Honoring the victims of the Cambodian genocide that took place from April 1975 to January 1979.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, on this amendment, I am being joined by Senator Lieberman and Senator Zell Miller.

It is a simple issue. I want to take a few minutes to explain it. I am hopeful we will get strong support in this body as in the House. A similar bill came up earlier in the House and it passed that body 391 to 22. The same issue passed the Commerce Committee in the Senate 14 to 0 on a recorded vote.

It is an issue of fines and decency on over-the-air broadcasts-- whether it be radio or television.

I think it is important to put my comments in context today by explaining the policy history of this issue; that is, decency on over- the-air public airwaves.

At the invention of television, our Nation established a public policy of providing citizens with free over-the-air television. It gave broadcasters wishing to provide that service with the use of valuable spectrum. Not everyone can broadcast over the Nation's public airwaves. These are airwaves owned by the public. That is why the statute requires the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate not just the ability but the character of an entity to operate.

When handing out a broadcast license, in return for a license, each broadcaster agrees not to air indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The broadcaster gets a valuable piece of spectrum, which is public property. The broadcaster gets the right to use that. In exchange, one of the requirements is they not broadcast indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Fines and license revocations have always been the discipline tool available to the FCC to help enforce America's longstanding commitment to broadcast decency.

This is an issue about license. It is an issue about the use of public property, and some modest limitation of that.

We live in a nation where we hold the first amendment in high regard, as well we should. In an effort to maintain the free exchange of information, thoughts, and opinions, we strive to avoid government involvement in communications content.

At the same time, as a nation, we strive to project decency and justice for all. As a nation raising children, we do the same. With the turning of a tuning knob, or the click of a remote, minors all across America are presented with the content of the public airwaves.

Broadcasters have a legal and a moral duty to ensure that American taxpayers--and especially children--are not assaulted by explicit material.

For years, we have been asking and waiting for the broadcasters to police themselves in this effort. Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling the public interest duty, they have allowed the content to grow steadily worse and worse.

Meanwhile, the companies that own the broadcast stations have grown steadily larger--and not surprisingly. Some of these broadcasters' profit margins have made them immune to the FCC's current fine structure. Let me give you an example.

Today's maximum fine for an indecent broadcast is $27,500. That seems like a lot of money--and it is to some. But it isn't to others. Compare that fact to a 30-second commercial during the 2004 Super Bowl which cost advertisers an average of $2.3 million for a 30-second ad.

In the words of the FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell, these fines are peanuts to the big media conglomerates. That is why we are here to increase the fine structure for indecency and obscene broadcasts. The threat of these fines will be taken seriously and force broadcasters to protect their consumers from explicit content.

Nothing in this amendment forges any new ground in broadcast decency law. The intent is simple: To increase the fines for indecent broadcasts to mask the realities of today's media markets. This amendment would increase the maximum fines tenfold, from $27,500 to $270,000, with a maximum $3 million cap per incident per day.

Why do we need to do this? We need this amendment to end the growing volume of graphic content on free over-the-air broadcasts. Remember, broadcasters profit from exclusive and free use of the public airwaves which gives them unique access to all Americans, particularly America's youth. With that access to our country's intellectual, moral, and social development comes a set of moral and social responsibilities and obligations that are agreed to in the licensing process.

I am very disappointed by the apparent confusion the broadcasters are having between the right to do something and the right thing to do when it comes to the public airwaves.

Recently, FOX and VIACOM announced they were going to appeal the FCC Bono ruling so they can use the ``F'' word on broadcast television. This is their response in spite of the fact that the FCC overturned the original rule in response to a fierce public outcry.

This hostile response the public is getting from broadcasters is inexcusable. We see time and again media leaders defending their profit-driven

motives by airing explicit content and then falsely hiding behind their so-called first amendment rights. Broadcasters have joined the shock jocks of the country to shout down those who publicly question harmful content as an anti-first-amendment censor. In abandoning their duty to adhere to decency standards, broadcasters point to the absence of decency regulations on cable television. This is just a red herring. We are talking about public airwaves and a public right to air decent material.

The broadcasters argue they have a right to air indecent, obscene, and profane material. But that is a disgraceful abuse of the first amendment. I support the first amendment and its guarantees of free speech. It is the basis of much of the freedoms we enjoy in our great democracy. But there are limits, and particularly here, where we are dealing with a public license and the use of public property where the licensee has agreed to not broadcast indecent material.

This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the famous Pacifica case where it was upheld that the Government had the right to protect the public airwaves. This case came to the Court in the early 1970s when George Carlin's famous ``filthy words monologue'' was broadcast during the middle of the day on a New York radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation. A father driving with his son heard the broadcast and complained to the FCC. The FCC said that if those kinds of words were used again, the radio station airing them would be fined. Just like today, the broadcasters challenged the ruling and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the FCC action and added that it could continue to fine broadcasters in the future because broadcasters had to take special care not to air material that would offend or shock children.

The majority opinion stressed that of all the forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection because it extends into the privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children.

The FCC has been too lax for too long enforcing the law on broadcasters. A recent public outcry has been a wake-up call for the FCC. The Commission told us they do not have all the tools they need for effective enforcement. That is why we are here today.

Passing this legislation will tell the broadcasters that we are serious about protecting our airwaves and we will give the FCC updated tools to get the job done. I don't know if I need to remind my colleagues that this came to the forefront at this year's Super Bowl, an event families across the country watch together. At the halftime show, the incident between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson set off a firestorm that had been brewing for a long period of time.

Finally people said: Look, I have had enough; I don't want to see this any more, particularly when I am watching TV with my family. That is what launched this forward.

We have been waiting for years for the broadcasters to voluntarily take care of this growing problem. They have failed. Instead, they are fighting tooth and nail for the availability to air graphic material so they can increase their profit margins.

America deserves better. That is why we need to make the consequences of broadcasting indecency punitive so the standards are no longer ignored.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Increasing the fines will help clean up our Nation's free, over-the-air television and radio by holding accountable broadcasters who use the public airwaves and individuals who use the opportunity of a live performance to gain notoriety through indecent acts.

As I noted previously, this has been considered by the Senate Commerce Committee and it has passed unanimously in that committee. It has been considered previously by the House of Representatives, which has voted 391 in favor with only 22 against increasing these fines. They actually have some teeth in today's marketplace. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays when we vote on this Monday. I further ask unanimous consent that when we go back to this amendment on Monday that I be recognized first to speak if there are any further amendments that are proposed to this that are to be considered on Monday.

Mr. President, I have been informed that we need colleagues on the other side to respond to yeas and nays and I will not ask for that until we do get that agreement from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in speaking to the Burns second-degree amendment, this is an amendment that was considered in the Commerce Committee and added to the base bill at that time. What he is proposing to do makes a lot of sense. I do not see a problem with that at all, so I would be supportive of doing that.

Overall, we want to get this to move it forward. The House has moved on this action. The FCC is seeking this authority. So we really want to try to get this to move on through the process, if at all possible. We are not having further rollcall votes until Monday, so we will proceed at that time, and I will ask for a rollcall vote then.

Mr. President, I am pleased to put my full support behind an agreement made between Senators Dodd, McCain, Warner, Levin, and Hollings to attach the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, as amendment No. 3309, to the pending Department of Defense Authorization bill.

Each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police departments. These individuals are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service.

We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, or as we saw on September 11--terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends. One hundred firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally strong commitment from the Federal Government.

In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, equipped, and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act--legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, and many others, on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act became law, fire departments have made significant progress in terms of filling the substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection Association's ``needs assessment.''

To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $2 billion dollars for the FIRE Act program. Virtually every penny of

that amount has gone directly to local fire departments through FIRE grants to provide firefighter personal protective equipment, training to ensure more effective firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, new firefighting vehicles, emergency medical services supplies, fire prevention programs, and other important uses.

The direct nature of the FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go straight from the Federal Government to local fire departments--is an extremely important aspect of the law, particularly in light of the difficulties we are seeing with other homeland security grant programs getting money to flow directly to the intended recipients.

FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up to this point and that the fire service in my home state is much better prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool for fire-based first responders.

The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program where improvements can be made. Amendment No. 3309, which I am offering along with Senator Dodd, accomplishes just that.

Our amendment focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the amendment increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving Emergency Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate the program through a series of reports to help ensure that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been developed jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to strengthen the FIRE Act program for years to come.

Our amendment would help the FIRE Act program more accessible for fire departments serving the very largest and smallest jurisdictions in America. Our experience over the past four years has been that a number of features in the program make participation difficult for departments serving these populations. Career fire departments, most of which serve populations well in excess of 50,000, have been receiving only a small percentage of the total grants thus far. After consulting with the fire service organizations, fire chiefs in my home State of Ohio, and officials administering the program at the Department of Homeland Security, we have found that there are two main reasons why this has been the case.

First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, such as Cedarville, OH, and have only one station--are eligible for the exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to forgo applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, budgets are often so limited that meeting the current match is simply not possible. Many of these departments struggle with even the most basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff available to respond to a structure fire.

Our legislation addresses each of these problems in a simple and straightforward fashion. Specifically, the amendment would reduce matching requirements by one third for departments serving communities of 50,000, and by one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents in order to encourage increased participation by these departments. The amendment also would re-structure caps on grant amounts to reflect population served, with up to $2,250,000 for departments serving one million or more, $1,500,000 for departments serving between 500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments serving fewer than 500,000 residents. Together, these two changes would go a long way toward increasing the accessibility of the program for the very largest and smallest departments in the United States.

The second major component of our legislation has to do with the transfer of the FIRE Act Administration from the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the FIRE grant program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were transferred to DHS. As a part of that transfer, formal administration of the FIRE grant program has been delegated to the Department to the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, which oversees all DHS grant programs. While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts within the Federal Government--remains involved, we need to take steps to formalize the management of the program following the transfer to

Mr. President, as we look at the situation in America and in the world today, we face serious challenges. Obviously, the war on terrorism is one of the most serious challenges we have had in many decades, one that is different because there are no specific battles that are won or lost. There may not be a moment when we say it is over. Because we are dealing with a moving, shadowy element that uses the most dastardly types of attacks on individuals, innocent men, women, and children.

We have seen the situation in Florida, where the people there have been hit repeatedly by hurricanes and disasters. I guess you could say in many respects these are times that try men and women's souls.

We are under attack in a lot of ways. But, also, these are the times that require a certain trumpet. We cannot have uncertainty in terms of leadership. We cannot have an uncertain trumpet. We have to have direction, strong leadership, and courage to take a stand and follow it through. That is why I am very much worried about what I see in Senator Kerry and the positions he has taken, first on one side and then the other.

I was greatly distressed last week when we had the Prime Minister of Iraq here. He is a man who is showing strength, leadership, and great courage because his life is on the line every day with repeated assassination attempts directed at him. He came here. He said: Thank you, America. He said: We are going to have elections. We are going to have peace and freedom and democracy. We chose justice and the rule of law rather than chaos and anarchy. He did a magnificent job. I was inspired by what he is doing and by his speech.

Yet Senator Kerry attacked his speech before he even left town. Where are the basic courtesies that we have in the past extended to leaders of other countries?

President Bush, on the other hand, has shown strength, leadership, and courage. He is dealing with the issues of security. People see in him and hear in his voice a determination, a commitment, that will get us through this. But Senator Kerry has been flip-flopping back and forth on Iraq for not just the campaign but actually for years, going back to 2002 where he took one position and where now, in 2003 and 2004, he has taken a different position.

On September 20, 2004, he said that our most important task is to win the war on terrorism. On March 6, 2004, he balked at calling the war on terror an actual ``war.''

On September 20 he said Iraq was a ``diversion from'' the war on terror. Yet back in December of 2003 he said that Iraq is ``critical'' to the success of the war on terror.

In September of 2004 he said the evil of Saddam was enough to justify the war. Yet before that he agreed with the administration's goal of regime change. He also said that Saddam's ``breach of international values'' was a sufficient cause of war.

In 2004 he said Saddam's ``downfall . . . has left America less secure.'' Yet in December of 2003 he questioned the judgment of those claiming Saddam's capture doesn't help American security.

The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

But it goes beyond just the war on Iraq. What worries me is there is a pattern here, across the board, not only in that area that threatens our very security and our lives, the war on terrorism, but in area after area, issue after issue.

For instance, in 1991 Senator Kerry supported most-favored trade status for China and now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China.

Which is it? You cannot be for it and against it when you talk about international trade. Trade is good. America can compete. We do need to enlarge the pie. We need to make sure we have fair trade. But you cannot vote one way on trade and then be critical of it on the other side.

In October 2003, Senator Kerry called the fence that is being built in Israel for security purposes a ``barrier to peace.'' He was critical of it. Yet in February of 2004, he calls the fence a ``legitimate act of self-defense.'' You can't get into a very dangerous and sensitive situation like this and say one thing and then the other. What is it? Which is it? An uncertain trumpet takes lives.

Even in the case of eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, Senator Kerry said he will fight to keep the tax relief for married couples. He said Democrats fought to end the marriage penalty tax. Yet in 1998, he voted against eliminating the marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. Last week when we actually extended the elimination of that marriage penalty tax, of course, he didn't vote.

He even flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a favorite punching bag now.

I was here when the death debate occurred. I remember the broad unanimous support involved in passing that legislation. We needed to do some things to give our law enforcement people the ability to deal with these terrorists. If you look at what has transpired since then, this great fear of having your library card checked or a ``knock in the night'' is not occurring. So he voted for it, and now he attacks the PATRIOT Act. He said:

We are a nation of laws, and liberties, not of a knock in

the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

I think that is an unfair shot at our former colleague, the Attorney General of the United States. Again, Senator Kerry was for the Patriot Act and now he is against it.

On the gay marriage amendment, in 2002, Senator Kerry signed a letter urging the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet now in 2004 he won't rule out supporting a similar amendment. Which is it? Is it one thing in Massachusetts and another here in Washington?

Also, I think when you get into other issues like the death penalty for terrorists, these are relevant issues we can't take the wrong position on. Yet, in 1996, he attacked Governor Weld of Massachusetts for supporting the death penalty for terrorists. But now he said he might support the death penalty for terrorists.

On the No Child Left Behind Act, he voted for it, and now he attacks it as a ``mockery.'' He trashed it as an ``unfunded mandate'' with ``laudable goals.''

Let me tell you that I am a son of a schoolteacher. I was in public education all my life. I didn't go to some elite school. I went to public education. I stay in touch with teachers and administrators. And they tell me it is making a difference. We have goals and challenges. Teachers are doing better, students are doing better, and the money has been going up every year.

On issue after issue, he has flip-flopped.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this lengthy list be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to express my support for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Made possible through an act of the United States Congress in 1978, Asian Pacific American Heritage Week was then expanded into a month long celebration in 1992. The month of May was appropriately chosen to commemorate the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants to the United States and the completion of the transcontinental railroad. As we celebrate the 25th year, this May is an excellent opportunity for all Americans to celebrate, honor and reflect on the many accomplishments and contributions of the Asian Pacific American community.

From the transcontinental railroad to the halls of Congress, Asian Pacific Americans have played a major role in the development of our nation with an increasing presence in the Federal government. I would like to acknowledge the many accomplished leaders of Asian descent currently serving our country. In the President's Cabinet alone, we have two prominent leaders, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the first Asian Pacific American to serve in the President's Cabinet. Congressman Bob Matsui, Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is the first Asian Pacific American to serve in the House Democratic leadership. Washington Governor Gary Locke, Chair of the Democratic Governors Association, is the first Asian Pacific American to deliver the Democratic response to the President's State of the Union Address.

And of course, one cannot have a discussion about leadership within the Asian Pacific American community without reflecting on the career and accomplishments of my dear friend, the late Congresswoman Patsy Mink. We must continue on in this tradition by encouraging more Asian Pacific Americans to forge ahead in non-traditional sectors as my friend Patsy Mink did. Patsy was a true trailblazer. She was the first Asian Pacific American woman to practice law in Hawaii and the first woman of color elected to Congress. The APA community has come far from its humble beginnings, but there is still much work we need to do.

While APAs as a whole have flourished in the United States, there are still challenges facing certain segments of the community. Recent immigrants and refugees are still working to achieve the American dream. My district is home to Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander populations whose challenges include post-war stress and inadequate job skills. I urge my colleagues not to forget those who are struggling to overcome language and cultural barriers, as well as discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce legislation that will ensure the Asian Pacific American community continues to thrive. In the 108th Congress, I have introduced the following bills:

H.R. 1984, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act, provides veteran benefits to the Filipino veterans who fought side by side with American soldiers during World War II. In addition to providing desperately needed health care to veterans, this bill calls for home loan assistance for U.S. based Filipino veterans, educational assistance for U.S. and Philippine based dependents, vocational rehabilitation, and employment services, job counseling, training, and placement services for U.S. based veterans.

H.R. 1486 urges the Secretary of Education to commission a study to examine ways to increase the graduation rate for Native American and Native Hawaiian secondary school students, as well as for students residing in American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.

H.R. 1983, the Amerasian Justice Act, will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate the immigration to the United States of children born in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered by United States citizens. There are now more than 50,000 Amerasian children in the Philippines and 6,000 Amerasian children in Japan burdened by social stigma and psychological stress which affect viable opportunities for employment, education or family life.

H. Con. Res. 83 honors the victims of the Cambodian genocide that took place between 1975 and 1979, and pays tribute to the survivors who made their way to the United States. It also expresses the sense of Congress's commitment to pursue justice for the victims.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a district that reflects America's greatest strength--our rich cultural diversity. As we commemorate May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, we must celebrate the culture, traditions and achievements of Asian Pacific Americans, but we must also reflect on how to meet the challenges that will face the community in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their great leadership and their sensitivity in marshaling this piece of legislation to the floor.

I would like to also thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for managing this piece of legislation; and I would like to thank my colleague and friend from the area that we both represent, Long Beach, for joining in this morning in presenting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on my resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 83, a bill honoring the victims of the Cambodian genocide. Between April, 1975, and January, 1979, up to 3 million Cambodians were deliberately and systematically killed in what later became known as the Killing Fields. Many more were tortured, starved, and brainwashed but survived this horrific period in history.

In 1975, Pol Pot led the communist guerilla group, the Khmer Rouge, in a large-scale insurgency that resulted in the removal of millions of Cambodians from their homes and forced them into brutal labor camps. Traditional Khmer culture and society were systematically destroyed. Temples, schools, hospitals, and other buildings were shattered. Families were separated in an attempt by the Khmer Rouge to prevent family formation. Many were punished or killed for education, wealth or sophistication. Doctors, nurses, clergy, teachers, business owners, artisans, city dwellers and even those who wore glasses were singled out for execution since they were seen as bourgeois or contaminated with western influence.

The Khmer Rouge maintained control by mass public torture, executions, and dismantling the social order. Men, women and children were sent to labor camps and forced to do strenuous farm work. They were starved, with little food and contaminated drinking water. Famine and disease became epidemic, while medicine and medical care were nonexistent.

When the Khmer Rouge regime was overthrown in 1979, thousands of Cambodians fled on foot to refugee camps on the Thai border. While war continued to rage in their homeland, they waited for up to 12 years to be resettled in a third country such as the United States. From the refugee camps in Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia, approximately 145,000 Cambodians made their way to the United States between 1975 and 1999.

The majority of Cambodians arrived in the early 1980s. With the assistance of the Federal Government, State, local and voluntary agencies, Cambodians were resettled in communities across the country. Mutual assistance associations organized by previously resettled southeast Asian refugees helped these newcomers by providing essential social, physiological, cultural, educational and economic services.

I am grateful for the work that these organizations have done to help assimilate the many Cambodians that reside in my district and around this country. The United Cambodian Community, the Khmer Parent Association, the Family and Good Health Association, and the Cambodian Chamber of Congress all have played an important role in trying to help these refugees find their way and to help them overcome the horrendous experiences that they had in their homeland.

The Cambodian culture and contributions have enriched the American landscape. According to U.S. census figures, there are 176,148 Cambodians currently living in the United States, including almost 100,000 in the City of Long Beach. I am proud that the largest Cambodian population in the United States resides in my district.

Despite the tremendous loss of family members, homes, and even parts of their heritage, Cambodians have shown enormous resiliency. They continue in their struggle to fully assimilate themselves into the fabric of our society.

Unfortunately, some Cambodian refugees still suffer severe emotional trauma from the cruelties experienced under the Khmer Rouge. An article in The New York Times this past Sunday noted the difficulty and the adjustment that Cambodian refugees have had to make from forced labor to a free society. We must continue to help Cambodian refugees share in the American Dream. Passage of this measure is a start in the pursuit of justice for the victims of the Cambodian genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this resolution paying tribute to the victims of the Cambodian genocide; and I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and all who will partake in this resolution.