Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ``It should not be forgotten even for a moment that Israel's security problem is quite unlike that of any other country. This is no problem of borders or sovereignty, but a problem of physical survival, in the literal meaning of the term. And it is a question of the survival not only of the people of Israel but of the Jewish people the world over.''

These words were spoken in 1960 by former Prime Minister David Ben- Gurion, who led the struggle to create Israel.

More than 4 decades have passed since these words were spoken, but they have the same profound impact on us as Jews today as when they were first uttered. Today I express my solidarity with Israel as it celebrates the 57th anniversary of its founding.

As a Member of Congress, I stand with Israel and express my solidarity and support for the State of Israel during these most troubling of times.

We must remember that any legitimate peace process must insist that the Palestinians bring an immediate end to acts of terrorism.

Israel is fully committed to pursuing negotiated agreements with her Arab neighbors so that it may finally live in peace and security. Israel reached historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan in which both sides made serious compromises for the sake of normalized relations. Through its democratic system, the Israeli electorate has voted out governments they believe have not done enough to pursue peace, just as they have voted out governments they believe have not done enough to promote their security.

The Palestinian campaign of terrorism and violence has caused even those Israelis most supportive of the peace process to question the Palestinian Authority's suitability as a negotiating partner and its commitment to peaceful reconciliation with Israel. Israel has demonstrated time and again its sincere desire for peace and its readiness to make the difficult decisions required for peace, as it begins its withdrawal from the Gaza strip and parts of the West Bank.

I hope that the new Palestinian government elected by the Palestinian people will move quickly and make the tough choices necessary for a lasting peace.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005. This bill will: give priority assistance to first responders facing greatest risk; require input from first responders when setting criteria for grant applications; streamline terrorism preparedness grants; set specific, flexible, and measurable goals for state and local government terrorism preparedness; and for the first time authorize regional terrorism preparedness grants.

In the 108th Congress I was privileged to serve on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the predecessor to the permanent Homeland Security Committee, which has brought this bill to the floor today.

This bill implements one of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which stated that ``homeland security assistance should be based strictly on assessment of risks and vulnerabilities . . . [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.''

Under this legislation, states for the first time must prioritize their spending among their jurisdictions based on risk, threat, vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack. This legislation includes new criteria that I authored in committee which will benefit Maryland. For example, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to consider, when making grants, whether the state or local government has a significant transient commuting or tourist population, such as Marylanders who commute back and forth between Washington, Baltimore, and the suburbs. The bill also authorizes DHS to consider whether the state or local government has a close proximity to specific past acts of terrorism (such as the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC), or the known activity of any terrorist group. The bill authorizes grants to regional governments with a population of more than 1.65 million people, which would allow the Baltimore metro region, and the surrounding counties of Baltimore, Howard, and Anne Arundel to apply for regional counter-terrorism grants that will help to prevent an attack and better prepare the county governments to respond in a coordinated fashion to an attack. The bill also requires states to make timely awards to state and local government, and requires an 80 percent pass through within 45 days.

This legislation is an important improvement in our commitment to a strong homeland defense and deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing an important day in Maryland history. Yesterday, in Annapolis, legislation was signed into law renaming our State's largest airport the ``Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.''

Born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1908 and educated in our State's public school system, Thurgood Marshall devoted his life to the pursuit of equal justice for all Americans. Named ``Thoroughgood'' at birth after his great-grandfather, a former slave who had fought for the Union Army during the Civil War, Marshall later shortened his name to ``Thurgood.'' After graduating from Lincoln University, Marshall received his law degree from Howard University in 1933, and set up private practice in Baltimore before joining the Baltimore NAACP.

His remarkable career spanned several decades, during which he served our country honorably. His work as Director-Counsel of the NAACP laid the groundwork for some of the most historic civil rights decisions in our Nation's history. He also achieved international stature as a champion of equal rights around the world. President John F. Kennedy nominated Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. President Lyndon B. Johnson named him U.S. solicitor general in 1965 and nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1967. Justice Marshall served as the first African American Justice from 1967 until he retired in 1991.

Thurgood Marshall passed away in 1993 at age 84, and his body lay in state at the Supreme Court where thousands of mourners came from across the Nation to pay tribute to him. Renaming this international airport for him now serves as another fitting tribute to such a great Marylander and a great American. It will also serve to enlighten travelers from around the world that Baltimore was his home. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary bipartisan effort in our state legislature--and particularly recognize the leadership of Delegate Emmett C. Burns, Jr.--that led to enactment of this law, and encourage all of my colleagues in Congress to use the Baltimore- Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport for their next flight home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, to authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for our military. The vast majority of this $82 billion bill will go directly to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect the national security of our Nation. When our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress' responsibility to make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.

I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected.

This bill provides important new benefits for our troops and their families. The legislation: increases the military death gratuity; increases subsidized life insurance benefits; creates a new insurance benefit for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries, such as the loss of a limb; extends the Basic Allowance for Housing for dependents of soldiers who die while on active duty; and provides additional funding for add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and radio jammers that disrupt remote-control bombs and mines.

The conference report also contains important measures to strengthen our domestic border security, by providing funds for new border patrol agents, immigration and customs investigators, enforcement agents, and detention officers. The bill also provides additional foreign assistance for: tsunami reconstruction; humanitarian and peacekeeping programs in Darfur; democracy assistance in Belarus; and political and economic reforms in Ukraine to strengthen their new democracy and legal system.

I regret that the Administration has consistently failed to properly budget for our ongoing military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. Congress should not repeatedly rely on emergency spending bills to provide the critical funding, resources, and equipment for our troops in battle by using emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

The United States is only belatedly seeking international support for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and we have failed to broadly engage the international community.

Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing attacks, and have lost life and limb. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and these costs are mounting every day. Iraq is already facing a difficult transition in establishing a democracy that operates under the rule of law and protects minority rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our allies to effectively help Iraq during this critical transition period, so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the best way that we can support our troops is to reach out more aggressively to the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and help the interim Iraqi government assume more responsibility for its own affairs as they establish a democratic state.

I am also disappointed that the Republican leadership decided to insert extraneous provisions into this legislation, which go beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I voted against the ``REAL ID Act'' when it was considered by this House as a separate bill earlier this year. I am particularly concerned that this legislation repeals a number of provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which enacted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 bill established a negotiated rulemaking framework--allowing for critical input from governors, State legislators, State officials, and other stakeholders--which would provide the opportunity to develop effective national standards for driver's licenses. I am concerned that this legislation does not give the States adequate flexibility to implement the 9/11 bill, and that this legislation may also create serious unfunded mandates and administrative burdens for the States.

As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe), which promotes human rights and rule of law in Europe, I am also concerned about many of the asylum law changes contained in the REAL ID Act, which again go beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. These provisions may have a harmful effect on true asylum seekers, trafficking victims, women and children who are victims of domestic violence, and others seeking protection against persecution. This legislation may create higher burdens for legitimate asylum seekers, restrict judicial discretion to grant asylum, and take away some of the rights of appeal for certain refugees and asylum seekers.

Over the past week I have heard from a number of groups in Maryland that provide legal and social services to immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and survivors of torture and slavery. These groups have reported to me that it is already extremely difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prevail in their case, as they have often left their home country on short notice, and do not have documentation of their persecution. It can take months or years for a case to work its way through our legal system. During this period, the asylum seeker often has neither legal representation nor work documentation.

I hope that in the near future Congress will have the opportunity, in a more thoughtful manner, to consider comprehensive immigration reform measures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, which memorializes the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis during their campaign of genocide in World War II. We mourn the innocent lives lost and vibrant communities destroyed while the world shamefully stood silent, and honor those heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto who faced certain death when they refused to submit to the Nazi's planned extermination of their community.

To this day, Mr. Speaker, many European countries have failed to right the past wrongs of the Holocaust by failing to adequately redress the wrongful confiscation of property by the Nazi and communist regimes. These seizures took place over decades; they were part of the modus operandi of repressive, totalitarian regimes; and they affected millions of people. The passage of time, border changes, and population shifts are only a few of the things that make the wrongful property seizures of the past such difficult problems to address today.

While I recognize that many obstacles stand in the way of righting these past wrongs, I do not believe that these challenges make property restitution or compensation impossible. On the contrary, I believe much more should have been done--and can still be done now--while our elderly Holocaust survivors are still living.

Today I also want to sound the alarm about a disturbing trend that Jews face today: a rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout the world.

I serve as the Ranking Member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. Last year I traveled as part of the U.S. Delegation, with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to attend a special conference in Berlin addressing anti-Semitism, held under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE is a 55-nation regional security organization which promotes democracy and human rights in Europe, Central Asia, and North America.

Before traveling to Berlin, I made a point to visit Auschwitz for the first time. I was shocked and stunned to see how efficient the Nazi operation was: they wanted to maximize the number of individuals that could be killed.

Seeing the remains of that factory of intolerance, hate and death, it reaffirmed how we must continually stress the importance of advancing understanding throughout the OSCE region and the entire world. We must tirelessly work to build understanding and respect between different communities to prevent future acts of prejudice and injustice.

At the Berlin Conference, I had the privilege of participating as a member of the U.S. delegation, and I gave the official U.S. statement in the session on tolerance. The meeting ended with the issuance of the Berlin Declaration of Action.

The Berlin Declaration laid out a number of specific steps for states to take to combat the rising tide of anti-Semitism, including: striving to ensure that their legal systems foster a safe environment free from anti-Semitic harassment, violence or discrimination; promoting educational programs; promoting remembrance of the Holocaust, and the importance of respecting all ethnic and religious groups; combating hate crimes, which can be fueled by racist and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet; encouraging and supporting international organizations and NGO's; and encouraging the development of best practices between law enforcement and educational institutions.

As we commemorate Yom Hashoah, let us honor the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust by pledging to fight intolerance, hate crimes, and violence in our community and around the world. We shall never be silent again.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing with Representative Wayne Gilchrest two pieces of legislation that will be catalysts for the forthcoming national commemoration of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812.

The first bill, entitled the ``Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Act'', will establish within the National Park Service's National Trails System a 290-mile long trail extending from Southern Maryland through the District of Columbia and Virginia and north to Baltimore, Maryland. The trail will follow and recognize

the Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812. That campaign culminated with the British bombardment of Ft. McHenry which inspired our National Anthem.

The second bill, entitled the ``Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act'', will authorize establishing a national commission to organize, facilitate and encourage observance and commemoration of America's Second Revolutionary War--the War of 1812. The Commission will also seek to protect historic and cultural resources associated with the war.

The War of 1812 tested our young nation to its roots. Shortly after conclusion of the Revolutionary War and the establishment of a federal government for our nation, the English and French entered 22 years of war. Our nation, dependent upon trade to survive, was increasingly drawn into this conflict. Though we struggled to remain neutral traders, essential tools in the English-French conflict were the naval blockade and other trade-restricting efforts. The English, with the most powerful navy, were particularly effective in enforcing blockades, often directly off our shores--frequently intercepting American trading vessels in our own territorial waters. In addition, the British aggressively impressed American sailors. England claimed the right to halt American ships and remove both suspected deserters from the Royal Navy and former subjects of His Majesty though they were American citizens.

From 1793 through 1812, our country sought to establish its neutrality and reduce growing frictions with the British on the seas through diplomacy. But anti-British feelings grew, particularly in the West and South where expansionists were strong. Growing economic pressures also led to young, aggressive Members of Congress from these regions gaining control and declaring war against the British in 1812.

Central to the War of 1812 was the Chesapeake Campaign. The British were depending largely upon their navy to vanquish the Americans and they almost immediately began a very effective blockade of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. In the summer of 1814 the British launched a land and naval attack upon the United States beginning in Southern Maryland. The British engaged with the American Chesapeake Flotilla on St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County in June. In August they put troops ashore at Benedict, on the Patuxent River and began marching towards the largely undefended City of Washington. After the brief Battle of Bladensburg, the British marched into Washington and burned much of the new federal city.

The British then turned to the greater prize of the era, an attack on Baltimore. The City of Baltimore in 1814 was far larger, wealthier and more important than Washington. Three American warships were under construction in the Baltimore harbor at the time and the City's shipyards were well known for outfitting most effective privateers--the Baltimore Clippers. But Baltimore was well defended. Local leaders had organized defensive efforts, acting independently from the national government. Private donations of more than $500,000 had been put to good use and militias from Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania gathered, joining with many local citizens to defend the city.

The British first met strong resistence at the Battle of North Point, but they prevailed through greater numbers and then held up just outside the city limits to await the naval cooperation necessary to occupy Baltimore. Thus Ft. McHenry became the crucial battle line. The heroic defenders at Fort McHenry held off the British fleet through the ships' long bombardment, ending the English advance and preserving liberty and independence for our young nation. Our National Anthem, written that fateful night by Francis Scott Key as a poem, well recognizes the historic importance of this battle to our people and nation.

The proud history of this Second War of Independence deserves broad national commemoration upon its bicentennial. The first bill introduced today will designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. Today, the Park Service has designated 16 National Historic Trails, from the Lewis and Clark trail of exploration, to the trail from Selma to Montgomery. The Star Spangled Banner Trail will recognize the most important sites from the War of 1812's Chesapeake Campaign and the role played by the patriots of these battles in the ultimate defeat of the British by our young nation.

The second bill we are introducing today authorizes the ``Star Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission'' to plan, coordinate and facilitate programs and other efforts to commemorate the historic events associated with the War of 1812. The Commission will be made up of citizens from 9 key states involved in the War from Alabama to New York, representatives of the cities of Baltimore, Washington and New Orleans, members of National Park Service, and appointees of the House and Senate. The Commission will have broad authority and responsibility for bicentennial events, but will also work to assure that the natural and cultural resources of the war are protected for the long term. As well, the Commission will enable improvements at sites and to facilities necessary to enhance and maximize our citizens' appreciation of this era's proud history.

Several years ago Congressman Gilchrest and I worked closely on legislation directing the Park Service to conduct the studies that have lead to introduction of these bills. I am pleased that he is joining me today as the original co-sponsor on both. I would also like to recognize all the legislative work of Senator Paul Sarbanes to prepare for the commemoration of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812. He has introduced companion legislation in the Senate to the two bills we are introducing today.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all our colleagues from the regions directly impacted by the War of 1812 and others from across the nation will join us in support of both these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I have greatly enjoyed working with my good friend from Ohio, Representative Rob Portman, on pension legislation for almost a decade. We have gotten good, bipartisan--even nonpartisan--legislation passed into law that has helped, and will continue to help, all Americans save for a better future.

I am very happy with the President's choice to promote (or at least move) Rob to U.S. Trade Representative, where I know he will provide an intelligent, thoughtful voice on trade. I look forward to working with him in his new capacity to provide a level playing field for U.S. workers and freer international markets for U.S. goods.

Today we introduce legislation that represents our progress on creating the next generation of Portman/Cardin pension legislation. These bills demonstrate the progress we have made and the goals we would like to pursue. I look forward to continuing this process that Congressman Portman and I have started as I continue to serve here in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bills we introduce today include a refundable, permanent savers' credit to give lower-income and younger workers more money to work with in saving for their future. We include incentives for employers to provide automatic enrollment in retirement plans to make saving easier for younger workers. We include incentives for choosing lifetime annuitant retirement, to ensure that retirement savings last a lifetime. This legislation makes permanent all of the pension improvements we made in 2001, including the availability of catch-up contributions, increased contribution limits, and increased portability of retirement savings.

The major difference between the two bills filed today is that the legislation that I have authored does not include increases to the income caps for Roth IRAs.

Once the Joint Tax Committee has scored this legislation, I intend to work with my colleagues to offer revenue offsets to mitigate any effect the enactment of this legislation could have on our budget deficit.

I want to thank my friend, Rob, for being such a good, steadfast partner in helping Americans to plan for their futures. His commitment, intelligence, and willingness to put aside politics to create the best policy have been a credit to him and have made a difference in the lives of countless Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his comments. I support this resolution, and I think he has really stated the case very well, that the ethics process must work in a bipartisan manner.

In fact, I served on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years during some of the most difficult times, including the investigation of Speaker Gingrich and the House so-called banking scandal. At no time during any of that debate did we break

down on a partisan line in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. We worked things out. We figured out what needed to be done. The facts speak for themselves. So allowing for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct process moving forward will allow it to operate in a nonpartisan way.

The revisions that were passed in a partisan manner on the first day of this session were wrong. They were wrong in process, and they were wrong in substance. The process needed to be bipartisan.

I had the opportunity to co-chair with Mr. Livingston the 1997 ethics task force that brought about the changes in our ethics rules. We worked together in a bipartisan manner to bring about those changes. That was not done in this case.

The substance of these rules changes made it very difficult for the committee to function. All one needed to do was to allow time to go by and there was automatic dismissal. Failure to act was rewarded. It encouraged the partisan divisions since there is an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. That is not the way that the ethics committee can function in a nonpartisan or bipartisan manner. The rules changes were flawed, and the process was flawed.

It is interesting that we have this resolution before us today. The reason is because the public understood what we did on the first day of this session, and they knew it was wrong.

This is the people's House, and the people's voice has been spoken and heard by this body. We, today, will correct a mistake that we made on the opening day of this session. It will allow us to restore a proper ethics process that truly can function to carry out one of our most sacred responsibilities.

Under the Constitution, we are required to judge the conduct of our own Members. This rules change will permit us to carry out that most sacred responsibility so we can restore public confidence in this body. This is a great institution, and this rules change will allow this institution to carry out that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have been delayed 4 months in this work. I am glad tonight that we are correcting the mistake that was made. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Dorothy L. Moore upon her retirement as Executive Director of the Howard County Community Action Council. A life-long resident of Howard County, Maryland, Dottie has devoted her life to improving our community.

Dottie began her 36-year career with the Community Action Council as a caseworker in 1969. As Executive Director of the agency, she administered an annual budget of $1.3 million. Dottie was instrumental in developing Howard County's first Senior Programs for African Americans and the first shelter for homeless persons. She also was important in the development of Howard County's first Homeless Care program, Mentoring Program for African-American males, the Family Support Center at Hilltop and Healthy Families Howard County.

One of Dottie's greatest achievements was the 2002 opening of the Dasher Green Head Start Center. Her many community involvements also include serving as chair of the Howard County Human Rights Commission, and, in 2001, she was inducted into the Howard County Women's Hall of Fame.

Dottie has also turned her attention to international concerns. She has been involved in efforts to fight poverty and provide educational opportunities for children in Ghana and Zimbabwe. In 2001, her work was recognized by Ghana when she was crowned Queen Mother of the Bretuo Clan in Asiakwa, where she is spearheading efforts to build a pre- school and school.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the achievements of Dottie Moore. Her commitment and dedication to our community has been an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join our colleague and Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, in cosponsoring House Resolution 199, regarding the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina.

For us, the congressional debates regarding the nature of the Bosnian conflict and what the United States and the rest of the international community should do about it are increasingly part of history. Now focused on other challenges around the globe, it is easy to forget the prominence of not only Bosnia, but the Balkans as a whole, on our foreign policy agenda.

It would be a mistake, however, to ignore the reality of Srebrenica ten years later to those who were there and experienced the horror of having sons, husbands, fathers taken away never to be seen again. Their loss is made greater by the failure to apprehend and transfer to The Hague for trial people like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic who were responsible for orchestrating and implementing the policies of ethnic cleansing.

Following the Srebrenica massacre, the United States ultimately did the right thing by taking the lead in stopping the bloodshed and in facilitating the negotiation of the Dayton Agreement, the tenth anniversary of which will likely be commemorated this November. Thanks in large measure to the persistence of the U.S. Congress and despite the resistance of some authorities particularly in Belgrade and Banja Luka, cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia remains a necessary precondition for improved bilateral ties and integration into NATO and the European Union. Meanwhile, the United States and many other countries have contributed significant resources, including money and personnel, to the region's post-conflict recovery.

It is therefore appropriate that we, as the leaders of the Helsinki Commission, introduce and hopefully pass this resolution on Srebrenica ten years later, not only to join with those who continue to mourn and seek closure, but also to understand why we have done what we have done since then, and, more importantly, to learn the lesson of failing to stand up to those in the world who are willing to slaughter thousands of innocent people. The atrocities committed in and around Srebrenica in July 1995, after all, were allowed to happen in what the United Nations Security Council itself designated as a ``safe area.''

In confirming the indictments of Mladic and Karadzic, a judge from the international tribunal reviewed the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. His comments were included in the United Nations Secretary General's own report of the fall of Srebrenica, which described the UN's own responsibility for that tragedy. Let me repeat them here:

After Srebrenica fell to besieging Serbian forces in July

1995, a truly terrible massacre of the Muslim population

appears to have taken place. The evidence tendered by the

Prosecutor describes scenes of unimaginable savagery:

thousands of men executed and buried in mass graves, hundreds

of men buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered,

children killed before their mothers' eyes . . . .These are

truly scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of

history.

Regardless of one's views of the Yugoslav conflicts--who started the conflicts, why, and what our response should have been--there is no denying that what happened to the people of Srebrenica was a crime for which there are no reasonable explanations, no mitigating circumstances, no question of what happened. As a result, it is inconceivable to me that anybody can defend Radovan Karadzic or Ratko Mladic, let alone protect them from arrest.

There should also be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, that Srebrenica was only the worst of many incidents which took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995. Like the

shelling of Sarajevo and the camp prisoners at Omarska, the July 1995 events in Srebrenica were part of a larger campaign to destroy a multi- ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina, which manifested itself in atrocities in towns and villages across the country. It does, indeed, meet the definition of genocide.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will express its views regarding this massacre, which may fade in our memories but is all too recent and real to those who witnessed it and survived. Joining them in marking this event 10 years ago may help them to move forward, just as we want southeastern Europe as a whole to move forward. I call on my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides benefits to nearly 7 million elderly and disabled individuals who have few, if any, other resources. While it serves as the primary Federal program that assists low-income elderly and disabled Americans, many of the components of the program have not been updated in decades.

Since the inception of the program in 1972, the general income exclusion, which permits outside income to be added to the SSI benefit without penalty, has been set at $20. This income exclusion is generally applied to Social Security earnings, which are based on past employment. A second exclusion was also created to allow the first $65 in monthly earnings to be disregarded from SSI benefits, plus one-half of the remaining earnings. Neither of these provisions, which reward past and current work, have been increased in 33 years. As a result, these income exclusions have lost more than 75 percent of their real value over time. If they had kept pace with inflation over the last three decades, the general exclusion would be worth $90 a month, rather than $20; and the earnings exclusion would be worth $295 a month, rather than $65.

I am therefore pleased to introduce legislation today--along with Representative Jim McDermott, the Ranking Member of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee which has jurisdiction over the SSI program--to reduce the disincentives for work, savings and education in the SSI program. The SSI Modernization Act would reward work by increasing the general income exclusion to $40 a month and the earned income exclusion to $130 a month, then index the amounts to inflation in future years. The bill would also increase the SSI asset limit from $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a couple to $3,000 for an individual and $4,500 for a couple. Increasing the resource limits would provide an incentive for individuals to save for their future. Finally, the bill would encourage disabled children to complete high school by delaying the period in which they are required to go through a redetermination process to evaluate whether they remain SSI eligible under the adult program requirements. Because some disabled children may not be able to complete their secondary education before the age of 18, the legislation would delay a recipient's adult SSI redetermination if they are enrolled in secondary education and between the ages of 18 and 21.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the SSI program have not been updated in decades. Updating the program by rewarding work, savings and education will help improve the lives of millions of our most vulnerable seniors and disabled Americans who depend on this program to survive. As the Social Security Commissioner declared last spring before our Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, SSI recipients are the ``poorest of the poor.'' Efforts to improve the quality of life for these individuals will go a long way to ensuring that they have a basic level of support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Col. John W. Ives, Installation Commander of Ft. George G. Meade. Col. Ives will retire from the military in June, and I want to personally thank him for his years of service to our Nation.

Col. Ives began his distinguished Army career as an enlisted soldier in 1972. In 1981, he was commissioned as a military intelligence officer, and he has spent much of his Army career in military intelligence. Col. Ives became Installation Commander of Ft. Meade in 2002 and he has been instrumental in efforts to modernize and upgrade the 5,400-acre base located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

As Installation Commander, he has overseen the first stages of a $400 million housing redevelopment, the demolition of 100 aging structures from World War I and World War II, and the continuing environmental cleanup of the Army post, which is listed as a Superfund site. In addition, he has supervised important security improvements that have become necessary since 9/11.

The Colonel also has positioned Ft. Meade for the future. He understands that Ft. Meade is part of a larger community and has worked with Anne Arundel County officials to enhance future development opportunities, both on and off the base. He understands that Ft. Meade must keep pace with the future needs of our Nation.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Col. Ives for his dedication and service to our nation. His leadership and understanding of complex issues have made him one of the most successful Installation Commanders in recent memory.

Mr. Speaker, I support equitable reform of our nation's bankruptcy laws.

I recognize that there has been abuse of our bankruptcy system, and that reform is needed. I think we can all agree that those who can afford to should pay their creditors back--that they should be responsible for their debt. Those debtors who charge thousands of dollars on luxury items prior to declaring bankruptcy, should be held accountable. It is contrary to our values as Americans--this idea that some people are able to abandon their debts by gaming the system. Their actions are not fair to the vast majority of Americans who work hard to pay their debts in full, and Congress should act to limit irresponsible use of our bankruptcy system.

I have in the past supported reasonable bankruptcy legislation, and although this bill does contain some good provisions, I regret that I cannot vote for the bill before the House today.

S. 256 would make it more difficult for individuals and families who have suffered bona fide financial misfortune to get a fresh start. It does so by establishing a rigid means test to determine if an individual is eligible for Chapter 7 relief. Regardless of the circumstances that led the individual to seek bankruptcy, the court is not permitted to waive the means test. In other words, ``one strike, you're out.''

I am disappointed that we did not add some reasonable flexibility measures to the ``means test.'' The stated purpose of the bill's means test is to prevent consumers who can afford to repay some of their debts from abusing the system by filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. It makes sense to require those who are able to repay their debts to do so. However, there are some situations that warrant an exception to the means test.

What are the reasons that individuals seek what we call ``bankruptcy protection?''

Harvard Law School recently researched bankruptcies and found that nine out of ten persons filing bankruptcy have faced job loss, severe health problems, divorce or separation. Illness or medical bills drove nearly half of these filings.

Unfortunately, the bill before us does not offer any relief in these or other tragic circumstances. I voted against the rule because it provides the House no opportunity to vote on amendments that would allow a court to consider extreme circumstances that might have led to bankruptcy filings.

I am disappointed that here in the House, the Judiciary Committee failed to close a popular loophole used by the very wealthy to shield millions of dollars by setting up asset protection trusts. If the majority were truly interested in creating a more fair bankruptcy system for all Americans, this would have been included in the bill.

The Judiciary Committee also failed to rein in some of the practices of credit card companies that are in part responsible for the rise in bankruptcy filings. They refused to provide credit card users with more detailed information to assist them in handling debt. Why not help consumers understand the consequences of their financial decisions, such as making only the minimum payment each month, so that they can avoid some of the missteps that can lead to higher debt?

We do need bankruptcy reform, and I wish that we had an opportunity to address many of these valid concerns.

I want to address the concerns of elderly Americans. The number of senior citizens in bankruptcy tripled from 1992 to 2001, representing the largest increase of any group of Americans. According to the Baltimore City Department of Aging, bankruptcies among elderly city residents have increased by nearly 50 percent over the past year.

Their costs of living are increasing steadily, including their rent, food, and heating costs. Many of them routinely use credit cards to cover their daily expenses. They are not spending frivolously--they are just getting by.

During previous Congresses when this bill was considered, employers were less likely to file for bankruptcy to shed health care and pension obligations to their retirees. More than one million Americans have had their pension plans taken over by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. From 2003 to 2004 alone, 192 plans were taken over by the PBGC. These retirees have seen their benefits reduced and so they must pay more for health care. But they have not had their debts reduced accordingly. An amendment in the other body that would have required companies that dropped retiree health benefits to reimburse each affected retiree for 18 months of COBRA coverage upon reemerging from bankruptcy was defeated.

Many seniors who do not yet qualify for Medicare or who have prohibitively high copays also pay medical bills and prescription

drug costs with credit cards. Often they skip dosages or forgo care entirely because they cannot afford it. We know the result, which is that many end up with much more severe conditions and many wind up in nursing homes. That translates into greater burdens on our federal and state budgets, and higher costs for us all.

I am disappointed that the victims of identity theft cannot seek relief under this bill. We have just learned that between ChoicePoint and Lexis-Nexis, thousands of individuals have been the victims of identity theft. In the last few years, the Ways and Means Committee has held fifteen hearings on a bill to reduce Social Security Number theft, and last year, we reported out a responsible bipartisan bill, but it was not brought to the floor. This year, I am again an original cosponsor of this bill, but it is not yet law, and so virtually every American remains at great risk for identity theft. Unfortunately, our vote on the previous question--to allow bankruptcy judges to take into consideration the fact that persons are forced into bankruptcy because of identity theft--was defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I want to vote for an equitable bankruptcy reform bill. So many Americans have been driven into bankruptcy not from a desire to game the system, but because of circumstances beyond their control. This legislation fails to adequately protect their legitimate needs. It is because of them that I must vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished whip for yielding. And I have listened to this colloquy. And let me try to add a little bit to it, if I might.

First, I appreciate the leader's acknowledgment on process because the process is very important. I think the debate that we are having on the floor should have been had prior to the rule being brought under a very partisan environment for passage on the first day of session. I think if we would have had a chance, Democrats and Republicans, to review the rules changes, some of the problems that are now being brought out by these rules changes would have been understood.

So let me get to the policy issue that the leader brings up. And that is, yes, the chairman and ranking member can proceed to bring a matter before the full committee. But they do not have the investigative power in order to understand what is involved in the particular matter.

I served on the Ethics Committee for over 6 years, during some very difficult times, including the bank issues, including a charge against the Speaker of the House. And I can tell you this, that if we would have had a 45-day deadline considering an investigation of this matter, there would have been no way that we could have gotten the necessary votes to proceed.

In my entire time on the Ethics Committee we never had a partisan division. We always were able to work out our issues. It was not easy. It took time. We had to sit down and listen to each other, get the facts.

In reality, when you look at the rules that we are bound by and the facts, generally you will reach consensus and agreement within the Ethics Committee, and that is exactly what happens. But if the clock is running and there are only 45 days, and after that time there is an automatic dismissal, and that is what is in these rules now, it encourages a partisan division. It works counterintuitive to trying to work out what a consensus would bring out which is in the best interest of the institution. And I regret we did not have the opportunity to debate that during the process of the adoption of the rules.

It is interesting to point out that the investigation and the charges that were held against Speaker Gingrich brought about a lot of controversy on this floor. And the majority leader and the minority leader at that time recognized that the only way that we could resolve rules changes was to set up a bipartisan task force, and that is when Mr. Livingston and myself were the co-chairs. And we listened to the debate. And due process for the Member was a very important consideration. And we did change the rules in order to provide for that, but we did it in a bipartisan deliberation, and that was missing this time. And I regret that.

Would the gentleman yield?

Very briefly?

Let me just put out that when that issue was before the House, the former rules changes, we added a 180-day automatic dismissal that was rejected in a bipartisan vote by this body, just to point out to the distinguished leader.

Just to correct the record, and the leader is correct. We did vote against the package. The package was developed in a very bipartisan manner through the task force. There were some votes that took place on the floor of the House that were recommended against by the task force that changed some of the recommendations, and we had a motion to recommit to try to clarify that.

The gentleman is correct on the final vote, but the package itself was very much developed in a bipartisan manner through the task force in a way that it should have been done, contrary to the process that was used on this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so not for the purposes of objecting but to give the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) an opportunity to explain the legislation that is extremely important to people who have suffered disaster as a result of hurricanes in our country.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I want to just conclude by acknowledging the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). He really does deserve the credit for being persistent to get this legislation passed prior to April 15.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for arranging this process.

It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman. As the gentleman knows the problems we have had in Maryland with Hurricane Isabel and the hardship that that caused, I got to see firsthand the damage and devastation to families in my own State. This bill will help. It has been my pleasure to join my colleague from Florida in sponsoring and supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.