Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ms. Rosa Parks who died on October 24, 2005 at the age of 92.

In 1955, Rosa Parks was a seamstress, housekeeper and volunteer at the local NAACP chapter in Montgomery, Alabama. One winter evening, the 42-year-old was riding a city bus home after a long day of work. Rather than give up her seat to a white person, she chose to be arrested, setting off a 381-day boycott of the bus system organized by a young Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Her simple act of defiance was an important catalyst in the Civil Rights Movement. She was arrested and later found guilty by a local court of violating segregation, but her case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court which overturned the Jim Crow-era laws.

Many civil rights pioneers would fight against injustice, helping advance genuine equality among citizens. Yet Rosa Parks was unique; a true American icon who embodied the notion that one person can make a difference, that a snowball can turn into an avalanche. She was the anonymous victim of discrimination whose fame quickly spread; a woman of profound inner-strength and deep conviction who selflessly volunteered herself for the greater cause of liberty. Her bravery galvanized thousands to use non-violent means to move Congress to pass landmark civil rights and voting rights legislation.

Two years ago, I joined a civil rights pilgrimage to Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama. Led by Representative John Lewis and the Faith in Politics Institute, the pilgrimage took Members of the House and Senate

to the sites of many of the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. It was an unforgettable experience. All of the Members of Congress felt as I did, how lucky we were to visit these sites: the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church, the 16th Street Baptist Church, the Civil Rights Institute and the Rosa Parks Museum, with some of the activists who led the movement. To see these places through their eyes, to hear them describe what it was like when the very church we were sitting in was under siege by an angry mob of segregationists, to witness tears come down their cheeks as they thought of where they had been and where we were standing.

As we reflected on the moving events of the pilgrimage, the Members of Congress--many like me, too young to remember well the civil rights movement--kept asking ourselves two questions: What would I have done? Would I have been an activist, or, like so many Americans, simply indifferent? And what about today? What is the contemporary relevance of the civil rights movement?

The more we pondered what we would have done, black or white, had we been born into 1960's Alabama, and the more we asked ourselves about what we could do to advance the civil rights movement today, the more I began to realize that the two questions were really interconnected.

The best window into what we would have done, the best insight into what might have been, can be gleaned from what we do in the future. While America today provides all of its citizens with more opportunities and better protects those most vulnerable, too many still face vestiges of bigotry. We can look to the Civil Rights Movement to inspire us to build a greater and more just society, but we must learn from the example set by Rosa Parks that each of us must take an affirmative step to ensure that our country remains faithful to the ideals of its founding. If we dedicate ourselves to the cause of racial justice, arm ourselves with an appreciation of history, and commit ourselves to the provision of equal opportunity to all, we will stand on the frontier of the new civil rights movement. And that would be the most fitting pilgrimage of all.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I thank the Rules Committee for affording us this opportunity to offer and debate our substitute amendment on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, the base bill certainly has an important and worthy stated goal of cracking down on the filing of frivolous lawsuits. As a former Federal prosecutor and a member of the bar, I strongly support this meritorious goal, as any responsible attorney should.

However, I am forced to oppose the legislation in its current form as it contains a number of serious deficiencies which I believe the substitute amendment will remedy. First, the legislation would revert to a failed regime that has been soundly criticized by those best equipped to comment on the proposed changes, the Federal judiciary.

Second, the legislation would inappropriately involve the States in the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And, third, the legislation's forum-shopping provisions drastically change State venue laws to benefit foreign corporations over domestic corporations and victims, to say nothing of doing a great deal to damage States' rights.

Finally, the legislation would harm those seeking relief from civil rights violations. Instead, I ask my colleagues to support the Schiff- Kind substitute amendment, a proposal that would crack down vigorously on frivolous lawsuits. Members on both sides of the aisle agree that our laws and rules of procedure must prohibit frivolous litigation.

Our substitute amendment has a strong three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision for attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. Unlike the base bill, these frivolous proceedings and pleadings could have been filed in any court. The mandatory sanctions begin after the very first violation; but after the third, the attorney shall be found in contempt of court and referred to the appropriate State bar associations for disciplinary proceedings, including suspension.

Unlike the base bill, the third sanction can also include disbarment.

Our substitute amendment also has strong three-strikes-and-you-are- out provisions for attorneys who engage in frivolous conduct during discovery, including causing unnecessary delay or needless increases in the costs of litigation. Again, mandatory sanctions begin after the first violation, and a third violation in any Federal court can include suspension and even disbarment.

Our substitute also limits the ability of wrongdoers to conceal any conduct harmful to the public welfare by requiring that such court records not be sealed unless the court finds that a sealing is justified. This important provision will help ensure that information on dangerous products and actions is made available to the public.

The Schiff-Kind substitute also includes tough enhanced sanctions for document destruction by parties punishable by mandatory sanctions under Rule 11 and referral to the appropriate State bars for disciplinary proceedings, including disbarment. We also include strong language to provide a presumption of a Rule 11 violation for repeatedly relitigating the same issue.

I am pleased that some of these important provisions have recently been added to the base bill. The venue provisions, however, in section 4 of the base bill would recast State and Federal court jurisdiction and venue in personal injury cases.

This section would actually operate to provide a litigation and financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their domestic competitors. Instead of permitting claims to be filed wherever a corporation does business or has minimum contacts, as most State long-arm jurisdiction statutes provide, section 4 only permits the suit to be brought where the defendant's principal place of business is located.

This means that it would be far more difficult to pursue a personal injury or product liability action against a foreign corporation in the United States. In fact, this section could operate to make it impossible to sue a foreign corporation in this country, only further promoting the disturbing process of corporations in our country relocating their headquarters overseas to avoid U.S. taxes.

This is bad policy. And our substitute amendment includes language to ensure that jurisdiction for such legal actions is not limited in this manner.

Finally, by requiring a mandatory sanctions regime that would apply to civil rights cases, the base bill will chill many legitimate and important civil rights actions. This is due to the fact that much, if not most, of the impetus for the 1993 changes stemmed from abuses by defendants in civil rights cases, namely, the civil rights defendants were choosing to harass civil rights plaintiffs by filing a series of Rule 11 motions intended to slow down and impede meritorious civil rights cases.

A 1991 Federal judicial study found that the incidence of Rule 11 sanctions or sua sponte orders is higher in civil rights cases than in some other types of cases. Another study found that there is ample evidence to suggest that plaintiffs in civil rights cases, plaintiffs in particular, were far more likely than defendants to be the target of Rule 11 motions and the recipient of sanctions.

While the base bill purports to encourage that the provisions not be applied to civil rights cases, the fact of the matter is it does not explicitly exempt civil rights cases as our substitute does.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense substitute. It cracks down on frivolous lawsuits in a tough fashion, but without jeopardizing civil rights claims or providing unnecessary shields to foreign corporations. It is a better bill,

and I urge the House to adopt the substitute rather than the base proposal.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, before I recognize my colleague from Texas, I want to respond to a couple of points made by my other colleague from Texas; that is, comparing the strength of the three strikes and you're out provisions in the substitute and base bill. The three strikes language in the Democratic substitute would apply to frivolous proceedings that are filed in any court. The base bill, on the other hand, would apply the three strikes provision only to the specific court in which the violation occurred. That is a narrower provision of the base bill.

Similarly, my substitute provides for the referral to the appropriate State bars for disciplinary proceedings, including disbarment after the third strike. With the first violation there is the required payment of costs and attorneys' fees. With the second, the attorney is held in contempt with a monetary fine. And then the third provision of referral to the State bar for possible disbarment, compared to the base bill which calls for a 1-year suspension only in the specific court where the three violations occurred. The violations have to occur in the same court. If you move from one court where you are sanctioned to another to another, the base bill seems to have far less strength and applicability than the substitute.

Second, I wanted to rebut the claim that the substitute will somehow promote litigation more than the base bill. In fact, when you ask the judges who have operated under both systems, the one that is proposed by the base bill and the one that is proposed by the substitute, the courts were quite clear that the earlier form of Rule 11, which we would go back to in the base bill, spawned a cottage industry where someone would file a Rule 11 motion, the opposing counsel would file a Rule 11 motion on the Rule 11 motion, and then you would have litigation over whose Rule 11 motion should succeed.

In fact, in 1993, the Judicial Conference remarked that the experience with the amended rule since 1993, since we got away from what the base bill would take us back to, has demonstrated a marked decline to Rule 11 satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in the number of frivolous filings.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just have a parliamentary inquiry. Does my colleague have the opportunity to close or does the offerer of the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague will close very well. How much time do I have remaining?

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

In my concluding comments I want to reiterate some of the points that have been made with respect to the civil rights provisions and quote from the testimony of Professor Theodore Eisenberg, who testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary in the 108th Congress and said: ``A Congress considering reinstating the fee-shifting aspect of Rule 11 in the name of tort reform should understand what it will be doing. It will be discouraging the civil rights cases disproportionately affected by the old Rule 11 in the name of addressing purported abuse in an area of law, personal injury tort, found to have less abuse than other areas.''

I would also like to cite the testimony of the Honorable Robert L. Carter, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York when he stated: ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential sanctions, to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start.''

We do not want to put off a Brown v. Board of Education civil rights case like that for a decade because of a Rule 11 that has been rejected by the Federal courts already.

The language in the substitute makes it clear that neither the sanctions approach we have taken in the substitute nor the sanctions approach taken in the base bill would apply in civil rights cases; and while there is some language of suggestion in the base bill, it is not definitive.

In fact, the NAACP wrote in respect to the language in the base bill: ``While language nominally intended to mitigate the damage that this bill will cause to civil rights cases has been added, it is vague and simply insufficient in addressing our concerns.''

So on the basis of a need not to chill civil rights legislation, which I think we have only seen the greater importance with, as Katrina ripped off the veneer of poverty and inequality in the country once again for all to see, as we consider that the base bill would implement a change that the courts themselves have rejected and found spawned a cottage industry in meritless Rule 11 litigation, and as the base bill has a stronger and I think more sensible three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision, I would urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute in preference to the flawed base bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his strong support of this resolution and all of his leadership on the Committee on International Relations. I feel deeply fortunate to have the chance to serve with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, to partition Palestine into two States, one Arab and the other Jewish. With this historic vote, the U.N. assisted with the birth of the modern State of Israel, which proclaimed its independence the following May when Britain withdrew its forces from the region.

For millions of Jews around the world, the partition vote and Israel's joining the United Nations in 1949 held forth the promise that the new country would be embraced by the international community and that the horror of the Holocaust would give way to a new era of acceptance for the Jewish people and their national aspirations.

These hopes were quickly dashed, however, through the concerted efforts of the Arab members of the United Nations who denied Israel's right to exist. Israel's role in the world body became a Cold War sideshow; and for 5 decades, the combined efforts of the Arab States, the Soviet bloc, and the countries of the nonaligned movement prevented Israel from participating as a full member of the United Nations.

Happily, albeit slowly, Israel's fortunes are beginning to change; and on behalf of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and 79 of our colleagues, we bring this measure to the floor, and we hope that it will highlight the progress that has been made to date and presage a new chapter in the relationship of Israel and the United Nations.

For the past 5 weeks, the U.N. General Assembly has been meeting in New York. As in past years, the president of the General Assembly has been assisted by 27 vice presidents chosen by regional groupings at the United Nations. This year, however, is slightly different because one of the vice presidents is Israel's permanent representative to the U.N., Ambassador Dan Gillerman.

Ambassador Gillerman's election is historic. On September 20, he became

the first Israeli to preside over the General Assembly since the legendary Abba Eban served as General Assembly vice president in 1953. Throughout most of the intervening 5 decades, the State of Israel has been the subject of unrelenting, and oftentimes grotesque, criticism at the United Nations.

Because of opposition from its Arab neighbors, Israel has been blocked from joining the Asian regional grouping at the United Nations; and until 2000, Israel was the only member of the U.N. to be excluded from joining any regional grouping. Under the U.N. structure, membership in a regional group is a prerequisite to service as president or vice president of the General Assembly, as well as membership in a host of other U.N. bodies.

In 2000, Israel was accepted as a temporary member of the Western Europe and Others group, which removed the bar to further Israeli participation at the U.N. Israel's membership was renewed in 2004.

In March of this year, the Western European group, which includes Western European countries, the U.S., Canada and New Zealand and Australia, nominated Israel for the post of vice president for the historic 60th General Assembly that is ongoing in New York.

The Israeli vice presidency is a small, but important, step towards better relations between the U.N. and Israel; and the Israeli Government and people are excited about the role their nation is playing in New York this fall. Ambassador Gillerman called the election ``a historic moment for Israel'' and said that it signaled that Israel is becoming a more active and normal member of the U.N.

Our resolution congratulates Ambassador Gillerman and Israel on the historic occasion of Israel's vice presidency. It welcomes the Western Europe and Others group, and it welcomes the General Assembly's election of Israel as a vice president. It supports the continued expansion of Israel's role at the U.N. It notes the House's continued concern that Israel remains the object of extreme vilification at the U.N. Finally, it calls upon Secretary General Kofi Annan to work to end the vilification of Israel and to work to gain Israel's admittance to the Asian regional grouping.

Throughout the last year, the Congress has discussed ways to reform the United Nations, to make it less corrupt and more responsive to the needs of a changing world. Many Members, myself included, have voiced consternation at Israel's marginalization at the U.N. as evidence of the U.N.'s failure to live up to its founding principles.

Israel's vice presidency, along with other steps, some initiated by Israel and others facilitated by Secretary General Annan, have initiated a thaw in the relationship between Israel and the world body. Much more remains to be done; but Israelis, their friends here in America, and true friends of the U.N. can take satisfaction in Israel's role at this fall's General Assembly.

I would like to thank, again, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all of his work on the resolution. I am very grateful to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their strong support. This is truly something worth celebrating, and I urge my colleagues to join in support of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was not able to be here to vote on this important measure. Sadly, I was attending the funeral of one of my constituents, a young Marine named Sergio Escobar, who died October 7 while serving our Nation in Iraq. But I want to take this opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to all of those who have been affected by the massive earthquake that struck Southeast Asia on October 8, 2005.

The effects of this 7.6 magnitude earthquake have been devastating. At least 38,000 lives have been lost, with the death toll continuing to rise. Nearly 3 million people have been left homeless and are living in tents or on open ground in freezing temperatures. In some areas, entire villages have been buried in rubble. The Pakistani government estimates $5 billion in damages to its infrastructure.

The areas worst hit by the earthquake, Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the NorthWest Frontier province, are in remote, mountainous regions. According to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the terrain presents a logistical challenge unprecedented for any humanitarian operation. There is an urgent need for additional helicopters to deliver supplies and evacuate victims. Meanwhile, thousands of people are awaiting rescue, food, and medical attention.

The United States has rushed food and medical supplies to the region, and has committed $50 million in initial aid for the relief and reconstruction effort. Nations around the globe have sent rescue workers, search and rescue dogs, tents, and equipment. Private aid organizations are also dispatching volunteers and assistance. Together, I know that we can make a difference and help people rebuild their lives.

Tragedies such as this earthquake and last year's horrific tsunami remind us that we must help one another--both before tragedies strike and also once rebuilding has begun. Nations were very generous in offering help for victims of Hurricane Katrina and I pledge to work with thy colleagues in Congress to ensure that our friends in India and Pakistan have what they need to recover from this tragic event.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims and their families.

Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to assume the time of my colleague from California.

Madam Speaker, in the midst of a press conference this past Tuesday, President Bush responded to a question relating to a possible outbreak of avian flu here in the United States by stating that he was considering the use of the American military to enforce quarantine measures in cases of a pandemic.

While a number of public health experts and civil liberties advocates quickly criticized the President for suggesting that the military be deployed to control a flu outbreak, his public musing about the need for such a drastic step was a strong and long overdue indication that the U.S. Government is beginning to take seriously the prospect of a flu pandemic.

For several years now, epidemiologists and public health officials have been warning of a possible global pandemic of bird flu that could rival or surpass the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed as many as 50 million people worldwide. We have been fortunate that none of the existing strains of avian flu that have infected thousands of birds and some 65 people in 11 countries have mutated into a form that can spread from human to human; but that threat is real, and there is growing evidence that we do not have much time to prepare.

This week's issues of the journals Nature and Science have published the results of work done at the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology here in Maryland that shows that the 1918 Spanish flu was actually a type of bird flu and was similar to the flu now affecting Asia. The research also suggests that samples of today's avian flu have begun to develop genetic changes that may allow it to spread from person to person.

Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center For Disease Preparedness at Columbia University, recently told The New York Times that a flu epidemic was the ``next big catastrophe that we can reasonably expect, and the country is phenomenally not prepared for this.''

Yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt acknowledged our lack of preparation, but seemingly tried to absolve the administration by saying that ``no one in the world is ready'' for a flu pandemic.

That may be true, but some countries have taken greater steps to prepare than the United States. At present we have only 2 million doses of Tamiflu, an antiviral medication that has been shown to be effective against the H5NI flu virus. The Australian Government, on the other hand, has stockpiled 3.5 million courses of treatment, white Britain has ordered enough of the drug to cover a quarter of its population.

Clearly, we are lagging behind other developed countries in preparing for an outbreak here. And as ABC's ``Primetime'' reported last month, the Roche Company, which produces Tamiflu, is filling orders on a first-come, first-served basis. The United States, I am sorry to say, is nowhere near the top of the list.

Quote: ``Do we wish we had ordered it sooner and more of it? I suspect one would say yes,'' admitted Secretary Leavitt. When asked why the U.S. did not place orders for Tamiflu sooner, the Secretary told ABC: ``I can't answer that. I don't know the answer to that.''

The American Government has finally begun to take action to prepare to confront a pandemic. The Department of State is hosting a meeting of

health officials from 80 countries today to map out a strategy for minimizing the deaths and destruction that an outbreak might wreak. At the same time, White House officials will meet today with representatives of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to encourage them to get involved in the manufacture of a flu vaccine.

But, Madam Speaker, Congress needs to do more. My colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), has been a leader in trying to push the Congress and the administration to do more to prepare. In late July, Mrs. Lowey introduced H.R. 3369, the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act, the AVIAN Act, which provides for a comprehensive national effort to prepare for a flu outbreak. The AVIAN Act requires the Federal Government to create plans for and respond to a pandemic outbreak. It orders the procurement of antiviral treatments and vaccines for a Strategic National Stockpile.

The bill also promotes increased research in the pandemic flu, its vaccines and treatments, and expands efforts to prevent pandemic avian flu both domestically and internationally. I am a proud cosponsor of the AVIAN Act, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join us.

I was heartened to see last week that the Senate voted to add $4 billion to the U.S. fight against deadly avian flu by stocking up on antiviral drugs and increasing global surveillance of the disease. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I are circulating a letter to ask House conferees to support the Senate request, and I hope our colleagues will join in that effort.

Madam Speaker, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about the danger we face from nuclear terrorism, which I believe is a primary threat to our way of life. The only other threat that remotely approaches a nuclear attack is that posed by a global flu pandemic, one which could kill tens of millions of people. We failed to prepare for 9/11. We failed to prepare adequately for Hurricane Katrina. We must not fail to prepare for a flu pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, I spoke on this House floor warning of the dangers posed by the latest effort of the majority party to raise the debt limit for the third time during this administration to a whopping $8.18 trillion.

I used the occasion to contrast the fiscal policies of the Clinton administration, namely, turning the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, with the fiscal policies of the current administration. However, my protestations and the warnings of my fellow Blue Dog Democrats continued to fall on deaf ears.

It is inconceivable that deficits soaring as far as the eye can see, mounting debt, and the skyrocketing costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would be ignored for so long and that it would take a tragedy such as Hurricane Katrina to finally serve as a wakeup call. For years members of the Blue Dog Coalition have warned that we were spending money we did not have, that the administration had no economic plan, and that massive untargeted tax cuts were not a substitute for an economic blueprint for our country's future. And yet the Congress continued to reject every proposal requiring us to do our budget in the same way that our constituents do, by paying as we go.

Now that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have wreaked havoc on the gulf coast, causing hundreds of billions of dollars of damage, it is clear that we must take immediate action to get our fiscal house in order. Members on the other side of the aisle have finally acknowledged what Democrats have been saying for years, that our current economic policies cannot be maintained. Unfortunately, however, some in the majority party have proposed that we ask those Americans who have been impacted most by Katrina, namely, the elderly and those with low incomes, to bear the costs.

This is not the answer to the persistent poverty exposed so brutally and graphically by Katrina. We must pursue a comprehensive solution to our fiscal woes by suspending tax cuts for wealthy families, by cutting spending, and enacting PAYGO rules, pay-as-you-go, and establishing an emergency rainy day fund.

Mr. Speaker, the 2005 budget resolution included $106 billion in new deficit finance tax cuts over the next 5 years. These additional tax cuts will impose a huge additional debt burden on the next generation. If the government is forced to borrow the money to cover these added expenses, the yearly interest payments alone will pile on the already enormous debt that our children and grandchildren will be faced with paying off.

Most of these tax cuts will actually be doled out to individuals who do not need more of the government's largesse. With American troops in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and with our country coping with the rebuilding of the gulf coast, all of us, all of us, must sacrifice for our troops and for our neighbors.

In addition to suspending tax cuts for wealthy families, the Congress must immediately restrain its voracious appetite for spending, finding places where cuts can be made to pay the costs of Katrina and Iraq. And in addition to making tough cuts, the Congress should move to immediately reinstate PAYGO rules to stop any further bleeding.

Finally, the Congress must establish a rainy day fund for future Katrinas so we will not find ourselves in this spot again. The interest earned by such a fund could be used for disaster planning and preparedness, to modernize our Nation's infrastructure, fortify our levees, and to update and make interoperable our communications systems.

The American people now understand the precarious state of the Nation's finances. Today our national debt stands at nearly $8 trillion. Each citizen's personal share of that debt is almost $27,000. This is what we bequeath to our children, and it conflicts most directly with what my parents taught me and what most of our parents taught all of us, that is, we leave the country a little better off than we found it.

In 1989, a New York City real estate developer named Seymour Durst placed a large National Debt Clock in Times Square in order to draw public attention to what he saw as a grim predictor of financial instability. For 11 years, the debt numbers on the clock rose at the breakneck pace of $13,000 a second. In 1995, as the Clinton administration began to pay down the national debt, onlookers were shocked to see the numbers on that clock not only slow down but reverse. The clock was retired in the year 2000, as President Clinton announced record reductions in the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, no debt clocks were at work this time drawing attention to this crisis. It has taken Katrina to awaken the Nation to the coming fiscal crisis. Let us hope our response to this crisis is an improvement on our response to the last. We owe that to our kids.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join my Armenian American constituents in California's 29th Congressional District in welcoming the upcoming Pontifical visit of His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia. His Holiness will be visiting the State of California this October at the invitation of His Eminence, Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America.

His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, is the spiritual leader for hundreds of thousands of Armenians around the world and one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the Middle East. The Pontiff presently serves as the Moderator for the World Council of Churches (WCC). This prominent ecumenical organization is comprised of more than 340 churches from different cultures and nations around the world representing over 400 million Christians. The Pontiff, who is the first Orthodox and the youngest person to be elevated to this post, is currently serving his second term as Moderator.

The main theme of the Pontiff's visit is ``Towards the Light of Knowledge.'' This theme reflects the Pontiff's deep faith that only with greater education and dialogue can the world's conflicts be properly addressed.

The Catholicos's visit will be marked by a number of major events, including a speech he will deliver on October 14th at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council concerning the challenges to inter-religious dialogue in the Middle East. He will also participate by giving the main address at a symposium to be held at the University of Southern California focusing on ``Christian Responses to Violence.''

Of special significance to the 29th Congressional District, the Catholicos will be consecrating the Saint Sarkis Armenian Apostolic Church in Pasadena and blessing a new headquarters for the Western Prelacy.

I ask all Members to join with me and the Armenian American community throughout the State of California in welcoming the upcoming Pontifical visit of His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced the Fostering Our Future Act of 2005, a bill to help our Nation's foster youth by strengthening dependency courts and requiring accountability. Foster care is a critical safety net for half a million abused and neglected American children.

It is, however, a system in need of drastic reform and greater support. Twenty percent of all foster kids will be forced to wait over 5 years for a safe, permanent family. Even worse, almost 20,000 older youth age out of the system without the assistance of a permanent family every year.

Frequent foster home transfers create turbulence and insecurity that heighten the emotional behavior and educational challenges faced by these youth. The doubling of the foster care population since the early 1980s compounded this problem by creating enormous caseloads and taxing the capacity of foster homes. The end result is that foster kids, through no fault of their own, are more likely to experience homelessness, unemployment, and other life course problems despite their courageous resilience.

Imagine what it is like to be 8 years old, neglected by your parents and then taken away from them, living with a family that is not your own, confused by the court proceedings that govern your future, frightened that you might be transferred to another home and alienated and from your peers who talk about mom and dad. Imagine what that feels like.

These children deserve better. They should be guaranteed physical and emotional safety. They should have continuing relationships with caregivers and loved ones. They should have an informed voice in the legal decisions made about their lives. And they should enter early adulthood prepared to live a healthy, happy, and productive life. We have a responsibility to these children to meet these goals, and anything less is unacceptable.

Practitioners and policy experts have conducted thorough analyses and advanced proposals to overhaul the foster care system. The most prominent is a comprehensive 2004 report by the bipartisan Pew Commission, and identified several areas where the Federal Government can support these kids by strengthening the Nation's foster care systems.

The Pew report found that State dependency court systems are failing to sufficiently track cases, and trained personnel, unlike State child welfare agencies, they did not receive Federal funds to do so.

Interagency collaboration and performance measurement, where they exist, are inconsistent, both within and between State systems, and tend to focus on bureaucratic needs rather than outcomes.

Finally, these systems struggle to retain qualified dependency attorneys

who are often burdened by substantial debt. A recent survey found that almost a third of those practicing dependency attorneys graduated law school with over $75,000 in outstanding loans, and 44 percent of them currently owe over $50,000.

High turnover among dependency attorneys has led to a dearth of experienced lawyers who have a comprehensive understanding of the system and can maintain valuable relationships with their young clients.

The Fostering Our Future Act responds to each of those shortcomings. My bill authorizes grants to State dependency court systems to track and analyze caseloads as well as to train court personnel. These grants are leveraged by requiring that the recipient court systems collaborate with the State's corresponding child welfare agencies and track a series of critical performance metrics.

The legislation further establishes a loan forgiveness program to attract and retain qualified child welfare attorneys. By encouraging statewide interagency collaboration and data-sharing by tracking cases and training court personnel, by ensuring that effective representation is available to children and their families, and most importantly, by focusing on child welfare outcomes, this legislation will keep the needs of children and families rather than the needs of bureaucrats front and center.

I commend the child welfare workers of America for the invaluable services they provide and for constantly struggling to get this issue the attention that it deserves. Foster care plays a crucial role in our Nation's child welfare safety net, but it is in desperate need of support and reform.

I call my colleagues to join me in working for the day when all of the Nation's children are protected, nurtured, and loved, and I invite you to join me in that quest by cosponsoring the Fostering Our Future Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the United Nations Association of the United States of America, Pasadena/Foothills Chapter, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the United Nations.

The United Nations Association of the United States of America Pasadena/Foothills Chapter was formed in 1947 and is one of the largest UNA-USA chapters in the Nation, encompassing most of the San Gabriel Valley, Burbank, Glendale, and Northeast Los Angeles. In 1972, it was one of the first chapters to be incorporated and then began an extensive program to educate the general public about the United Nations.

The Pasadena/Foothills Chapter of the UNA-USA has been most active in the field of education. They sponsor the UNA-USA National High School Essay Contest annually and also host current-event lectures on a regular basis. A quarterly newsletter, Our World, is also published to increase public awareness of advocacy issues and current foreign affairs. The Chapter has also most recently sponsored a Great Decisions course at Pasadena City College, taught by a current board member.

The current focus of the Pasadena/Foothills Chapter is to incorporate the Model United Nations curriculum into elementary and high schools in the Pasadena Area. The Model U.N. program encourages leadership and cooperation, while giving students opportunities to take part in competitions in the arenas of International Affairs, Human Rights, and Conflict Resolution.

The Pasadena/Foothills Chapter is also involved in many philanthropic efforts and sponsors an event known as the Night of a Thousand Dinners, raising over $12,000 in the last 2 years for land mine clearance. Trips to U.N. Conferences in countries such as Turkey, China, Italy, Cuba, and South Africa have also been organized by the Chapter.

This year, the Pasadena/Foothills Chapter is celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations. The Chapter is organizing an event at the Pacific Asia Museum that showcases the artwork of local and international artists centering on the themes of peace and equality to commemorate the founding of the U.N.

I ask all Members to join me in recognizing the United Nations Association of the United States of America, Pasadena/Foothills chapter, for its nearly 60 years of incredible work and service to the greater Pasadena Area.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rosemary Children's Services of Pasadena, CA, upon its 80th anniversary.

In 1920, Mrs. Emma Spear and the women of the Pasadena Shakespeare Club established a shelter program for abused, neglected or abandoned teenage girls in Pasadena, because the only alternative at that time was juvenile hall. Rosemary Cottage opened in April of 1920 and could house 10 girls and a housemother. Their name came from William Shakespeare's ``Hamlet'' ``There's Rosemary, that's for remembrance; pray you, love, remember.''

In 1928, a new ``Cottage'' was built and made available to 19 teenage girls. In the 1940s, Rosemary Cottage introduced treatment services, improved their property and hired social workers to meet the United Way standards. Rosemary's group home program was launched in 1967 by the generous donation of a home from Robert Romberger. The group homes program was the first step in teaching independent living skills to teenage girls in placement situations. Since then, three other group homes have been acquired and can house up to 43 at-risk girls.

Rosemary Children's Services help hundreds of children of all ages. Along with their excellent residential program, they provide foster care to nearly 400 girls and boys in Southern California, many of whom have been the victims of neglect, sexual, or physical abuse. They sponsor a school that provides specialized education in a small structured environment and their mental health program includes out- patient services for teenage girls, individual and group therapy, exercise programs, artistic activities and training in various life skills.

I am greatly honored to recognize Rosemary Children's Services for its 80 years of loving care and support to countless children in our community, and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Rosemary Children's Services for their remarkable achievements.

Mr. Speaker, today, in the Committee on International Relations a remarkable thing happened. Not one but two resolutions recognizing the facts of the Armenian genocide passed out of the committee with strong bipartisan support, indeed with the support of both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member.

One of those resolutions I introduced to recognize the first genocide of the 20th century, the genocide which claimed the lives of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children. The facts of that genocide are clear. The facts of genocide are incontrovertible. They are bourne out in thousands of pages of documents in our own archives. They are bourne out in the words and the transmitted telegrams of our Ambassador, Henry Morgenthau, at the time.

The only obstacle that the Congress has faced, and it has been a formidable one, in recognizing the Armenian genocide is the resistance of the Republic of Turkey, the well-documented efforts of its powerful lobbyist, and the feeling of some that, by recognizing what all historians have recognized, that we will somehow jeopardize our relations with an ally.

I have never taken issue with the fact that Turkey is an ally to the United States. It is an ally. It is at a strategic crossroads. It is an important member of NATO. At the same time, we cannot equivocate about the murder of 1.5 million people; and the differences that we have had with Turkey, and they have been considerable, over a whole host of issues have not ruptured our relationship.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, many of my colleagues will remember, we sought the permission of Turkey to allow American and Coalition ground forces to enter Iraq through Turkey. The Turkish Parliament voted on that, and they voted against it. That was of enormous significance to this country.

As a result of that, we could not open that second northern front; as a result of that, many melted away to the Iraqi population, many of the insurgents that we now fight with so bitterly. That had enormous consequences, but it did not end the relationship with the United States, and recognition of the historic facts of the genocide will not end the relationship with Ankara, either. There are strong mutual interests at stake which will transcend the recognition of the historic facts.

In the past, American leaders have recognized the genocide. Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently of the facts of the genocide. Winston Churchill in his memoirs documents the murder of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in a crime at the time that was unequaled. Yet here we are, fresh from recognizing, as indeed we should and as indeed we must, the genocide going on in Darfur, but unwilling to recognize the murder of 1.5 million Armenians.

What does that say about American policy? Can our policy be that we will recognize genocide when it is committed by the politically impotent, as in the case of Sudan, but not in the case of the politically powerful as in the case of the Ottoman Empire and its Turkish successors? This certainly cannot be the policy of the United States. We must recognize unequivocally that, beginning in 1915, 1.5 million people were murdered merely because of who they were as a people, the very definition of genocide.

With the passage of these resolutions, with the support of the chair and the ranking member, with the overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle in committee, I hope that we can get a vote on the House floor, something we have not had in more than a decade, so that we can once again reestablish the moral authority and clarity

that comes with recognizing genocide, past or present, foe or friend, alike. I urge the Members of this House to join in an effort to call upon the leadership to hear the genocide resolution, and I hope the leadership will heed that call.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the YWCA Pasadena- Foothill Valley upon its 100th anniversary.

In 1905, a group of prominent Pasadena women formed a branch of the National Consumers League in an effort to hold local employers accountable to statewide labor laws for young working women. As affordable housing for these young women became a concern, this same group formed the Young Women's League and provided rental housing for working women. This was the start of what was to become, in 1909, the Pasadena Young Women's Christian Association, YWCA. In 1910, they purchased a property in Pasadena and in the 1920s, hired Julia Morgan, California's first woman architect, to design the landmark building on that same land.

During the First World War, the YWCA offered Red Cross training and classes in the arts to young working women, while actively rallying for women's suffrage and better working conditions for California's migrant workers. In the 1920s, the YWCA made special outreach efforts to include African-American and Japanese-American girls.

During the Great Depression, the YWCA offered loans and free room and board to women in need, and opened new clubs for Mexican-American and African-American girls. Ahead of its time, the YWCA Board agreed that ``the use of facilities be based on general fitness without reference to race, religion, or nationality.''

In 1940 a Japanese Girls Reserve was formed. When the war ended, the YWCA assisted in facilitating the interned Japanese-Americans' return to the community. During these years, the Pasadena YWCA, with its active social conscience, led the community on issues such as juvenile delinquency, housing, childcare and discrimination.

In the 1940s and 50s, programs that targeted delinquent teens and a childcare nursery were developed. The 1960s saw the Back Yard Mothers Project, the Mexican Bi-Cultural Club, the Pasadena Free Clinic, and in 1966, the Federal Government selected the Pasadena YWCA as the site for its Job Corps girls program.

The 1970s and 80s brought a Rape Advocacy Program, a program to train women for non-traditional jobs that paved the way for the Women at Work program, and Hestia House, a shelter for women and their children in crisis. In 1996, the YWCA Board sold the historic Julia Morgan building, moved into administrative offices, but continued to meet the needs of girls and women, never forgetting its mission to work for the empowerment of women and the elimination of racism.

Today, programs like Just for Girls meet on school campuses and offer assistance to at-risk youth and the sports program brings together girls from varied economic and ethnic backgrounds. The YWCA hosts the annual Week Without Violence and an annual Racial Justice Committee Breakfast.

I am proud to recognize the YWCA Pasadena-Foothill Valley for its 100 years of offering a diverse place of acceptance to the women of the San Gabriel Valley and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the YWCA for their remarkable achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Evergreen Troop 361 of the Mission Amigos District from the San Gabriel Valley Council, Boy Scouts of America. On October 22nd, Troop 361 will celebrate its 50th anniversary.

Troop 361 was founded with twelve boys in 1955 by members of the Evergreen Baptist Church in Los Angeles. Since 1955, Troop 361 has enjoyed the excellent sponsorship of the Evergreen Baptist Church. The Church, and Troop 361, subsequently moved to the City of Rosemead, and the Troop transferred to the Mission Amigos District of the San Gabriel Valley Council. With its beautiful mountains and proximity to the ocean, the San Gabriel Valley is the ideal place for boys to learn the scouting ways, as one of the mainstays of the Boy Scouts program is participation in a wide array of outdoor activities.

Over the years, Troop 361 has grown and thrived. Hundreds of scouts have passed through the ranks of Troop 361, and it is a further testament to the strong leadership and high caliber of young men that over 80 scouts in this troop have earned the most prestigious rank of Eagle Scout. Today, Troop 361 is proud to have 55 outstanding scouts under the leadership of Ted Sakamoto, a Scoutmaster who has dedicated thousands of hours to ensuring that Troop 361 remains strong and successful.

Troop 361 is an integral part of the proud tradition of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts of America develop and nurture in our youth a strong sense of character, leadership, and respect. Boy Scouts are well-rounded, resourceful, and responsible, and Troop 361 exemplifies all of these qualities.

I am proud to congratulate Troop 361 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, and I ask all

Members of Congress to join me in honoring this Troop for its dedication to scouting and for helping boys become upstanding young men.