Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me this time; and before the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce leaves, when he says that his committee is being asked to play a large role, the amount of that large role over the next 6 years is $12.7 billion. Now, that has to come out of the education budget somewhere. I cannot identify where it may come from, but the fact of the matter is it is going to be a cut.

Expressing their concern that the other body is not in session next week, our colleagues on the other side are forcing Members to consider a budget that was just filed at 2:45 this afternoon. I am curious how my colleagues expect the Members to educate themselves on this budget, and do not tell me, well, it has been in conference, because all of us know the mishmash that takes place there. Are they supposed to educate themselves by reading the titles and the tables of contents? If that is how I lived my life, then I would still think that J.D. Salinger's ``Catcher in the Rye'' is about a baseball player who loves to eat deli.

The truth of the matter is, our colleagues may not want us to know all that is in this particular budget.

Typically, the Committee on Rules reports a closed rule for conference reports, but the House and Senate Republicans have settled on a $2.6 trillion budget that increases the deficit, includes spending cuts that fall the hardest on those with the least in our society, and provides for more tax cuts that this country cannot afford. I do not know what part of not having guns and butter all of us do not understand in this body.

Regarding the deficit, the fiscal year 2006 Republican budget makes no attempt to rein in the nearly $400 billion projected deficit for this year. I maintain that the deficit is exactingly the largest problem that this Nation has and is the most difficult for Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, to explain to the American people. But without PAYGO in this budget, without some consideration being given in a serious way to the deficit, we can all expect that there are going to be real problems.

I believe this budget neglects America's children, neglects our seniors and veterans. I believe it underfunds our domestic priorities by billions, including veterans benefits; our education system; and perhaps most importantly during this dangerous time in history, homeland security.

Finally, the process by which we are bringing this to the floor is skewered in favor of Members not having sufficient time. America's budget problems are not going to go away, no matter how quickly we ram budgets through here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that addresses an important issue I have pursued through several Congresses. This bill forms a commission to examine how we, the people, may be best served by our representational democracy. This commission would analyze the current size of the membership of the House of Representatives and examine alternatives to the current method of electing Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation encapsulates an important idea whose time has come. We are one of the most underrepresentative democracies in the world. As a country that holds itself up as the standard bearer for the democratic process, we must continue to ensure our democracy gives all citizens an equal and meaningful voice in our government.

As events of the past few years have made clear, we are facing an electoral crisis. Voter turnout continues to fall as people lose more and more faith in the democratic process. We owe it to our constituents and each American citizen to closely examine all available options for ensuring maximum participation in this great democracy of ours.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. As Members of Congress, we have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Part of our duty is to

keep the promise of a true representational democracy as envisioned by our forefathers. This legislation furthers that goal. That is why I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this legislation forward.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment of critical importance to the health and well-being of minority, low-income, and other underserved communities.

It was barely 20 years ago when our Nation first became concerned with minority communities and the disproportionate impact pollution has on their health. Over the years, we have sought, and many have done good things to combat, these environmental injustices across community lines.

Following the lead of former President George H.W. Bush, who established the Office of Environmental Justice at EPA in 1994, then President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, titled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.

This order required that all appropriate Federal agencies collect data on the health and environmental impact of their programs and activities in minority and low-income populations, and then develop policies to achieve environmental justice. The order also required Federal agencies and their funding recipients to conduct their programs and implementing policies in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Despite the order, Federal efforts to achieve environmental justice have been minimal at best. In fact, in 2002, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded, ``There is inconsistency and unevenness in the degree to which agencies achieve integration of the environmental justice into their core mission.''

When I asked, just last week, about the future of environmental justice at EPA, an official stated, and I quote, ``What are we going to do for 2005?'' We do not know.

The amendment that I am offering today codifies Executive Order 12898. My amendment establishes offices of environmental justice in appropriate agencies and reestablishes the Interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice. Perhaps, most importantly, the amendment represents the first time ever that Congress has attempted to define the term ``environmental justice.''

Mr. Chairman, more than 70 percent of African Americans and Latinos, compared to only 58 percent of the majority community, live in counties which regularly fail to meet current clean air standards. In these areas, a disproportionate number of citizens are suffering from cancer, asthma, toxic poisoning and lung-related deaths.

In my own district, there are continuing problems in this area throughout the district and specifically in Ft. Lauderdale. People are literally dying from pollution in their own back yards. It is not by coincidence that the majority of power plants and refineries in the United States are built in low-incomes areas. The land is cheap, the political influence of the neighborhood is virtually nonexistent, and in the bill we are considering this week, such siting is actually encouraged.

This amendment does nothing to change existing policy, nor does it amend any provision in the bill. All that it does is ensure that avenues which currently exist will always exist for underserved communities wishing to seek recourse when poor energy and environmental policies adversely affect their health and well being.

I implore my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 30 seconds to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but sometimes enough is enough and Members want to go home.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of naming the 4960 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, California post office after one of America's greatest musical artists, Ray Charles. As an international icon who mastered many styles from blues and jazz to rock `n' roll and gospel, Ray Charles deserves this recognition

Born Ray Charles Robinson in Albany, Georgia on September 23, 1930, he would later shorten his name to Ray Charles to avoid confusion with boxer Sugar Ray Robinson. Ray's inspirational life story is well known but deserves retelling.

Blind since childhood and orphaned as a teenager, Ray Charles lived a life that traveled from despair to fame to redemption. He had been playing piano since he was three years old. In 1937, he entered the St. Augustine School for the Deaf and Blind as a charity student, studied classical piano and clarinet, and learned to read and write music in Braille. Both his parents died by the time Ray turned 15.

At that age, Ray Charles left school and joined dance bands in Florida, then moved to Seattle, where a talent content appearance led to work playing at the Elks Club. He formed the McSon Trio with two other musicians--a group modeled on the Nat King Cole jazz group--and they soon moved to Los Angeles where they recorded their first single ``Confession Blues,'' which Charles wrote.

Throughout his life, Ray Charles overcame racial prejudice, drug addiction and other setbacks to forge a singular life in music and popular culture, and as a media celebrity. Charles' intense renditions of classic songs earned him the nickname ``The Genius.''

Charles' litany of awards is numerous. He was an original inductee into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He is also a member of the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame, the Blues Hall of Fame, the Songwriters' Hall of Fame, the Grammy Hall of Fame, the Jazz Hall of Fame, the Florida Artists Hall of Fame, and the Georgia Music Hall of Fame to name some. His definitive version of Hoagy Carmichael's 1930 classic ``Georgia on My Mind'' (1960) became the official state song of Georgia.

Ray said once, ``Music's been around a long time, and there's going to be music long after Ray Charles is dead. I just want to make my mark, leave something musically good behind. If it's a big record, that's the frosting on the cake, but music's the main meal.''

Mr. Speaker, we all can dine on his wide assortment of musical treats. Ray Charles' American legacy is well served by the naming of a public building after him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding life of Dr. Samuel P. Massie, who passed away at the age of 85 on April 10, 2005.

Dr. Massie, a chemistry professor, was the first African American to teach at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

As a young graduate student, Dr. Massie worked on the Manhattan Project where he and other scientists made liquid compounds of Uranium for the making of an atomic bomb. He also conducted pioneering silicon chemistry research and investigated antibacterial agents. Dr. Massie held the patent for chemical agents effective in battling gonorrhea. Additionally, he received awards for research in combating malaria and meningitis, worked on drugs to fight herpes and cancer and developed protective foams against nerve gases.

Dr. Massie was a former professor at several historically black colleges including my alma mater, Fisk University. Dr. Massie was instrumental in encouraging African American and other minority students to pursue science careers.

Samuel Proctor Massie Jr. was born in North Little Rock, Arkansas, the son of two schoolteachers. It is purported that he could read at a third grade level by the time he entered the first grade. He graduated high school at the age of 13 and went on to graduate Summa Cum Laude in chemistry from Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical and Normal College (now the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff) in 1936. He then received a Master's degree in Chemistry from Fisk University in 1940.

I met Dr. Massie when I was a student at Fisk University, where he was teaching physical chemistry. It was an extremely difficult class and as a boy who had received an education in the rural, segregated south, all of this was unfamiliar territory. I was failing his class and Dr. Massie came to me and said, ``Young man, you're going to fail this class, sign this card and drop the class.'' I did, and Dr. Massie credits himself as the reason I became a lawyer.

Dr. Massie was a remarkable chemist, academician, and friend. His accomplishments are too many to mention and the lives he's impacted too numerous to count. He will forever be remembered for his character and his extraordinary work.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform released its report highlighting a variety of reforms that need to occur in our country's faltering election system. While I did not agree with all of the Commission's views, I did agree with the report's recommendation to establish a federal holiday on Election Day.

Today, my good friend from California, Representative Honda, and I are taking the Commission's recommendation one step further and introducing the Election Weekend Act of 2005. Our bill changes our nation's Election Day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first consecutive Saturday and Sunday in November. Furthermore, it expresses the sense of Congress that private sector employers provide their employees with one day off during Election Weekend to allow them ample opportunity and time to cast their ballot without having to leave work.

Each Election Day, employees are faced with the difficult task of balancing their work schedules with their family responsibilities, while trying to fInd time to make it to the polls. Our bill recognizes the undue amount of pressure Americans face when trying to participate in the democratic process. It acknowledges the fact that a great deal of Americans are unable to leave their jobs in the middle of the day and vote because our elections occur on a Tuesday, a day when almost all Americans are working.

As more and more Americans enter the workforce, the choice they are forced to make between working or voting has resulted in decreased voter turnout. Turnout is even smaller in low and middle income communities where individuals do not enjoy the luxury of taking a three hour lunch to eat and vote. For many, the hour they lose in wages when they go to the polls may mean the difference between paying the bills or fInding themselves out on the street.

It is irresponsible of us to continue forcing Americans to choose between a paycheck, family time, or democracy. It is the Constitutional privilege of every American to vote. In moving our nation's Election Day to the first full weekend in November and extending it from one day to two days, we recognize the responsibility that we have to our constituents and our democratic heritage. We should be doing everything we can to protect the integrity of our election system by not only encouraging Americans to vote, but making it more convenient for them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it was barely 20 years ago when the nation first became concerned with minority communities and the disproportionate impact from polluting facilities. At that time, we referred to this problem as environmental racism. This was a term which strongly depicted the harsh reality and the disparities of environmental policy or practices affecting individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color. In the last decade, the pursuit against environmental racism has been transformed into an effort to achieve environmental justice in all socio-economic communities, suggesting that we are making wiser environmental policy decisions and engaging in a proactive approach.

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. EO 12898 required that all appropriate federal agencies collect data on the health and environmental impact of their programs and activities on ``minority populations'' and ``low-income populations'' and to develop policies to achieve environmental justice. EO 12898 also requires federal agencies and their funding recipients to fully comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by conducting their programs and implementing policies in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Despite EO 12898, federal efforts to achieve environmental justice have been minimal at best. In fact, in 2002, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held hearings on the issue and concluded that due to organizational and financial limitations, ``there is inconsistency and unevenness in the degree to which agencies achieved integration of environmental justice into their core mission.'' It also noted that ``current funding and staffing levels [at federal agencies] undermine meaningful Title VI enforcement at a time when there are increasing judicial barriers to enforcing Title VI.''

I come to the floor today to introduce legislation that expands the definition of environmental justice, directs each Federal Agency to establish an office of environmental justice, reestablishes the interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice, and requires that EO 12898 remain in force until changed by law. My legislation represents a significant step in ensuring that current and future federal policies reflect the intentions and goals of EO 12898 and protect minority and low-income communities from poor environmental and energy decisions and policies.

I ask for my colleagues support, and urge the House Leadership to expeditiously bring this critical legislation to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the time.

Before yielding myself such time as I may consume, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this closed rule and S. 256. Once again, the majority has squelched debate on a controversial piece of legislation for no legitimate reason.

More than 35 Democratic amendments were offered in the Rules Committee yesterday. Yet none have been made in order. Why? There is no reason for limiting the debate in this manner.

The House came into session on Tuesday and Members will leave town later this afternoon after just 2 days of work. Even more, there was only one other bill of substance before the House this week. The time to debate this bill and its offered amendments is available. The willingness to conduct meaningful business, however, is the missing ingredient. A 1-hour debate on legislation containing such sweeping reforms is not the way to conduct the people's business.

The argument will be made that this has been 9 years in the making. But a lot of this measure has been overcome by time, and that will be discussed by others later.

I am particularly disappointed that an amendment I offered is not being allowed to come before this body for consideration. My amendment seeks to prevent the very bankruptcies that are

causing this Congress so much consternation and is germane to the discussion. It requires credit card companies to preserve a customer's interest rate prior to incurring medical expenses if the customer is unable to pay off the full medical expenses on time. It also prohibits hospitals from reporting delinquent patients for 5 years, provided that the patient is paying 20 percent of his or her monthly mandated medical expenses.

All the information we have available suggests that medical bills are the second leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. It is, in my opinion, hypocritical to prevent debate on an amendment that could ameliorate some of the issues facing this bankruptcy reform legislation. Is not the whole point of this bill to make bankruptcy less frequent? If Members of Congress have ideas about how to accomplish that, should they not be heard?

Many other Members sought to introduce amendments, but have also been denied their opportunity to be heard. These amendments could have improved this legislation.

For example, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offered an amendment to exempt from the means test provision of debtors who have business losses incurred by a spouse who has died or deserted the debtor.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) offered an amendment that would exempt victims of identity theft. And the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), offered an amendment that imposes restrictions on issuing credit cards to college students. But none of those amendments, or the 31 others, will be debated today because the rule on this bill is closed.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert a list of all 35 amendments which the Republican majority has blocked from being considered in the Congressional Record.

Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for S. 256 and Denied

Consideration by the Rule (H. Res. 211)

1) Emanuel/Delahunt/Dingell--prevents debtors from

shielding their funds from bankruptcy liquidation through so-

called ``asset protection trusts;''

2) Filner--exempts disabled veterans from the bill's means

test;

3) Filner--exempts from the bill's means test consumers who

are victimized by identity theft;

4) Inslee--exempts from the bill's means test consumers

whose debts are the result of serious medical problems;

5) Delahunt--requires debtor corporations to file for

bankruptcy where their principal place of business is

located;

6) Sanders--establishes a ``usury rate'' for credit card

companies, above which credit card companies cannot charge

consumers;

7) Sanders--caps fees credit card companies can impose on

consumers at $15;

8) Sanders--prohibits credit card companies from changing

interest rates based on changes in consumers' credit

information;

9) Sanders--prohibits credit card companies from raising

interest rates based on consumer credit reports;

10) Ruppersberger--requires credit card solicitations to be

accompanied by a brochure explaining the consequences of the

irresponsible use of credit;

11) Schiff--exempts from the bill's means test consumers

who are victimized by identity theft, if at least 51% of the

creditor claims against them are due to identity theft;

12) Lofgren--exempts from the bill's means test 1) families

facing bankruptcy due to a serious medical hardship that

drains at least 50% of their yearly income, and 2) families

who lose at least one month of needed pay or alimony due to

illness;

13) Lofgren--exempt from the bill's means test a single

parent who failed to receive child or spousal support

totaling more than 50% of her or his household income;

14) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions: 1) debtors who have business losses incurred by a

spouse who has died or deserted the debtor 2) debtors who

have had serious illness in their family and 3) debtors who

have been laid off;

15) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have business losses incurred by a

spouse who has died or deserted the debtor;

16) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have had serious illness in their

family;

17) Scott (VA)--exempts from the bill's means test

provisions debtors who have been laid off from their jobs

through no fault of their own;

18) Nadler--sunsets the bill after 2 years;

19) Watt--prohibits annual credit card rates higher than

75%;

20) Watt--includes the costs of college in the calculation

of debtor's monthly expense;

21) Ruppersberger--exempts from the bill's means test

debtors who have declared bankruptcy due to high medical

expenses;

22) Hastings (FL)--prevents credit card companies from

increasing rates on consumers who use their credit cards to

pay for extraordinary medical expenses; also prevents

hospitals from generating negative credit information on

consumers who are paying their bills in good faith;

23) Meehan--Exempts from the means test disabled veterans

whose indebtedness occurred primarily as a result of an

injury or disability resulting from active duty or homeland

defense activities; closes a loophole in S. 256, which

exempts only disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs

primarily while on active duty while failing to exempt

disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs after they have

left active duty;

24) Jackson Lee--makes debts arising out of state sex

offenses non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings;

25) Jackson Lee--clarifies Congress' intent that nuclear

liabilities be covered by the Price-Anderson Act, and not by

bankruptcy laws;

26) Jackson Lee--makes debts arising out of penalties

imposed on businesses for false tobacco claims non-

dischargeable;

27) Jackson Lee--strikes the bill's means test provision;

28) Woolsey--requires credit counseling agencies to provide

free services to recent veterans of the military who served

in combat zones;

29) Slaughter--requires credit card companies to determine,

before they approve a credit card, whether a student

applicant has the financial means to pay off a credit card

balance; it restricts the credit limit to minimum balances if

the student has no independent income; and it requires

parental approval for credit limit increases in the event

that a parent cosigns the account;

30) Slaughter--applies the highest median income of any

county or Metropolitan Statistical Area in the state to all

residents of the state petitioning for bankruptcy protection;

31) Millender-McDonald--provides the bankruptcy courts a

higher percentage of the fees collected when a debtor files

for bankruptcy;

32) Maloney--ensures that debtors emerging from bankruptcy

make child credit payments first, before payments on credit

card debt. The current version of the bill does not ensure

that child support payments will have priority over the other

types of unsecured debts, such as credit card debt;

33) Meehan and Berman--provides a modest homestead

exemption for people who have suffered a major illness or

injury;

34) Jackson Lee--provides additional protections to debtors

who are the victims of identity theft;

35) Jackson Lee--increases the means test limit on

parochial school tuition expenses from $1,500 to $3,000, so

that families Chapter 13 bankruptcy can keep their children

in schools that conform to their deeply held religious

beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, the House has adopted a new modus operandi. We saw it earlier this year with the class action bill, and we are seeing it again today.

It seems that if the Republican leadership deems legislation important, and that is their prerogative, it is willing to push through the other body's version without the opportunity for debate here in the people's House on any amendments. This new method does a great disservice to the people of this Nation. Even more, it stops Members, Democrats and Republican, from serving as thoughtful, effective legislators.

The House of Representatives is the people's House. The Founding Fathers envisioned a forum for lively debate on the issues of the day, not the controlled steering of selected legislation with no opportunity for meaningful change.

What also concerns me is the unworkable means test contained in this legislation. I am greatly disturbed, as I know all the residents of south Florida will be, that this means test includes disaster assistance as a source of revenue.

People forced into dire financial circumstances through natural disasters should find bankruptcy a source of relief. Considering disaster assistance as a source of revenue adds insult to injury and contradicts the government's efforts to help people get back on their feet.

This legislation, masquerading as protection against bankruptcy abuse, is really a protection for credit card companies and their predatory lending practices. This legislation does not protect the American people. This legislation protects the credit industry at the expense of the American people.

Increasingly, credit card companies market their product to riskier consumers, and now they want the Congress to protect them from the losses that are the foreseeable result of this ill-sighted business strategy. Why are we not debating legislation that would address those practices, instead of eviscerating a crucial safety net that Americans rely on when all else fails?

Mr. Speaker, should it pass, this bill will severely curtail the ability of Americans to obtain relief from bankruptcy without solving any of its underlying causes. Medical bills, unemployment, and predatory lending practices are at the root of this problem. In the long run, the net effect of this legislation will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken our social structure and the Nation's economy.

I will not, and cannot, support such an attack on American consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and ``no'' on

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

My respect for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is immense, and he has thrust all of these hearings and all that were in committee where 40 Members of the Committee on the Judiciary had an opportunity to participate.

What we are talking about is today, 35 Members of the House of Representatives, 35 amendments are not being permitted today. So I guess the 40-plus people are the ones who are representing the near 395, 40-plus none for the American people. That would be what I would put on the table from the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), our newcomer, who is making her first statement as a Committee on Rules member.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the distinguished ranking member to respond to my colleague from Georgia by indicating, the last time I looked at the rules, it allowed that individual Members have a right to make amendments, and we are not required to offer a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What was the objection about?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, what is the ruling of the Chair?

Further parliamentary inquiry, so the gentlewoman from New York's request to put in the Record the material?

Mr. Speaker, there is objection to a Member's placing in the Record, a Member who had made a statement supporting the things that she asked to be submitted, that is being denied?

Mr. Speaker, with the Speaker's permission, I ask unanimous consent that the extraneous material offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) be made a part of the Record following her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of making a privileged motion to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my friend, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

(Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), my good friend, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

(Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield for a unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) from the Judiciary Committee, who had the opportunity to participate in some of those hearings, and is the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, just previous to the unanimous consent request, I was told by way of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) that we had 4\1/2\ minutes.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I am confused by the Chair's ruling. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, even though there is only 1 hour debate, a unanimous consent request by a Member that is not objected to is not permitted for extension of time?

Mr. Speaker, moving right along, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend this rule so we can vote on the Schiff amendment to help victims of identity theft. It will exempt from the bill's means test those consumers who are victimized by identity theft if it means 51 percent of the creditor claims against them are due to identity theft. This is a very reasonable and much-needed amendment, being debated in the Senate I might add, not on the bankruptcy measure, was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but unfortunately was blocked by the Republican majority by a straight party line vote.

Voting ``no'' on the previous question will not stop the bankruptcy bill from coming to the floor today. S. 256 will still be considered in this House before we leave for the weekend. However, a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from addressing one of the most serious consumer issues in this country, identity theft. And I ask for a ``no'' on the previous question.

We owe it to our constituents to take action on this serious and escalating problem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Ulysses Bradshaw Kinsey, who died on April 2, 2005. Mr. Kinsey, known as U.B. to all who loved and respected him, was born on June 27, 1918 in Fort White, Florida, one of ten children of Henry and Cora Kinsey. The family moved to Palm Beach County when Mr. Kinsey was just eight years old. Throughout his life, he was proud of the fact that, although he grew up in segregated times, he never drank from ``Colored'' water fountains.

Barred by law from attending the University of Florida, he could not pursue his dream of becoming an attorney. Instead, he attended Florida A&M and became a teacher. After graduation, he returned to Palm Beach County and was hired by his alma mater, Industrial High School, where he taught nearly every subject. At that time, starting white teachers were paid $50 more per month than their black counterparts. One month after starting, U.B. Kinsey and others challenged the school board over this policy. Future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall argued their case, and they won.

After their own victory, Mr. Kinsey and his fellow teachers began battling for the rights of black students. During World War II, black children were schooled only seven months a year, so they could provide cheap labor the rest of the time harvesting crops for local farmers. U.B. Kinsey and his colleagues won that battle, too, and black children were returned to a nine-month schedule. He went on to become assistant principal at Industrial High and, later, the first principal of Palmview Elementary. Along the way, Mr. Kinsey established a scholarship fund that annually provides three promising students from low-income families $1,000 each to attend college.

Over the next half-century, about 30,000 children passed through the doors of Palmview Elementary. The school was later re-named U.B. Kinsey/Palmview in his honor. At one point in his career, U.B. Kinsey was offered the opportunity to become an assistant superintendent of schools in charge of busing. He turned down the offer because he refused to take part in the busing of black children to white schools far from their neighborhoods. In the 1980s, as drug dealing became a problem near his school, Mr. Kinsey confronted many of the dealers and, out of respect for their former teacher, they stayed away from U.B. Kinsey Elementary.

After retiring in 1989, he co-founded a non-profit development company that secured funding to build a low-income housing development near his school. These are just a few of the remarkable accomplishments of Ulysses Bradshaw Kinsey. Generations of African-American children have benefited from the battles he fought and won to ensure that they got a proper education. His efforts are directly responsible for the graduation and ascension to higher education of countless black young people. His many victories that advanced the cause of civil rights in general earned him the gratitude of African-American citizens throughout Palm Beach County.

U.B. Kinsey was a beloved friend of mine. His stature in the education of Palm Beach County's children may be matched, but it will never be exceeded. This very fine gentleman, a truly great American, will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of Federal and State funded in-home care for the elderly. This legislation highlights the inadequacies seniors face with electing in- home care. By increasing financial assistance for in-home care, establishing fee payment guidelines, implementing better schooling for in-home aides, and assembling a supervisory board of care givers, we can help ensure the quality of care elderly receive in-home is as adequate as hospitalized attention.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution for three crucial reasons. First, it endorses the efforts of the elderly to remain independent and sustain their viability during the last years of their life. Supporting studies show that seniors who receive in-home care have greater life expectancies than seniors who are moved from everything that is familiar to them and placed in nursing homes. Second, this resolution promotes the expansion of employment opportunities in the nursing and in-home care industries. By implementing government funded in-home care to equal that of nursing home care, more seniors will elect to be nursed at home, which in turn increases job opportunities. Finally, this resolution encourages the establishment of better treatment and guidelines for students and schools who train certified nurse assistants and home health aides. Through adoption of uniformly high standards, we can ensure our seniors have access to qualified professionals when selecting in-home care. Each of these important ambitions are achievable through raising the quality of in-home care.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. As Members of Congress, we have a great opportunity to make a positive impact on this issue, an issue that is of concern to many of our grandparents, parents, and will be of concern to us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and moving this resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to His Holiness Pope John Paul II, who embodied the message of peace and compassion. John Paul II was a man of God and a missionary of faith. He led the Catholic Church through an eventful and revolutionary quarter century in the world, inspiring hundreds of millions of people in dozens of countries to throw the yoke of dictatorship and oppression, His Holiness' motivation and ethical leadership were guiding lights in a time that struggled with darkness. His vision will, very simply, be missed.

To be Pope is to not only lead the Catholic Church, but to lead the world. Pope John Paul II was an ardent protector of global human rights. His stubborn opposition to the world's dictatorships ushered in profound movements of change. At the same time, His Holiness also deeply believed in the importance of forgiveness, as he demonstrated when he forgave his would-be assassin. His courageous efforts to repair the long, tumultuous relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people opened a meaningful dialogue that will continue for decades.

Mr. Speaker, I will always remember meeting the Pope in 2003, and, in fact, I have in the center of my office wall the picture taken of the two of us in the Vatican. As I shook his hand, I deeply appreciated and admired the fact that His Holiness cared not for the color of my skin or my faith. He was a messenger of peace above all. He preached about the culture of life, the culture of faith, and the brotherhood of all mankind. He led by example and his strength was evident, even in his final days.

I share the Pope's insistence that peace and compassion can overcome the influence of evil in the world. The global community must continue to take up this message. Action is the only way to apply the teachings we acquire in life, and so I call on all individuals to live with compassion for your brothers and sisters, just as the Pope did throughout his life. He will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, we spend a great deal of time in this chamber speaking about democracy and how to ensure its continuance at home and how to instill it abroad. Encouragingly, one of our most important friends and allies, Turkey, has worked very hard over the past few years to deepen, strengthen and ensure democracy in that country.

Over the past several years Turkey has debated, in the fullness of an open legislature, measures covering human rights, foreign investment, governance, protection of minority interests, freedom of speech and association. A majority of the duly elected members of that body have voted in the affirmative to amend old laws and pass new ones. Many of these changes have been enshrined as permanent parts of Turkish law through amendments to its national constitution.

There are literally hundreds of changes but among the most important are abolition of the death penalty, ability to broadcast in minority languages, ability to be educated in minority languages and cementing civilian control over the military. While we still look forward to more improvements to their democratic infrastructure, Turkey's future looks promising.

Many of these reforms were driven by the demands of the European Union. But to be fair, and to give Turkey its due, irrespective of the reasons why there was a consideration of the need for reform, no reforms would have occurred without the political will of that nation's people and government to squarely face these issues, debate them and overturn, in some cases, policies that have been in existence since the 1923 founding of the Turkish Republic.

Last December 17th, the European Union extended the formal invitation to our friend and ally to begin discussions that will lead to eventual Turkish membership in the EU--the first predominantly Muslim nation to be so considered.

Muslim nations wrestling with the movement toward democracy. I hope all of my colleagues welcome and applaud Turkey's actions.

Mr. Speaker, today we mark the passing of William Lehman, retired Member of this august body and exemplary human being. Mr. Lehman was born in Selma, Alabama on October 5, 1913. His reputation for honesty was developed early in life when he moved to Miami and opened a used car business. Television viewers got to know ``Alabama Bill'' through his commercial advertising. Auto buyers in Dade County quickly realized that he always treated his customers fairly.

In the early 1960s, he began teaching English literature in Dade County public schools, where he was highly valued and greatly respected by his colleagues and his students. Building on his success as an educator, he was elected to the school board in 1966 and became its chairman in 1970.

In 1972, Bill ran for Congress in the newly created 13th District, winning easily. From then until his retirement in 1992, he was a tireless advocate for the citizens of northeast Dade County. He quickly rose to a position of prominence in the House of Representatives, becoming chairman of the Appropriations Committee's subcommittee that oversaw highways, seaports and mass transit systems. Public transit was always important to Bill Lehman, as he knew it was a lifeline to employment, grocery shopping, doctor visits and other necessary services for poor and working class citizens.

In addition to normal Congressional business, Mr. Lehman's career in the House of Representatives was noted for many remarkable deeds. Among those were his trips to Cuba and Argentina to secure the release of political prisoners and the brave venture of smuggling an artificial heart valve into the Soviet Union to save the life of a critically ill woman. Throughout his career in Congress, Bill Lehman was known as an ``unbending liberal.'' This is one of many characteristics that endeared him to me. He was a friend of more than thirty years, a mentor and a very important role model. By his very nature, he was a constant source of inspiration and encouragement to people who work every day to make our world a better place.

Florida, America, and the world have lost a giant with the passing of William Lehman. To paraphrase another famous American political leader known for his honesty, Abraham Lincoln, the world will greatly note and long remember the life of Bill Lehman. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 384, a bill extending the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group for two years. This crucial legislation amends the Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure Act of 2000 to extend from four to six years the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group. H.R. 842 extends by two years this worthy working group, which was originally created by Congress through Public Law 105-246 in 1998. The group is made up of government agency representatives who are directed to oversee the declassification of U.S. Government records that contain information about Nazi war crimes.

Such information includes trafficking of assets seized by the Nazis and post-war communications between U.S. Government and former Nazi officials, unless declassification would unduly violate personal privacy or harm national security or foreign policy interests. The law also allowed for expedited processing of Freedom of Information, requests made by survivors of the Holocaust.

On December 6, 2000, as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2001, Congress changed the group's name to the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group. This action expanded the mission of the group to include the declassification of U.S. Government records related to World War II-era war crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial government.

Mr. Speaker, the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group is a valuable effort that informs the American people of the actions of their government while balancing the protection of legitimate national secrets.

I support this noble effort so that we can continue to confront this dark chapter in American History.

The vicious and barbaric war crimes committed by the Nazis, and the atrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Government during World War II, were some of the worse criminal acts of the 20th century. Both of these historical crimes against humanity must be studied and chronicled in their entirety. The acts of barbarism and genocide committed by the German Nazi and Japanese Imperial governments should never be forgotten. Therefore, it is up to the elected representatives of the American people to ensure that the United States Government complies completely with the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group and makes accessible all information that is allowable by law.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.