Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their outstanding work on the bill. I think they both have done a great job in advancing America's foreign policy priorities at an especially difficult time in our history.

I was particularly please to see the committee wisely provides $65 million in economic aid for Armenia, $3 million more than the administration's request, and that the committee wisely restored the parity in security assistance between Armenia and Azerbaijan by funding military aid and education assistance to both Armenia and Azerbaijan at $6 million.

Today, I offer a simple amendment that will honor the 1\1/2\ million Armenians who perished in the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923. I consider this a sacred obligation, to ensure that the men, women and children who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire are not lost to history and that this Congress not fund shameful efforts to deny that the genocide occurred.

Time is the ally of those who would deny or change history. Such has it been, regrettably, by those who would continue to deny the undeniable facts of the murder of 1\1/2\ million people, the first genocide of last century.

My amendment tonight seeks only to prohibit the use of funds to lobby

against H. Res. 193, the resolution which includes a reference to the Armenian Genocide and reaffirms the support of Congress for the genocide convention and commemorates the anniversary of our becoming a party to this landmark legislation. It will not deprive countries of funding that they need for legitimate purposes, but no appropriations under this bill or any other bill should be used by other governments to lobby this Congress against legislation, and particularly legislation that reaffirms our commitment to the convention on genocide and the recognition of the victims of the Armenian Genocide as well as the victims of many other genocides in the history of mankind.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Among historians there is no dispute about what happened to the Armenian people. There is no dispute that it was genocide. Thousands of pages of documents sit in our National Archives, newspapers of the day were replete with stories about the murder of Armenians: ``Appeal To Turkey To Stop Massacres,'' headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing began.

On October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000 Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.

In 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the international community responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide by approving the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It confirms that genocide is a crime under international law and defines genocide as actions committed with intent to destroy a nation, ethnic, racial or religious group.

The United States under President Truman was the first nation to sign the convention. Last year marked the 15th anniversary of President Reagan signing the Genocide Convention Implementation Act.

Just over a year ago, I introduced H. Res. 193 with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and other Members of this House. This should have been an easy resolution for all of us now to support on the House floor. Genocide is the most abhorrent crime known to human kind; and, unfortunately, it is happening in the Sudan as we speak.

The reason we have not yet succeeded in passing this resolution is simple. The government of Turkey refuses to acknowledge the genocide, and the strongest nation on Earth fears their reaction if we do.

110 of my colleagues have co-sponsored this resolution, and I expect it would pass overwhelmingly if given the chance. At the very least we should not fund efforts to silence our voices.

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

Madam Speaker, in the early days of World War II, the government commissioned director Frank Capra to make a series of films that would explain the nature of the war to a hastily mobilized Nation.

Over the course of the next 3 years, Capra produced a remarkable series of films collectively known as ``Why We Fight.'' These films were instrumental in elevating the war from a fight for land and resources to a struggle between the ``free world'' of the Allies and the ``slave world'' of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

As a Nation rooted in an ideology rather than ethnic or geographical identity, the United States has always looked at its wars as ideological conflicts between freedom and tyranny. Our national reluctance to go to war has shaped the prerequisite that when we fight, we do so for a high moral purpose that honors our principles and values.

When he addressed the Congress, the Nation and the world in the wake of the September 11 attacks, President Bush laid out the challenge posed by terrorism. Al Qaeda and radical Islamists, the President declared, attacked us because ``they hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.''

The moral clarity the President expressed nearly 3 years ago has been clouded by the administration's ambiguity over whether the rule of law applied to the prosecution of the war on terrorism or in Iraq. The abuse at Abu Ghraib and the unreviewable and potentially unlimited detention of Americans and others as enemy combatants are incompatible with a Nation born in a struggle against tyranny and caprice.

Last week, three courts in three countries reminded us of what is at stake in the war on terrorism and in our efforts to rebuild Iraq.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the surviving leaders of his government were arraigned for their crimes against the Iraqi people and for crimes against humanity. The sight of the former dictator and his henchmen in a court of law was a glimmer of hope that chaos and bloodshed will one day give way to a better life for Iraq's people.

Here in the United States, the Supreme Court circumscribed the President's power over its own citizens and others when it ordered that Americans and foreigners held as enemy combatants had a right to contest their detention before a neutral arbiter. Expressing confidence that courts would be able to balance individual rights and national security, Justice O'Connor wrote ``that a state of war is not a blank check for the President.''

Perhaps the most extraordinary assertion of principle was made in Jerusalem by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ordered the government to reroute part of the security fence it is building to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from infiltrating into Israel. In reaching their decision, the Israeli justices conceded that from a military point of view, the alteration might not make protection against terrorism easier. ``This is the destiny of a democracy,'' the court said. ``She does not see all means acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her.''

The ways of our enemies are not open to us. We do not behead our adversaries on camera for their families to witness in all its gruesome barbarity. Nonetheless, facing greater foes than we face now, we have prevailed and we will prevail again. At root, the rule of law is the source of our strength in war as it is in peace, and the assertion of the rule of law by courts in Iraq, Israel and here at home is a moving reminder of why we fight and also how we must fight to win the America we cherish.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American jurist. He not only served with great distinction on the bench, but went on to improve the quality and caseloads of other judges as well. Today I rise to acknowledge the tremendous service of Judge Roger Kent Warren, the outgoing President of the National Center for State Courts.

Judge Warren received his bachelor of arts degree from William College in 1963, and served on a Fulbright Fellowship to Iran in 1964. He was appointed as a judge to the California Municipal Court in 1976, and was elevated to the superior court in 1982. He held this post until 1993, when he became the first-ever presiding judge of the consolidated superior and municipal courts.

Judge Warren was repeatedly recognized for his excellent conduct on the bench, winning the Sacramento Judge of the Year award in 1987, 1993 and 1994; he was awarded the California Jurist of the Year award in 1995 and won the American Judges Association Award of Merit in 1996.

In March 1996, he was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Center for State Courts, a non-profit organization designed to provide courts with up-to-date information and hands-on assistance that helps our judges better serve the public. He promptly went about providing invaluable educational and consulting services to the judiciary. He formed the Assembly of Court Associations to encourage collaboration among national judicial organizations, developed initiatives such as Communities of Practice to examine the best practices for dealing with family violence, jury reform, and court performance.

On the occasion of his retirement as President and CEO of the NCSC, I rise to honor Judge Warren. The people of the United States have been fortunate to have been served by a person of his stature, and we wish him and his family the very best in the years to come.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Meehan-Schiff amendment to accelerate the funding of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

The most significant threat to the national security of the United States is the risk that terrorists will acquire the material, the expertise, and the technology to create a nuclear weapon. Of these three components, the material, the expertise, and the technology, it is the material, highly enriched uranium or plutonium, that has posed the greatest bar to the acquisition of the bomb by terrorists.

And that material is far too easy to obtain. Beginning in the 1950s, the U.S. and Russia exported research reactors with highly enriched uranium to many nations around the world. Today, as my colleague pointed out, 345 operating or shutdown reactors in 58 countries possess highly enriched uranium.

The State Department has identified 24 of the highest priority facilities for clean-out operations, because they contain enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb. Many of these facilities are terrifyingly insecure.

The energy and water bill contains only $9.8 million for global clean-out of these reactors, enough to clean out only one site per year. At this pace it will take more than 2 decades to merely clean out the top 24. We cannot wait that long.

Osama bin Laden has declared that the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a religious duty. After the Taliban was defeated, blueprints of a crude nuclear program were found in the deserted al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan. Does anyone doubt that if al Qaeda could assemble a nuclear weapon, they would use it? They would use it.

Last month, the Secretary of Energy announced what may be one of the most important national security initiatives of our time, a $450 million effort to clean out highly enriched uranium around the world. We cannot wait to implement this initiative. Al Qaeda is not waiting, and we must act now.

The Secretary's initiative will take almost a decade to implement, and there is no guarantee that nuclear material will not be stolen in the interim. Far from it. We must accelerate the time line for this initiative. Tragically today, we find ourselves in a new nuclear arms race. It is very simply a race as to whether we can secure nuclear material before the terrorists can buy or steal it.

The Meehan-Schiff amendment provides $30 million in additional funding for this initiative to get this program underway immediately.

We have spent countless billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, a war that was waged to remove stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction from the reach of terrorists. The terrible irony of our present situation is that, while we have not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we know where there are large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, large stockpiles of nuclear material, and we have a cooperative means of securing them and placing them beyond the reach of terrorists.

To scrimp on this effort is worse than negligent. It is a betrayal of the public trust. In this race, as Senator Nunn so aptly describes it, we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. We must not flag or fail in this race. Vote ``yes'' on the Schiff-Meehan amendment to jump-start the global threat reduction initiative.

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

I certainly want to congratulate my colleagues from California and Massachusetts for bringing this matter to our attention. I certainly agree with their intent and their assessment of the problem we face. It is one reason why I am happy that in the bill that was crafted by the subcommittee, there is a shift of $177.5 million for priority targets for nonproliferation. Among others, that includes Russia's strategic rocket forces. It includes megaports. It includes the second-line-of- defense efforts in the Baltics and efforts outside the former Soviet Union.

As the chairman had indicated earlier, the Secretary made the announcement of this program in Vienna. He has not had discussion or shared specifics of the program with the subcommittee or committee. There has been no transmission of the specifics to Congress on the program or its implementation.

So while, again, the intent is excellent, against the lack of specifics and given the prioritization within the bill, I would reluctantly express my opposition to the amendment, but would suggest that the chairman and I will work with both gentlemen as we proceed to conference relative to DOE's plan.

Mr. Speaker, the NBC Nightly News broadcast a segment in which the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was quoted as telling Saudi television that ``Zionists'' were behind May 1 attack on contractors at the Saudi oil facility in Yanbu. That attack killed five westerners, including two Americans.

The Crown Prince's remarks were echoed by Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who said that, ``al Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism.'' Prince Abdullah's comments were scurrilous and inflammatory; unfortunately, they are part of a persistent pattern by the Saudi government of saying one thing to the United States and the west and another thing altogether to its own citizens, 15 of whom participated in the September 11 attacks against our Nation.

Indeed, the fact that three-quarters of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis and that their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a member of a family that long enjoyed close ties to the Saudi royal family, should have spurred the Saudi government to immediate action. Instead, Saudi officials engaged in a protracted effort to deny that any of their citizens had been involved in the 9-11 attacks and instead blamed Israel for terrorism.

Saudi double-talk has had the effect of undermining the efforts that Kingdom has belatedly made in combating terrorism. In the wake of the May 2003 bombing of the housing compounds in Riyadh, the Saudi government began to take steps to cut off sources of terrorism funding, but much more needs to be done. A new report from the Council on Foreign Relations notes that while Riyadh has enacted new laws, regulations, and institutions dealing with money laundering, charitable donations, and financial operations, those new measures have not been fully implemented and there have been no arrests of prominent Saudis who have supported al Qaeda financially.

While we must work with the Saudis to ensure they are continuing to move forward in their efforts in counterterrorism, the war against Islamic terrorism requires the United States to engage Saudi Arabia on a broad range of issues. As the Council on Foreign Relations noted, our relationship with Saudi Arabia over the past 7 decades was built on a bargain in which the Kingdom would ensure stability in the world's oil markets and would play a constructive role in regional security. In exchange, the United States would guarantee Saudi security and would not interfere or raise questions about Saudi domestic issues.

The events of September 11 compel us to challenge the Saudis to change the conditions in the Kingdom that have made it a breeding ground for extremism. We must do this for our own security, but also to help ensure the stability of Saudi Arabia and of the entire Arab world. A stable, moderate and reforming Saudi government is in America's national interest, and we must push for reform in Saudi Arabia without destabilizing the country further and throwing it into chaos.

Saudi Arabia's problems did not arise overnight. They are the product of decades of tension between the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi clerics, whose ultra-conservative brand of Islam predominates in the Kingdom. When the House of Saud came to power, it sought to bring electricity, modern communications, and infrastructure to a traditional nomadic desert society.

In November 1979, these contradictions exploded when a group of Islamic militants invaded Mecca's Grand Mosque and took hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Government forces retook the Mosque and executed dozens of Islamic extremists. Instead of working to root out extremism throughout the country, the government sought accommodation with the extremists and handed over control of many aspects of Saudi life, including education, the Judiciary, and cultural affairs to the clerics. As a Saudi businessman tellingly told Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria recently, ``Having killed the extremists, the regime implemented their entire agenda.''

Thus, at the height of the Saudi oil boom of the 1970s and 1980s, Saudi Arabia took a sharp conservative turn. Even as thousands of young Saudis were being educated in the west, the majority of their countrymen were being fed a diet of religious and cultural bigotry. The rights of women, already almost nonexistent, were even more circumscribed.

By September 2001, the Saudi economy had faltered, its cities were filled with large numbers of undereducated, underemployed, and unmotivated young people who had both tasted modernity and were steeped in an ideology that preached hatred toward the west.

While the Saudis have begun to address the terrorist financing issue, Riyadh has yet to begin the more difficult task of recapturing the country from the extremists. This battle will be long, it will be difficult, and it will be bloody, but we must keep the pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia to do this. Our security and their future depends upon it.

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

I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), our distinguished chairman; and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), subcommittee Chair, for moving this legislation through the Committee on the Judiciary and onto the House floor.

I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in introducing this legislation in response to the plague of

identity theft that has beset the country. Identity theft has now topped the list of consumer complaints filed with the FTC for the last 4 years in a row, impacting millions of Americans and costing consumers and businesses billions of dollars.

My home State of California ranks number three in the number of victims of identity theft per capita with over 37,000 complaints reported by consumers, costing over $40 million just last year alone. Nationally, California cities crowd the top ten list of metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of identity theft reported. The Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area, which includes my district, is particularly prone to such crimes and ranks number two nationally with over 13,000 victims.

A victim of identity theft usually spends a year and a half working to restore his or her identity and good name. Many of my constituents have contacted me. Many of my colleagues have heard similar urging that Congress act quickly and effectively to crack down on this growing epidemic. For this reason, I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in introducing the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, legislation that will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who steal an identity for the purpose of committing other serious crimes. The bill will stiffen penalties to deter such offenses and strengthen the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and prove their case.

Our legislation also makes changes to close a number of gaps identified in current Federal law. Identical legislation was introduced by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, passing by unanimous consent in the Senate in January of last year. H.R. 1731 has also been endorsed by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

I am very mindful of the reservations that my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has expressed about mandatory minimums in general, and I share those concerns about the practice of mandatory minimums. I think my difference with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) comes in where there are appropriate exceptions. In this case, I believe there is an appropriate exception, and I believe the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) believes this is not an appropriate case for an exception. But let me outline why I believe that this is an appropriate exceptional case.

First, we have the epidemic nature of the crime, which rather than abate has merely grown and proliferated over the last several years.

Second, because the enhanced penalties are reserved for aggravated identity theft, they must be committed in connection with other serious felony offenses. But since the underlying offense and the identity theft are generally merged for sentencing purposes, prosecutors have little incentive to charge identity theft. This current sentencing structure and practice is flawed because it does not reflect the impact on the victim, in addition to the impact and loss to the financial institution.

I was pleased to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) as well as sponsors from the other body in order to make some additional improvements to the bill in committee. These improvements respond to specific concerns that were raised by the Social Security Administration. In addition, we respond to the ever-growing problem of insider theft. A peer review study will be coming out later this year that will show perhaps as much as 70 percent of identity theft cases are facilitated through the workplace.

Homeland security concerns have certainly highlighted the need to protect against identity theft, given the potential ease with which a terrorist can assimilate to or move about in our society with stolen identity documents.

In order total protect the good credit of hard-working Americans and their reputations and to protect the homeland, the time to strengthen the law is now. I also support the effort of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to increase the resources for the enforcement of these laws. Merely increasing the deterrent value is not enough if the resources lag behind.

I want to thank my colleague for all his efforts along those lines, and again want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for acting on this piece of legislation, and urge their support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I wanted to address a few of the points that have been made, including the last point that was just made, that if you cannot get in, you cannot enjoy the resources, and I think this is really quite true. But this goes to the air quality issue.

When we talk about the degrading of the air quality at Yellowstone, we are talking about an access issue. When there are health advisories, when the Park Service says that if you have a respiratory condition, you cannot enjoy the park today, this is an access issue. This is not discretionary. We are saying that this park is simply unavailable for those who cannot breath polluted air.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to cite statistics, that Yellowstone has never violated Clean Air Act standards, but these standards are meant for the entire country. Yellowstone is intended to be a Class 1 airshed, the cleanest, most pristine air in the country. Visitors from across the country do not come to Yellowstone to breath the same air they get at home. I can certainly attest to that, being from Los Angeles. If we want dirty air, we stay home. We have plenty of it in L.A., we do not need to go to Yellowstone to find smog. Instead, we go to a place like Yellowstone because we enjoy the pristine air, the pristine environment, and for those who have respiratory conditions, it is not a question of merely enjoyment, it is a question of access to these precious sites.

It should also be noted that emissions from snowmobiles actually threaten the health of some of the visitors, as well as the park employees. We have seen before the pictures of rangers forced to wear gas masks because of the smoke at entrance gates. These are not the images that we associate with Yellowstone or want to associate with Yellowstone. Doctors and scientists have also warned that people with upper respiratory conditions like asthma, that park pollution in the winter may be a serious threat to their health.

A second issue I wanted to address in addition to the air quality is that of the economy. We have also heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle concerned with the economic impact of this amendment. But in fact, many business owners say that protecting Yellowstone's health is the cornerstone of a sound economic strategy for the region. The Rush amendment, the Rush-Holt amendment would protect Yellowstone's health and help diversify the area's winter economy.

Even the Bush administration's own 2-year study concluded that the phasing out of snowmobiles in Yellowstone in favor of snowcoaches would have a short-term impact of less than 1 percent on the economy of the 5 counties surrounding Yellowstone. And certainly, the economic impact of the continuing uncertainty over litigation and reregulation that has occurred over the last several years has a far more significant impact than the certainty that would be provided by this amendment, by the clarity it would provide in the quality of the air, and in the business environment, the continuing attraction of Yellowstone for people around the country and around the world. I have seen very few people cogently argue that degrading the quality of some of our most pristine areas will attract more visitors to the region. It simply will not.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I was mentioning, even the present administration's estimate, which I think generally errs far on the side of saying that any environmental protection would be injurious to business, even this administration's expectation is that it would have less than 1 percent impact. So I am saying that even for this very strongly, unfortunately, anti- environmental administration, even they do not see an impact.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill submitted by Representatives Slaughter, Shays, Dicks, and Leach, to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, and former chair of the California Legislature's Joint Committee on the Arts, I have had the opportunity to see first hand the tremendous role that the arts play in the education and development of our children. Several academic studies have demonstrated the connection between music, dance, visual arts, and the development of the human brain. It is a fact that arts education cultivates critical thinking skills that are so important in this information-age economy. Children who learn to read music or to play an instrument show improved proficiency in mathematics and sciences.

Today, I am proud to support an increase of $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and a $3.5 million increase in funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

One of the initiatives under the NEA, American Masterpieces, produces new collaborations of classic American operas, plays, ballets, musicals, and choral works. These joint ventures allow local companies to offer new productions of the highest quality at affordable costs. This is just one of the many great initiatives provided by the NEA.

Additionally, I support an increase of $5 million for We the People, an important initiative to strengthen understanding of our national heritage. This innovative program benefits students, teachers, and Americans of all ages.

Arts is not only about appreciation and enjoyment, it is also a strong component of our economy. A recent study from Americans for the Arts found that the nonprofit art industry alone generated $134 billion in economic activity, including full time jobs, household income and tax revenues. More than $80 billion of this is spent by audiences who enthusiastically attend events in their local communities.

In my own district, there are more than 2,700 arts-related businesses and more than 32,000 jobs in visual arts, design, performing arts, film and television, and educational arts. I am proud to host an annual Congressional Arts event in my district that allows high school students to showcase their artistic talents to the community. I have constantly been impressed with the artistic vision and creativity of our young people. This vision and creativity should be fostered, not discouraged.

By supporting the arts and humanities, the federal government has the ability to act as a partner with state and local efforts to bolster the quality of life as well as economic and educational opportunities in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Davis for 35 years of dedicated service to the Burbank Fire Department.

Mike Davis joined the Burbank Fire Department as a probationary firefighter in 1969. He promoted through the ranks of the Fire Department and has served as Fire Chief for the past 14 years. He has held positions including Fire Engineer, Fire Captain, Fire Battalion Chief and finally Fire Chief. He has worked in all divisions of the department including Fire Suppression, Fire Prevention, Fire Training, Emergency Medical Services, Disaster Preparedness and Fire Administration.

His education includes an A.A. Degree in Fire Science from Los Angeles Valley College, and a B.S. Degree in Fire Protection Administration and Technology from California State University Los Angeles. His background also includes seven years of experience as a football player while at L.A.V.C. and Utah State University. He played professionally with the Toronto ``Rifles'' of the now-defunct Continental Football League as well as the New York ``Jets'' organization of the American Football League.

Chief Davis is a proud member of the International Association of Fire Chiefs where he serves on the Elections Committee. He is a member of the Western Fire Chiefs' Association and has faithfully served on the board of directors for the California Fire Chiefs' Association for 11 years. In addition, he maintains a membership in the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs' Association where he serves on several subcommittees, the Foothill Fire Chiefs' Association, and the Burbank Chapter of Rotary International. Michael Davis is one of Burbank's shining role models and outstanding citizens. He has brought prestige to the Burbank Fire Department's past, present, and future.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Michael Davis for an exemplary professional and public service career, and for his immense commitment to the City of Burbank and its residents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Palmer for over 14 years of dedicated service as a member of the Temple City Unified School District Board of Education.

Mike Palmer is a dedicated supporter of public education. He is recognized and respected by the community for his unique educational vision. From November 28, 1989 through April 22, 2004, he faithfully served as a member of the Temple City Unified School District Board of Education.

Mike Palmer is an admired and integral member of the Temple City community. He is strongly committed to providing a superior educational experience for students in the district. He has been elected by the residents of TCUSD to serve four terms on the Board of Education. His outstanding leadership on the board has helped guide and influence his fellow board members to make the best decisions for students and faculty in the District.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Michael Palmer for a truly exemplary public service career, and for his immense commitment to the Temple City Unified School District.

Mr. Speaker, in January 2001, a well-respected and bipartisan task force looked at the threats facing the United States and recommended increasing nonproliferation funding under the Department of Energy to $3 billion per year for the next 10 years. As they stated in their report, the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable materiel in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation-states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.

This year, now, 3 years after that report, the Department of Energy and Department of Defense nonproliferation budgets only contained $1.8 billion combined for nuclear nonproliferation. This is simply not enough.

I offered an amendment that would increase the amount of funding for nonproliferation by a combined $200 million, bringing the total for nonproliferation to $2 billion this year. Regrettably, this amendment was not made in order.

On the Defense Department side, our amendment would have added $50 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, or Nunn-Lugar. The goal of Nunn-Lugar is to lessen the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, to deactivate and destroy these weapons and to help scientists, formerly engaged in the production of such weapons, start working for peace. To date, Nunn-Lugar has reportedly helped destroy over 6,000 warheads.

The Defense Department authorization bill contained a $41.6 million decrease in funds for Nunn-Lugar from last year's level. In fact, it is a $34 million decrease below the pre-September 11 level.

Last year, Congress expanded the scope of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. They authorized $50 million for this purpose. The amendment would have provided this $50 million. The elimination of Libya and Iraq as states of concern have presented us with new opportunities for progress on nonproliferation, as has our improved relationship with the former Soviet Union states whose need for assistance in securing nuclear materials has never been greater.

In the Department of Energy, there are countless programs sorely in need of additional funding. Our amendment would have provided $40 million more for global cleanout, a program to secure and dispose of highly enriched uranium at research reactors around the globe. There are over 345 operating or shut-down research reactors in 58 countries fueled with highly enriched uranium.

The State Department has identified 24 other facilities for highly enriched uranium cleanout operations because they have enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Many of these facilities are guarded by little more than a night watchman and a chain link fence.

The Department of Defense authorization bill we just passed only contains $9.8 million for this program, which is only enough to clean out one site.

A recent report by the Project of Managing the Atom at Harvard University suggests Congress appropriate $40 million annually to fund global cleanout efforts. Our amendment would have met or exceeded this goal. And I have also introduced stand-alone legislation to establish a structure to prioritize the effort to clean out highly enriched uranium around the world. It would have provided funding to downblend highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium so that it could not be used directly to make nuclear weapons, but would be suitable for nuclear power plant fuel.

Russia currently has over a thousand tons of highly enriched uranium, enough for 20,000 simple nuclear weapons. Under a 1993 U.S.-Russian agreement, Russia will convert 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium by 2013, but this program was zeroed out in the Department of Energy's budget. We would have changed that.

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, only a quarter of Russia's nuclear sites are properly secured. We would have added funding for global nuclear security. We would have added funding for security upgrades at nine Russian weapons complexes.

The irony of removing this funding, of not sensing this urgency, after going to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction stockpiles we have not found, when we know there are massive stockpiles in the former Soviet Union for which we have cooperative arrangements to secure and destroy, could not be more apparent. The urgency could not be greater.

We would have paid for these programs, we would have provided for the national defense, and this must be an urgency.

Osama bin Laden has declared that the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a religious duty. After the Taliban was defeated, blueprints of a crude nuclear weapon were found in a deserted al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan.

My amendment would not have gotten us all the way to the $3 billion recommended by the Baker-Cutler Commission, but it was an important first step. We must continue that process now in the conference committee, and I would urge the conferees to take up the cause of nonproliferation with the urgency it deserves.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, as Senator Nunn put it so well, the most effective, least expensive way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to lock down and secure weapons and fissile materials in every country, in every facility that has them.

Mr. Speaker, almost three years ago, our nation was shocked by the sickening reality of global terrorism infiltrating our borders. Since September 11, 2001, the global war on terror has resulted in the deployment of our troops to Afghanistan and other perilous locations. At the same time, more than 130,000 young Americans are serving in Iraq. During a time when the struggles of our troops abroad are broadcast every day, our observance of Memorial Day calls for sober reflection. We must remember that Memorial Day, at its core, is our nation's somber tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Seven hundred eighty-nine servicemen and servicewomen have lost their lives since the beginning of our combat operations in Iraq, and 85 have fallen in our military campaign in Afghanistan. Among these brave men and women is a constituent from my district, United States Army Specialist Rel Allen Ravago, IV, who was killed in Mosul, Iraq, on November 23, 2003. My heart goes out to Mr. Ravago's friends and loved ones, as it does to the innumerable Americans who have known troops whose lives were cut short during our nation's wars. It is with a sense of gratitude and humility that I will mark my observance of Memorial Day.

In the past few weeks, much attention has been focused on the conduct of our troops stationed in Iraq. Whether the grotesque abuses that have shocked us all are the result of the depraved actions of a few individuals or derelictions of duty rising up the chain of command is an issue that must be determined through Congressional investigation. Whatever the case may be, I am confident that Americans recognize that the overwhelming majority of our troops are honorable, deeply principled citizens. We are grateful to those who have left their families, jobs, and the comforts of home to fight threats to freedom and security.

We often find ourselves divided on the home front in terms of our views on both foreign and domestic issues. Pundits chatter on about red states and blue states in an attempt to highlight the supposedly irreconcilable political cleavages within our society. It is with this in mind that I reflect on the original observance of Memorial Day--then called Decoration Day--on May 30, 1868. On the inaugural celebration of what has become a national holiday, five thousand people journeyed to Arlington National Cemetery to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there. Americans had heeded Abraham Lincoln's admonition to act ``with malice toward none, with charity for all'' and united to commemorate the fallen troops on both sides.

If our nation was then able to transcend a brutal conflict that pitted brother against brother, surely we can close ranks and join together now in mourning the men and women who have most recently died in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in other past battles. Memorializing our fallen troops is not a partisan or political issue; it is a basic debt of gratitude that all Americans owe to those who safeguard our freedom.

I hope all Americans will join us this Memorial Day in reflecting on those who safeguard our freedom, democracy, and prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the last year there have been numerous reports, some issued by government agencies, others emanating from news organizations, that have detailed critical shortages of equipment needed to protect our young men and women serving in Iraq.

I visited Iraq last year and spoke with our troops serving there about the shortages of armored Humvees and body armor. I know that many of my colleagues who have visited Iraq have raised similar concerns. I have pressed this issue during consideration of the Iraq supplemental and on numerous other occasions. Many of our troops who have been killed in Iraq in the past months were riding in unarmored Humvees that were hit by small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, or improvised explosive devices. Doubtless, some were lost because they were not protected.

I was deeply disappointed by the length of time that it has taken to provide our soldiers with this life-saving equipment, and I am pleased that Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton wisely increased funding for these programs by several orders of magnitude. Because of these increases, I will add my voice of support for the bill.

I am also pleased that the Committee has increased the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps over the next three years. Our active duty forces, our Reserves, and our Guard have been overstretched by operations in the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq. I have been strongly supportive of increasing the size of the military, and by authorizing additional forces, we will enable our troops to get the training and time for rest and re-fit that they need and deserve.

I am less pleased by the provisions relating to the rush to deploy a National Missile Defense system that I believe is not ready for deployment. I support additional research and testing of ballistic missile defense systems, but the imminent deployment of the first interceptors is premature and diverts taxpayer money that is more immediately needed to provide basic security for our troops.

I am most concerned by the ill-conceived decision to authorize more than $36 million for research into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, as well as a new generation of advanced nuclear weapons. At a time when we are asking other nations to forswear the development of nuclear weapons, when we invaded Iraq because we thought that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, when Osama bin-Laden has exhorted his followers to use nuclear weapons against the United States, and when our own State Department has compiled a Top Secret list of sites around the world that contain unsecured fissile material, we should be focusing on non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, and cleanout activities. Funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons enhances neither our security, nor our credibility.

Mr. Speaker, rising global temperatures. Dangerously polluted air. A hamstrung foreign policy. Our dependence on fossil fuels contributes to countless problems, and California is on the frontline of many of them.

The first step out of this morass may be hybrid cars. With double the gas mileage of standard cars and far lower tailpipe emissions, they could dramatically reduce our unsustainable levels of energy consumption. I believe we should do everything possible to encourage hybrid use, which is why I support recent efforts to let hybrid drivers use the carpool lane regardless of the number of passengers in the car. A pending bill in the California legislature institutes a pilot program along these lines: 70,000 permits for hybrid users to access the lane, with a review of the program once 50,000 permits have been distributed.

Federal law currently prohibits such a program, but the transportation bill working its way through Congress removes this ban and allows local jurisdictions to decide the issue for themselves. I support this change as a sensible and flexible way to encourage hybrid use. In fact, the House version of the bill originally required that hybrids be charged a toll to use the lane, a provision I considered unnecessary and heavy-handed. I proposed an amendment to remove this requirement, and guided this amendment to House passage.

The strongest criticism of this proposed change is that it will lead to overcrowded carpool lanes. We should take this concern seriously, since the carpool lane was created as much to relieve traffic congestion as to improve air quality. But there are a number of reasons to think this problem will not materialize or will be manageable if it does.

First, hybrids account for less than one half of one percent of new cars sold today. While it is true that car makers will soon be expanding their hybrid product lines considerably, it is estimated that hybrid cars will still amount to less than five percent of new car sales by 2013. Many of these cars will be hybrid sport utility vehicles that will not meet the Federal transportation bill's strict fuel efficiency standard for access to the carpool lane.

For that matter, Caltrans has estimated that carpool lanes around the state are at two-thirds of their maximum capacity. There is room for adding hybrid cars.

Of course, the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of hybrid technology. In some sense, we should hope that the lane will become more crowded, because it will be a sign that the incentive is working. That is why a flexible solution is essential. Local jurisdictions should monitor their own carpool lanes and impose restrictions as needed. The California bill perfectly embodies this approach: rather than diving in head first, the proposed program tests the waters with a limited number of permits.

Some have argued that once the lane is open to hybrid drivers they will not submit to new restrictions, even if a crowded carpool lane makes such restrictions necessary. This naturally assumes that access to a clogged carpool lane is worth fighting for. More important, it suggests an approach to governing that would limit us from trying new ideas; we must not avoid taking action for fear of our own success.

Allowing hybrids in the carpool lane is a bipartisan, problem-solving move toward cleaner air, and it will cost taxpayers little or nothing to implement. We should proceed forward in a cautious way, understanding that other goals are at stake but that freeing ourselves from the straightjacket of fossil fuels is worth the effort.