Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Poe talked about this just a few minutes ago, and I'd like to carry on his thinking regarding the Architect of the Capitol or the Acting Architect of the Capitol.

There was a 17-year-old boy who was about to become an Eagle Scout. His name was Andrew Larochelle, and he wanted to give a flag that's flown over the Capitol to his grandfather, who was one of his heroes, and he asked that his Congressman be able to put this language into the certificate that goes along with the flag. And he said, ``This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family.''

The Acting Architect of the Capitol, if you can believe this, Stephen Ayers, took ``God'' out of that and sent the certificate back. And he said there can't be a reference to God in any kind of certification like that that comes out of the Capitol.

I'd just like to say to my colleagues, right here we have ``In God We Trust'' over the Speaker's rostrum. We have ``In God We Trust'' on our currency. We have ``In God We Trust'' on our coinage. We have ``In God We Trust'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

And I can't imagine anybody wanting to take God out of a certificate for a Boy Scout or an Explorer Scout or anybody else in scouting because they wanted to honor their grandfather.

I'd like to just tell my colleagues that a few of our Founding Fathers had something to say about having God in our activities and in our government. Patrick Henry said, ``It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.'' Thomas Jefferson said, ``God who gave us life gave us liberty.''

And John Adams, I want to read you this because it's a little longer but it's very important. He says, ``It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the Creator and Preserver of the universe. And so no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.''

The Acting Architect of the Capitol should be removed from office posthaste for doing this, and anybody who

tries to infringe upon the rights of American citizens to express themselves regarding God and country should be taken to task.

This country was founded upon the principles of believing in God and a supreme being, and we're now trying to take that apart one step at a time.

The Architect of the Capitol, who represents the Congress of the United States and this Capitol, has no right to tell a Scout that he can't honor his grandfather by giving him a flag and a certificate that says, ``This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family.''

And so the President, as I understand it, appoints the Architect of the Capitol. Mr. President, if he happens to be listening, I hope he will remove this man and replace him with somebody who really loves God, country, and his fellow man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res 564, and would like to take this opportunity to commend the countries in Central America that have pooled their time and expertise to discuss common goals through the Central American Integration System (SICA)-- which is an inter-governmental organization comprised of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama (with the Dominican Republic as an Associate Member).

I would also like to commend the United States government for its effort in addressing the issues of gangs, drug trafficking and arms trafficking through the Dialogue on Democratic Security that was held with the Central American Integration System countries in Guatemala City this past July.

Violence in Central America is a grave threat to the entire region. Recent numbers from the Andes and parts of Central America show that the murder rate is above forty per 100,000 people, and does not appear to be on the decline. The increasing prevalence of violence in this region raises serious concerns with high levels of insecurity and weak state capacity to deal with criminal activity. The transport of drugs and widespread gang activity create additional problems that must be tackled sooner rather than later.

It is this reason why I support H. Res 564, commending action taken to Combat Criminal Gangs from Central America and Mexico and encouraging regular meetings in which countries can build on existing cooperation toward this end.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to comment right now on a little article that was in the paper. Probably most Americans didn't see it today. But I followed what went on in Zimbabwe a long time ago when the communist leader, Mr. Mugabe, took over. He said they were going to make that country greater because of the movement towards communism.

Well, here is what happened since he took office: The government says that it is going to have to import 100 tons of extra wheat but that is still going to be really short of the 375,000 tons that they need to feed their people. And the United Nations World Food Programme estimates that at least 3 million people will need emergency food aid in Zimbabwe before the April corn harvest.

Communism simply doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the past. It didn't work in the Soviet Union, and it hasn't worked in Zimbabwe or other places. And we ought to be very thankful that we live in a democratic republic in this country. And we ought to do everything we can to help those living under the yoke of communism and do everything to can to make them free.

I think it is extremely important because when you go to those countries, as I have, and you see what those people have to live like and you see the starvation, little children with big bellies because they don't have the food they need, you realize that the communist menace is very, very costly anyplace it occurs in the whole world.

Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues hopefully know, September was National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. All across the Nation men and women came together for events to both raise awareness of this terrible scourge and to show their support for the women and families struggling with this horrible disease--the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers. For example, September 7, 2007, was ``Teal Time''--a day on which millions of Americans nationwide wore the official color of ovarian cancer--teal--to raise awareness about ovarian cancer.

While National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month may be over for 2007, the fight against ovarian cancer goes on. When it is detected early, ovarian cancer is very treatable; unfortunately, ovarian cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because symptoms are sometimes subtle and may be easily confused with those of other diseases. As a result, only 29 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the early stages. When the disease is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 95 percent of women will survive longer than five years. But, in cases where the disease is not detected until it reaches the advanced stage, the five-year survival rate plummets to a devastating 25 percent.

As there is still no reliable and easy-to-administer screening test for ovarian cancer, like the Pap smear for cervical cancer or the mammogram for breast cancer, early recognition of symptoms is clearly the best way to save a woman's life. Increased education and awareness about ovarian cancer and recognition of women who are at higher risk for developing ovarian cancer, is the only way that women and their doctors will be able to stop ignoring or misinterpreting the subtle symptoms of the disease. Recently, the American Cancer Society and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance came to a consensus on the identifiable symptoms of ovarian cancer, even in the early stages. The experts believe if a woman experiences any of the following symptoms for at least three weeks--bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, frequent or urgent need to urinate--she should immediately see her gynecologist.

I urge all of my colleagues to remember those symptoms and I ask each and every one of you to please make a special point of discussing them with your mothers, your wives and your daughters; and encourage them to talk about these symptoms with other women. The simple fact is that ignorance kills. The more women who know what to look for, the more lives we can save. If we love our mothers, our wives and our daughters, and I am sure that we do, then we owe it to them to make the effort to talk with them about ovarian cancer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stark-Burton amendment to H.R. 3121 the ``Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007.'' This amendment is nearly identical to an amendment we offered last year which passed this House unanimously. I want to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Stark for once again cosponsoring this amendment. I would also like to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for including parts of our original amendment in this years legislation which will ensure that FEMA notifications of elevation changes are published in the Federal Register, published in the most widely circulated local newspapers and provided to the chief executive officer of each affected community by certified mail.

Unfortunately, while extending notifications of changes in flood elevations to newspapers and local officials is helpful, H.R. 3121 misses the bull's eye by ignoring the most important part of the Burton/Stark amendment from last year; namely the requirement that FEMA provide written notification by first class mail to each property owner affected by a proposed change in flood elevations. Last year in my district we had about 300 or 400 people who had no idea that FEMA was redrawing the flood map in their area until they suddenly received notice from their insurance companies and mortgage lenders saying that they now lived in a flood plain and they needed to spend an extra thousand or $2,000 a year for flood insurance. There hadn't been a flood in that area of Johnson County, Indiana for over 100 years. In fact, no one had ever heard of having a flood in this area.

Once these flood maps have been finalized the only way to remove a property from the flood plan is to file an individual appeal complete with extensive survey work paid for entirely at the property owner's expense. The process is expensive and time-consuming and homeowners must still buy and retain flood insurance throughout the process. However, if homeowners can find out while the maps are still preliminary, they have time to utilize an automatic 90-day appeal process to have the remaps reevaluated, and potentially remove blocks of homes from the flood plain, at little to no expense to the owners.

What the Stark-Burton amendment does is very simple:

Requires FEMA to provide written notification by first-class mail to each property owner affected by a proposed change in flood elevations;

Requires the notifications be sent after the preliminary maps are released but before the required 90-day appeal period; and,

Requires the notification include an explanation of the appeal process and contact information for responsible officials.

Mail notices to each property owner affected by projected flood elevation remapping would be a simple and effective way to notify residents of changes. Such a process is direct and ensures that all affected parties are able to take full advantage of FEMA's community appeals process. The cost to the Federal Government of these mail notifications would be small compared to the millions of dollars homeowners would otherwise have to pay in last-minute flood insurance or to challenge FEMA's flood elevation determinations.

As Chairman Frank said last year when we debated this issue, and my colleague Mr. Stark just said so briefly and eloquently, anytime a conservative from Indiana and liberal from California can come together on an issue it is truly bipartisan. In fact this is a nonpartisan issue that affects nearly everyone in the 20,000 communities nationwide that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. To ensure that all property owners are fully aware of any changes in flood plain area maps, and consequently their property values, is simply the right and fair thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support the Stark/Burton amendment to H.R. 3121.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for handling this very important bill. I want to thank Mr. Costa and Mr. Poe for sponsoring this legislation.

When we talk about violence in the family, domestic violence, we quote a lot of statistics, and my colleagues have done that very, very well. But one of the things that's very hard for people to understand is what it's like to actually go through domestic violence.

It's so important that everybody in America be involved in stopping domestic violence. There's so many people that hear some woman scream or see some child being beaten by their father and they don't do anything about it. They say it's not my business, and so they go on their merry way, and they feel like this problem's going to go away. It doesn't go away. It gets worse and worse and worse until sometimes people get killed or maimed for life.

My father was six-foot eight, and my mother was five-foot-and-a-half inches tall, and he used to beat her so badly that we couldn't recognize her. He would tear her clothes off of her in front of me and my brother and sister, and then if we said anything he would beat me.

He went to prison for trying to kill her, and one of the reasons it went that far, in my opinion, is because there wasn't enough attention paid to what he was doing in the first place.

I can remember one night about 2 o'clock in the morning my mother, who had been beaten up, took me and my brother and sister down to the police station in Indianapolis, and she went to the desk sergeant and said to him, you know, she wanted to get a restraining order, get away from this brute and this brutality. And the desk officer said, you know what time it is, lady? It's 2 o'clock in the morning, and these kids ought to be in bed. If you don't take these kids home right now, I'm going to arrest you for child abuse. That was the attitude that we saw back in those days.

I can remember when she would throw a lamp through the front window when he was beating on her or me and scream for help so loud that you could hear it for blocks away and nobody came. Nobody's light went on. Nobody paid any attention, and that's the crime.

The crime isn't just the wife abuse or child abuse or spousal abuse. The crime is that people don't take it upon themselves to stop it.

Today, it's a lot better in police departments across this country. There's

a lot of organizations that are trying to help women and kids who are abused, and that's great. It's a great step in the right direction, but as these statistics that we've heard today will tell you, it goes on and on and on. And the only way it's going to stop, if collectively across this country, men and women who see violence in public or in private or hear about it, report it to the police, report it to the proper people and get that brute away from that man and that woman and those kids. If we don't do that, this is never going to stop. The brute has to be afraid of what's going to happen to him.

I'll just tell you how this story ends. My mother finally got away from him. He went to prison for 2 to 14 years. And when he got out, he still tried to bother us. But it wasn't until he realized that he was going to go back to jail if he did it again that he stopped. The fear of the law, the fear of prosecution, the fear of retaliation for what they're doing is the one thing that brutes and wife and child abusers understand.

And so I'd like to say to my colleagues, this is very important legislation. I really appreciate it. I'm glad that we sponsor this every year, and we need to make sure there's awareness of this.

But I'd like to say if anybody across the country is paying attention, it's your responsibility, every single American, if you see a wife or child abuse or abuse of any type like this, report it to the police. Tell your friends and neighbors to watch for it. That's the only way it's going to stop, and it's everybody's responsibility.

Each year children witness domestic violence and this experience can have a lasting impact on their lives. In order to break the intergenerational cycle, children need services and interventions to address their experiences and prevent future violence. Between 3.3 and 10 million children witness domestic violence every year.

The National Census of Domestic Violence Services (NCDVS) revealed that over 18,000 children in the United States received services and support from 1,243 local domestic violence programs during a 24-hour period in November 2006. During the survey day: 7,241 children found refuge in emergency shelter; 4,852 children were living in transitional housing programs designed specifically for domestic violence survivors; and 5,946 children received non-residential services, such as individual counseling, legal advocacy, and children's support groups.

Nationwide, participating programs reported that 5,157 requests for services from adults and children went unmet. Boys who witness domestic violence are twice as likely to abuse their own partners and children when they become adults.

Children exposed to domestic violence are more likely to exhibit cognitive and physical health problems like depression, anxiety, and violence toward peers. These children are also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs and alcohol, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution, and commit sexual assault crimes.

Teens experience high rates of domestic and sexual violence and need specialized services that respond to this and prevent future violence. Domestic and sexual violence's prevalence in the youth population is a problem that deserves careful attention.

One in 3 teens know a friend or peer who has been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked or physically hurt by dating partners. One- fourth of high school girls have been the victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse or date rape. Girls and young women between the ages of 16 and 24 experience the highest rate of intimate partner violence.

Not surprisingly, this violence can have a traumatic effect on the lives of these young people that can last well into adulthood.

Victims of teen dating violence are more likely to: use alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine; drive after drinking; engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors; commit sexually risky behaviors; and become pregnant. Over 50 percent of youth reporting dating violence and rape also reported attempting suicide. Girls who are raped are about 3 times more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders and over 4 times more likely to suffer from drug and alcohol abuse in adulthood.

American Indian and Alaska Native women are battered, raped and stalked at far greater rates than any other group of women in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that: 1 of 3 Native women will be raped; 6 of 10 will be physically assaulted; and Native women are stalked at a rate at least twice that of any other population. Seventy percent of American Indians who are the victims of violent crimes are victimized by someone of a different race.

This bill raises awareness of domestic violence. It is essential to keep this issue in the eye of the public so that victims know that they have options and a way out. I am proud to support this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, nobody wants tax increases, and a tax increase right now would be detrimental to the economy of the United States. In fact, the Treasury Secretary thinks it would be disastrous. It would put the economy into a tailspin.

Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee recently tried to use as a wedge the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, as a way to create a new system down the road that would raise billions and billions of dollars in new taxes across this country. As a matter of fact, they would raise the top tax rate on capital gains to 36 percent. On people making over $200,000 a year, it would raise their tax rate to 36 percent; and these tax increases would be absolutely devastating to the people of this country and to the economy of this country.

Chairman Rangel in 1996 had an opportunity to vote against the alternative minimum tax, but he voted for it. And now he is saying he is against it, and he is using it as a wedge to get other taxes increased, which over the long term, over the next 10 years, will result in billions and billions of dollars of new tax increases for the people of this country.

Tonight, I would like to enter into the Record some statements made by Grover Norquist and Bob Novak in a column he wrote, so that the people of this country will be aware of what is coming about. Explaining all of these tax changes is very difficult in 5 minutes. It is very difficult for the people of this country to understand. But I want the people of this country to know that the Democrats are planning to use the AMT as a wedge so they can raise taxes across the board and hit everybody. And it is going to hurt the economy of this country and hurt every American taxpayer.

All I would like to say is that the American people need to know this. I hope everybody reads this. Everybody wants to do away with the alternative minimum tax on our side of the aisle, but we want to do it cleanly in one fell swoop. At least we ought to reduce it over a period of time so it goes away, but they are using it as a wedge so they can raise taxes in the next 10 years. And it will be very detrimental to the American economy.

[From the New York Sun, Sept. 7, 2007.]

Rangel's Priority Is Repealing the AMT

(By Russell Berman)

Washington.--Amid mounting opposition to a proposed tax

hike on the managers of hedge funds and private equity firms,

the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep.

Charles Rangel, is making clear that his first priority is

fixing the widely reviled alternative minimum tax.

Congressional Democrats have zeroed in on private equity

taxation in their search for new revenue sources to pay for

expanded health care and other domestic spending priorities.

Mr. Rangel convened a marathon hearing yesterday to delve

into an array of tax ``fairness'' issues.

``It has not been the goal of this committee to target any

tax provisions other than the AMT,'' the Harlem Democrat said

at the outset of the hearing, which featured 20 witnesses.

``However, it is fair to say that since the AMT is such an

expensive revenue loser--because the revenue it brings in was

never expected--that naturally we have to look at the entire

tax code.''

Created in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans

assumed at least a minimum tax burden, the AMT, because it is

not adjusted for inflation, increasingly is affecting middle-

income taxpayers and has drawn criticism from both sides of

the political aisle. More than 23 million Americans could be

subject to it this year.

``It's the perfect storm of bad tax policy,'' the director

of the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center, Leonard Burman,

told lawmakers yesterday, adding that the AMT is ``hideously

complex.''

Yet the cost of repealing the AMT is estimated at more than

$800 billion over the next decade, leading to the proposed

tax hike on private equity. A bill sponsored by Mr. Rangel

and Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan would more than double the

tax rate that hedge fund and private equity managers would

pay on their investment gains, known as ``carried interest.''

Carried interest is currently subject to the capital gains

rate of 15 percent, but the proposed change would treat it as

income subject to the marginal rate of as much as 35 percent.

Citing annual incomes for managers as high as $500 million,

one Democrat, Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, made no secret of

his view that the party should look for revenue from

``individuals who are making massive amounts of money,''

saying they ``frankly won't really miss the difference.''

Economists and tax lawyers testifying yesterday debated the

likely impact of the tax increase on the financial sector and

the economy, as Republicans on the committee pressed them on

whether it would drive investment overseas or whether

managers would shift the burden to investors by charging

higher rates.

A Republican congressman from Virginia, Eric Cantor, said

Democrats were on a ``hunt'' for new revenues and that the

private equity proposal ``targets one of the most innovative

sectors of the economy.''

In a prepared opening statement, the ranking Republican on

the committee, Rep. James McCrery of Louisiana, warned that

the proposal ``will move us backward while the rest of the

world moves forward to improve their competitive position.''

He added: ``I seriously doubt this proposal will become law

during the 110th Congress.''

The debate over the taxation of hedge funds and private

equity has raged on Capitol Hill amid heightened scrutiny of

the $2 trillion industry and of the vast profits the firms

have taken in.

The effort to raise the tax rate on carried interest faces

opposition from the private equity industry, and more

recently from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of

minority and women business groups.

As he did at a Senate committee hearing in July, Bruce

Rosenblum, the chairman of the industry's lobbying group, the

Private Equity Council, warned that a tax hike on carried

interest could discourage investment and hurt American

competitiveness.

The proposal has divided New York's two senators. Following

her top Democratic rivals in the presidential campaign,

Senator Clinton has come out in favor of the tax hike.

Senator Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate,

has signaled his opposition, citing the potential harm to

Wall Street and New York's competitiveness worldwide. He also

has said targeting partnerships only in the financial sector

would be unfair, suggesting that a similar increase be

considered for partnerships in the oil and gas industries.

Mayor Bloomberg, meanwhile, has mostly stayed silent on the

issue.

The Senate Finance Committee held its third hearing on the

issue of carried interest yesterday, focusing on pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues can understand me. I've got a little bit of laryngitis.

Mr. Speaker, directly across from me, at the top of the Chamber is a depiction of Moses, and behind me, above the Speaker's rostrum is words, ``In God We Trust.''

There are a lot of people in this country who have tried to get all symbols of religion, belief in God taken off of all public properties and coins and currency. Recently, there were thousands of coins minted without ``In God We Trust'' on them, and now they're talking about putting ``In God We Trust'' in an obscure place on coins so that people can't read it, right on the edge of the coin. I think this is--we're moving in a very, very wrong direction.

This country was formed with a firm reliance on God Almighty, and when we start taking God out of everything, as some people want to do, we run the risk of having him turn his back on us. This Nation was formed and was founded with people praying every day in the Second Continental Congress when we had the Declaration of Independence and in Constitution Hall because they couldn't come to an agreement, and by prayer and supplication they were able to reach agreement; thus, we have the Declaration of Independence, and we had our Constitution that has made this country so wonderfully powerful and respected around the world for the past 250 years.

Those who try to take God off of all things governmental, such as coinage or currency or in this Chamber, are making a terrible mistake, in my opinion. And I'm going to be introducing legislation that will demand or mandate that ``In God We Trust'' be maintained and retained on our currency and on our coinage in a prominent place.

Once you start turning your back on the good Lord, I think you are going to reap the whirlwind, and this is something this Nation cannot afford to do right now.

Madam Speaker, I wish the whole world were listening to what we are talking about tonight. In 1965, there with a murder committed in Boston, Massachusetts, and a man named Deegan was shot down. A man named Joe ``The Animal'' Barboza, the first man in the witness protection program, who was protected by the FBI in Boston, testified that a man named Joe Salvati, a man named Peter Limone, and two other people were involved in the murder, and they were not.

J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI in the Boston office knew these men were innocent, but because they were protecting a Mob informant of the Winter Hill Gang headed by Whitey Bulger, they put these guys in jail for life. They were going to give them the death penalty, but that was commuted to life in prison.

Joe Salvati was the fellow that I worked with when I was chairman of the Government Reform Committee. We had hearings on this that lasted for about a year. We had some of the FBI witnesses testify before the committee. One man, named Rico, who was an honored FBI agent, lied about Joe Salvati, and Joe Salvati went to jail for 29 years, 29 years for a crime he didn't commit.

Two of the men who were convicted and went to jail died in prison, and Mr. Limone just got out in 2001. There is no question these men were innocent. We subpoenaed documents from the Justice Department and had to fight the administration to get them because they were claiming executive privilege. We finally got the documents, and we found that all of the way up to the head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, they knew these men were innocent, but they put them in jail to protect Mob informants, Joe ``The Animal'' Barboza, the first man in the witness protection program, and James, ``The Rifleman'' Flemmi, a friend of his, who was also a killer.

Joe ``The Animal'' Barboza was shot down in San Francisco years later because he was still involved in Mob hits. He killed over 28 people that we know of.

But anyhow to make a long story short, the long fight for justice was finally concluded today in Boston in a Federal court.

Judge Nancy Gertner issued a finding for Salvati and the other three men who were innocent of the crime but convicted and spent all that time in jail, two of whom died in jail, and she issued an order giving them $101.7 million because of this horrible crime that was committed against them by our justice system.

We have an awful lot of fine people in the FBI, the CIA and our other intelligence agencies, but unfortunately, we have had some bad apples in the system.

One of the gentlemen who was the head of the FBI up there is spending 2 to 10 years in jail for another crime. He's facing possibly another murder sentence when he gets out of jail because of something else he was involved in.

Mr. Rico was indicted for a murder that involved a man who was shot to death in Oklahoma at one of the golf courses there when he took his golf clubs out of the trunk. Mr. Rico had fingered him to the mob, and the mob went down there and killed him because this guy was the owner of an international company, and he found out that the mob was siphoning money off of him. So Mr. Rico who testified before our committee fingered this guy, and this guy was shot to death in Oklahoma City when he took his golf clubs out of his trunk. Mr. Rico, before he went to trial, died of a heart attack, but he had been indicted for the murder of this man who had been killed in Oklahoma City.

The long arm of justice reached out to these FBI agents, Mr. Connolly and Mr. Rico, who violated their trust, and also, it should reach out to J. Edgar Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover, whom I admired all of my life and I watched him on television and watched all the accolades that he was given, he knew these men were innocent, but to protect a mob informant, Joe ``The Animal'' Barboza, he put these guys in jail, and they left them there.

Joe Salvati's wife grew older without him. His children grew old without him. His wife went every week to see him for 29 years in prison. She didn't have a driver's license so she had to have people drive her out there. So Joe Salvati and his whole family suffered because of this.

I talked to Joe tonight. He's elated. His wife's elated, but they can't get back the 29 years that they suffered when he was in jail for a crime he didn't commit or Mr. Limone didn't commit.

So I'd like to say tonight that I want to congratulate Judge Nancy Gertner. I've never met her, but what she said in that court today really bears to be repeated. She said that the FBI case against Salvati and what they said in this court today was absurd. She said that the Justice Department said that these gentlemen were acceptable collateral damage.

Madam Speaker, I will put the rest in the Record because I want everybody to know about this, and I just want to make sure that everybody knows that these gentlemen were innocent, and this should never ever happen in a court of justice again ever.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First of all, I want to thank Mr. Inslee for introducing this amendment. I'm very proud to cosponsor it with you. It's very needed, and the reason I know it's very needed is because the things you talked about I experienced as a boy. I won't be redundant and go into the things that you have mentioned and the reasons why this program is so necessary.

But I do want you to know that I don't normally support changing money from one area to another like from the Department of Justice to these programs, but this is one of the most urgent needs in America, and it's been like this for the last 50 to 60 years.

I can remember when we went to police headquarters with my mother after we'd been beaten and my father had beaten my mother, and the police sergeant said, If you don't get these kids home, I'm going to have you arrested for child abuse. That's the way it was in those days. There was no place for a woman to hide, and the children had to experience this.

At 4 o'clock in the morning, when you hear your mother being beaten and you come down the stairs and your hair is standing straight up on the back of your head and your father turns and says to you, If you don't get back up the stairs, you're going to get some of this, kids should not have to endure that. They should not ever have to endure that. And the women who are treated like that should never have to endure that as well.

It's a shame that there aren't more people talking about this because this is something that's an urgent, urgent need.

Mr. Inslee's absolutely right about the chances for a child who's been abused like this to do the same things throughout the rest of their life. I was very fortunate that didn't happen, but I've known a lot of people who experienced that who did, and I think it's a tragic thing.

We really need to find a way to get these women and kids into shelter and away from these abusive parents, fathers and sometimes mothers, and we need to help the women who are abused.

As he just said, in the Native American community, there are women who are being raped and beaten, and there's really no place for them to turn. There's no registry so we can track these guys. That's a horrible thing to have to experience.

So I just want to say to my colleagues, and as I said, I won't be redundant, but I was reading in our information that we use when we discuss these issues, I was reading that between 3.3 million and 10 million children witness domestic violence every year. Can you imagine, up to 10 million kids that witness domestic violence in the home and elsewhere every single year? That's unforgivable. And at one time, in 1 day, one 24-hour period, there were 18,000 children in the United States that received services and support because they were experiencing domestic violence, in one day. That's something, in my opinion, that's inexcusable.

This is a very, very important piece of legislation. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for this. There should not be one negative vote on this, not one, because there are kids and women who are suffering, sometimes every day. Sometimes the husband will beat the child and they'll turn around to the wife and say, I'll never do that again, and he does it the next week. Sometimes he'll beat his wife and he puts his arms around her, and I've seen this firsthand, he says, Honey, I will never do that again. And the next week she's beaten again, and she sometimes has no place to go and she feels like there's no hope.

It's extremely important that we give these women and these kids hope,

and that's why I say to you, Mr. Inslee, thank you very much for introducing this amendment. I hope it passes unanimously.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, over the last week or so I have listened to a number of my colleagues come to the floor of this Chamber to lament the 1974 ``invasion'' of Cyprus. For many years the United States, the European Union and other members of the international community have worked together for a just and lasting solution to the vexing problem of Cyprus. That is why I am deeply

concerned when I hear some of my colleagues throwing barbs at the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey in an attempt to lay all the blame for this complicated issue at their doorstep. Because by distorting the facts, we are potentially undermining our good-faith, efforts to see this conflict resolved and to see peace and prosperity come to all the people of Cyprus.

The fact is that when the Island of Cyprus gained its independence from Great Britain in 1960, the Republic's constitution specifically defined a power-sharing arrangement which required a Greek Cypriot president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, each elected by their constituency.

The fact is that in 1963 Greek Cypriot President Makarios proposed sweeping constitutional modifications which heavily favored the Greek Cypriot community. The changes removed most of the checks and balances which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and equal status of the Turkish Cypriots. The inevitable result was a serious deterioration of relations between the two parties, which came to a head in December 1963, when armed Greek Cypriots attacked and killed many Turkish Cypriots who were unable to escape. The armed conflict spread quickly, with the Turkish Cypriots eventually being forced to withdraw into enclaves to defend themselves.

For the next 10 years, the campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the Turkish Cypriots many lives and untold suffering, as well as their equal partnership status in the Cyprus government.

Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among others, was actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has turned ``this beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (p. 341). Ball went on to say that ``Makarios' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345).

The fact is that during the presidential elections of 1974, Archbishop of Cyprus Makarios--the Greek Cypriot leader at the time-- escalated the crisis by embracing Enosis, or Union with Greece, as his election platform. Although Makarios won reelection he also created a power struggle between the military junta in control of mainland Greece and himself for the control over the Island. That power struggle culminated in a coup which forced Makarios to flee Cyprus and renewed ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots.

In his address to the UN Security Council on July 19, 1974, Makarios himself described the coup as ``a clear attack from the outside and a flagrant violation of the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus''.

The fact is that in the face of a bloody coup that not only threatened the independence of Cyprus but also resulted in renewed massacres of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as a Guarantor State, was compelled to undertake action on July 20, 1974. And the fact is that as a result of this legitimate and timely action, Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was protected.

The fact is that the Turkish intervention was legitimate and was internationally confirmed by, among others, the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe (CACE). CACE resolution 573, dated July 29, 1974, clearly states, ``Turkey exercised its right of intervention in accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960.''

Unfortunately, since 1974, and in defiance of the rule of law and the established principle that federations can only be built on a foundation of equal partnership, the Greek Cypriot side continues to claim exclusive sovereignty over the entire Island. In 1983, this prompted the Turkish Cypriot side to assert its rights by proclaiming the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

After many unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, U.N.-led direct talks between the two sides began in early 2002. The talks sketched out a settlement--the Annan Plan--which was voted on in simultaneous referenda held on each side on April 24, 2004.

The fact is that Turkish Cypriots approved the Annan Plan by a clear and overwhelming majority of 65 percent but Greek Cypriots--under heavy pressure from the Greek Cypriot government--rejected it by an even larger majority of 76 percent. The Turkish Cypriots were internationally and rightly praised for their ``courageous vote in favor of the proposals''.

The Greek Cypriot side has since been trying to justify its rejection by claiming, among other things, that the plan ``did not meet the interests of the country'' and that ``it did not provide for guarantees to ensure the complete implementation of commitments under the plan''. However, impartial European Union diplomats, closely associated with the reconciliation effort, have gone so far as to say very undiplomatically, that the Greek Cypriot people had been ``lied to'' by the Greek Cypriot government as to the details of the Annan plan.

As public servants I think the members of this House understand that no compromise worth its salt ever fully meets all of the demands of either side, nor could it do so or it wouldn't be much of a compromise. The fact is that the Annan Plan was a carefully balanced compromise that certainly from the Turkish Cypriot perspective represented immense sacrifices on the part of the Turkish Cypriots, on such key issues as land, resettlement, property and security.

The Greek government and several former Greek government leaders fully supported the plan and the Turkish government was also pivotal in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to approve the plan. In the end, the only people who were not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring peace to this troubled island where the Greek Cypriots--yet they were inexplicably rewarded membership to the EU; although some EU leaders have subsequently stated that doing so was a mistake.

The fact is that despite the Greek Cypriots' failure to embrace peace and the international community's failure to end the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots; Turkish Cypriots continue to seek a just and peaceful settlement to this crisis.

Most recently, Turkey and Turkish Cypriots have supported implementation of the July 8, 2006, United Nations-brokered agreement between Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat relating to the reunification of Cyprus through a process of bi-communal discussions.

Some of my colleagues, particularly those who support House Resolution 405 (H. Res. 405), would have this House believe that Turkish Cypriots are unwilling to proceed with the July 8 agreement. But I would ask my colleagues this simple question; when offered the chance to vote for peace which side rejected peace, Turkish or Greek? The answer is Greek.

Under the circumstances it should make one wonder if Greek Cypriots, having already forestalled UN efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue--and been rewarded for it through EU membership--whether they truly feel under pressure to seek a just solution. The fact is that the status quo benefits Greek Cypriots significantly more than Turkish Cypriots and it seems to me that if either side has an incentive to delay implementation of the July 8 agreement; it would be the Greek Cypriots.

Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things; and as the facts in this case clearly show, the crisis on Cyprus is significantly more complex than the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups would like people to believe. It's time for these groups and their friends in Congress to end the ``blame game'' and get down to the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots.

Madam Speaker, as many of our colleagues in this House know, India prides itself on being the world's most populous democracy. Although relations between India and the United States have been rocky in the past, since 2004 Washington and New Delhi have been pursuing a

``strategic partnership'' based on shared values such as democracy, multiculturalism, and rule of law. In addition, numerous economic, security and globally focused initiatives, including plans for ``full civilian nuclear energy cooperation,'' are currently underway. I support these initiatives but I remain deeply concerned about the numerous serious problems that remain when it comes to India's respect for the rights of all of her citizens.

In fact, according to the Department of State's 2006 Human Rights Report for India: ``Major problems included extrajudicial killings of persons in custody, disappearances, torture and rape by police and security forces. The lack of accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were rare.''

Again, these are not my words; this is from the State Department's official report on Human Rights. I firmly believe that as the United States and India move towards greater cooperation in numerous endeavors we must at the same time continue to insist that India adhere to the full expression of democracy and basic human rights; especially for members of ethnic or religious minorities.

For example, according to reports, on April 20, 2006, Sikh activist Daljit Singh Bittu was arrested after making a speech. He was charged with sedition and ``making inflammatory speeches.'' Mr. Bittu's crime was to speak out against the acquisition of the land of poor farmers by the State of Punjab on behalf of private business firms. Fortunately, Mr. Bittu was ultimately released on bail. The issue of government taking land by eminent domain for private usage is also extremely controversial in this country, but to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been charged with sedition for speaking out about it. On June 2nd of this year, Daljit Singh Bittu, was again arrested and charged with sedition. What did Mr. Bittu do this time? He participated in a peaceful march protesting government inaction on several issues where some of the marchers--and by all accounts not Mr. Bittu--allegedly expressed their desire--unrelated to the topic of the march--for an independent Sikh nation of Khalistan by shouting ``Khalistan Zindabad.''

As I understand it, according to the Indian Supreme Court in the case Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, the mere public use of the slogan ``Khalistan Zinabad'' is not illegal; and as the march itself was peaceful, it is difficult to understand how the Indian Government believes Mr. Bittu did anything that can, to the best of my knowledge, be legitimately considered a crime--much less sedition--under United States, International, or Indian law.

What is really at issue here, Madam Speaker, is the fact that India is a nation comprised of a hodgepodge of ethnicities, some of whom do not wish to be a part of Hindu-dominated India. The conflict over the Muslim-majority region of Jammu and Kashmir is perhaps most familiar to Americans as it has sparked three major wars between India and Pakistan, but it is by no means the only ethnic or religious conflict roiling India. In 1948, India promised a free and fair plebiscite on the status of Kashmir. No such vote has ever been held. As our Nation fights to spread democracy to oppressed people across the globe, why don't we insist on a simple democratic vote, with international monitors, in Kashmir, in Punjab, Khalistan, in predominantly Christian Nagalim, and wherever people seek their freedom from India? The answer tragically is all too obvious, in the world of international diplomacy and geopolitics, sometimes expedience and ``good relations'' trump freedom and human rights.

I do not know whether the plebiscite promised to the people of Kashmir will ever happen, and I do not know whether a Sikh nation of Khalistan or a Christian nation of Nagalim will ever come into existence; but I do know that the Muslims of Kashmir, the Sikhs of Punjab/Khalistan and the Christians of Nagalim should never have to live in fear for freely and peacefully expressing their opinions.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

You know, the things that are being said today, if George Washington had had television and radio and newspapers, would have been said about him. Several of his generals wanted him out because he wasn't winning battles and things were going wrong. Even in the Congress of the United States, Lee of Virginia led the charge to try to get rid of George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

Abraham Lincoln, McClellan, one of his chief generals, who wouldn't fight, ran against him for President, and Lincoln was going to be defeated if Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta.

War is not a popular thing. It's a horrible thing. Chairman Lantos was a survivor of the camps during the Holocaust during World War II. I would like to ask you a question: What would have happened if we hadn't won that war? How many more Jewish people would have been killed in those camps? Millions more. Six million died, but many millions more probably would have died if Hitler had prevailed. But we had Winston Churchill, who was willing to go to the mat to make sure that they didn't win and that he was going to defeat Hitler.

If we pull out unilaterally like they're talking about right now, we leave those people over there who voted and held their fingers up, we leave those people to their fate with these people who are radicals, who are going to take over.

Iran has camps. Senator Lieberman talked about that. They have training camps right there along the border. They are sending terrorists in to help augment the terrorists in Iraq. And if we unilaterally pull out, just like you're talking about, those people who voted for freedom and democracy, many, many, many of those will die, maybe even more than who have been dying in Darfur, and you have been talking about how important it is that we do something in Darfur.

A vacuum will be created, and Iran will fill it. They will not stop their nuclear development program, and we will be imperiled down the road from their nuclear development program because they'll have a real jumping-off point throughout the Middle East, not just in Iran but in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan, if many of you have your way.

I don't know why we're not waiting on General Petraeus' report. We just gave him authority and gave him the money to pursue this until he reports back in September. I don't understand why we're jumping the gun and trying to force withdrawal right now when General Petraeus, who talked to all of us, has not had a chance to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, 61 million people died in World War II, 6 million Jews; 61 million. In this nuclear age, if we pull in our horns and let Iran run wild over there, which they will, and they develop their nuclear program, how many millions could die in this country as well as around the world? I submit it probably would be more than 61 million.

In the United States, if we pull out like you're talking about, we'll probably have to go back in to stop them from developing that nuclear capability and stop them from training these people to go in and terrorize not only Iran and also Iraq and other places in the Middle East. That is a tinderbox over there and we have to make the right decision.

Every President who has been in a war has been criticized by Congress at one time or another. Every single President, unless it was a very short war where you were in for 5 or 6 days or a couple of months. This is no exception.

Have mistakes been made? You bet. Were mistakes made in World War II? Eight hundred guys drowned in a mock Normandy invasion off the coast of England. If we had television then and the newspapers we have today, we would never have invaded Normandy because they would have stopped it just like that because of criticism of those 800 guys drowning to death. They would have said it wouldn't have worked; it wasn't feasible.

This is a very, very important issue we are talking about. Our brave soldiers are doing their job over there. And they watch on television right now, and what are they hearing? Pull out, pull out, pull out. They are asking, What are we fighting for if the Congress is going to jerk us out right now? We have heard from a lot of them who say, hey, we're doing the job, and we're doing better right now.

I just think we ought to think very long and hard about what we're doing. It could effect a world war. We're in a world war against al Qaeda right now, but it could be a much more devastating war if we don't make the right decisions. I would like to say to my colleagues that I think it's extremely important that you think long and hard about what you're trying to do. Nobody likes war. Nobody likes war.

I would like to say to my colleagues who may be in their offices that were going to join me in a special order tonight that we're not going to be able to do it because of the late hour. So I'm going to take a 5-minute special order to talk about some of the issues we were going to discuss.

Today, we discussed at length the war in Iraq. And that's probably the most important issue facing America today, and I'm glad we had that very thorough debate.

But one of the things that's very, very important that we're not focusing enough attention on is transparency in government and the amount of money that we're spending and the taxes that are going to be raised.

When this new Speaker and the majority came into power, they said this was going to be the most transparent House in the history of the country, in all respects. And just 2 weeks ago, the majority wanted to start talking about a Slush fund rather than debating each one of the earmarks that should have been debated on this floor. And they were going to take that Slush fund money and go to the conference committee and behind closed doors decide how that money was going to be spent. The American people don't want that. The American people want to hear these issues debated, the amount of money being debated for special projects, so they know where their tax dollars are going and what the purpose is.

Not all earmarks are bad. Some of them are very, very good and very necessary, but they ought to be debated one by one on this floor so the American people know where their money is going.

I would like to also say that the budget that was passed by the opposition is going to necessitate at least a $217 billion tax increase, and in all probability it will be more like $392 billion, which would be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. And that, at a time when we need to address some of the more pressing issues, like how we deal with the Social Security trust fund.

The Social Security trust fund will go into deficit in 10 years. And at that point, we're going to see the American people starting to look at Social Security as a program that's going to be in the past, no longer something that we can rely on in the future.

The young people in this country are going to have a terrible time planning for their retirement because there won't be any money in the Social Security trust fund in the future for these young people unless we start addressing the problem right now, and we're not doing it.

As I said, the projected tax collections for Social Security and the spending for Social Security are going to be exceeded in 10 years. And after that, adjusting for inflation, the annual deficits for Social Security will reach $68 billion in the year 2020, $267 billion in 2030, and $331 billion in 2035. Many of us won't be around to see that, but our kids and our grandkids will, and they will be saying, why didn't we address the issue of the deficits and Social Security when we had a chance?

We can do that still today, but we're not focusing attention on that. And the people who are relying on Social Security and the Social Security trust fund ought to know that we're not addressing the problem. And the solvency of that fund, not for us, but for the future generations, is not going to be there, which means that we will have to either raise taxes or cut benefits. This is going to happen unless we address that issue.

So I would just like to say to my colleagues tonight, we are concentrating on the major issues, the war in Iraq, and a lot of other issues that are very important, but we must not neglect the budget. We must not neglect transparency and bringing these issues to the floor for debate, and we must not neglect addressing the issue of Social Security reform, because if we don't do it, our kids and our grandkids aren't going to have a retirement program to rely on.

spending and accountability

In order for the government to be held accountable to the taxpayers that fund it, the American people deserve truth in budgeting and have a right to know how federal dollars are spent.

Two weeks ago, House conservatives--on behalf of taxpayers--led the charge to demand transparency in the Federal spending process.

In stark contrast to the views they espoused during the 2006 campaign cycle Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey and the Democrat leadership proposed to leave lump sums of money without a specified purpose in the appropriations bills considered by the House, and later authorizing those funds for earmarks in closed door Conference Committee. In other words, the very people who promised America: ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.'' (Pelosi Press Release 12/11/2006)

Instead they proposed to create a secret slush fund for earmarks--to be funded by the largest tax increase in American history. Make no mistake about it; the budget passed by House Democrats includes what will likely become the largest tax increase in history. Though they try to claim otherwise, the truth is in black and white in the language of their own bill; and the truth is that it will raise taxes by at least $217 billion and in all likelihood $392 billion.

Conservatives were successful in stopping the slush fund and bringing transparency to earmarks; bringing them into the light of day where they can be debated and voted on by Members of this House.

Not all earmarks are bad things, but not all earmarks are a Federal priority. But we should respect the American people enough to stand up and debate this issue. The simple argument that, ``it's a good project'' should never be enough to justify spending taxpayer dollars on it in lieu of a more pressing national priority, or returning the money to American families.

Achieving transparency is only half the battle, as conservatives we now need to push accountability; because without enforcing accountability, transparency doesn't mean much. Accountability in Federal spending can be achieved through an open and honest debate about America's priorities.

Tonight, I want to talk about a priority--a crisis that my Democrat colIeagues are ignoring in their rush to raise your taxes and spend more money on entitlement programs; namely the impending bankruptcy of Social Security.

social security surplus spending

A safe, secure, and stable retirement is part of the American dream. Yet time and again, Washington has proven itself incapable of managing Americans' hard earned Social Security dollars. There is no longer a debate about whether Social Security faces a problem or whether it needs to fixed.

There is something fundamentally wrong when more young Americans believe in the existence of UFOs than believe that their Social Security benefits will be there for them when they retire. Why do young Americans feel this way? Because they can see the obvious--that Washington has been spending taxpayer dollars that have already been promised to help make their retirement more sustainable.

Taxpayers have the right to receive back each and every dollar--and more--that they entrust to the government for their retirement. Social Security money collected from Americans for Social Security should not be used for anything other than Social Security. Ensuring a stable retirement is not a Republican or Democrat obligation, it is an American obligation.

Despite passing the largest tax increase in American history, the Democrat majority failed to stop raiding the Social Security surplus. In fact, they fail to address entitlements at all. In contrast budget offered by Congressman Paul Ryan protected the surplus.

Since 1984, the Federal Government has collected more money in Social Security taxes than it pays out in benefits. Instead of using this money to shore up the program's solvency, the government squandered these tax payer dollars on other programs, and earmarks.

Each year that Congress fails to protect the Social Security cash flow surplus, and squanders its money on other programs, it jeopardizes the stability of this vital government program and hastens its date of insolvency.

By controlling and prioritizing government spending, the FY 2008 Republican budget creates surplus of $99 billion in 2012, stopping the raid on Social Security in 2012--and did it without raising taxes. This gives the taxpayers the accountability that they deserve.

Social Security owes $6.8 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. That number includes $2.0 trillion, in net present value terms, to repay the bonds in Social Security's trust fund.

Today's Social Security is not sustainable and will implode. Social Security spending will exceed projected tax collections in 2017. These deficits will quickly balloon to alarming proportions. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $67.8 billion in 2020, $266.5 billion in 2030, and $330.9 billion in 2035.

The year when Social Security begins to spend more than it takes in, 2017, is extremely important. From that point on, Social Security will require large and growing amounts of general revenue money in order to pay all of its promised benefits. Even though this money will technically come from cashing in the special issue bonds in the trust fund, the money to repay them will come from other tax collections or borrowing. The billions that go to Social Security each year will make it harder to find money for other government programs or require large and growing tax increases.

A second important year is 2009. Starting in just 2 years, the annual Social Security surpluses that Congress has been borrowing and spending on other programs will begin to shrink. From that point on, Congress will have to find other sources to replace the money that it borrows from Social Security or shrink spending. By 2017, Congress will have about $100 billion less to spend annually.

Compared to these two dates, 2041--the year that the Social Security trust fund runs out of its special issue bonds--has little importance. Even though the end of those bonds will require a 25 percent benefit reduction, Congress would have been paying over $300 billion a year, in 2007 dollars, to repay those bonds for about 7 years by the time the trust fund runs out. Congress will have to do this through some combination of other spending cuts, new taxes, or additional borrowing. These are the same choices Congress would face without the trust fund.

Bad news for younger workers. Unfortunately, younger workers have a great deal to worry about. Even though their parents' and grandparents' benefits are safe, theirs are not. Any worker born after 1974 will reach full retirement age after the trust fund is exhausted. Unless Congress acts, younger workers can look forward to paying full Social Security taxes throughout their careers but only receiving 75 percent or less of the benefits that have been promised to them. In addition, they will have to repay the Social Security trust fund, an expense that will total almost $6 trillion by the time the trust fund is exhausted in 2041.

Democrat's delay is deadly for Social Security. Each year, there is one less year of surplus and one more year of deficit. Once those deficits begin in 2017, the Trustees Report shows that they will never end. Each year, with the disappearance of another year of surplus, reforming Social Security gets more expensive.

Madam Speaker, this House recently approved H. Res. 295, sponsored by my good friend and colleague from New York, Rep. Peter King, as well as 35 other Members from both sides of the aisle, to recognize the strong alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States and to express the House of Representatives' appreciation to the Republic of Korea for its contributions to international efforts to combat terrorism. This resolution properly acknowledged the longstanding and heartfelt friendship between our two great countries.

This coming Saturday, June 30, 2007, marks the 125th anniversary of the Korean-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce, which was signed in 1882, and the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the Republic of Korea and the United States, which was ratified in 1957.

Saturday June 30th will also mark another historic milestone in the ever growing relationship between the people of the United States and the people of the Republic of Korea when, in a ceremony to be held right here on Capitol Hill, representatives of both governments are expected to sign the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

The proposed Free Trade Agreement--which still requires Congressional approval before coming into force--is a natural extension of the strong affinity between our two countries, marked by extraordinary diplomatic, political, military, and economic cooperation. Although the devil is always in the details, I understand that this agreement could potentially be the most commercially significant free trade agreement signed by the United States in more than a decade. As many of my colleagues already know, South Korea is already the United States' seventh largest export market and sixth largest market for U.S. agricultural products. In fact, according to the latest statistics, our annual bilateral trade totals nearly $80 billion. Any agreement that can open up more Korean markets to U.S. goods and services can only have a positive effect on the American economy by creating more and better jobs, enriching consumer choice, and boosting U.S. industry and manufacturing.

But there's more at stake here than just economic growth; this FTA recognizes our special relationship with South Korea and reinforces the message that the United States stands squarely behind our friends and allies. I would ask my colleagues to consider just a couple of points:

South Korea is the fifth largest tourism generating country to the United States (with over 800,000 Koreans visiting the U.S. annually);

South Korea has the largest foreign student population in the U.S.;

Nearly 2 million Americans of Korean descent live in communities all across our nation--which is why I support giving serious consideration to South Korea's entry into the Visa Waiver Program;

South Korea is a strong, unwavering ally in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror, having dispatched troops to Iraq (the third largest contingent after the United States and Great Britain), and Afghanistan (where a South Korean soldier was killed during hostile action), and to Lebanon in support of peacekeeping operations; and,

South Korea is a key partner in the Six-Party Talks to resolve North Korea's nuclear issue.

Madam Speaker, I believe that South Korea may be the premier success story of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II period. Having assisted South Korea in transforming itself from a war-torn, impoverished economy into a successful democracy with a free enterprise economy (the world's 11th largest), South Korea is now an indispensable partner with the United States in promoting democracy and free market economic principles.

The anticipated ceremony marking the conclusion of negotiations toward a U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement will be another opportunity to celebrate and honor the 125 years of friendship and cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the United States. Whether you're for free trade agreements or against them, I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the historic significance of the U.S.-Korea alliance and its growing importance in the years to come.