Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to emphasize my strong support for H.R. 5327, of which I am an original cosponsor. This vital legislation authorizes the support of the United States for Israel's Iron Dome system, designed to intercept short-range missiles and rockets fired by Hezbollah from Israel's north and Hamas from the south. Since the year 2000, Madam Speaker, these violent militant groups, sponsored by Iran and Syria, have fired thousands of missiles, rockets, and mortars against Israeli civilian targets. Hezbollah now has an arsenal that may include Scuds and other long-range weapons. Rockets also continue to be fired from Gaza, including over 200 since January of 2009, putting southern Israel under a state of siege. Madam Speaker, Israel is developing a multilayered missile defense system, including the Iron Dome, to stop this threat. The U.S. must support our indispensable ally, Israel, in this and other efforts to secure her citizens.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two outstanding constituents from my district in South Florida: Claudia McLean and her 9-year-old son Joshua Williams who founded Joshua's Heart Foundation 4 years ago. Next month, Joshua and Claudia will be honored by the Sodexo Foundation at its annual dinner right here in Washington, DC. The Joshua Heart Foundation's mission is to work toward ending global hunger as part of an overall community effort. Once a month, Joshua's organization distributes food, in addition to feeding the homeless every week. They deliver food to the sick, the elderly and the helpless. Currently, food is provided for over 100 homeless people and about 450 families on a monthly basis. Claudia and Joshua, I would like to commend you for your service to our community and indeed our Nation. Thank you for your dedication and your commitment to improving the lives of South Floridians in need.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this year Americans worked almost 100 days, from January 1 to April 9, to pay taxes at the Federal, State, and local levels, which is more than one-fourth of their income. I believe that it is totally unacceptable to require already stressed families to give up such a high share of their income while bloated Federal bureaucracy continues to expand during a severe recession. To reduce this burden, Congress should now focus on reforming the current complicated tax structure which makes it so much more difficult for families and small business owners to experience economic recovery. As I called for in my last speech on tax reform, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), needs to schedule hearings on tax reform simplicity as soon as possible. The Fair Tax proposal is one of those ideas that I believe the committee must consider. The Fair Tax is definitely a serious proposal that is backed by many Americans, including so many constituents of my congressional district, and it deserves our full consideration. The Fair Tax would replace all Federal income and payroll-based taxes with a national retail sales tax and includes a rebate to ensure that no American below the poverty level pays Federal taxes. If enacted, the Fair Tax proposal would provide a dollar-for-dollar Federal revenue neutrality. According to the proposal's advocates, the Fair Tax would reform the current tax code. Today's tax code is unfair, costly, and confusing, and is so complex that many of us pay more in taxes per year than we should. It is estimated that the present system costs taxpayers $265 billion for tax filing, tax record-keeping, tax reduction advice, et cetera, which is $900 for every man, woman and child in America. This is taxation without comprehension. The current income tax code inhibits economic growth, it inhibits capital formation, and it inhibits job creation. Fair Tax supporters believe tax reform can correct these problems by greatly reducing the high cost of compliance in the present system while lifting the income tax burden on production. I believe that a fair and balanced look at the Fair Tax should begin the conversation on tax reform, and I encourage my colleagues who are serious about having this discussion to join me in contacting the chairman. Congress needs to remember the sacrifices that are made by each American family by making a real effort at tax reform this year. As the American economy continues to stagnate with a record 10 percent unemployment rate, Congress needs to respond by taking a close look at tax reform, and yes, the Fair Tax also.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support the policy objectives of Senate Bill 1067, the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act. For nearly 27 years, the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, has been terrorizing civilians, leaving a trail of death and despondency in its wake. The LRA's leader is a soulless mass murderer who has perpetrated some of the most deplorable human rights atrocities known to man. The LRA is a predatory guerrilla force. They mutilate, torture, rape, and murder with impunity. They have abducted tens of thousands of civilians, mostly children, to serve as soldiers or sex slaves. Abducted children are forced to the front lines. And those who manage to escape find it difficult, if not impossible, to return home after being forced to commit atrocities in front of their very own families. While the LRA has withdrawn from northern Uganda and security conditions there have improved, it continues to wreak havoc on neighboring southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic. Recent reports indicate that, rather than being weakened, the LRA today is stronger and strategically more sophisticated than it was just last year. The bill before us seeks to change that. It requires the President to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with the LRA. It offers political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians, to apprehend or eliminate top LRA commanders, and disarm and demobilize the remaining LRA fighters. It then expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should support humanitarian efforts in LRA-affected areas, as well as programs to advance transitional justice in northern Uganda. I appreciate the chairman's efforts to ensure that this language does not represent an earmark in funding which would conflict with Republican Members' commitment to the American taxpayer to exercise fiscal restraint and discipline. I also appreciate that the bill conditions future assistance to the government of Uganda upon transparency and a substantial commitment of Uganda's own resources to support reconstruction efforts in the North. Mr. Speaker, the U.N. Office for Humanitarian Affairs has said that this conflict is ``characterized by a level of cruelty seldom seen, and few conflicts rival it for its sheer brutality.'' Even so, it remains one of the most overlooked humanitarian and human rights crises in the world today. The fact that we are even debating this topic today is largely due to the tireless efforts of young advocates throughout the United States, including in my own congressional district, who have passionately taken up the cause of those whose lives have been destroyed by the LRA. I urge my colleagues to join them in supporting the objectives of this important bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from California.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for providing us with this timely opportunity to recognize the work of the Community of Democracies. Next month will mark the anniversary of the founding of that intergovernmental organization 10 years ago in Warsaw, Poland. Unlike the United Nations, the governmental participants in the Community of Democracies are not distinguished merely by the fact that they hold power in a country. They are bound by their commitments to the core democratic principles set out in the Warsaw Declaration, including, among others: the right of citizens to choose their governments through regular, free, and fair elections; freedom of opinion; freedom of expression; freedom of conscience; freedom of religion; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention; and the importance of a competent, independent, and impartial judiciary. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as outlined in the Seoul ministerial meeting in 2002, the Community has developed criteria and procedures to help ensure that only practicing democracies are participants. Maintaining those standards is critical, as they give the Community a moral authority and a substantive voice that is so badly needed in today's world. The promise and possibilities of the Community have become even more important at a time when other multilateral bodies have been poisoned by membership without standards. We need look no further than the discredited U.N. Human Rights Council. When a so-called human rights body counts China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and other abusive regimes as members, we cannot claim to be surprised at how ineffective it has become in protecting and advancing fundamental freedoms. The U.N. Human Rights Council is a feckless and ideologically manipulated talk-shop that expends most of its energy not on the North Korean gulag or genocide in Sudan or repression in Burma or the brutal dictatorship in Cuba or the beatings of the peaceful Damas de Blanco, or Ladies in White, oh, no. They spend their time attacking the democratic Jewish State of Israel. In this environment, the need for a cohesive, energetic, multilateral voice that truly stands for and defends political freedom and fundamental human rights is greater than ever. This is where the Community of Democracies can step in and fill that need. The Permanent Secretariat of the Community of Democracies began operating just in January 2009 and is located where the Community issued its founding declaration: in Warsaw, Poland. We continue to be grateful to the government and the people of Poland for hosting the secretariat and for their living witness to the democratic ideals, ideals nurtured even during their trying experience of communism and Soviet domination in the 20th century. I also want to express my appreciation to the Government of Lithuania for its presidency of the Community of Democracies since last July. Looking ahead, I sincerely hope that the Community will maintain its distinctive voice. We must help ensure that the regional groups of the Community will make additional, concrete progress, such as on the Inter-Arab Democratic Charter discussed by members of the Middle East group at the 2005 ministerial meeting in Santiago. Finally, we must help ensure that the Community will emphasize democracy and human rights as predicates for efficient, responsible, economic development, and not as luxuries that can only be expected in affluent societies. And as the more than 100 participating countries prepare to meet in Krakow in July, let us all recommit ourselves to promoting the ideals of freedom to which we all aspire. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart), the ranking member of the Rules Committee Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate one of the beach communities in my district, the historic town of Surfside, which will be celebrating its 75th anniversary on May 16. I have the great pleasure of representing this unique town, which has had an important and historic part in the growth of south Florida from its early days as a beach resort. Surfside's roots stretch back to 1930, when 100 beachgoers formed their own club at 90th Street, beyond the Miami Beach city limits. Surf Club members persuaded local residents to incorporate Surfside and lent the town its first year's operating budget in 1935. Among the historic figures who stayed at the Surf Club was Winston Churchill, who enjoyed painting by the ocean. Today, Surfside is known for its diverse population and low-rise residential homes in a quiet, peaceful, and relaxed neighborhood setting. I am proud to salute the 5,000 residents of Surfside, who will be celebrating their anniversary with a parade and beach barbecue this Sunday, including Mayor Daniel Dietch and grand marshal and former mayor Marion Portman. Congratulations to Surfside.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, last month most Americans filled out what is probably the most complicated and lengthy Federal income tax return in our history. Most everyone agrees that our Nation's tax system is totally flawed and in need of considerable reform. The Tax Code is so complex that more than 80 percent of individual taxpayers either use an accountant or a computer-based program to prepare their tax returns. The IRS estimates that Americans spend 6.6 billion hours and $194 billion each year to comply with a Tax Code that has far too many complicated provisions which require special paperwork and detailed record keeping. Our Tax Code has become more and more a complex, burdensome, and expensive drag on the economy which we can ill afford in the middle of a severe economic downturn. It also harms America's businesses' ability to compete in the global marketplace by discouraging saving, by discouraging investing, by discouraging risk taking. American workers are now asked to work for 3 full months to pay for their annual Federal, State, and local taxes. It is totally unacceptable to require already-stressed families to give up at least a quarter of their income to prop up an expanding Federal bureaucracy while everyone else is making significant sacrifices. Instead of searching for a way to provide tax relief to American households, some administration officials have proposed new tax schemes that will further burden small businesses and consumers. One of the worst of these is the European-style value-added tax, VAT, which would levy a complicated tax at each stage of manufacturing, thereby adding a hidden cost to the finished product. This is damaging not only to the consumer, but also to many industries involved in manufacturing which have been hard hit during this recession. Instead of adding new taxes, Congress should be focused on reforming the current tax structure. I join many of my colleagues in the House who have asked the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), to schedule hearings on Tax Code simplification. The last major reform of the Tax Code took place almost a quarter century ago in 1986, and while far from perfect, helped reduce the harm inflicted on the economy in many ways. The guiding principles of the 1986 reform were that it must not increase the total tax burden, while lowering individual and corporate income tax rates. Tax reform must not be used as a subterfuge for increasing taxes, as it needlessly complicates an already difficult issue with controversial questions about whether the combined tax burden should be higher or lower. Mr. Speaker, businesses and families need a stable and uncomplicated Tax Code. Businesses need to know how high their taxes will be in future years to make decisions now about hiring and expanding. Families need to know how high their taxes will be before they make decisions about large expenditures. A constantly changing Tax Code makes it difficult for businesses and families to make these decisions. The Tax Code has become sufficiently complex and harmful that a major rewrite is in order, and if Congress passes tax reform, it should consider making a commitment to keep the reformed Tax Code in place for as many years as possible. Congress must remember the sacrifices made by all of America's families. The American people need action that will break the barriers of an unfair and complicated tax system, and Congress must respond because the future health of the U.S. economy demands it.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I am so pleased to rise in enthusiastic support of this important resolution, authored by my Florida colleague, the gentleman, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. This resolution recognizes the unsurpassed friendship and abiding special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Throughout the history of our alliance and our friendship, we have stood by each other with a level of military, economic and diplomatic commitment and coordination of such an unparalleled extent that it has even been referred to as the ``special relationship.'' The United Kingdom has been a true friend of the United States even to the extraordinary measures of sharing and even jointly operating military bases overseas and being one of the few NATO allies in Afghanistan without restrictions on its troops' ability to engage in combat operations. The United Kingdom has also been a significant partner in efforts to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and has led efforts to convince the EU to adopt strong sanctions against the Iranian regime. Further, our economic bilateral relationship is without comparison as our nations' common sense of entrepreneurship and strong belief in free market principles has fostered extraordinary levels of trade and resulted in each country being the largest investor in the other's economy. In recent years, there has been some debate about the state of this special relationship and whether it is as solid today as it was in the days of President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill or in the days of President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I am, indeed, concerned that some members in each of the three major British political parties have asserted a need to reevaluate our special relationship, siting their perception that the United States has already begun to back away from its close relationship toward the United Kingdom. I believe, however, Mr. Speaker, that the special nature of our relationship is not solely dependent upon the level of camaraderie between our political leaders at any given time. It is, instead, based on the bedrock ideals of democracy, of economic liberty, and respect for the rule of law that we both share. As with all close allies, it is incumbent upon both parties to continually work to improve and to strengthen the relationship, but I think that there is something of substance in our two countries' relationship, something based on those shared principles and cultural connections that endures. With passage of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives will send a strong message of our commitment to that special relationship with our closest ally across the Atlantic, the United Kingdom. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the ranking member on the Rules Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process and the author of the resolution before us.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself 30 seconds to point out that today, on the first day in office of a new British Government, let us send to Prime Minister David Cameron and to the people of the United Kingdom a clear message of our friendship and our commitment to this special relationship. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of the gentleman's resolution. Tuberculosis is truly a significant challenge for all of us. It is a disease that respects no borders, that claims the lives of over 1.8 million lives worldwide every year, and that continues to cause needless deaths every day. It is a major threat to peoples living in developing countries, but it is also a health risk here in the United States and in other developed countries. As this resolution correctly points out, drug therapies that are currently used to treat tuberculosis are proving less and less effective as new and different strains of tuberculosis continue to build and develop resistance to these drugs. There are about 9.4 million new cases of tuberculosis each year. In addition, according to recent news reports, it is estimated that 440,000 people worldwide have been infected with deadly multidrug- resistant tuberculosis in 2008 alone. Just recently, the World Health Organization released a report that underlined the continuing threat from the spread of drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis. Furthermore, as statistics reported by the World Health Organization note, parts of Africa face a truly staggering threat, due to the large numbers of those suffering from AIDS in those regions who are extremely vulnerable to tuberculosis. In such regions, tuberculosis can indeed be a fatal sentence of rapid and painful death. The standard drug regimen for tuberculosis is severely outdated. With current treatment methods, patients treated for tuberculosis have to stay on medication for far too long, and that means that there can be lapses in medication that only feed resistance among strains of the disease. And so, new forms of treatment, new forms of therapies, and new vaccines are needed. But what is needed also at a fundamental level is the continued recognition of the dangerous nature of this disease and the commitment to continue the struggle against it. I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my good friend, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for introducing this important resolution. Its adoption by this House should reinforce the message that we will continue to support the vital efforts to fight this disease. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, tomorrow I will be cohosting a briefing to honor the courage and the sacrifice of those struggling for freedom in Cuba. In the last few months, the regime has only stepped up its vicious repression. Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a courageous human rights activist, recently lost his life at the hands of the tyranny. Las Damas de Blanco, the Ladies in White, endured physical attacks by Cuban security thugs. And each day, Guillermo Farinas' health continues to worsen as the calls for freedom in Cuba remain unanswered. Jenisset Rivero from the Cuban Democratic Directorate will join us to discuss these and other recent assaults by the dictatorship in Cuba. I welcome and urge you to join us for this important briefing tomorrow at noon in 2253 Rayburn. See you there.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I spoke recently of the urgent need for certain amendments to the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPA, in order to protect victims of Ponzi schemes. Under no circumstances, except complicity with a crooked broker, should these investors be subject to clawback litigation. If necessary, I am prepared to propose such legislation. Instead of representing the best interests of the victims, the Madoff trustee is representing SIPC against the victims. Let's do the right thing for the average American who works hard, saves money, invests in the stock market with the hope of ultimately retiring on his savings. I now want to address the need to provide such victims with tax relief. Tens of thousands of Americans have lost their life savings because of the incompetence of the SEC and its failure to close down the operations of Bernard Madoff, Allen Stanford, and so many others. Congress cannot ignore the fact that the biggest beneficiary of Madoff's and Stanford's crimes is the Federal Government. Every year, even if investors did not take money out of Madoff or Stanford, they paid taxes on the supposed income from those investments. With respect to Madoff, the reported income was short-term capital gains, which is subject to the highest income tax rate under the Internal Revenue Code. Congressman Bill Pascrell has proposed legislation, H.R. 5058, providing some tax relief to the victims of these Ponzi schemes. I strongly support the bill, and I urge the House to pass this bill as quickly as possible. Senator Schumer, along with 17 cosponsors, has proposed a similar bill in the Senate, S. 3166, which I also support. However, these bills need certain changes to strengthen them. With respect to the House bill, there is a 10-year carryback for theft losses. Under existing law, taxpayers can utilize the theft laws for 20 years going forward. However, elderly investors who have lost all of their savings and don't work have no ability to utilize a theft loss going forward. Thus, giving these people a 10-year carryback is only fair. The Senate bill proposes a 6-year carryback, which is insufficient. Both the House and the Senate bills give a theft loss for IRA investors. However, the House bill is more generous than the Senate bill, providing for a theft loss of up to $2 million; whereas, the Senate bill limits the loss to $1.5 million. We have been infinitely generous to Wall Street, so it is long overdue to be fair to Main Street. Finally, both bills are deficient because they preclude a theft loss for investors whose retirement savings were in 401(k) plans or defined benefit pension plans or deferred profit-sharing plans. Congress should not discriminate against some investors based on the form of their retirement investments, all approved by Federal tax laws. Therefore, the bills in both Houses must be amended to provide the same theft loss relief for all retirement plans no matter how they are structured. Congress has shown extraordinary generosity to the financial service industry in the past years. Despite the fact that these companies that make up this sector caused the global financial collapse, Congress provided $400 billion of funding to them with no strings attached. Let us not nickel-and-dime Wall Street's victims, the taxpayers who lost their life savings because of the greed of Wall Street and the incompetence of the SEC. We are not seeking to make them whole. We are simply disgorging some of the fictitious profits that the government received in tax payments from the victims of these crimes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in solidarity with a wonderful and determined south Florida woman, Millie Munoz. Millie Munoz has dystonia, a little-known movement disorder that causes a person's muscles to contract and spasm involuntarily. The trademark of this disorder is repetitive, patterned, and uncontrollable movements. Since childhood, Millie went from doctor to doctor and was told there was no real problem. Finally in the summer of 2006, she was diagnosed with generalized dystonia. Shortly thereafter, Millie went from climbing the Great Pyramid to being in a wheelchair and bed bound. Luckily, in 2008, she had deep brain stimulation surgery which provided some relief. Today, Millie has a feeding tube and braces on her legs, and she is as resilient and as determined as ever. Together, we must raise awareness of this disorder and support the research that can find a cure to this silent internal storm.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, during the past few years, the financial service industry has endangered the American Dream of capitalism. Each day, we learn more about those who are responsible. It wasn't small business, the owners of these businesses or the entrepreneurs who harmed us but, rather, the Wall Street firms that manipulated the system and the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that allowed greed to destroy the economy. SEC Inspector General David Kotz, in his recent report, said that the SEC bears total responsibility for nearly $70 billion of investor losses due to the Stanford and Madoff Ponzi schemes. Thousands of additional innocent victims were allowed to lose their life savings while they mistakenly believed that the SEC was actually regulating the securities market. What is worse is that, even today, Wall Street is attempting to manipulate the laws to avoid their responsibilities under the 1970 Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPA, and the corporation created to carry it out, the SIPC, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. SIPA provides $500,000 of insurance to investors against the fraud or the dishonesty of an SEC-regulated broker. Wall Street supported SIPA because it wanted to encourage investors to allow brokers to hold their securities in their street name. For example, if you bought securities through Merrill Lynch, instead of your name appearing on the stock certificate, it was held in Merrill Lynch's name. This allowed the brokerage firms to enjoy an enormous amount of additional revenue because they could treat those securities as their own. The quid pro quo for giving up the protection of having securities in your own name was SIPC insurance. SIPC insurance was created to protect against the dishonest broker who either steals the customer's security or who steals the customer's money and never actually purchases the securities. Today, 40 years later, Wall Street controls SIPC because the broker- dealers are members of SIPC. As a result, SIPC has spent more money fighting investor claims than it has paid out to investors--therefore, persecuting rather than protecting investors. SIPC has the power to assess each member firm one-quarter of 1 percent of operating revenues, but instead, it has charged its members--many of whom were large firms--only $150 per year for the privilege of promising millions of customers that they were insured. Thus, Wall Street figured out a way to have its cake and eat it, too. It advertised insurance, but in reality, never funded it; therefore, it could not provide enough funds to cover the victims' claims when Madoff collapsed. Today, SIPC is paying the trustee and his law firm $1.5 million each week to persecute investors by depriving them of insurance and by threatening to sue those who took mandatory withdrawals from their IRA accounts. I am referring to the clawbacks that Irving Picard, the SIPC trustee, has threatened against thousands of innocent investors, whose only mistakes were to rely upon their SEC broker-dealer confirmations and monthly statements. SIPC refuses to honor the law's mandate to honor the legitimate expectations of customers who relied upon their confirmations and statements. If investors can't rely upon those documents, the entire stock market could collapse because no customer would ever have proof that he owned any securities. I am asking that we hold Wall Street responsible for SIPC insurance. Every dollar that SIPC doesn't pay and every dollar that the SIPC trustee claws back increases the IRS theft loss to which an investor is entitled. Thus, after not only paying SIPC premiums for 19 years, Wall Street is cleverly attempting to pass their financial obligation back to the government. We cannot let this happen. I am aware that the bankruptcy court has ruled in SIPC's favor on this issue, but as we all know, the court sometimes gets things wrong. Madoff investors are entitled to an immediate amendment to SIPA to clarify that it was never congressional intent that a customer of an SEC-regulated broker-dealer would be subject to a clawback suit. Under no circumstances, except complicity with a crooked broker, should these investors be subject to clawback litigation. If necessary, I am prepared to propose such legislation. Instead of representing the best interest of the victims, the Madoff trustee is representing SIPC against the victims. Let's do the right thing for the average American--who works hard, who saves money, and who invests in the stock market with the hope of ultimately retiring on his savings. Mr. Speaker, I will have further remarks on this important topic, which is of great importance to my constituents, later on next week.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize one of the oldest women's organizations in Florida, the Key West Women's Club, which celebrated its 95th anniversary on Monday. I have the great pleasure of representing this club, which has had a long and storied role improving the historic city of Key West. On May 13, 1915, Ms. Marie Cappick, with the help of a few friends, organized the Women's Club of Key West. The club operated the only public library in the city as its foremost project for the next 44 years, when it was transformed into a major county facility in 1959. Among its many civic projects were everything from recognition of the area's fabled history to providing personal care for the area's AIDS victims. In recent years, with the leadership of President Eileen Kawaler, the club has set even higher records in fundraising for the less fortunate as well as many arts projects. So it is my honor and privilege to recognize today the many dedicated grassroots volunteers who have helped to make this a wonderful organization of rich history and award-winning women's club of Florida.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, in 1993, a group of south Florida women established the Women's Fund of Miami-Dade, a nonprofit dedicated to funding innovative community programs geared toward girls and young women. At the time of the fund's creation, gender-specific, community-based initiatives were nearly nonexistent. According to a survey undertaken by the Women's Fund in 1996, only five out of 142 local agencies had implemented programs exclusively for women. Absent from our community were programs to assist young women who were seeking to advance their educations, to secure their economic futures, or to engage in professional leadership training. The Women's Fund of Miami-Dade took this cause to our south Florida community, and it has since generated enough support to provide more than 350 gender-specific programs with the funding they so desperately require. Last Friday, on April 30, more than 800 women gathered together at the Women's Fund annual Power of the Purse Luncheon to highlight the tremendous success of past and current programs supported by the fund. These programs support women of all backgrounds and circumstances. The Women's Fund provides financial assistance to Lotus House, for example, which is a shelter for homeless women and infants in Overtown, an area of Miami which is suffering from extreme poverty. Thanks to the generous assistance by the Women's Fund, the Lotus House is now providing career training for women who are seeking entry-level positions in the restaurant and hospitality industry. Programs such as these have changed the lives of thousands of young girls and women in our community. One such woman is Tamara Brizard, a former Lotus House resident. Tamara was a single mother of three when she was referred to the Lotus House. During her time at the Lotus House, Tamara completed a course in food preparation. The training soon led to a job in the food service industry. With new skills and with a new job, Tamara has a place of her own, and she is now better able to provide for her three children. Of course, Tamara's story is just one of many successes achieved by the Women's Fund. The Women's Fund of Miami-Dade is also a powerful voice for social change. Together with Miami-Dade County, the Women's Fund has launched a campaign to increase public awareness of local services that are available to victims of domestic violence. Termed ``Voices Against Violence,'' this initiative implores abused victims to speak up, to get help, and to be safe. Domestic violence is a plague on our society that demands our constant attention at the Federal, State, and local levels. As an outspoken advocate of Federal initiatives to protect the victims of domestic violence and abuse, I am so proud of the efforts undertaken by the Women's Fund on this important issue. The involvement of the Women's Fund in their relief work of Haiti is another inspiring story. In helping to rebuild this island nation, the Women's Fund and its supporters have shown their unwavering commitment to service and have shown their generosity of spirit. According to Amnesty International, nearly half of all Haitian households are headed by women. Experience has shown that these women and girls will be the key in helping to rebuild Haiti and in helping to create a safe, stable, and prosperous nation. The Women's Fund is in a unique position to highlight this reality and to make sure that Haiti's future growth and transformation will touch all sectors of its society. Since I have come to Congress, Madam Speaker, it has been one of my foremost objectives to ensure that women have equal opportunity to a higher education, that they are protected from harassment and intimidation in the workplace, and that they have access to life-saving health screening for heart disease and for breast cancer. I am so grateful for the tremendous leadership of local organizations such as the Women's Fund in working toward these important and obtainable goals, and I look forward to collaborating with the Women's Fund of Miami-Dade in the years to come.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend from Washington for the time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. This bill will provide a congressionally sanctioned process by which U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico can determine their preferences regarding the territory's political status. This is not a bill to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st State. This bill, instead, would enable Puerto Ricans to determine their status preference by presenting all of the options possible under the law. They would be presented through a series of votes. In the first plebiscite, voters will decide if they want a continuation of the current status or to change status. If voters decide to change status, a second plebiscite will be held on the three viable options for change: independence, statehood, or free association with the U.S. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act does not include the misguided ``enhanced Commonwealth option.'' An enhanced Commonwealth, as envisioned by the bill's critics, perpetuates the false hope that Puerto Ricans can have the best of both worlds: they can have U.S. citizenship and national sovereignty; they can receive generous Federal funding and have the power to veto those laws with which it disagrees. If included as a viable option, an enhanced Commonwealth proposal would permanently empower Puerto Rico to nullify Federal laws and court jurisdiction. An enhanced Commonwealth option would also set the stage for Puerto Rico to enter into international organizations and trade agreements, all while being under the military and financial protection of the United States. It is no surprise that this proposal has been soundly rejected as a viable option by the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Department, the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration. It is time that the people of Puerto Rico are given real options for the future political status of their homeland and not false promises. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill before us today.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of the underlying legislation, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, and I commend the bill's author--we just heard from him--Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, for his work in bringing this important legislation to the floor this morning. And I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of our former colleague Luis Fortuno, now the Governor of Puerto Rico, for his many years of leadership on this issue. This day has been long in the making. With a population of nearly 4 million people, the people of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to decide their fate. Puerto Rico has been under the U.S. flag for 111 years, and its residents have been U.S. citizens for more than 90 years. Since the extension of U.S. citizenship to its residents in 1917, Puerto Rico has maintained one of the highest per capita rates of participation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Puerto Ricans have fought and have died in every armed conflict since the First World War. And yet while Puerto Ricans have fought valiantly for self-determination overseas, they have never been given the opportunity to participate in a federally sanctioned vote to determine Puerto Rico's political status. That is until today. H.R. 2499 authorizes the government of Puerto Rico to conduct an initial plebiscite. In this process, eligible voters would be asked whether they wish to maintain the current political status or to have a different status. The rationale for this plebiscite is simple: In accordance with the American principle of government by consent, Congress should seek the meaningful consent of Puerto Rico to the political status that it has had for more than 110 years. The American citizens of Puerto Rico have a right to determine their political future. This bill does not exclude any viable status option, nor does it provide for a change in status to be automatically implemented. Under the initial plebiscite, eligible voters will be asked if they wish to maintain the current status or to have a different status. If a majority favors the current status, then the government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to ask voters this question again in 8 years. If a majority of voters cast ballots in favor of a different political status, then the government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to hold a second plebiscite on the three status options: independence, statehood, and free association.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for the time. After 111 years under the U.S. flag, our founding principles dictate that the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to determine their political future in a fair and orderly vote sponsored by the Federal Government. And it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.