Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 57th anniversary of Israel's independence.

Today we celebrate the realization of a two thousand year old Jewish dream to return to the ancient kingdom of Israel. Centuries of persecution and propaganda gave this dream a sense of urgency and, at the end of the Nineteenth Century, Theodor Herzl and other Jewish leaders throughout the world mobilized to establish a new Jewish state. Their dream inspired persecuted Jews throughout the world to courageously find refuge in Palestine in search of a better life for themselves and their children. Without their bravery and determination, the rebirth of Israel never would have been possible. The unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust further cemented the necessity of a Jewish state, and Israel was finally established as a sovereign and independent nation on May 14, 1948.

The State of Israel was founded on the ideals of pluralism, freedom, and human rights and has maintained these democratic ideals in the face of war, terrorism, and frequent diplomatic isolation. Israel has served as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and its shared values with the United States has led to a natural kinship between the two nations. We have maintained a strong alliance with Israel based on friendship, principles, strategy, and a commitment to defeat terror.

Israel's determination to maintain its democratic principles in the face of relentless threats to its citizens has been admirable. We salute this accomplishment and we must work with Israel to defeat terrorist threats to the institutions that nurture democracy and prosperity in our two countries and throughout the world.

Since we celebrated this day a year ago, Israel has experienced an increased sense of optimism for the achievement of a full and lasting peace. The newly elected leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has publicly denounced terrorism and has vowed to both crack down on militants and to root out corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has demonstrated his commitment to peace by preparing for the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank. Although the realization of a full and lasting peace in Israel remains distant, we must embrace these developments as a reflection of the cautious optimism embodied in Israel's national anthem, Hatikvah, which means ``the hope.'' We hope that Israel will continue to serve as the ``light unto the nations'' that Herzl envisioned more than a century ago and that Israel's 58th year will be a time of peace throughout the region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate what would have been the 185th birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. This week also marks the 3rd annual National Nurses Week, which will be observed May 6th through May 12th.

The 2.7 million registered nurses in the United States bear the primary responsibility for the care and well-being of hospital patients and are the largest single component of the health care profession. Unfortunately, our nation faces a serious shortfall in the number of nurses available; too few nurses are caring for too many patients. According to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, our nation could face a shortage of 800,000 nurses by the year 2020. As our population ages and as health care costs continue to escalate, government, hospitals, and policy advocates must work together to combat this problem.

The theme of National Nurses Week 2005 is Nurses: Many Roles, One Profession. In addition to their tireless hands-on efforts caring for patients, nurses are constantly involved in health education, research, business, and public policy. Having met with numerous nurses from the 29th district of California, I know first hand the needs of nurses of America. That is why I support House Resolution 245, which will recognize the important contributions of nurses to the health care system and the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week. I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring some of America's greatest heroes, our nurses.

Madam Chairman, in February of this year, I introduced bipartisan legislation with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005. The Schiff-Bono bill represents a comprehensive effort to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts in order to crack down on criminal street gangs. The bill is virtually identical to bipartisan legislation that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress and has since been reintroduced by Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, and Grassley.

Madam Chairman, the bipartisan Schiff-Bono anti-gang bill had three core objectives. First, it created a RICO-like statute specifically tailored to street gangs in order to bring these networks down in the same way we bring down organized crime through RICO. Second, our legislation increased

a host of gang and violent crime penalties in order to deter and punish illegal street gangs. And finally the Schiff-Bono bill included important funding for prevention and intervention efforts in order to attack the gang problem at its roots.

The sponsor of the bill before us today has spent much time on highlighting the groups that have supported his bill. The Schiff-Bono and Feinstein-Hatch bills are also endorsed by these groups and a host of other law enforcement organizations. With all due respect to my colleague from Virginia on the opposite side of the aisle, the most significant difference between the bill I introduced prior to the bill that is now before us is that all of the prevention funding in the Senate bill and in my own bipartisan bill has been stripped out of the anti-gang measure, and all we are left with is the deterrence.

Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, the committee leadership rejected the opportunity to address this national problem in a bipartisan fashion. Instead, the majority introduced the bill before us today after our bill was introduced that essentially increases the same penalties that our bill increases, but instead via mandatory minimums. The bill also remarkably cuts out the bipartisan provisions devoted to expanding and enhancing community-based and law enforcement prevention and intervention programs targeting criminal street gangs, gang members, and at-risk youth.

These prevention and intervention provisions are largely law enforcement in nature. And, Madam Chairman, I want to point out these provisions that have been stripped out of my bill that are in the present form in this bill have the support of law enforcement. Law enforcement does not support removing those from the legislation. They are also part of the bipartisan bill in the Senate sponsored, as I mentioned, by Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Cornyn, Grassley, and Kyl. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize that a complete approach to addressing the problem of criminal street gangs must include prevention and intervention measures that attack the problem at its roots.

Yes, we need deterrence as my bill provided. But we need prevention as well. And, unfortunately, I think it is quite clear that this body is no longer in the business of legislating, but rather of leveraging. The legislation before us today is merely an attempt to leverage the Senate. It will not come back in this form, and I intend to oppose it today in the hopes that we will get a better bill coming back from the Senate, as I am confident we will.

Madam Chairman, when I took office in the California State Senate, I introduced a host of anti-crime measures as, indeed, I have done here.

At the same time, I realized then, as I realize now, that we also have to take steps to intervene immediately and address juvenile crime at its roots and try to prevent young people from getting into trouble. And this, I think, is the fundamental issue before us. We can pay now, or we can pay later. A small amount to preventive funding that we invest now saves us a lot on the back end.

Madam Chairman, in my home State of California, when we incarcerate a juvenile, it costs us $90,000 a year. Investing a small amount on the front end in time-tested and true programs that keep kids out of trouble makes infinite sense, both in terms of dollars saved and in terms of lives saved.

And my hope, Madam Chairman, because my amendment to restore this funding was not allowed by the Rules Committee, we were not allowed to put it to my colleagues on the House floor for a vote, I hope, Madam Chairman, it comes back from the Senate in a form that we can both support on both sides of the aisle.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I want to respond very briefly to the chairman's point. I have the greatest respect for my chairman as well.

Yes, it is true that the Feinstein-Hatch amendment that I offered in committee did not enjoy broad support on either side of the aisle. Some on my side of the aisle thought the sentencing enhancements in this bipartisan legislation were too strong and could not support it. But the other amendment, Madam Chairman, that I offered that would simply reinstate all the preventive funding, all of the proactive funding in the bill, that was rejected by every Republican member of the committee. Not a single GOP member of the Committee on the Judiciary would support the prevention funding in committee. And we do not have the ability to raise that issue on the House floor.

It is my earnest hope, however, that in conference with the Senate, which I hope will insist that we not only have a back-end strategy for dealing with the crime problem of gangs but that we have a front-end strategy as well and that we will have the chance to address this again in conference committee, and that funding will be restored.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate May 2005 as National Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

I am proud to represent the 29th District of California, home to one of the largest Asian American and Pacific Islander populations in Southern California; almost one-fourth of my constituents are of Asian Pacific heritage. Earlier this year I had the honor of naming Temple City, City Councilmember Judy S. Wong and Alice Lan-Hua Hwang 29th Congressional District Women of the Year for 2005 in recognition of their contributions to our community.

Countless lives in Southern California benefit from the leadership provided by these women and other prominent Asian Pacific Americans such as Board of Equalization Member John Chiang, Assembly Members Judy Chu and Carol Liu, Alhambra City Council Member Gary Yamauchi, Alhambra School Board Members Robert Gin and Chester Chau, Altadena Town Council Member Lucille Hino, Glendale Community College Trustee Victor King, Monterey Park Mayor Mike Eng, Monterey Park City Council Members Betty Tom Chu and David Lau and Monterey Park City Treasurer Mitchell lng, Garvey School Board Members Henry Lo and John Yuen, Temple City School Board Member Edward Chen, South Pasadena Council Member Mike Ten, South Pasadena School Board Member Joseph Loo, San Gabriel City Council Member Chi Mui and San Gabriel School Board Member Ken Tcheng.

This week the House considered a resolution honoring the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to American society over the past thirty years. The consideration of this bill is timely as this year marks the 30th anniversary of the fall of South Vietnan to Communist rule. Over the course of three decades, through perseverance and hard work, the 1.5 million Vietnamese who resettled in the United States have been able to build new lives and form a vibrant community which has strengthened our nation immeasurably. Yet this community has not forgotten its heritage and has worked tirelessly to promote democracy and freedom in Vietnam; to extend the same rights they enjoy to the people of the land they were forced to leave.

From every tragedy springs a new hope. The fall of Saigon resulted in a world refugee crisis of historic proportions, creating over three million refugees. But were it not for this event, America would not be the same. As with millions of other Asian and Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese Americans have enriched our society and woven their own traditions into the beautiful tapestry that is America. I would like to thank the Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for their contribution to our district and society, our community would be incomplete without them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak in the place of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Congress that the stress on our Armed Forces of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had raised the risk that it will take longer to prevail in conflicts elsewhere around the world. While General Myers stressed that American troops would still succeed, he acknowledged that the ongoing pace of operations has strained the military and would have a negative impact on operations, including the possibility of higher American casualties.

General Myers' candid assessment is both welcome and, to me, self- evident. A growing number of current and former military officers are expressing strong concern over the strain being placed on our Armed Forces, and for good reason: our Armed Forces are too small and the demands on them are too great.

``What keeps me awake at night,'' General Richard Cody, vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, testified in a recent Senate hearing, ``is what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?'' General Cody's concerns are professional and personal. He is the father of two sons who are captains in the U.S. Army. Right now those sons are deployed on their second and third tours of combat since September 11.

Throughout the country, men and women in the Guard and Reserve are being called up repeatedly to serve. Indeed, the line between those in the Guard and Reserve and those on active duty is being blurred beyond recognition. We can no longer ask a small group of men and women to bear such a disproportionate and growing share of the burden. We must expand the standing Army and Marine Corps to provide adequate resources for our long-term national security.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, American policymakers downsized the military in hopes of reaping a peace dividend. Our mistake at the end of the Cold War was to consider the vastly diminished threat of nuclear annihilation as signaling what one commentator called ``the end of history.'' Even as the Soviet Union broke apart, new threats, failed States, radical Islamic terrorism and ethnic and religious strife quickly advanced to challenge the United States. The need for the forward deployment of large numbers of American troops in Western Europe may have largely disappeared, but the end of the bipolar international system has led to much greater instability elsewhere.

Before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the conflicts in Somalia, in Haiti and in Kosovo, already demonstrated some of the challenges that we confront in the post-Cold War era. Throughout the 1990s, even as the U.S. military maintained a significant presence in Europe, South Korea and in the Gulf region, U.S. forces engaged in these large-scale deployments. American troops are still operating in some of these areas and participating in other smaller peacekeeping operations. Despite the high tempo of activity, the strength of the active duty Army and Marine Corps went from 929,000 in 1990 to 655,000 in 2000.

While we are fighting the war on terrorism and the Iraq war and trying to meet our other commitments, the strength of our active duty Army and Marine Corps has increased only slightly in the last 5 years. At the end of 2004, 671,000 Americans were serving on active duty in the Army and Marines and virtually all of the modest increase in troop strength has come as a result of stop-loss and other measures that have kept soldiers in the force beyond the period of their enlistments.

To meet its needs, the military has mobilized hundreds of thousands of Reserve and National Guard personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many called to service multiple times and others activated from the Individual Ready Reserve. Because the gulf between the expectations of those joining the Guard and Reserve and the reality of today's service is so great, morale has suffered and recruitment is down.

President Bush warned the American people that the war on terror would not be easy or quick. He asked the country to make a generational commitment to promote democracy around the world. But as this applies to adequate troop strength, the administration's rhetoric has not been matched with action.

The defense authorization bill increased end strength of 20,000 for the Army and 3,000 for the Marine Corps. It also authorized an additional 10,000 Army and 6,000 Marines to be added in the next 5 years. This expansion is a beginning. The administration and Congress, though, need to take steps to increase the size of our Armed Forces by a far more substantial amount. Recently, a bipartisan group of national security experts recommended increasing the active duty Army and Marine Corps by a combined 25,000 per year for several years. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark has called for an additional 90,000 troops to be added to the Army's ranks.

Our Armed Forces are the best in the world, but even the best can be asked to do too much with too few. As we continue our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and confront potential challenges in North Korea, Iran and elsewhere, we must acknowledge that our current force level does not meet our security needs.

Beefing up our recruiting efforts will not be easy, but we have little choice.

The magnitude of the threats we face presents too great a risk to the Nation's security given our current strength of active duty military.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we all hope and pray we never have to make need of these additional troops. But knowing we have a larger Armed Force if the urgency arises should help us all sleep a little better at night, including General Cody and his sons.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the one and a half million Armenians who perished in the Armenian Genocide that began 90 years ago on April 24, 1915. This is a sacred obligation that we undertake each April--to ensure that future generations of Americans remember the first genocide of the 20th century and to ensure that the men, women and children who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire are not lost to history.

Mr. Speaker, there is no dispute that what happened to the Armenian people is genocide. Thousands of pages of documents sit in our National Archives. One of these documents is a report from the American Consul in Trebizond, Oscar Heizer. On July 28, 1915, Heizer cabled the U.S. Embassy in Constantinople to report on the massacre of 180 Armenian road workers, who were shot and stripped of their clothes before being buried in the woods.

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.''

Prominent citizens of the day, including America's Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and Britain's Lord Bryce reported on the massacres in great detail. Morgenthau was appalled at what he would later call the ``sadistic orgies'' of rape, torture and murder. Lord Bryce, a former British Ambassador to the United States, worked to raise awareness of and money for the victims of what he called ``the most colossal crime in the history of the world.'' In October 1915 the Rockefeller Foundation contributed $30,000--a sum worth more than half a million dollars today--to a relief fund for Armenia.

Last week at the annual commemoration of the genocide here on the Hill, I had the honor to meet, Henry Morgenthau, the grandson of Ambassador Morgenthau. He is still carrying on his grandfather's mission to make America and the world aware of what happened.

The generation of Armenians with direct memory of the genocide is almost gone; their children are aging. Much of the rest of the world has moved on, reluctant to dredge up ``unpleasant'' memories and risk the ire of modern Turkey.

But even now, almost a century after the start of the genocide, some survivors are still with us. One of them, Ghazaros Kademian, is a constituent of mine. He is 96 now, but his mind is sharp and he remembers clearly the day when, as a six-year-old boy he and his family were forced from their house. He was from the village of Zaitoun, located southeast of present day Turkey. Kademian's father stayed behind to defend his homeland and was murdered. His mother took his hand and ran away.

Kademian and his mother had no shoes, coats, food, or money. They had to leave everything behind for the Turks. He does not remember all the details of their long journey, except it was harsh, cold, and dangerous, because they had no idea where they were going.

The boy and his mother ended their flight in Kirkuk, in what is now northern Iraq. He remembers very vividly that the first night in Kirkuk they hugged each other for warmth and slept in front of a church for protection. In the morning he woke up; but his mother did not move, she was frozen and dead. He was left alone, homeless, in a town where he did not speak the same language.

What happened to Ghazaros Kademian's family was terrible and tragic, but not uncommon. All over the Ottoman Empire Armenian children and their parents fled from their homes with only the clothes on their backs. But for those of us who care deeply about this issue, Kadmian's story is a reminder that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our nation, which has championed liberty and human rights throughout its history, is not comp1icit in Ankara's effort to obfuscate what happened between 1915 and 1923. Worse still, by tacitly siding with those who deny the Armenian Genocide, we have rendered hollow our commitment to ``never again'' let genocide occur.

Within the next few days, several of my colleagues and I will be introducing a resolution commemorating the Armenian genocide. This should be an easy resolution for all of us--Republicans and Democrats-- to support.

The reason that we have yet to succeed in passing a resolution honoring the murdered Armenians is simple: The government of Turkey refuses to acknowledge the genocide and has spent millions of dollars and expended countless hours of diplomatic effort to prevent us from commemorating the suffering of the Armenian people. Turkey's opposition has always centered on its assertion that acknowledging the victims of its Ottoman forebears would cause an irreparable rift between the United States and an important ally.

Last summer, during consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to prohibit the Government of Turkey from using U.S. foreign aid to lobby against H. Res. 193, a resolution introduced by Representatives Radanovich, Schiff and the co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus, Representatives Knollenberg and Pallone, that officially recognizes the Armenian Genocide. H. Res. 193 had been cosponsored by 110 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

My amendment touched off a flurry of activity by Turkey's lobbyists. According to a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing, lobbyists for the Government of Turkey made at least 32 separate contacts with U.S. Government officials over a 3-day period in an attempt to kill my amendment. These included telephone calls to the Speaker of the House, other Members, numerous congressional staff, an Assistant Secretary of Defense, National Security Council staff, the Office of the Vice President, and other State and Defense Department staff.

While Ankara's agents did not succeed in blocking adoption of the amendment by the House, it was stripped in conference and the full House never did vote on the Genocide Resolution.

In the name of Ghazaros Kademian and those no longer with us, I call upon the distinguished Speaker of the House to allow us to vote on a Genocide resolution this year. We must do it soon, for with each year the events of 1915-1923 recede a bit more into the dark of history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 41

recognizing the second century of Big Brothers Big Sisters, the oldest and largest youth mentoring organization in the United States which celebrated its 100th anniversary last year.

I want to thank Representative Tom Osborne for joining me in introducing this resolution and for his strong advocacy of mentoring. I also want to thank Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Henry Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee for their diligence and helpfulness in getting this resolution to the Floor today. And I also appreciate and want to thank Senator John Ensign and Senator Christopher Dodd for their leadership in introducing this resolution in the Senate.

But the big heroes are the untold thousands of volunteers--Big Brothers and Big Sisters throughout the country--who for the last one hundred years have played critical roles in the mentoring of our nation's youth. Lastly and most of all, I would like to thank all of the Little Brothers and Little Sisters because they have been the ones to enrich our lives.

As you know, when Representative Osborne and I introduced this resolution in February, I came to the Floor to speak about my almost two decades of experience being a Big Brother, and my accomplished, now not-so-Little Brother, David. I was a young prosecutor in Southern California when I first became a Big Brother, and David was just seven years old. Through fun outings, good talks and merely spending time together, we learned a lot about each other and a lot about ourselves. He is now a Yale and USC film school graduate, and is emarking upon a wonderful career and many new adventures. Because of Big Brothers Big Sisters, I again experienced through David a child's wide-eyed optimism about the future, a teenager's eager determination to understand oneself and a young adult's pursuit of success.

Kids need to learn and mature in safe and nurturing environments, yet so many face difficult circumstances through broken families, poverty or simply a lack of opportunities. These situations create an emotional burden very heavy to bear at any age, but especially upon children. In some cases, these burdens are too much to bear, and a child who could have contributed greatly to society takes a much more destructive path. We can prevent this from happening. Through Big Brothers Big Sisters and like-minded organizations, we can reach those at risk of delinquency, and help them lead productive lives. Our children truly are an investment in the future, and all of those who have participated in mentoring know that it is an investment that pays off greatly.

Since 1904, Big Brothers Big Sisters has been enabling Americans to make this investment--hundreds of thousands of times over, one child at a time. We thank Big Brothers Big Sisters for the magnificent contribution they have made to our country and we look forward to many more years of continuing success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadana, California. During the months of February and March, the First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena will be celebrating its 100th Anniversary.

The church began in 1905 and was led by Founding Pastor Dr. John W. Goodwin with 54 members that met in each others' homes. As the congregation grew, the church moved to Mary Street in 1906, then Raymond Avenue, Mountain Street, and finally Sierra Madre Boulevard, where it resides today. Today the church has over 2,000 members, which includes a congregation with nine different cultural backgrounds.

First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena had several Pastors, including Pastors J.W. Ellis, Earl G. Lee, H.B. London, Jr., Dr. Stephen Green, Dr. Jeff Crosno and the current Pastor, Jay Ahlemann. One of the church's notable members was James Dobson, Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family, and his wife Shirley, who were members for over 30 years.

The church has many programs that serve the community. The Compassionate Ministries program consists of: Helping Hands--a food and clothing facility on the church campus, Church in the Park--service to the homeless on Sunday mornings, EI Centro Trabajo--an

advocacy organization for day laborers, and a South Central Los Angeles food distribution center. Compassionate Ministries fed and clothed more than 22,000 people last year.

Other programs include PrimeTime which provides fellowship for seniors and Loveline, a phone ministry for homebound seniors. In His Image serves families of special needs children on a weekly basis, providing Sunday School classes, parent connections and support groups, respite events for the parents, an all-inclusive sports programs for the entire family and special events like the Special Olympics Unified Basketball event, San Gabriel Valley Region. Parent Education Seminars, Support Groups through the Recovery Ministries, Sunday School, Sunrise Preschool and Academy of the Arts are also among the many services that the First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena offers to its members and the community.

I am proud to recognize the First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena for its 100 years of offering a place of loving care and joyous worship to the people of the San Gabriel Valley and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the congregation for their remarkable achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise may to congratulate the Glendale Salvation Army for 80 years of providing outstanding social services to the City of Glendale and surrounding communities.

Established on June 1, 1925, the Glendale Salvation Army has a firm vision of maintaining a multi-program facility while serving a multi- ethnic neighborhood. The Glendale Salvation Army provides spiritual social services and excellent community outreach.

The Salvation Army participates in several outstanding programs that bring hope to the hearts of those that walk through their doors. Meals on Wheels provides hot, nutritious meals to those unable to leave their homes or prepare their own food. Volunteer drivers deliver the meals and socialize with the recipients. The Lord's Kitchen is a growing partnership with nine Glendale churches that help Glendale's homeless and low-income families with food and rental or utilities assistance. The Nancy Painter Home is a partnership with the City of Glendale and U.S. Housing and Urban Development. The home provides hope for families trapped in a cycle of homelessness. Six families with children may live in the facility for up to 2 years while they put their lives back together. The Salvation Army is also supportive of Silvercrest which is a 78 unit senior low-income housing complex. In addition, the organization supports an outstanding after school tutoring program for middle school students. These are just some of the exemplary services that the Glendale Salvation Army provides to meet the specific needs within the community. Each program remains faithful to the Army's vital mission.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating the Glendale Salvation Army for 80 years of exemplary public service, and for its immense commitment to the City of Glendale and its residents.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 35th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which is considered the birth of the modern environmental movement in this country. In the 3\1/2\ decades since, it was first celebrated in 1970, Earth Day has become a day for reflection, a day for education, and a day for action. It provides an annual benchmark by which we can measure our progress as stewards of our planet.

That stewardship is about more than preserving pristine wilderness and endangered species. Our economic and national security are also at stake. The biggest impediment to sound environmental policies in the United States comes from those who see environmentalism as competing with our economic prosperity and our national security.

The energy bill that was just considered by the House was advertised by its supporters as providing security for America by reducing our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. It does this through $8 billion in tax breaks to encourage domestic production.

Unfortunately, 95 percent of the tax subsidies benefit the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries, while only 5 percent are directed towards wind, solar and other renewable sources. In my opinion, the energy bill is a short-sighted response to two of the central strategic challenges confronting our country, beginning the transition to a post-fossil-fuel economy and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases that every reputable scientist knows are contributing to global warming.

We cannot drill our way to energy independence. We cannot burn our way to a cleaner environment. We cannot go on behaving as if time and resources are on our side.

Rather than making America more secure, the energy bill does the opposite. Both economically and in terms of our national security, the policies enshrined in this bill will make us profoundly weaker.

In doing so, we have shied away from the challenge of developing new ways of powering our lives by unleashing the driving force behind America economic competitiveness, technological innovation mixed with entrepreneurship.

And while America sits on the sidelines, our competitors in Europe and Asia are developing technologies that will enable them to reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Rather than American entrepreneurs driving these changes, it is our competitors who prosper.

In just one graphic example, there are 6-month waiting lists to buy Japanese hybrids while American car makers fall further and further behind.

In addition to environmental and economic considerations, there are equally compelling national security reasons to confront the scarcity and costs of oil, the challenge of global warming and environmental degradation. Imagine the increased strength, independence, and security that would come to an America that could tell the oil-producing nations, we do not need your oil, we do not want your oil, we can do better. And imagine the risk to America if we negligent the sobering evidence of global warming.

Last year the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment issued a report on the national security aspects of climate change. The report evaluated one scenario in which the Earth's climate rose by 5 degrees in North America over a 15-year period between 2005 and 2020. The consequences of such a rapid temperature increase were myriad and catastrophic: drought, fire, storms and sea levels that rose around the world, flooding heavily populated coastal regions.

Unfortunately, the administration has failed to provide leadership or vision on this issue. Senior level positions at the National Security Council and in the Department of Defense dealing with the security threat of environmental degradation have been downgraded or eliminated. From the President on down, this administration has had a contempt for science that is at odds with its policy or belief.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at a time when this Nation should be marshaling its talents and resources for a new Manhattan Project to make practical solar, wind, and wave energy, we have instead opted to subsidize the extraction of every last barrel of oil and ton of coal that we can get our hands on.

Even as we have driven up the financial burden on our children through reckless fiscal policies, we are imperiling their very existence through willful neglect of our responsibilities to the environment. I can only hope that we will not have to tell our grandchildren, to paraphrase the words of Kurt Vonnegut, We could have saved the Earth, but we were too darned cheap.

Mr. Speaker, in his second inaugural address in January, President Bush declared that ``the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.'' Today, along with my colleague from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, I introduce legislation to aid that expansion by honoring the work of courageous men and women all over the world who strive to advance human rights and democratic values within their own countries and throughout the international community.

The Liberty List will be an independent annual report issued by the State Department to highlight the work of individuals and organizations, including the media, who promote the development of liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights. In addition to honoring these individuals and organizations for their important contributions to their societies, the Liberty List will draw attention to the conditions against which the honorees struggle and will offer some protection for honorees by identifying them to the international community. A few individuals and groups, such as Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League, for Democracy NLD, are known around the world for their struggle. Yet, for every individual who is known to the international community, there are many other heroes who deserve recognition and support as they risk their own lives for the improvement of others.

The Liberty List is fundamentally different from the existing State Department Report on International Religious Freedom and the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Current reports focus on the human rights records of national governments; they deal with the imposition of state power. The Liberty List, in contrast, will spotlight individuals and organizations who are working against that power to build freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights.

Leaders in the struggle for freedom and democracy around the world deserve recognition for the sacrifices and their struggles. It is through the work of individuals, who struggle at the local and national levels to improve the lives of their families, friends, and neighbors, that democracy, freedom, and human rights will prevail. The Liberty List Act will establish a means by which the United States can honor these men and women as they strive to make the world a better, safer place.

I urge my colleagues to join Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night I took an amendment to the Rules Committee asking the committee to permit this body to consider allowing each Member the opportunity to approve that amendment or reject it. The Republican majority on the Rules Committee, however, rejected giving Members that opportunity.

My amendment would have simply provided that if more than one half of the creditor claims against you in bankruptcy are the result of identity theft, you should not be forced out of the protections of chapter 7. It was similar to an amendment offered by Senator Nelson of Florida, but was even narrower than that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the manager of the identity theft at the FTC commented on how identity theft was becoming rampant in this country, that it wreaks havoc on the credit of the victim and can even force them into bankruptcy. Since then, the problem has grown even worse, and an estimated 27.3 million Americans have fallen victim to identity theft in the last 5 years.

We have all heard of recent breaches of massive databases holding personal information. On Monday, the parent company of the Lexis-Nexis reported that 310,000 people, nearly 10 times more than the original estimate reported last month, may have had their personal information stolen, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers.

And this is not an isolated incident. Identity thieves have gained access to Choicepoint's database and personal information has been stolen and compromised from a major bank, department of motor vehicles, and a number of universities. Added together, these recent incidents in the last several weeks alone have exposed more than 2 million people to possible ID theft.

During the Judiciary Committee consideration of my amendment, I cited two recent examples of identity theft victims who were forced to declare bankruptcy, one young woman defrauded out of $300,000 and another woman who was wiped out financially when her identity was stolen, forcing her to file for bankruptcy right before Christmas.

When I offered the amendment in the Judiciary Committee it provoked quite a debate as well as a disagreement between the Chair of the full committee and the Chair of the subcommittee. The Chair of the subcommittee argued that my amendment would somehow do harm, while the Chair of the full committee argued that the problem with my amendment was that it did nothing at all. The chairman of the subcommittee then argued that the problem was that this issue had never been explored. However, the chairman of the full committee argued that this issue, and every other, had already been explored.

Well, Mr. Speaker and Members, it cannot be both. The chairman of the subcommittee even pondered what would happen if a person had their identity stolen, but then later became wealthy and had the ability to pay off their debt. While admitting that he was stretching, he still urged his colleagues to reject the amendment because it would ``clearly disrupt the whole process of moving forward the bill.'' Thus prompting a question: When is a markup not really a markup? And the answer is, whenever the bankruptcy bill is in committee.

This is now the third session in a row where essentially no amendments have been entertained in committee and no amendments have been allowed here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, last year the House supported identity theft legislation cracking down on identity thieves. This amendment gives us the chance to protect some of those who have been victimized by identity theft, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, 174 years ago, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall warned: ``The greatest scourge in angry heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent judiciary.''

Despite Marshall's warning, quite remarkably, nearly 200 years later the very independence of the judiciary, a matter so fundamental to our separation of powers, is still a matter of contention for some, particularly in this Congress.

For 2 years in a row now, Chief Justice Rehnquist has used his year- end report to highlight the deteriorating relationship between the judicial branch and the legislative branch, the result of a recent systematic congressional attack on the independence of the judiciary. Since I arrived in Congress, I have been quite surprised by the dreadful state of relations between our branches and the absence of the comity that historically existed between the two.

The Federal caseload continues to rise at a record pace, reaching new levels. Courthouse funding is woefully inadequate, failing to meet the needs of our Federal courts in order to carry out their mission and to make necessary improvements in priority areas such as court security. Judicial confirmations continue to be mired in political brinksmanship. Judicial compensation has not kept pace with inflation and congressional inaction on an annual basis has led to delays in important adjustments, despite the President's admonition for Congress to act.

The House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I sit, has initiated investigations of judges charged with judicial misconduct, matters that were previously left to circuit judicial councils, and the word ``impeachment'' has been used quite loosely and frequently as a threat.

A few weeks ago, these threats reached a fever pitch with talk, from the highest leadership levels of this body, of intentions to ``look at an unaccountable, arrogant, out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the President'' and a warning that ``the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.''

The Congress has also renewed its appetite for legislation that would strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction on a piecemeal basis from areas in which some are not pleased with the results that have been reached from the courts, or in areas where some are worried about potential outcomes down the road.

We have considered one bill which would remove Federal court jurisdiction over issues concerning the free exercise or the establishment of religion or over marriage. Should any Federal judge take up any issue involving that, the free exercise or the establishment of religion, he is subject to impeachment under the bill.

We had another proposal to remove jurisdiction of the courts over the Ten Commandments, another over the Pledge of Allegiance, and yet another to remove jurisdiction over any issue affecting the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law. Again, the penalty for a judge who inquires or exercises jurisdiction is impeachment, removal from office.

Perhaps we should simply remove the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over the entire first amendment and be done with it.

After moving to strip jurisdiction, we recently moved to provide jurisdiction, where the Federal courts should not have it, in the Schiavo matter; and the only common denominator seems to be the desire to obtain the preferred result from the bench, regardless of the constitutionally enshrined principles of the separation of powers and of federalism itself.

Congress has not stopped here, but has pursued proposals to split appellate court jurisdiction and even considered legislation that would decide for the judiciary what they may look at or include in their judicial opinions.

Does anyone in Congress believe that we can undermine the courts without belittling the Congress itself?

Some Supreme Court rulings, such as the decision with regard to the sentencing guidelines, remind us that

sometimes there will be judicial decisions that we believe are poorly reasoned and others we just do not like. However, efforts by the Congress to force the courts to look at our transient wishes, rather than the Constitution, would only serve to undermine the very institution in which we serve.

As a Member of Congress with a strong interest in improving the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, I have formed, with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a bipartisan congressional caucus dedicated to this goal. Our caucus consists of some 30 Members from both sides of the aisle, and I encourage my colleagues who share our goal to join our efforts to restore the historic comity between our two branches.

One hundred and seventy-four years ago, Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Marshall warned of the great scourge of a dependent judiciary to be inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people. Let us not forget his wise admonition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Southern California Presbyterian Homes for 50 years of providing outstanding housing and health care services to older adults throughout Southern California.

Southern California Presbyterian Homes, a nonprofit corporation, was founded in 1955, as a mission outreach of the Presbyterian Church, to provide quality housing, health, and support services for senior citizens regardless of faith, race, income, or ethnicity. The organization is dedicated to serving the needs of seniors that enrich the physical, social, and spiritual dimensions of their lives.

Southern California Presbyterian Homes has grown from its humble beginnings of one continuing care retirement community in La Jolla in 1955 to 38 facilities in 2005 and serving over 3,300 senior citizens. There are continuing care retirement communities, like Royal Oaks Manor in Bradbury and Windsor Manor in Glendale, that provide multi-level care from independent living through skilled nursing. Kirkwood of Glendale is an assisted living facility that provides a residential alternative to older adults who currently reside in a nursing home or their own homes, and need assistance with activities of daily living and specialized dementia care. Affordable housing facilities such as Rosewood Court in Pasadena, Casa de la Paloma, The Gardens, Otto Gruber House, Palmer House, and Park Paseo in Glendale provide excellent living opportunities and support services for senior with limited incomes. Southern California Presbyterian Homes also provides home and community-based services through its adult day health care center and through Southern California Presbyterian Homes Home Care.

I am proud to recognize Southern California Presbyterian Homes for its 50 years of compassionate care to senior citizens in Southern California and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Southern California Presbyterian Homes for their remarkable achievements.