Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the power grab Senate Republicans are about to take is not about seven judges; it is about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes instead of 60 votes.

Senate Republicans do not want a David Souter, an Anthony Kennedy, a Sandra Day O'Connor, a Ruth Bader Ginsberg or a Steven Breyer, all of whom were confirmed with nearly unanimous, bipartisan support.

If President Bush is successful with this extreme power grab in the Senate, he will be able to appoint extreme, right-wing judges to the court.

President Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, rubber-stamping his agenda, and that is simply not what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they created two distinctly different congressional chambers.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats will fight to protect our constitutional checks and balances and basic fairness for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, today we will debate bipartisan legislation from the Select Committee on Homeland Security to improve funding for first responders.

In this new post-9/11 era, ensuring that our country is protecting itself from attack is of prime importance. I am especially proud of the efforts of my hometown of Sacramento. Federal officials have recently highlighted Sacramento as an example to other localities of how to efficiently spend Federal anti-terrorism dollars.

Already, Sacramento's main agencies tasked for homeland security, police, sheriff, health and the city and metro fire departments, are all coordinating their efforts.

The five agencies have already agreed to share all of the homeland security dollars, a unique show of cooperation when limited funding is at stake. Not only have the agencies standardized protective suits and gas masks, but a massive 9,000 emergency personnel training effort is under way. With all of Sacramento's hard work, I am not surprised that Federal officials are singling their efforts out.

What we are doing today will help these first responders in their work. Currently, base funding for homeland security assistance programs is distributed among the States according to a strict formula. This formula has resulted in greater funding going to lower-risk States like Wyoming on a per capita basis rather than more at-risk States like New York and my home State of California.

This bill would alter the funding allocation to States based on threat and risk. However, each State would be guaranteed a minimum if its dollar amount fell below a specified level. Even the 9/11 Commission recommends that Federal dollars supplement State and local efforts that fall in higher-risk areas. This is a commonsense proposal.

I am pleased that this reform will greatly benefit California and my hometown of Sacramento. Further, this bill continues Federal support for the Urban Area Security Initiative, which Sacramento has received funding through, in addition to other Federal grant programs.

H.R. 1544 also recognizes the increased risk to our region posed by our flood control systems by specifically including dams in its list of critical infrastructure. Its inclusion will allow consideration of flood control levees and dams as a factor in determining the risk a community faces.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for highlighting this issue of great concern to both our districts. Our communities are faced with a continuing risk of flooding. Sacramento's flood risk is among the highest of

major urban areas in the country. Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers, the Sacramento floodplain is the hub of a 6-county regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American River would cripple this economy, cause between 7 and $16 billion in direct property damages, and likely result in significant loss of life.

While we typically view the levee system as our first line of defense against Mother Nature's raging storms, we must also face the reality that this critical infrastructure must be protected from terrorist attack. A major levee failure or a terrorist attack at the dam upstream would be absolutely devastating to the region.

The addition of this provision by the Select Committee on Homeland Security shows why amendments and increased discussion of this bill are so important. And I am glad to see that the Committee on Rules did make in order a few of the amendments that were brought before our committee. But I must express my disappointment that this bill will not be debated today under a more open process. I believe that there are a number of other amendments that, while we may disagree on the position, they are worth continued debate on the House floor.

For example, while the Select Committee on Homeland Security explored the issue of whether all first responder grants should be awarded strictly on the basis of risk, doing away altogether with State minimum award requirements, I think there are a number of Members that would like to see this issue debated before the full House.

Even the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) acknowledged that while he personally would like to see all first responder funding allocated by risk, the issue of ensuring each State receives a minimum was an important compromise in his committee. An amendment addressing this exact issue was brought before the Committee on Rules, but it was not made in order.

I strongly support the underlying bill, and I am pleased it was reported out in bipartisan fashion. I commend the Select Committee on Homeland Security for their extensive debates on the best strategies to improve the funding streams for our first responders. I imagine there are many divergent opinions on this matter, and it would be excellent debate for us to have had here today. It is unfortunate the Committee on Rules did not open this rule so we could continue this full dialogue today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

I look forward to hearing the debate on this legislation to improve first responder funding. We all want to ensure our communities are well equipped and prepared to face any threat. I believe that the underlying bill will help accomplish exactly that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Shirley Queja, a dear friend and undeniably one the most dependable, dedicated and trustworthy individuals on Capitol Hill. After twenty-seven years of service to three members of Congress, she is retiring. As her friends, family and peers gather to celebrate Shirley's wonderful career, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring one of the Capitol's finest professional. staff members.

The child of Millie and Sabas Dumlao and an older sister to four brothers, Shirley grew up in the small town of Wahiawa on the island of Oahu. She is a graduate of the University of Hawaii and came to Washington in 1978 to work for the late Senator Spark Matsunaga. Shirley served as the Senator's longtime assistant from 1978 until his passing in 1990.

In 1990, my husband Bob was looking for a new Executive Assistant. That was when Neil Dhillon, his Chief of Staff, came across Shirley's resume. After speaking to Shirley, Neil was immediately drawn to her, not by her impressive professional experience, but instead, he was drawn to her passion for this institution, the history of this chamber and the process of law making. As their initial conversation ended, Neil was so intrigued with Shirley that he immediately rushed over to the Senate side to speak with her in person.

As one who also was enamored with Congress and its steep traditions, I can see why Bob was impressed by these same qualities. Since that first meeting, she has served at the side of Bob, and later, myself as a trusted confidant and assistant.

Bob was always proud of the caliber of his staff, and Shirley was their foundation for her fifteen years as Bob's Executive Assistant. No matter the crisis or the challenge of the request, Shirley was always there for her co-workers with steady-hand solutions. Bob always noticed her central role in holding staff together and he loved how her quiet leadership allowed her co-workers--his staff--to reach their full potential.

Shirley possesses a dedication to her job and her co-workers that is unmatched by most. She often worked deep into the night, on weekends and routinely came in over the holidays. At times she placed her job before her family and it was clear that Bob and I could always count on Shirley. A trusted confidant to many, she was always prepared and left nothing to chance. Over time it was easy to see why so many of the people who worked with her hold Shirley in such high regard.

When I think of Shirley many things immediately come to mind. As many of you know, she might just have the biggest heart of anyone in this town. She was always perfectly poised, even on the most hectic of days and under the most trying of circumstances. For fifteen years she was the hub of the wheel that kept the Matsui office strong.

Shirley Queja is the mother of two beautiful and intelligent daughters, Noelani and Haunani. Both get their artistic talents and love for the Hawaiian culture from their parents. Haunani attends the University of Hawaii and Noelani attends the University of Maryland.

She is the devoted wife to Irving, her husband of twenty-three years. They are both undoubtedly looking forward to her retirement. Irv too worked for Senator Matsunaga and now works with the Senate Sergeant at Arms. In his spare time he plays guitar and sings with the Aloha Boys, a local Hawaiian musical group. Both Shirley and Irv plan to remain active with the Halau O'Aulani, a Hawaiian cultural school in Maryland.

Shirley, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for everything you have done for the Matsui family. I am sure you never planned to stay in Washington so long, but we are all so glad that you have. All of us wish you a joyful and long retirement. Brian, Amy, Anna and I keep a special place for you in our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress search far and wide for staff members like Shirley, but if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that she is an original. I am honored to pay tribute to Shirley Queja as she ends her twenty-seven years of distinguished service on Capitol Hill. Her contributions to my office and this body are immense and her personal friendship has been immeasurable. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in celebrating the career of this consummate professional and extraordinary person.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Shirley Queja, a dear friend and undeniably one of the most dependable and dedicated individuals on Capitol Hill.

Shirley is retiring after 27 years of service to the Congress--first for Senator Spark Matsunaga, then for my husband, Bob Matsui, and finally for me during my first 2 months here in this Chamber.

Shirley possessed an uncommon dedication to her work, always prepared, and never leaving anything to chance. She was always poised, even under the most trying of circumstances. And as all of the members of the extended Matsui family can tell you, she just might have one of the biggest hearts in town.

To her loving and patient husband, Irv, and her beautiful and intelligent daughters, Clarissa and Cassie, thank you for sharing Shirley with our family. And, Shirley, please know that Brian, Amy, Anna, and I will always have a special place in our hearts for you.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in celebrating the career of this consummate professional and extraordinary person.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, a day of remembrance for Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes.

Between 1939 and 1945, over 12 million innocent people--including over 6 million Jews--were murdered because of their religion, their race or because of where they were born. Even today, after the passage of 60 years, it is difficult to fully comprehend the intense hatred and intolerance that so consumed this dark period in human history.

On this day of remembrance we cannot think of just those who died, but also of those individuals who embodied the triumph of the human spirit, who bravely acted in the face of overpowering hatred, and of the lessons of their actions. Rather than succumbing to the despair of their situation, the Jews fought against their oppressors in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in April and May of 1943. In a defiant declaration, the Jews of Terezin proclaimed a theme of liberation each time they sang Verdi's ``Requiem.'' The thread of hope continued despite the hopeless moments. As such, when we remember the Holocaust, we remember not only the needless death of so many, but also the heroic voices which continue to inspire us today.

Sadly, we still struggle as a human race to stamp out the evils of anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia. Several years ago in my hometown of Sacramento, we saw the ability of good to overpower intolerance during an act of arson on three area synagogues. We witnessed the heroics of average citizens who rushed into these burning buildings to save precious books, manuscripts and a Torah which had already survived the Holocaust decades earlier.

While Yom Hashoah is a somber day of remembering those who were killed in the Holocaust, it is also a day that offers hope. Hope that the strength and courage in all of us will overcome injustice and intolerance.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and the underlying bill to reform the Federal Deposit Insurance. I am also very pleased that we will be able to fully debate this bill on the floor of the House under an open rule. This is only the second open rule the committee has reported this year, and I certainly hope it is a trend we will continue.

Since the creation of deposit insurance after the stock market crash in the early 1930s, Federal Deposit Insurance has created financial stability in our country for almost 70 years. Its effectiveness has been proven in our Nation's fiscal crises in the 1980s and 1990s, they were handled very differently with a far different outcome.

Also since the 1930s Congress had to evaluate deposit insurance and make changes to update this program. In 1980, Congress decided to increase the previous $40,000 coverage limit to $100,000 per account. It is common sense for us to increase the amount a deposit can be insured for, as inflation has eroded the current limits.

Increasing the limit to $130,000 is a wise decision. Indexed for inflation, the level would have risen to about $140,000. Further, this bill would increase the amount of security behind retirement accounts. This is especially important as companies eliminate their defined benefit plans and switch to providing benefits through defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s.

Deposit insurance reform has broad support. Even the FDIC staff agrees. The majority of the reforms included in this bill are the same recommendations they suggested in its April 2001 report, ``Keeping the Promise: Recommendations for Deposit Insurance Reform.''

I see no reason why we would not do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this open rule. I look forward to hearing the debate on this legislation to reform Federal Deposit Insurance, and am hopeful that we can pass this legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to a man with a truly distinguished career in the healthcare community. To say that Van Johnson has made a permanent mark in the healthcare field would only begin to skim the surface of the many wonderful contributions that he has made as a leader in the healthcare industry and in his own community. As his family, friends, and colleagues gather to celebrate Mr. Johnson's illustrious career, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting one of Sacramento's most outstanding citizen leaders.

Mr. Johnson earned his bachelor's degree in international relations and psychology from Brigham Young University, and a master's degree in healthcare administration from the University of Minnesota. Upon completion of his education, Mr. Johnson served for 13 years in leadership roles at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Prior to assuming his current position as president and chief executive officer of Sutter Health in 1995, Mr. Johnson served as senior vice president and chief operating officer for Sutter's acute and non-acute facilities as well as services and physician organizations in the Sacramento, Placer and Yolo County region. Under his exemplary and innovative leadership, Sutter Health has built or replaced more than a dozen hospitals and major patient care centers, and has introduced hundreds of new patient services. Mr. Johnson's commitment and dedication culminated in an initiative worth over 5 billion dollars to rebuild, replace, and expand much of Northern California's health care infrastructure. In just the past five years, Sutter Health has invested well over 1 billion dollars in services for the poor and in programs and services that benefit local communities.

Mr. Johnson has also long been active with community-based organizations. In 2001, the Sacramento division of the Boy Scouts of America recognized him as ``Man of the Year,'' and the United Cerebral Palsy Association named him ``Humanitarian of the Year.'' In 2002, he received the prestigious National Healthcare Award from B'nai B'rith International, one of the world's oldest and largest organizations focused on human rights, community action, and humanitarian causes.

In addition to his duties as president and CEO of Sutter Health in Northern California, he is currently board chairperson for the Integrated Healthcare Council of California and an advisory council member for the University of California-Davis Graduate School of Business. He also serves on the boards of the Sacramento Regional Foundation and the Northern California chapter of the March of Dimes.

Mr. Speaker, as Van Johnson's friends, family, and colleagues gather to celebrate his great career, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most honorable citizens. Mr. Johnson's continued leadership is a true testament to public service. If a template for commitment to healthcare could be made, it would surely bear the resemblance of Van R. Johnson. Although his time at Sutter Health may soon be complete, his involvement in community service is, fortunately for us, far from over. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Mr. Van Johnson continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying budget conference agreement.

More than a month ago, the House passed a concurrent budget resolution that left average Americans out in the cold. The budget slashed domestic programs for education, health care, and veterans health benefits in order to make room for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I voted against it because I thought it left out the needs of the middle class and working families and would hurt my constituents in my hometown of Sacramento.

Today we are considering the conference agreement to that budget which has been negotiated in secret over the past several weeks and rushed to the floor without time for Members to even read through it. But it appears that these several weeks have not yielded many improvements. The cuts to the most vulnerable are still there. The cuts to education are still there. And it still favors big oil companies at the expense of our natural treasures by allowing drilling in ANWR.

More fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget agreement without courage. During President Clinton's administration, Congress took up the hard work involved in weighing our Nation's competing priorities, and it meant that we were able to create a Social Security surplus for future generations in a very responsible manner. But it has been just the opposite under this Republican majority. They are spending every dollar of the Social Security surplus in order to finance their

deficits and their tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans.

Just as irresponsibly, this budget is trying to hide the President's plan to privatize Social Security. The President wants to divert Social Security payroll taxes out of the Social Security system and into private accounts. Replacing a guaranteed benefit with the risks of Wall Street is bad public policy. It would mean an average benefit reduction of $152,000. It is not surprising that the American people have rejected it. We should be strengthening Social Security's fundamental commitment made from one generation to another instead of weakening it.

Conveniently, the budget agreement before us ducks responsibility for this reckless plan. We know that privatizing Social Security would require borrowing $2 trillion over the next 10 years, debt borrowed against our children and our grandchildren. Not surprisingly, this inconvenient reality is left out of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the budget is our Federal Government's statement of priorities. Crafting it involves tough choices among many competing and worthwhile programs. Nonetheless, Democratic priorities are clear: making health care more affordable, strengthening Social Security, investing in our local communities. I do not believe this budget has these priorities in mind, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule. Once again, the majority has muted debate on a piece of legislation for no legitimate reason. The resolution has not been fully debated before the committee of jurisdiction and, as a result, it fails to include a number of priorities important to small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the engine of America's economy, representing more than 95 percent of all employers, creating half of our gross domestic product, and creating 3 out of 4 of new jobs nationwide. Small business owners are leaders in innovation, creating new technology, new products, and more effective business operations. The government should help small business owners achieve their goals, not stand in their way. I think this is something all Members can support.

There are some very good elements of this ``small business bill of rights'' resolution that I support. I believe small business should not be hampered with unnecessary restrictive regulations and paperwork. I support the provision insisting that small businesses have the right to equal treatment and should have expanded access to capital and credit.

Opening up assets to government contracts for small businesses should be a top priority for Congress. I support the principle in House Resolution 22 that we must consider legislation to create a fair and open Federal contracting system to make sure that everyone has a fair shot in winning a Federal contract. There must be an end to the practice of awarding ``mega contracts'' that take opportunities away from small businesses at no savings to the taxpayer. We must institute a fair contracting appeals process for small businesses to be heard.

I also support expanding contract opportunities for women, low-income individuals, and minorities by strengthening such key business development programs as 8(a). These actions will reduce current barriers and ensure small businesses have access to perform Federal contracts.

But small businesses have expressed additional priorities, and I wish we would have included them in the resolution. Instead, the majority chose to insert partisan agenda items.

During the committee markup, the chairman restricted debate time on all amendments to 4 minutes per side. After considering the first 5 amendments, the chairman moved to cut off debate, which passed on a strict party-line vote. This was done despite having two Democratic amendments still pending before the committee.

One of these amendments, offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), would have strengthened programs for minority entrepreneurs. The other, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez), would express support for the microloan program which the administration eliminated in its fiscal 2006 budget.

I understand that the chairman had only allotted an hour for the committee markup, but we have an opportunity today with this rule to provide time for the debate we should have had. These thoughtful amendments should be heard. So far this year, the Committee on Rules has only reported one open rule, just one, out of 21 rules. It is time to allow Congress to do its job, and part of that job is to openly discuss the priorities facing our Nation.

Why not make time for this debate? The Members that were denied debate in committee came before the Committee on Rules last night to urge their amendments be made in order. Several other amendments were also offered. I cannot help but point out that our legislative schedule this week has plenty of room in it. Not surprisingly, however, the majority chose not to have a full debate and ignored amendments that could have improved this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments blocked from consideration today would have made House Resolution 22 a complete bill of rights. For instance, small business owners need access to capital and technical expertise if they are to make the most of their opportunities. The Small Business Administration provides this critical assistance to small business owners. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) offered amendments recognizing that we should be supporting all of SBA's programs, including the microloan and 7(a) lending programs. But, again, this rule risks leaving a gaping hole in this list of rights.

House Resolution 22 could also be strengthened to ensure that minority business owners retain their place as a vibrant part of the U.S. economy. The Barrow-Moore amendment, if made in order, would do just that. While minority individuals comprise nearly one-third of the population, only 15 percent of businesses are minority-owned. These businesses employ 5 million people and generate nearly $600 billion in revenue. Given the gap between the number of individuals and the business ownership rate, it is clear that an entrepreneurial divide exists in this country. One of the most significant reasons for this divide is the fact that minority-owned companies have not seen legislative updates for nearly 20 years. Congress must bring these programs into the 21st century. Minority business owners deserve the right to have these important initiatives modernized.

The only way to achieve a complete bill of rights is to include all of the rights small businesses are asking for. A closed rule does not do this. An open rule, a better rule, would allow full debate on small business priorities. An open rule today would allow the House of Representatives to consider the importance of such issues as access to affordable capital and changing the Federal marketplace to meet the needs of small business. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can change this rule to include three very important Democratic amendments that were not allowed by the Committee on Rules last night. In fact, two of the amendments, one offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), related to the rights of minority business owners. Another offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) relating to expanding the microloan program was denied not only in the Committee on Rules but in the Committee on Small Business as well.

The third amendment denied by the Committee on Rules, offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), would have put the House on record in support of the 7(a) loan program.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be about partisan politics. It is about fairness. It is bad enough that most Democratic amendments are blocked from floor considerations around here; now the Republican leadership does not even want them considered in the committees of original jurisdiction. I am very disturbed by the pattern of abuse that seems to be spreading in this House, first on the House floor and now in the committee process as well. This must stop.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can include these three thoughtful amendments. I want to make it very clear, that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering this legislation; however, a ``yes'' vote will block these amendments from any type of congressional action in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this resolution to restore the integrity to our ethics process and reinstate the standards of previous Congresses, standards which regrettably this Chamber chose to erode earlier this year. That action marked the first time in the history of the House of Representatives that our ethics rules were altered on a partisan basis.

Our constituents deserve a Congress that holds itself to the highest of standards. Many generations of our predecessors acknowledged the importance of this by having the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct be evenly divided between the parties, regardless of any electoral outcome, by working together in a bipartisan fashion, and by ensuring that neither party would be allowed to use partisanship and power as a shield against behavior that falls short of the standards our constituents expect and deserve.

With this action earlier this year, this Congress fell short of this standard. The ethics process must operate on a bipartisan basis to ensure that it functions in an evenhanded and just fashion, and it must be prepared to act without regard to party in order for the people of this country to have any faith in it. Simply put, this Chamber's ethics and the standards to which we hold ourselves must be put to a higher plane than any one political party.

We should never have reached this point, but with today's long overdue action, my hope is that the House of Representatives will correct that error.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his determined and tenacious leadership on this matter. If it were not for his leadership and the leadership of others, it would have been all too easy for this to be ignored and the American people would not be seeing this victory. Had we not altered course, we could have done irreparable long-term damage to the institution that we all love. Instead, thanks to their efforts, we take much-needed corrective action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to an organization with a great record of service to the young people of the Sacramento Region. Ever since its inception in the 1980s, the Center for Youth Citizenship has worked tirelessly and successfully to enhance the significance of citizenship and the importance of our laws and institutions to the young people of the local region. I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting the Center for Youth Citizenship (CYC), one of Sacramento's most respected community organizations.

Founded in 1984, the Center for Youth Citizenship's mission is to have young people respect one another, our institutions, and laws; have a working understanding of citizenship, its requirements and responsibilities; appreciate the foundation and privileges of democracy; and have the skills and character to be engaged and informed participants in everyday community matters. To achieve these goals, CYC has reached out to a diverse group of school and community partners on award winning and recognized school and community programs such as the Gordon D. Schaber Mock trial & Moot Court Competition, Laws for Youth and Families, and California Conflict Resolution and Youth Meditation Project.

Through its partnerships with a broad-based group of government, business and education leaders, CYC initiated the program, With Liberty and Justice for All, in 2004. The program is designed to connect the generations and groups in the local communities and recommit them to the collective pursuit of equity, justice, and character. In its inaugural year, CYC, along with a coalition of local businesses, community groups, and school districts, attracted a theater full of students to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education. As a result of the hard work of the CYC staff, hundreds of students were treated to a memorable and invaluable learning experience that will likely impact them for the rest of their lives.

This year, CYC has once again brought together an impressive list of community entities to celebrate the second year of the With Liberty and Justice for All community forum. The event theme for the 2005 program is ``A Celebration of Citizenship, Education, and Service.'' Education legend Jaime Escalante, profiled in the Academy Award nominated film ``Stand and Deliver, a group of Mr. Escalante's former students, and acclaimed actor Edward James Olmos, who portrayed Mr. Escalante in the movie, are all scheduled to participate in a special screening of ``Stand and Deliver'' and participate in an important dialogue about the importance of citizenship, education, and service.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to the Center for Youth Citizenship. I would like to especially thank CYC's Executive Director, Dr. Joe Maloney, and his great staff for their dedication and hard work. I am confident that the Center for Youth Citizenship will continue to yield tremendous benefits for the people of Sacramento. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing the Center for Youth Citizenship a successful 2nd annual With Liberty and Justice for All community forum and continued success in all its future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the late Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, a man who through quiet determination and an unwavering belief in justice became one of the icons of the American Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century. As we reflect on Mr. Korematsu's remarkable life and his wonderful legacy, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this true American hero.

The son of Japanese immigrants, Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu was born in Oakland, California on January 30th, 1919. After graduating from high school, Fred went to work as a welder, a job that Fred would keep until war broke out between the United States and Japan. In February of 1942, 120,000 residents of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens, were ordered out of their homes and into camps following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Fred, at the age of 22, watched as his parents vacated their home, but he decided to defy the order and remain behind because he felt it was wrong for innocent and loyal citizens to be rounded up at once.

In May of 1942, Fred was stopped by police and charged with violating the military's exclusion order. Fred was ultimately turned over to the FBI, and convicted and jailed for failure to report for evacuation. During his imprisonment, Fred was visited by Ernest Besig, the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California at the time. Mr. Besig, who was seeking for cases to test the constitutionality of the internment, posted $5,000 in bail to free Fred, but the military police would not oblige. Fred was eventually transferred to a camp in Topaz, Utah, where he was generally ostracized by his fellow inmates for having attempted to dodge internment.

Fred's case against the government's internment of Japanese Americans was ultimately heard and struck down by the Supreme Court. Justice Frank Murphy, one of three dissenting Justices, called the internment order ``legalization of racism.'' Fred tried his best to lead a normal life as he worked as a welder in Salt Lake City toward the end of the war.

At the end of the internment in 1944, Fred returned to the San Francisco Bay Area, where he and his wife, Kathryn, raised a daughter, Karen, and a son, Ken. Fred had a long career as a draftsman, but he could not get a job at a larger firm or government agency because of his prior felony conviction.

Legal historian and author Peter H. Irons discovered the government had lied to the high court while researching a book on wartime internment in the early 1980s. This discovery caught the attention of civil rights attorney Dale Minami. Mr. Minami, along with a team of dedicated attorneys, petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco to correct the error that was made before the court, which was that government prosecutors suppressed, altered and destroyed material evidence during its prosecution of the original case. After an arduous 2\1/2\-year process, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Fred's original and wrongful conviction on November 10, 1983.

In January of 1998, Fred Korematsu was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, by President Bill Clinton. During the presentation, President Clinton said that the name Korematsu can be rightfully added to the list of Plessy, Brown, and Ferguson as the greatest civil rights pioneers in our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Fred Korematsu. Fred Korematsu is the epitome of a true patriot; someone who is not afraid to stand up for what is right and just. Although he is no longer with us, his legacy will continue to live on for generations to come. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Fred Korematsu for his steadfast commitment to civil rights and justice.

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

I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. The Republican majority has brought to the Floor a bill that subsidizes the past at the expense of the future, and we should not vote for it.

I am particularly troubled about the amnesty this bill gives to MTBE polluters and the effect it has on my home

State of California. In 1990, the oil industry began adding MTBE to gasoline in order to make it burn cleaner. The industry knew that MTBE was a harsh groundwater pollutant and had safe alternatives at its fingertips.

But the industry used MTBE anyway. 25 years later, over 18,000 water systems in 29 States are infected with MTBE, including three wells in my home district of Sacramento.

Making our drinking water clean will cost an estimated $29 billion nationwide. I think polluters should pay that bill. Our cities and towns agree. Not surprisingly, however, the Texas-based MTBE manufacturers think they deserve a bailout. So they went to their friends in Washington, and the Republican majority gave them a blanket amnesty for cleaning up their pollution. It is unbelievable and our constituents should be horrified.

Mr. Speaker, we should be investing in renewables and conservation. We should be strengthening our natural security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We should be doing a lot of things today. Protecting guilty polluters is not one of them.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying bill.

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

I rise in opposition to this rule. We have before us a misguided attempt to reform our bankruptcy system. We have heard cries that this system is being abused and is corrupted; and while there is need for reform, the proposal before us today contains a number of unintended consequences, consequences that would deprive consumers of the protection they deserve, hurt children, hurt families and neglect our veterans.

During the Committee on the Judiciary markup, numerous amendments were offered to correct these provisions, yet amendment after amendment was voted down, not on the merits of the amendments but because there was a backroom deal to move this legislation through the House without any changes. The committee held a sham markup.

Again, in the Committee on Rules, a number of amendments were offered to allow a debate on these issues, but not a single one was made in order today. In certain cases, my Republican colleagues acknowledged the merits of the amendments, but maintained it was simply not the time to address the issue. I have to disagree.

I am particularly disappointed that the very reasonable amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) was not made in order. The amendment is narrowly tailored to exempt from the means test consumers with 51 percent of their debt caused by someone who stole their identity.

This amendment makes sense. I am sure that most everyone at some time in their life has experienced the frustration of losing their wallet. First, you have to call all the credit card companies to cancel service. Then you may have to close and later reopen your checking account. Then you may have to take a trip down to DMV to get a new driver's license. It is an ordeal.

But these days, losing your wallet can even lead to greater problems. To then realize someone racked up thousands of dollars of debt after stealing your identity is just awful. No one should ever have to pay for a crime someone else committed.

Those on the other side of the aisle say they sympathize with the issue and would like to address this matter at some point in the future; but I ask, why do we not do this now? What are we waiting for? What better place to talk about the rights of bankrupted identity theft victims than in the bankruptcy reform bill?

Just yesterday, an article ran in the New York Times about another security breach potentially leaking Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, and addresses of over 300,000 people.

We all see the headlines. Identity theft poses an enormous financial risk to the average American. No one deserves a bill for someone else's crime, but the Republican majority seems to think so. Their legislation would punish the victims of identity theft, and the refusal to adopt this very simple fix raises real questions about who they are fighting for. I believe this amendment is very timely and appreciate the attention the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has brought to this issue.

I know this legislation has been around since 1998, but that does not excuse us from being unresponsive to real issues affecting Americans today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank, first of all, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for sponsoring this legislation. I know that Bob would have been so proud to know how much effort his two colleagues have put in to bring this bill to the floor to honor him.

This courthouse, which symbolizes equal justice for all, was a major accomplishment for Bob personally, but also for the city of Sacramento. It is such an appropriate way to honor him and his many years in public service, for the city he loved, Sacramento, and the country he absolutely adored.

I would also like to thank his other colleagues here, now my colleagues, for honoring him by speaking here today. I would like to thank all Members very much and on behalf of Brian, Amy, and my granddaughter, Anna, for this wonderful honor.