers, and that is exactly what DR-CAFTA does. I urge all of my colleagues to support it tonight.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, before being elected to Congress, I ran a manufacturing business that did a significant percentage of our sales outside the United States. I have seen the opportunities of free trade and the global marketplace, and I have seen how those opportunities can lead to jobs right here at home. We did business in over 100 countries, including countries like China. I am convinced that China needs to be a strong trading partner with the United States long term. But for China to successfully and fairly participate in the global marketplace, they must live up to their trade obligations. They must respect and enforce intellectual property rights. They must open market access for U.S. goods, services, and agriculture. They must not manipulate their currency to distort trade.

The Trade Rights Enforcement Act offers a wide range of measures to ensure China abides by its international commitments. Madam Speaker, with a level playing field, U.S. businesses can compete with anybody anywhere at any time. With 96 percent of the world's consumers outside the United States, the global marketplace holds great promise. This bill is a strong tool to make sure China abides by the rules of free trade and puts U.S. businesses in a competitive position to take advantage of those opportunities. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Trade Rights Enforcement Act.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

Over the past 3 years, the PATRIOT Act has played a key role in the prevention of terrorist attacks right here in the United States. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the ability of government agencies to share information with each other was limited, which kept investigators from fully understanding what terrorists might be planning and to prevent their attacks.

The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, Joseph Van Bokkelen, explained, ``If an assistant U.S. Attorney learned through the use of a grand jury that there was a planned terrorist attack in northern Indiana, he or she could not share that information with the

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the United States-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement and the benefits it will provide to hard working farmers in Indiana and all across this country.

Currently, the U.S. market is already fairly open to agricultural products from Central America and the Dominican Republic, but U.S. farmers face a variety of tariffs and other barriers when exporting to DR-CAFTA countries. This agreement will eliminate these barriers, reciprocate open market access, and put American farmers on a level playing field.

More than half of America's agricultural exports will receive immediate duty-free access to DR-CAFTA countries under this agreement. This agreement will provide U.S. farmers with unequaled access to a large market with growing incomes and a growing demand for agricultural and food products.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support American farmers and support this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I thank her for her leadership on this issue.

This is one of many times she has come to the floor and spoken on this very important issue that I think is important to generation of Americans, and it is important that we focus on the facts and how we can strengthen Social Security for the long term. And the gentleman from Florida did a tremendous job in talking about a first step, I think a very appropriate step, in making sure that we preserve the Social Security surplus for Social Security reasons and benefits.

I did 15 or 20 town hall meetings so far this year on Social Security; and if there was one message I heard loud and clear, Mr. Speaker, from the people of

the Second District of Indiana it is: let us stop raiding the Social Security surplus. Let us stop spending it on everything from the Cowgirl Hall of Fame to the war in Iraq. Let us use that surplus for what it is there for, and that is simply to provide the benefits for Social Security beneficiaries in the future. And that is exactly what GROW accounts do. They simply stop the raid. I think facts matter, and with anything I think that we should understand the facts before we make decisions.

And I learned recently that there is going to be a group of people in my district office in South Bend, Indiana tomorrow, and they are going to demand that I take my name off as a cosponsor of the bill that creates GROW accounts. I am not going to take my name off of that bill because I think that their request is based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and I know that because they sent me a letter, or they are going to deliver to me a letter tomorrow, I think, but we got an advance copy, and some of the things they have stated in this letter are gross misstatements of the fact and I think mislead people as to what GROW accounts do and how they start to solve our Social Security problem.

The first misunderstanding is they say that ``rather than ensuring that American workers receive the benefits they have earned, this bill would divert payroll contributions to create private accounts and would fund these private accounts using the `surplus,' money which has already been earmarked to pay the baby boomers' Social Security benefits.''

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this bill would create personal accounts and those personal accounts will be funded by surplus Social Security money that goes into the system that is not needed for current beneficiaries. What is not true is that the surplus has been earmarked for baby boomers in the future. In fact, the opposite is true. The surplus is simply spent on everything that the government needs that is outside of Social Security benefits. So I think it is very important that we understand that the GROW account simply makes sure that we spend Social Security surplus money on Social Security purposes.

The second misunderstanding is they say: ``This plan would cut guaranteed benefits.'' There are two things wrong with that statement. One, there are no guaranteed benefits under Social Security as it is currently implemented. The Supreme Court has said that no one has a property right, no one has a right to your benefits. Congress can change the Social Security system at any time in the future and no one can make a claim for their benefits. So under the current Social Security plan, there are no guaranteed benefits.

But if we have GROW accounts, there is a guaranteed benefit because that becomes a personal asset. That becomes an asset with their name on it. It becomes a part of their estate. It becomes inheritable if they die before they can collect their benefits, and currently Social Security has none of those aspects and none of those benefits.

The third misunderstanding is: ``This plan would finance risky private accounts.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, it does fund personal accounts. It is a personal asset for individuals who are in the Social Security system. But they are not risky because these accounts would simply have one asset in them when they are created, and that is government-backed securities, government bonds, the safest investment in the world, and these are tradeable and marketable bonds that can be sold at a later time when people have their retirement needs, and they can use that for their retirement benefits.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do think that facts really matter in this debate because the consequences are very important to every generation of Americans.

We can talk more about these accounts and more about the Social Security situation overall, but again I want to thank my colleagues for being here tonight talking about this very important issue. And one of the things that I always want to encourage people to do is to share with us what they are for. The people coming to my office tomorrow are going to tell me what they are against. I would love to hear what their ideas on saving Social Security are. I would love to hear what they are for. I know that their colleagues are open minded and that we are willing to listen to any good idea to make sure that we permanently solve the problems that Social Security faces. So I hope that we can have some positive input from both sides of the aisle and all the American people because we need that to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is exactly right. Congress has changed the Social Security system over time, and over 20 times in the past Congress has raised taxes on Social Security in payroll taxes into the system. And that has never solved the problem. And if we include raising the amount of payroll that is subject to the tax, it is something like 38 or 39 times we have raised the contribution to the system.

What we have to do is find a way to permanently solve the Social Security challenges that are really undeniable. As she said, the only thing guaranteed is a significant cut in benefits in 2041 or 2042 if we do nothing. So I think it is time that we find a way to permanently solve this problem. The GROW accounts are a great idea as a first step. They are not the total answer, but they are a first step to give people an ownership stake in Social Security, make sure that we use the surplus for what it is intended for, and that is Social Security benefits, stop raiding the surplus and begin to strengthen Social Security for the long term.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing up that point. That is a consistent criticism of the GROW accounts, that they would increase the debt or the deficit; but in fact what they do is unmask or reveal the true budget deficit.

Today we have a Social Security surplus, which we have talked about. That money is used to pay for general government needs, and it reduces or masks the amount of money we really need to run government, because we are taking Social Security money and using it for general government purposes.

With GROW accounts implemented and enacted, we would stop doing that. We would stop using Social Security surplus money for anything except Social Security. The problem with that, the critics would say, is that we have to go find the money to fund general government somewhere else. So on paper it increases the deficit, when in fact it unmasks the deficit.

It is simply a matter of truth in accounting. It is being honest with the American people how much money we spend as a government and where the money comes from. Then we will be more accountable to the American people by not spending their Social Security money on things other than Social Security and being honest as to how much we need to spend or borrow to fund the general government needs.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply a matter of transparency and truth in accounting. Frankly, we need more of that in other parts of government, which we could spend several hours talking about. It is being honest with the American people, and I think it is one of the great benefits of GROW accounts.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield further, just to put this into context, between 2006 and 2015, it is estimated that the surplus will be $790 billion that we would put into personal accounts for retirement needs for Social Security benefits versus spending it on general government purposes. So this is a lot of money that can be put aside now for Social Security benefits in the future. I think it is high time we start.

As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, last week our country did receive more good economic news. The jobless rate fell to 5 percent in June, the lowest rate since September of 2001. Economic growth has continued to average a strong and steady 4 percent. The deficit is down by over $100 billion to its lowest point in 3 years. And tax receipts have skyrocketed this year.

That news should send a clear signal to Members of this body, it is time to give the tax cuts of 2003 the credit that they deserve. Time and again we have learned that the best way to achieve growth and create jobs is for hardworking people to keep more of their own money in their own pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help sustain this growth and help eliminate the deficit by controlling spending and making the 2003 tax cuts permanent.

Mr. Speaker, every day families and businesses across America have to make tough decisions. They have to live within a budget and eliminate wasteful spending. The Federal Government should act no differently.

So I have joined my colleagues in reintroducing the Family Budget Protection Act in this Congress. It is legislation that gives the budget resolution the force of law. It limits the growth of spending. It places a premium on combating waste, fraud and abuse. And it forces us to honestly account for long-term funding obligations.

Together, these reforms will help balance the budget, promote more responsible spending and encourage Congress to make the same tough decisions that confront American families and small businesses every single day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to demonstrate our commitment to fiscal discipline and join me in supporting the Family Budget Protection Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his good work on this bill. I also appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment.

This amendment is really about prioritizing spending and fiscal responsibility. Over the last 2 years, NASA has spent $20,000 for an artist-in-residence program. My amendment is designed to prevent or limit that practice in the future.

Mr. Chairman, nowhere in NASA's mission does it say anything about advancing fine arts or hiring a performance artist. In fact, Laurie Anderson, the person that was chosen to perform the role of a performance artist, when she was called to be offered the job, she said, Sure, what do I do?

And the response she got from NASA was, Well, we do not know; we have never done this before.

One of the first things that I did in 2003 after I showed up as a new Member of Congress is I attended a memorial service for the Columbia astronauts. Certainly, spending money by NASA on a performance artist and a artist-in-residence program does nothing to make sure that the shuttle program gets back into space and prevents such tragedies in the future.

Now $20,000 may not seem like much in the Halls of Congress; but to the average American family, it is a significant amount of money. I wish I could say that NASA is boldly wasting taxpayer money where no agency has wasted it before, but I am afraid that the artist-in- residence program is just a symptom of a bigger problem.

Recently, the Heritage Foundation identified $386 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending. Every American business and every American family must make hard decisions to stand by their budget and eliminate wasteful funding, and the Federal Government should be no different and NASA should not be spending taxpayer dollars on a performance artist. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an art-bashing amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply a fiscal responsibility amendment. We must make decisions on how to prioritize spending. NASA will continue to have an art program. They have an art curator. They have an education program with a chief education officer. The ability to communicate the mission of NASA and the benefits of space exploration are still intact fully. But we have to make hard decisions. Having an artist-in-residence that produces a play that has minimal, if any, relationship to NASA and the mission of NASA is not wise spending of taxpayer dollars.

I appreciate the chairman's support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Chocola

Amendment No. 1: Page 108, after line 7, insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker I would like to share with my colleagues a situation that has been brought to my attention. An October 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice affirmed that the disputed Bakassi Peninsula belongs to The Republic of Cameroon. I urge the nations of Cameroon and Nigeria to act in accordance with this ruling and move expeditiously to withdraw Nigerian troops and delineate the final border. Continued talks between the two parties are greatly encouraged, and it is my hope they will lead to an effective resolution.