Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 16, regarding the recent elections in Ukraine, and President Victor Yushchenko's victory.

Today, America looks upon a world very different from that which existed less than twenty years ago. Where once millions of people were trapped under the heels of tyrants, they now are enjoying the liberties we fought for more than two centuries ago. Our former rivals have become allies in the fight for freedom and democracy. The most recent example of this comes from Ukraine, where a drawn-out election has produced a new leadership for the citizens of this former Soviet Republic.

In Ukraine, the will of the people proved stronger than threats and oppression, as tens of thousands of young Ukrainians took to the streets to protest fraudulent elections. Ultimately, they were heard, and Victor Yushchenko was elected to be their President.

These elections are a triumphant accomplishment for the people of Ukraine, but by no means do they guarantee freedom. The struggle for liberty is a constant one, and in order for Ukrainians to fully realize their dream for representation, the new government of President Victor Yushchenko must rid the country of the corruption that has plagued it for so long. If this can be done, Ukraine will be able to realize a bright and productive future.

When I visited Ukraine in December, I met some of the people who made it possible to overturn the fraudulent elections. It is hard to express how inspiring it was to see the pride and dedication that those young people exhibited. I can only hope that these qualities can find a home in the hearts of the young people in other societies and fuel the desire for freedom around the globe.

I also met with the physician who diagnosed President Yushchenko with dioxin poisoning, after his face was so badly distorted by what appears to have been an effort to kill him and the reforms he represents. The symbolism behind this man's struggle is hard to ignore. Parallels can be drawn between the desperate grasps for dwindling power by others who have ruled without consent, and the cowardly poisoning of this remarkable man. President Yushchenko also represents the strength and inevitability of freedom itself. Rather than surrender, he drove forward, both for his supporters and for his country.

Through its ``Orange Revolution,'' Ukraine has shown the world the strength and courage of its people. With its well educated workforce and bountiful natural resources, the country is poised for a prosperous future. President Yushchenko has expressed his desire for his country to join NATO and the European Union. The United States should support Ukraine's desire to fully join the west. At the same time, we must work to reassure Russia that a Ukraine that is fully integrated into Euro- Atlantic institutions is not a threat, but instead represents a more stable neighbor and a potential future for Russia itself.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 39, to recognize and honor the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and to honor the 13 million who perished in the Nazi concentration camps.

It is important not only that we continue to study the terrible lessons of the Holocaust, but that we also express our gratitude to the Allied troops whose service and sacrifice helped liberate those trapped in these factories of death.

The Holocaust represented the systematic persecution and murder of approximately 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Dubbed the ``final solution'' by the Nazi bureaucrats who ran it, the attempted extermination of European Jewry was carried out in camps across occupied Europe. The center of this hell was Auschwitz.

A complex of camps, Auschwitz was built 37 miles west of Krakow, near the prewar German-Polish border, to extract the labor of its prisoners before they were exterminated in gas chambers that ran around-the- clock. It is estimated that at least 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz between 1940 and 1945; of these, at least 1.1 million were murdered there.

Sixty years ago, on January 27, 1945, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz and freed more than 7,000 people, most of whom were ill and dying.

Thirteen years ago, I was able to see this camp firsthand when I visited Poland. Decades after the liberation, the thought of all the men, women and children murdered there was and still is chilling and difficult to endure.

The United Nations held a special session yesterday to commemorate the Holocaust and the liberation of the camps. The ceremony featured speakers Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wollowitz and the foreign ministers of Israel, Germany, and France.

Even as we struggle to come to terms with events that happened more than half a century ago, we must recognize that there are other genocides occurring in the world. In the wake of the conflagration that befell the Jews during the Nazi era, the world pledged that ``Never Again'' would we stand by as others were hunted and murdered just because they existed. Sadly, we have not yet lived up to that simple vow--the dead of Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and now Darfur, have joined the Jews of Europe. I hope that the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz will act as a catalyst for a re-dedication of humanity to ending the crime of genocide.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has some very important reforms of our intelligence agencies, and I support it. Chief among them, the establishment of the national intelligence directorate as well as the national counterterrorism centers. But while these changes have attracted most of our attention, these changes

within our institutions, as tough as they have been for this Congress, are the relatively easy part.

Among the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to strengthen our efforts at nonproliferation, to try to deal with the problem of nuclear material, in particular, arriving in the wrong hands. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have made it a top priority to obtain nuclear material, and some of the strongest and most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are to deal with that very real danger. In fact, as the President and Senator Kerry both stated during the first Presidential debate, the threat of nuclear terrorism is the number one national security threat facing the country.

In addition to the organizational changes that we have all been debating, there are provisions in this legislation that call for the establishment of a national counterproliferation center that can attack this problem of the proliferation of nuclear material as well as chemical and biological material. It will help oversee operational efforts to interdict this material and also recommended changes in the international legal structure that will better help us deal with the A.Q. Khans of the world, to deal with Iran, to deal with North Korea and attack this very real danger to our country. My own language applying RICO in this area as well as strengthening the dirty bomb statutes has also been incorporated into the bill.

These steps are just a beginning. Many more far-reaching steps also have to be taken if we are to deal with this risk of nuclear terrorism.

The NPT, as we have seen, has served us well for 40 years, but is now showing its age. I think Iran is demonstrating that the purest and simplest path to the bomb now runs through the NPT, not around it. We would do well to pay attention to those recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that are the tougher steps to deal with the proliferation of nuclear material; but this is a good first step, and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I joined many of my colleagues in Little Rock, Arkansas, for the official dedication of the William Jefferson

Clinton Presidential Center, a place where scholars and all Americans can study the many remarkable achievements of 8 years of the Clinton administration.

As I sat through the dedication ceremonies today, I reflected on the unparalleled economic prosperity that America experienced during President Clinton's tenure. I also could not help thinking about the important matter we would be confronted with on the House floor later in the day, a vote to raise the debt limit for the third time since President Clinton's successor took office. With today's vote, the majority of this House has agreed to a whopping $800 billion increase in the debt ceiling from its present level of $7.38 trillion to $8.18 trillion.

The impending breach of the statutory debt ceiling is the latest warning about the Nation's fiscal health. Our debt has been growing faster than our economy's ability to repay it due in large part to a reckless economic policy over the last 4 years. These policies have undone the hard work it took to balance the budget during the 1990s and have left us awash in a sea of red ink.

At the beginning of the Clinton administration in 1992, the Federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work, and the Nation's economic growth rate was the lowest in more than half a century. In response, President Clinton and the congressional Democrats worked together to enact the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan which passed the House and Senate without a single Republican vote. The balanced budget plan demonstrated that guided by common sense and realism, we could slash the deficit in half while also making important investments in our future including education, health care, science, and technology.

The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction and cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest pressed Americans as well as small businesses.

What followed is unarguable: the creation of more than 22 million new jobs and the Nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. The Nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history. Four consecutive years of debt reduction also followed, a total of $453 billion paid down, bringing the public debt down to $2.9 trillion lower in 2001 than projected in 1993.

When President Clinton left office, we were on track to eliminate the Nation's public debt by 2012, making America debt-free for the first time since Andrew Jackson was President.

Today, we continue the fiscal U-turn that this Congress and administration have steered us into over the last 4 years. Today's vote to increase the debt limit marks yet another unfortunate milestone in our Nation's history where we have the largest deficits we have ever had, $413 billion, and absolutely no plan in sight to put our fiscal House in order.

For years, members of the Blue Dog Coalition have warned that we were spending money we did not have, that the administration had no economic plan, and that tax cuts alone were not a substitute for an economic plan for our country's future. This Congress continues to reject efforts to budget in the same way that your family and mine does, by paying as you go.

Even as we sought to stave off the day of reckoning, middle-class Americans are paying for our profligacy in the form of rising interest rates. As a result, American consumers are paying more for their mortgages and on their credit cards.

With the retirement of the baby-boom generation beginning in just 4 years, we must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our children and future generations are not saddled with the enormous responsibility of paying for our economic health and our safety. We owe it to the American people to stop imperiling the Nation's economic future by borrowing money to pay for irresponsible policies.

We all acknowledge that the September 11 attacks and the resulting war on terrorism as well as the war on Iraq have put an additional stress on our economy. But instead of spending political capital to ask all Americans to share in the Nation's sacrifice, the President and the majority today took the easy way out.

Mr. Speaker, the day of reckoning is at hand, and with today's vote we must all acknowledge we have hit rock bottom.

In his farewell address to the Nation from the Oval Office in February, 2003, President Clinton left the American people with three thoughts about our future. His first admonition was that America must maintain its fiscal responsibility. Pointing to record deficits turned into record surpluses and the paying down of our national debt, he urged us to stay on track. ``If we choose wisely,'' he said, ``we can pay down the debt, deal with the retirement of the baby-boomers, invest more in our future, and provide tax relief.''

Unfortunately, this Congress and this administration have not chosen wisely. The juxtaposition of today's dedication of the Clinton Library and this evening's vote to increase the national debt is a clarion call to return to the sound fiscal policies that were central to the economic boom of the 1990s. We have a duty to the American people to restore sanity and discipline to our Nation's finances.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate Amendments to the California Missions Preservation Act. I am a co- sponsor of this bill, and I am pleased that we are sending it to the White House before we adjourn.

Because of this legislation, important historical sites in California will be better preserved for future generations of Americans to enjoy and learn about our state's rich heritage.

I am proud to represent in my district the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel. This is the fourth of twenty-one missions established in California during the Spanish colonial era.

Orginally founded in 1771 in present-day Montebello, it was moved in 1776 to what is now San Gabriel. Built by the Franciscans and Native American Gabrielenos, the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel would become what famed Spanish missionary Junipero Serra would call ``The Pride of the Missions.''

The government eventually changed from Spanish to Mexican, then from Mexican to American. In the early 20th Century, control of the Mission would eventually go to the Claretian Missionaries with the Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose providing education at the parish school. Yet the Mission would always be an integral part of the community, a jewel of the southland, a wondrous remnant from the first of many who built the greater Los Angeles area into a world-class destination.

Today, the Mission is set amount a large, diverse and gracious community. Local residents still seek spiritual guidance there, and cactus garden. The Mission thrives as a source of pride among residents of the San Gabriel Valley, and I pleased that Congress is recognizing the importance of protecting this and other Missions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Patricia Clothier for more than twenty three years of dedicated service to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Patricia Clothier was sworn into the FBI on April 6, 1981. Since then, she has worked from the Phoenix, Charleston, South Carolina, and Los Angeles Divisions throughout her career with the Bureau in addition to traveling to several countries to conduct field work. Beginning as an agent working against organized crime, Clothier worked on anti- narcotic and anti-corruption cases, including specific cases against the Mexican Mafia and Hell's Angels. Becoming the first female bomb technician only seven years after she became an agent, Clothier was deployed to many sites to work on high-profile cases, including the terrorist bombings at the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing.

Clothier traveled to Montana to collect information from the cabin for the case against Ted Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber. Ms. Clothier retired earlier this fall as a supervisor in charge of the Counter Terrorism Squad and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Her fellow agents looked to her as a supervisor who brought an ultimate sense of loyalty to the FBI in addition to someone who always stood strong for her beliefs while also being there to coach newer agents. Clothier remained a field agent even as a veteran to the Bureau, which only bolstered her credibility among the law enforcement community and colleagues.

I ask all members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Patricia Clothier for her exemplary professional and public service career, and for her immense dedication to the community and the nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Zonta Club of Pasadena and the women who have shaped the club into the influential force that it is today in the greater Pasadena area.

Zonta International was established in 1919 in New York. Members were among the first generation of college-educated women, the first generation of North American women to vote, and a part of the growing legion of women entering the workforce. Currently, there are more than 33,000 members of Zonta Clubs in 67 countries. Their efforts are directed at increasing women's access to education and healthcare, preventing violence against women, and expanding economic self- sufficiency, as well as international service projects dedicated to world peace.

Founded in 1929, Zonta Club of Pasadena envisioned a strong network that would help women reach their rightful place in the professional world. Addressing the needs of women and children in our community, Zonta Club of Pasadena contributes volunteer time and financial support to Women at Work, Wellness Community-Foothills, Huntington Memorial Hospital, Young & Healthy, Union Station Foundation, Day One, the Pasadena Unified School District, and numerous other organizations.

In recognition of their seventy-fifth anniversary, Zonta Club of Pasadena will honor 20 women who have contributed significantly to the work of Zonta. These outstanding women are civic, educational, political and business leaders in the community, who have also provided strong leadership within the Zonta organization. The honorees are: Andrea Beal, Suzanne Burger, Beth Calleton, Priscilla Gamb, Shirley Gold, Lucy Guernsey, Ann Hight, Sue Miele, Regenia Moses, Katie Nack, Marilynn Penny, Betty-Jean Prosser, Anne Pursel, Pat Reynolds- Christianson, Lacreta Scott, Patricia Vick, Mildred Wardlow, Marge Wyatt, Harriet Zimney, and Carol Zoeller.

It is my distinct honor to ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Zonta Club of Pasadena's seventy-five years of service and support to women and children in the 29th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Temple City Unified School District for 50 years of outstanding service to the community.

The Temple City Unified School District was established as a unified school district on July 1, 1954. At the time, the district had grades kindergarten through 11th. Elementary classes were held at Cloverly, Emperor, and Longden. Oak Avenue School, formerly part of Pasadena Unified School District, was a junior high school, and in 1954 it became Temple City High School. At the time, a total of 789 students were enrolled in grades 8 through 11. The first 12th grade class of 138 students graduated from the Oak Avenue campus in 1956. The first graduation from the new campus was in 1957. During that first year, the Temple City High School Associated Student Body established the green and gold colors and the ``Ram'' as the school mascot.

The Temple City Unified School District is located in the West San Gabriel Valley. The population of the district's service area is approximately 35,000. The service area includes within its boundaries most of the incorporated city of Temple City, as well as small portions of San Gabriel, Arcadia, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Currently, the district maintains one comprehensive high school, TCHS, one alternative high school, Community Learning Center, one intermediate school, Oak Avenue, four elementary schools, Cloverly, Emperor, La Rosa, and Longden, and one adult school, Temple City Adult School.

A list of outstanding superintendents have served TCUSD. The first, Howard Beckner, retired in 1961. He was succeeded by Dr. Jack Rand and then Allen Rice. Superintendents Wesley Bosson and Clint Taylor followed. In 1999, Joan Hillard became the District's sixth Superintendent. It is clear that TCUSD has a history rich with spirit and values of progress, dedication, unity, and pride.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating the Temple City Unified School District for 50 years of outstanding educational service to the community, and for its immense commitment to the success of its students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Larry Lewis of the Alhambra Police Department. Chief Lewis is a 35-year veteran of California Law Enforcement having served in five municipal police agencies. Chief Lewis began his distinguished career as a police cadet in West Covina, CA.

As the police chief for Alhambra, Larry Lewis has been an exemplary leader in working with his department to strengthen its application of the community policing philosophy as well as the department's commitment to ethical and professional behavior. He has instituted effective review procedures of police use of force and vehicle pursuits and introduced less lethal weapons and in-vehicle camera systems into department operations. In 2003, as a result of Chief Lewis' efforts, the department replaced its aging information technology system resulting in a new records management and computer aided dispatch system, mobile data computers in police vehicles, and mapping system as well as improved crime analysis abilities.

An active member of the community, Larry Lewis has served on several professional boards as well as community service associations such as Rotary International and the YMCA. He has taught and lectured on topics of police use of force, sexual harassment prevention, supervision, executive leadership and community policing. In addition, Chief Lewis served as the 2002 president of the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, representing 46 municipal law enforcement agencies in the county.

Chief Lewis received a bachelor of arts degree in political science and masters in public administration from California State University, Fullerton as well as a masters of science degree in management from Cal Poly University, Pomona. He is a graduate of the POST Command College, returning as a presenter during class orientations.

Known for his charisma and sense of humor, Chief Lewis is a popular master of ceremonies for various community and charity events.

Chief Lewis celebrates 32 years of marriage to his wife, Irene in 2004. They enjoy family outings with their son, Steve, and daughter-in- law, Penny.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Alhambra Police Chief Larry Lewis on an impressive and long spanning career in law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, in his 1917 poem, Disabled, the British poet Wilfred Owen, whose haunting verse brought the horror of the First World War to millions throughout the English-speaking world, described the loneliness and emptiness of a soldier who had lost his leg in war.

Alone, in a wheelchair by a window, the soldier remembers all that he has lost and how the cheers that accompanied his departure for the front were not so loud upon his return--how

only a solemn man who brought him fruits Thanked him; and

then enquired about his soul.

Today thousands of young Americans face many of the same challenges of the young amputee in Owen's poem. Thanks to vastly improved battlefield medicine and body armor, fewer of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan die from their wounds than in any of America's previous wars. But this improved survival rate does not come without a price: Thousands of young Americans are returning home paralyzed or without limbs. More than 7,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq according to the Defense Department and many hundreds more have been wounded in Afghanistan.

Last month, when I visited our troops in Iraq, I spent some time at a military field hospital near Baghdad. It was a deeply moving experience to confront the costs of war. Two

weeks ago, I shared with this House a discussion I had had with two young Marines whose armored Humvee had been blown up by a roadside bomb. Nearby there was another soldier whose spine had been severed by shrapnel. He was unconscious when I was there, but his doctor told me that he will be a quadriplegic for the rest of his life.

We have asked so much from the young people we send into battle and they have the right to expect that if they are wounded that we as a nation and as a people will be there for them. That is the covenant that we have made with them.

The vast majority of our most severely wounded will receive cutting- edge medical care; many will convalesce right here in the Washington area at Walter Reed or the Bethesda Naval Hospital. During my visits to Walter Reed I have been impressed by the work of the doctors, nurses and therapists who are doing a marvelous job for the troops there, many of who stay for months as they recover from their wounds and begin a new life--often with prosthetic limbs.

Many of the troops who are treated at Walter Reed or Bethesda are discharged from the military shortly after leaving the hospital. As they continue their recovery most of these former soldiers will still require medical treatment, physical therapy, and counseling. Some will need care for the rest of their lives.

For many veterans, especially the severely wounded, navigating the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs is a frustrating challenge in itself. Yet, even as the VA is taking on thousands of newly disabled veterans, the largest such group since Vietnam, three VA hospitals are slated for closure, while another eight will be partially closed.

The backlog of disability claims is growing and now exceeds 330,000, while the backlog of veterans claims pending before the Board of Veterans Appeals has nearly doubled in the last four years. Even though it now takes the VA about 160 days to process a claim--more than 5 months, the Administration wants to cut 500 claims processors in FY 2005.

I see no reason why, at a time when we should be adding to the VA's 162 medical facilities, we are shutting them down. In a survey released in March of last year by the American Legion, patients wait an average of seven months to see a primary care physician at VA facilities and more than half reported that they had an appointment postponed by the VA, with an average wait of an additional 2\1/2\ months.

When they finally receive care at VA facilities, some of our veterans receive substandard care. In April of this year, an ABC News aired investigation of two VA facilities in the Cleveland area, found dirty bathrooms, halls filled with dirty linens, unclean examination rooms, and memos discussing broken sterilization machines. Former patients spoke of insensitive staff who often ignored patient needs; one woman spoke of patients begging for food and water.

As bad as conditions were before, they are likely to be worse now as the influx of wounded from Iraq grows. In August alone, more than 1,100 U.S. troops were wounded.

The treatment of those wounded in battle is a good measure of a nation, and Congress, and the president must take corrective action now. I realize that fixing a problem of the magnitude of that facing our veterans cannot happen overnight, but we can begin now. The House should do is to pass immediately H.R. 5057, which will expand the Army's innovative Disabled Soldier Support System to all of the military services. The bill was introduced by my colleagues, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Jones, and enjoys support on both sides of the aisle. The DS3 program has helped more than 200 severely wounded soldiers to adjust to their new lives, but there are thousands more who need help.

We must also rely on the generosity of the American people to help wounded soldiers. Local communities, service clubs, religious congregations, schools and individuals can pitch in to help new veterans. Medical professionals, social workers, and therapists can volunteer to help until we can get the VA medical system into shape. Contractors can donate their services to remodel homes for soldiers who are paralyzed or have lost a limb. Automobile dealers can donate vehicles that are modified for the needs of their new owners. Students can volunteer their time to run errands, do laundry or just visit with these heroes, many of whom are only a few years older than they are.

Mr. Speaker, no American who has served this Nation in the armed services and been grievously wounded should ever be left to stare out a window and dream of a life that could have been. We are a stronger, prouder and more grateful nation than that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

It used to be an axiom of American politics that partisanship ended at the water's edge. We have no greater responsibility to our constituents than the security of this Nation.

On September 11, 2001, Republicans and Democrats died together in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Today tens of thousands of American troops, Democrats and Republicans alike, are battling insurgents and chasing al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our police, firefighters and air marshals, Democrats and Republicans alike, are working every day to keep Americans safe.

In return, our troops, our first responders, and the American public expect us to organize the government so that we are better able to perform the mission of the defense of this country. In late July, the 9/11 Commission produced its report and laid out a series of recommendations that they believe would best ensure the security of the country. I said then and I say again today that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations should be the basis for any actions taken by this Congress in reorganizing and best configuring this government's response to the threat of terrorism.

The Menendez substitute closely adheres to the recommendations of the commission. It has no extraneous provisions that are not central to the mission of securing this Nation from terrorism. I also note that it has the support of the 9/11 families and their voices are ones we should not ignore. It grants more authority to the National Intelligence Director to enact real reforms in the intelligence community and creates a more powerful national counterterrorism center than the one proposed by the base bill. And, most important, it includes a mandate supported by the commission to strengthen Nunn-Luger's cooperative threat reduction and the Proliferation Security Initiative.

The threat of a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands is the most significant threat we face.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Menendez substitute, a substitute that closely adheres to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and most importantly, from my point of view, incorporates the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that we strengthen our efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material, technology, and expertise around the world.

In the Committee on the Judiciary, I offered a series of amendments, some which adopt the language now found in the Menendez substitute, which was in McCain-Lieberman, to strengthen our nonproliferation efforts; others that identify and prioritize the sites of highly- enriched uranium around the world, those amendments were adopted. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support in committee. They were also supported by the Chair of the Committee on International Relations.

But for some reason, Mr. Chairman, they were stripped out of this bill prior to its arrival on the floor, leaving this base bill far weaker than the substitute when it comes to the number one danger facing this country, as the President and Senator Kerry outlined in the debates, the threat of nuclear terrorism. The Menendez substitute addresses this problem, and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waxman and I rise today to honor ``the Ani Dance Ensemble,'' part of the Armenian Educational and Cultural Society, Hamazkayin, as it celebrates its 30th anniversary. Hamazkayin was founded by a group of community leaders on May 28, 1928, in Cairo, Egypt with the objective of providing a sound education to the new generation and preserving the ethnic identity and cultural heritage of the Armenian people forced to live outside their homeland after the 1915 Armenian genocide.

Subsequently, Hamazkayin chapters sprouted throughout the Middle East, Europe, the United States, Canada, South America and Armenia to instill, perpetuate and preserve the centuries of Armenian culture. Hamazkayin has been successful in establishing secondary and higher educational institutions which have prepared scholars, literary figures, and community leaders throughout Armenia and the Diaspora. The establishment of ``the Ani Dance Ensemble'' achieves the objectives of Hamazkayin through their unique performances of traditional Armenian folk dances.

``The Ani Dance Ensemble'' was established in 1974 in Los Angeles, California under the leadership of artistic directors/choreographers Ms. Suzy Barseghian-Tarpinian and Mr. Yeghia Hasholian. The ensemble has had more than 80 dances in its repertoire, and presently consists of 40 dancers. Since its inception it has performed and captivated audiences throughout California as well as cities across the nation including Washington DC, Chicago, Illinois; Falls Church, Virginia; and Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition, the group has performed in Armenia and Karabagh in 1999, 2001, and 2004. The ensemble has also represented Armenian Culture through Armenian folk dances at the American Ethnic Day in Washington, DC in 1987. They are frequently invited by American, ethnic and Armenian organizations to perform at functions. As one of the oldest and most accomplished Armenian Dance Ensembles in the United States, it is recognized as one of the best ethnic dance groups in America.

It is our distinct honor to recognize the cultural contributions of ``the Ani Dance Ensemble.'' I ask all members to join me in congratulating the ``the Ani Dance Ensemble's'' 30 years of performing traditional Armenian folk dances.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which passed overwhelmingly in the House in November 2003, I rise in strong support of the bill on the floor today, the Justice For All Act, which I am also proud to be an original co-sponsor of.

At the outset I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). From the very beginning we spoke about this bill, two former prosecutors, and while I had been focused mainly on the power of DNA to solve unsolved crimes, to go after violent felons who still walk the streets, my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), made the equally compelling point that DNA evidence has the power to exonerate those charged with the most serious crimes, to exonerate those on death row even; as has been proved the case, not merely calling into question evidence in an original trial, but rather proving conclusively the innocence of people who faced the ultimate penalty.

The DNA database improvements in this bill will help solve countless crimes and also exonerate innocent individuals wrongly imprisoned.

As a former prosecutor, I have witnessed the powerful force that DNA profiles have in solving crimes. The FBI's DNA database contains around 2 million DNA profiles and has yielded thousands of matches in criminal investigations, but thousands of additional matches can and should be made. For this reason I worked on legislation last year to increase the effectiveness of DNA databases. This legislation was aimed at replicating on a nationwide basis the tremendous State successes in solving crimes using DNA.

States have taken the lead in expanding DNA and crime-solving efforts. For example, in Virginia those efforts have yielded tremendous results with forensics officials making over a thousand cold hits, finally providing resolution to a great number of unsolved crimes. The legislation before us today makes important changes in Federal law in order to replicate these tremendous successes on a nationwide basis. These additional tools will provide additional database searching capabilities for Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, helping to solve thousands of cold cases including unsolved murders and unsolved rape cases.

In addition, the authorization of much needed funding to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs and the important Innocents Protection Provision will help ensure that inmates have access to DNA testing to establish their innocence.

I am pleased the House of Representatives is poised to approve these changes in a bipartisan fashion, and I hope this legislation will be approved by the Congress as a whole and quickly enacted into law.

In conclusion, I want to again thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), for his pioneering efforts on the Innocents Protection Act for bringing really to this body an awareness of the power of DNA to exonerate those who have been wrongly convicted of the most devastating cases facing the ultimate penalty. We could not have more important work before this body.

I want to compliment the commitment of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his superlative leadership in this legislation, without which we would not be here on the floor today.

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

I rise with the same conditional support of S. 878 as my colleague from California (Mr. Berman). The base bill responds to a crisis of judicial vacancies in our country by authorizing a number of much- needed judgeships.

Since arriving at Congress, I have been very surprised by the poor state of relations between our branches and the absence of comity that has existed between the Congress and the courts. The Federal caseload continues to increase at a record pace, reaching record levels. Courthouse funding is woefully inadequate, failing to meet the needs of Federal courts in order to carry out their critical mission and to make necessary improvements in priority areas such as courthouse security.

Judicial confirmations continue to be mired in political brinksmanship and judicial compensation has not kept pace with inflation. What is more, the Congress has now resorted to a more proactive attack on the judicial branch which we have seen on the floor of this body most recently in the form of court-stripping proposals.

Today's action on this legislation, barring the Simpson amendment, is a welcome and long overdue step in recognizing our responsibility in Congress to support the judiciary. But I am gravely concerned about the potential of the Simpson amendment. It seems to fly directly in the face of the White Commission's report analyzing when circuits should be split and when they should not. The White Commission reported in 1998: ``There is one principle that we regard as undebatable. It is wrong to realign circuits or not to realign them and to restructure courts or to leave them alone because of particular judicial decisions or particular judges. This rule must be faithfully honored for the independence of the judiciary is of constitutional dimension and requires no less.''

The Judicial Conference of the United States periodically completes a review of judgeship needs. As a result of rapid increase in the caseloads of our courts, the conference recommended that Congress establish 11 new judgeships and four courts of appeals and 46 new judgeships and 26 district courts. It also recommended five temporary judgeships become permanent.

The base bill is an important step in fulfilling that goal, and the House bill authorizes more than 50 new judgeships across the United States. However, if this bill becomes bogged down in an amendment which would only continue the assault on the judiciary, contravene the will of the judges of the circuit itself, it will be a step in the wrong direction. Circuit division would eliminate a number of important advantages that come from a large circuit. It would eliminate the ability to transfer judges from one district to another within the same circuit to deal with fluctuating caseloads. It would reduce the number of circuit judges available to decide the cases from the growing border of districts from Arizona and southern California.

For these reasons, division of the circuit is strongly opposed by a bipartisan coalition of judges and officials. The judges of the Ninth Circuit have voted overwhelmingly 30 to 9 against division. In addition, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger strongly opposes any effort to break up the circuit.

What is more, as the White Commission wrote, ``there is no persuasive evidence that the Ninth Circuit or any other circuit for that matter is not working effectively or that creating new circuits will improve the administration of justice in any circuit or overall. Furthermore, splitting the circuit would impose substantial costs of administrative disruption, not to mention the monetary costs of creating a new circuit. Accordingly, we do not recommend to Congress and the President that they consider legislation to split the circuit.''

Are we going to take a bill that was one of the few positive lights in the relationship between the Congress and the courts and turn it into yet another assault on the wishes and the needs of the judiciary?

To quote the White Report again, ``Maintaining the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as currently aligned respects the character of the west as a distinct region.''

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the base bill and rejection of the Simpson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first, there were the court-stripping amendments, now there are the court-splitting amendments. What will come next, the court-flogging amendments?

Why is this being sought? Well, it is argued that the amendment to split the courts, to split the circuit, is an amendment out of the necessity of improving the timeliness of the actions within the Ninth Circuit. Critics have purportedly claimed the Ninth Circuit is too big and prevents litigants from receiving timely legal redress.

In the period since 1984, when the court was last authorized new judgeships, there has been significant growth of the court's caseload. It has more than doubled. But interestingly enough, both the Fifth and the 11th Circuits have experienced similar increases in caseload growth; however, no divisions of those circuits have been contemplate or proposed.

So why is it only the Ninth Circuit? In fact, the Ninth Circuit terminated more than 10,000 cases in calendar year 2002, and has increased its efficiency year after year due to the continuing examination of case processing procedures and constant innovation. This has been accomplished despite unfilled vacancies. If the Congress and those that offer this amendment were truly concerned with timeliness, we would have filled those vacancies a long time ago.

So then what is the basis of this court-splitting, circuit-splitting amendment? Perhaps this is being sought because of an outcry of the judges within the Ninth Circuit and the members of the bench within the Ninth Circuit that they feel this has to be done, that it would improve the efficiency of the courts. But that cannot be it either, because the overwhelming opinion of the judges and the attorneys in the Ninth Circuit, as well as the statements of others concerned with this issue, having submitted written statements or given oral testimony before the commission, cut the other way.

Among those opposing the division of the Ninth Circuit were 20 out of 25 persons testifying at the Seattle hearing of the commission opposed to the split, 37 out of 38 persons testifying at the San Francisco hearing opposed to the split, and the governors of California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada, the American Bar Association, and the Federal Bar Association all opposed the split. Plainly, this is not on outcry from those most immediately affected.

Well, it is argued that the need for consistency requires the split. But, again, the White Commission concluded, neither do we see a need to split the Ninth Circuit in order to solve problems having to do with consistency, predictability, and coherence of circuit law; there is no recognizable evidence of such a conflict. Indeed, the Circuit's use of its en bloc review process is designed to resolve and has effectively resolved precisely such conflicts.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, when they say it is about efficiency, when they say it is about consistency, and when they say it is about timeliness, it is about ideology. And as the White Commission stated, there is unanimous agreement that ideology should never be the ideology to split a circuit.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment my colleague on the other side for his comments about the Ninth Circuit judges being overworked and being overstretched. It is really gratifying to hear all the concern for the workload of the judges in the Ninth Circuit. That concern, I think, would carry more weight with the opposition to this bill if it were reflected historically in a desire to fill the vacancies for those overworked and overstretched judges. If there had been, I think, a stronger pattern of support for that, for dealing with the burden on the caseload in the Ninth Circuit, then there would be less inclination to think this is all about ideology. But when the gentleman goes on to say that part of this is also due to his dislike of the outcome of cases determined by the composition of these three- judge panels rather than law precedent, we get, once again, back to ideology rather than a concern over caseload or workload.

Again, for those reasons, the White Commission and the courts have historically and unanimously opposed circuit splitting over matters of ideology.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 163. I do not believe that a reinstatement of the draft is necessary or desirable; nor do I believe that there is any support for a draft among my constituents or in the country as a whole.

This Nation has had an all-volunteer military for more than 30 years and the quality of America's service men and women, their dedication, professionalism and commitment has never been greater. Public support for our men and women in uniform is also much higher than it was in the later years of the draft.

Today's soldiers typically stay in the military 2 years longer than their predecessors did in the early 1970s. This reduced turnover has resulted in a more professional force that is able to take full advantage of the high-tech weaponry that is a key component of our military. The volunteer military's lower turnover rate has also led to a reduction in training costs. In 1988, a General Accounting Office study found that the all-volunteer force was cheaper than a conscript force by $2.5 billion per year--more than $4 billion in today's dollars.

Volunteers are more likely to seek promotion, and are likely to be more professionally motivated than draftees. In fact, current retention rates among deployed troops are higher than for forces based in the United States. Because volunteers are paid more and it is costly to train new soldiers, there is a greater incentive to use our troops wisely.

The military has also been successful in its efforts to increase the aptitude of recruits. Today's military is better educated than the general population. While more than 90 percent of military recruits have a high school diploma, only 75 percent of the general population does. Military recruits are also more likely to score high on aptitude tests than their civilian counterparts.

I was, frankly, surprised to see this bill on the suspension calendar for today. Typically, bills are brought up under suspension when they are non-controversial as a two-thirds vote of the House is required for passage. This bill, which enjoys virtually no support in the House, will be resoundingly defeated and I can only surmise that the Majority has only called up this bill in order to vote it down, and in so doing divert attention from the mistakes made by the Administration in overextending our forces.

We do have a military manpower shortage now, but the draft is not the answer. Over the objections of the Administration, the House has authorized the Army and Marine Corps to increase their active-duty end strength by 20,000 and 10,000, respectively. This will help to alleviate some of the strain on both the active and reserve components.

I hope that the Congress will focus attention next year on military manpower issues. We need to reconfigure our military and address the need for personnel who specialize in stability and post-conflict operations. Currently, most of the personnel who are expert in this area are in the Guard and Reserves and there are reports that re- enlistment rates in some units are down as a result of multiple extended deployments overseas.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have visited our troops on the front lines as often as possible. I am awed by their courage, their patriotism and their competence. We need to do more to support them and to ensure that they are not overextended, but reinstating the draft is not the answer. Better treatment of those who wear the uniform, and those who once served, is the more constructive solution.