Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, in reading the base bill I have a concern, and it has nothing to do with the number of days, but it has all to do with how that is triggered.

In the legislation itself it says, ``Extraordinary circumstances occur when the Speaker of the House of Representatives announces that vacancies have occurred.''

Now, should, and God forbid on the evening that we would have the State of the Union, and we are all here, and there should be a missile, it could wipe out everyone, including everyone that is on the list at that time. Who then triggers this action? Who are the people? Who has the authority to put this process in place?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1822 would designate that a United States Post Office in the Koreatown section of my district would be renamed the ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office.''

Los Angeles is the home to the largest Korean American population in the country. In fact, more people of Korean heritage live and work in Los Angeles than any place outside of Korea. LA's Koreatown neighborhood is the epicenter of that community, and the economic and cultural wealth of this area are testaments to the achievements of Korean Americans.

It is fitting to mark these achievements by naming this post office after

a man who is possibly the most celebrated Korean American of them all. Ahn Chang Ho, often known by the name of Dosan or Iron Mountain, is credited by many as being the spiritual father of modern, independent and democratic Korea. His vision is what guides the Korean people to this day, first to free themselves from foreign occupation and now to unite Koreans in one unified, peaceful, and democratic nation.

Today, Korean Americans honor Dosan Ahn Chang Ho for his contributions to the Korean nation, but all Americans can take pride in the fact that much of Dosan's vision of Korean democracy was formed by his encounters with American democracy.

Ahn Chang Ho came to the United States in 1902 and stayed more than a decade. During this time, he worked tirelessly to unite the Korean community, founding schools and cultural organizations and helping to improve living and working conditions for his fellow Korean Americans; and along the way, he emerged as the spiritual leader of the Korean independence movement.

Dosan was not the only advocate for Korean independence at that time, but Dosan's values and approach were what set him apart. He was concerned not just with the means of achieving independence, but in educating Koreans in democratic governance and civic virtue, to ensure that independence would endure.

I am proud that I sponsored this bill on behalf of the Korean American community in my district. Dosan Ahn Chang Ho is not only a symbol of Korean success in America. He is also a symbol of the shared experience and shared democratic values of all Koreans and all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is long overdue, and I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). They have been working hard for a long time on the bill. The committee has put together the best bill they could, working within the constraints imposed upon them.

The obstacle here comes from an administration that is fundamentally opposed to government investment in the infrastructure. I fear that the President's opposition will further slow our economic recovery and put a brake on economic growth for years to come.

My hometown of Los Angeles has a well-earned reputation as the most congested region of the country, a status that it has held for many years. Each Angeleno wastes an average of 52 extra hours stuck in traffic each year, time that could be spent working or with their families. The overall economic costs of this congestion is estimated at $12.8 billion per year, just in the Los Angeles area.

That is close to $13 billion that could be better invested in business and job growth. Instead, it is being burned up in traffic.

Frustrating as it is for the people who live there, Los Angeles' congestion causes problems for the rest of America too. The seaports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the first and second busiest container ports in the United States. More than 20 cents of every dollar of goods exported from the United States each year, and that is $42 billion of goods, passes through California ports every year. Getting these goods from American factories to foreign consumers is critical to our economic recovery. And the goods cannot get to the foreign consumers if they cannot get across the highways to those ports.

We need this bill. I am disappointed that the constraints imposed on us have prevented Congress from doing all it must do to improve our transportation infrastructure.

I urge full support of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Scott. This amendment would refocus our budget priorities back to where they should be during this time of war--to defeating terror and making America safer. This resolution would provide an additional $2\1/2\ billion for Homeland Security, with close to $1 billion of that amount going directly to our first responders--the fire, police, medical, and other emergency personnel who keep our neighborhoods safe. We've talked a lot over the past couple years about the new Homeland Security Department here in Washington. We need to remember that, in case of another attack on America, Homeland Security employees will not be the ones running into danger to save lives. Just as on September 11, it will be local paramedics, firefighters, police, and others. They deserve--we all deserve--to have Congress provide the resources to make sure they are prepared to protect us.

This substitute also includes increased funding for veterans and for our troops in the field. At a time when American forces are at war, Congress should be focused on providing our soldiers with what they need, rather than focusing attention on what wealthy executives need. This substitute budget closes tax loopholes and uses those funds to pay for body armor for soldiers and armor for their vehicles. I cannot be prouder than to vote for an amendment that would both punish tax dodgers and protect our soldiers.

But we need to focus not only on our current soldiers but also our former soldiers. I am proud to be supporting a substitute budget that provides adequate resources for veterans' health care. As we ask the men and women of the armed services to risk their lives for us, we need to show them that we will be there for them as they deal, in many cases for the rest of their lives, with injuries sustained in defense of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute budget, to make America's budget priorities match America's wartime needs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it would place my USC girls' number one volleyball team, who were here at the White House yesterday, at risk.

Mr. Chairman, what I did say is it would have placed my number one USC volleyball team at risk because this bill eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Act.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years the men and women of the United States military have, through their valiant actions, earned a well-deserved reputation for courage, honor, and sacrifice in defense of liberty. The brave Americans now fighting and dying in Iraq are heirs to a legacy that flows from Lexington and Concord through Normandy, straight up to the present day. They should be very proud of what they have accomplished in Iraq, and they deserve our firm support as they continue to face danger there.

I am sure that my colleagues who support H. Res. 557 are sincere in their desire to salute our troops. However, I feel they have committed a grave error by confusing the valor and the sacrifice of our troops with the misguided and misleading policy that sent them to Iraq in the first place.

Members of Congress voted in good faith for a resolution on the use of force believing that Iraq was capable of unleashing deadly weapons of mass destruction. We were told that the threat was imminent and could directly impact our Nation's security. Certainly the people of Iraq had suffered from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, but this was not the primary reason given for the preemptive strike by the United States.

It is good that Congress is on record listing the many atrocities of Saddam Hussein's regime. Saddam was a brutal dictator. That is not debatable. What is debatable is whether our actions in Iraq have improved the security of the United States and our allies. I therefore question the resolution's assertion that ``the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq.'' In fact, our laser beam focus on Iraq, with no proven connections to 9/11, has allowed al Qaeda to regroup and again unleash its destructive capabilities on one of our closest allies. Moreover, I believe our involvement in Iraq is a major contributing factor to America's declining image around the world, which Margaret Tutwiler, the administration's head official in charge of public diplomacy, admitted ``will take us many years of hard, focused work'' to restore.

When the President announced on May 1 of last year that major combat operations in Iraq had ceased, I expected a quick draw-down of American troops and a significant increase of United Nations peacekeepers. Tragically, our Nation has lost more American men and women in Iraq after the President's declaration that major hostilities had ended. The total now stands in excess of 565 and is climbing.

This resolution is disingenuous. In its place should be a straightforward resolution of commendation for those who fought valiantly and risked their lives to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. And condolences to those whose lives were snatched from them in this most unjustified conflict.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rules for H.R. 3717. Yesterday I offered an amendment to the bill that would end industry-paid travel for commissioners and staff of the Federal Communications Commission once and for all. I am very disappointed that it was not made in order. In fact, 5 of the 6 amendments offered by my Democratic colleagues were not made in order. I hope my colleagues would join me in opposing this rule and request an open rule.

My amendment was a modified version of a bill that I introduced last year in response to a report documenting over $2.8 million in travel costs spent by FCC-regulated private companies for more than 2,500 trips taken by FCC commissioners and staff over the past 8 years. Such practices have contributed to the FCC's reputation as a ``captured agency'' controlled by the industries it regulates.

I am aware that Chairman Powell promised last fall to eliminate the practice of corporate sponsored travel, but I don't believe a one-time promise is strong enough to eliminate the practice once and for all. What if the commission decides to re-institute the policy in a few years? What if there is a change in the administration this fall, and we end up having a new chairman? There is no guarantee that what the FCC has decided to do is not just a way to wait out the storm caused by the report, and that it could revert back to the old arrangement any time.

I support granting the FCC the authority to impose severe penalties for indecent broadcasting, but we must also ensure that the Commission uses the new enforcement powers this bill would provide. One way to do so is to eliminate, once and for all, any potential conflict of interest caused by the practice of corporate sponsored travel for FCC travel. I hope my colleagues would join me in rejecting this rule and allow consideration of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I want all to know that I rise in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, but I am sorry that this was a closed rule on that bill. There are a couple of points I wanted to make.

I have received a letter from the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists on behalf of 80,000 actors, broadcast journalists, announcers, disc jockeys, and sound recording artists saying that they are asking us to reject the provisions of the bill that would fine individual performers and announcers for the programming decisions controlled and implemented by the broadcast licensees. And I would ask my colleagues to think about that particular provision. I understand we have already voted on the rule.

The next point I wanted to make is that since the FCC has already allowed the major networks to own up to 45 percent of the market, I feel that that is the root cause for some of this indecency that we hear through the media. And it is important for us to recognize that this bill taps into the underlying anger of over 2 million individuals who wrote to the FCC last summer opposing its relaxation of media ownership rules. And I just want to mention some shocking statistics that illustrate the connection between indecency and media concentration.

The 1996 Communications Act cleared the way for relaxing some media ownership limits. Since then, complaints received by the FCC regarding indecent programs on television have jumped from 26 in the year 2000 to 217 in the year 2003. Clear Channel Communications Incorporated, the Nation's largest radio chain with 11 percent of the Nation's total studios and stations, has

received about 52 percent of the fines that the FCC has imposed. Viacom's Infinity station, about 2 percent of all stations, has received 28 percent of the FCC's fines. So the fact is when big media gets bigger and the race for audiences turns to the lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the broadest possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of ``diversity, localism and competition'' crucial for the service of the public interest.

Finally, I was in support of the Schakowsky amendment that would have exempted individuals from increases in indecency fines. And hearing from the industry, they are very upset about the possibility. So I am hoping that we can clear up some of these issues in another piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. While I support giving the Federal Communication Commission greater authority in the enforcement of indecency rules, I don't believe it addressed the root cause of indecency in media, namely, the current trend of unfettered media conglomeration and its impact on creative voices.

I think it is important for us to recognize that this bill taps into the underlying anger of the over 2 million individuals who wrote to the FCC last summer opposing its relaxation of media ownership rules, individuals who were truly turned off by a dumb-down media culture that has failed to serve the public interest. The bottom line is, a consolidated media market controlled by profit-driven conglomerates are bound to produce indecent, shock-value programming for the sake of viewership.

I just want to mention some shocking statistics that illustrate the connection between indecency and media concentration. The 1996 Telecommunications Act cleared the way for relaxing some media ownership limits. Since then, complaints received by the FCC regarding indecent programming on television have jumped from 26 in 2000, to 217 in 2003. Clear Channel Communications Inc., the Nation's largest radio chain with 11 percent of the Nation's total stations, has received about 52 percent of the fines the FCC has imposed. Viacom's Infinity Stations, about 2 percent of all stations, has received 28 percent of the FCC's fines.

The fact is, when big media gets bigger, and the race for audiences turns to the lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the broadest possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of ``diversity, localism, and competition'' crucial for the service of public interest.

That is why the Senate this week adopted a provision to impose a 1- year moratorium on the FCC's new media-ownership rules pending the outcome of a new GAO study on the connection between media indecency and ownership. I am very disappointed that a similar amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) was rejected by the Rules Committee. Mr. Chairman, while I am prepared to vote for the bill, I strongly urge this Chamber to allow a thorough debate on the issue of media consolidation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support to the Schakowsky amendment to H.R. 3717, which would exempt individuals from increase in indecency fines. While I support the goals of H.R. 3717 in giving the Federal Communication Commission more authority to enforce indecency rules, I don't believe individual performers and artists should be threatened by the same penalties imposed on multi-billion dollar corporations, who have the ultimate control on programming decisions.

I believe the provisions within H.R. 3717 to fine individuals would constitute a dangerous chilling effect on artistic expression and a threat to our first amendment rights. It is also completely unnecessary, since broadcast licensees and networks are responsible for programming contents and the decision to air, not the individual artists. Why else would networks start implementing the so-called ``five second delay'' that would remove any objectionable content before it is broadcasted? The broadcasters understand that they are the ones responsible for the contents they air, because they are the ones who eventually profit from the controversies generated by offensive, indecent, and dumb-down programming.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Congresswoman Shakowsky's amendment that would prevent he broadcasters from scapegoating individual artists and hold them truly responsible in the enforcement of indecency rules.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman so much in this late hour.

The die has been cast. Our country's leap year contribution to Haiti's bicentennial celebration is another example of the support of violence over democracy when it suits our national political interests.

There is no doubt that this administration empowered the so-called opposition which consisted of no more than a coterie of wealthy Haitians, CIA operatives, neo-Duvalierists, and drug merchants to inflame a struggling populace. We did this by denying a democratically elected president the support and the resources needed and promised for his people's development.

This rebel opposition is no more than a retread of the same elements traditionally militating against the people's interest ever since the African slaves soundly thrashed the finest of the French and other European legions to reclaim their freedom 200 years ago.

The United States State Department, which ``never negotiates with terrorists,'' had sufficient cozy contact with the Haitian rebels to convince them to delay their onslaught on Port-au-Prince. Even after the rebels rejected terms of settlement acceptable to President Aristide, in a matter of hours the State Department acceded to the rebels' demand, the removal of President Aristide.

There is a distressing school of thought that subscribes to the new official spin that President Aristide has no one but himself to blame for this sordid state of affairs. Maybe Aristide is to blame for not realizing that there was no way that the Haitian elite and their U.S. conservative supporters would allow a government of black ex-slaves to succeed in this hemisphere.

Maybe the priest-turned-politician was too naive in committing his faith and the fate of his people to the tender mercies of the U.S. State Department.

Maybe Father Aristide was so consumed in doing good that he could not recognize the need to play ball with the powers that be, making himself a conduit through which the millions of international aid funds would flow into the greedy hands of the elite who would keep Haiti impoverished while they pranced on the ritzy edges of society.

But whatever the cause, the deed has been done. Regime change has again trumped sovereignty. The first democratically elected president of the first black nation in this hemisphere has, on the last day of Black History Month, 2004, been removed from office and escorted into exile.

Whether Aristide's removal was voluntary, that is, by free will, or voluntary, as in eagerly handing over your wallet to a gunman in the alley, will be resolved, I hope, in time. The question is, where do we go from here?

As legislators, we have a duty to attempt, wherever possible, to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. So far, the United States has spearheaded the drive to commit peacekeepers on the Haitian scene, to bring back stability to the political environment and to set the stage for prosperity and development. Keeping the peace is the simplest of these missions. You can keep the peace by totally suppressing disorder with overwhelming force, or you can rely on the natural establishment of peace emanating from the application of social justice and economic prosperity.

In Haiti's case, building a solid social and economic structure is more important than building our concept of democratic institutions, and military forces and police law and other actions are only applicable if required in the pursuit of social and economic goals.

Therefore, the size and national composition and duration of deployment of the peacekeeping force should be determined by the extent and the progress of the nation-building force, and not by proposed election schedules. Rather, the question of political elections in Haiti from now on should be determined by the stability and the economic progress achieved and sustained by an interim government replacing the deposed Aristide regime.

This situation proposes that the international community, possibly through the United Nations Development Program, deploy a Haitian Reconstruction Commission, a nation-building force charged with the responsibility for reconstructing the economic and social fabric of Haitian society, and with the employment of the peacekeeping force, constitute the interim government of Haiti.

Any intervention that fails to establish an interim regime strong enough to assert a humane face on the Haitian nation and that lacks the sustained commitment of the U.S. and the international community to Haiti's future well-being can only condemn the millions of that country to the future of neo-slavery from which Dr. Jean-Bertrand Aristide tried to save them.

Madam Speaker, we have much work to do to right an egregious wrong that has been committed by our so-called democratic administration. We must act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The bill seeks to recognize a fetus at any stage of development as a person. I think we are all aware scientifically that a fetus cannot survive on its own like a person can. This bill is yet another covert attack on a woman's right to choose waged by extreme thinking. It sacrifices real protections for women at the expense of a politically driven agenda to undercut Roe v. Wade, and I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this antichoice bill.

H.R. 1997 defines the phrase ``child in utero'' or ``unborn child'' as a fetus at any stage of development from conception to birth. In effect, the language undercuts Roe v. Wade, which held that a fetus even after viability is not a person for purposes of the 14th amendment. By creating a new Federal crime for bodily injury and/or death of an unborn child, the bill opens a new door of litigation over when life begins in the context of criminal prosecutions.

H.R. 1997 also contributes little to the actual protection of women. Rather than enhancing penalties under existing law for criminal acts against pregnant women, the bill diverts the attention to the fetus. As Juley Fulcher of the nonpartisan National Coalition Against Domestic Violence stated in her testimony to Congress, ``The goal of the act is to further a specific political agenda. The result is that the crime committed against a pregnant woman is no longer about the woman victimized by violence.''

Make no mistake about it, violence against women remains a serious issue in today's society, and Congress should address the issue. The statistics are shocking but true: The leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder. It is one of the reasons why I support the Lofgren substitute amendment that targets the crime of violence against pregnant women without falling into an antichoice trap. The substitute would create a separate and distinct crime for any violence or assaulting conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy in addition to the assault on the pregnant woman. This is the appropriate approach to the issue. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1997 and support the Lofgren substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to commend a great citizen and a contributing member to the betterment of family life in the greater Los Angeles area. Her name is Elizabeth Benson Forer. She is the chief executive officer and executive director of the Venice Family Clinic.

The Venice Family Clinic is the largest free clinic in the Nation, providing services to 18,500 people in 93 patient visits. Ms. Forer joined the clinic in 1994, and under her leadership, board, staff, and volunteers have doubled the clinic's capacity and capabilities. The budget has gone from $5 million to $14 million and additional sites have been added. Sites most recently in place include a teen clinic on the campus of Culver City High School, a primary care facility located at Mar Vista Gardens, and a public housing project, all sites that she founded.

Ms. Forer holds a Master's degree in Social Work and Public Health from Columbia University. Prior to coming to the Venice Family Clinic, she served for 5 years as executive director of Settlement Health and Medical Services, a nonprofit community health center in east Harlem, New York. She also directed a department at the Metropolitan Hospital in New York City, where her mission was to make the hospital more accessible to local residents.

As Venice Family Clinic's CEO and executive director, she reports to the board of directors, which guides the development of services and fund-raising. She also is responsible for the administration of the clinic's 220-member staff and 1,900 volunteers.

Ms. Forer is currently a board member of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County and the secretary and founding board member of the National Association of Free Clinics. Through these organizations and her direct advocacy work, Ms. Forer is involved at the local, State, and national levels in developing health care legislation and policy initiatives that will help people with low incomes and no health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Elizabeth Benson Forer for her commendable works and her commitment to families in our greater Los Angeles area.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness and regret that I rise to inform my colleagues of the death of Los Angeles Police Department Officer Ricardo Lizarraga, who was killed in the line of duty on Friday, February 20, 2004, while answering a domestic violence dispute in the area of Western and Vernon Avenue in my district. Officer Lizarraga became the first LAPD officer since 1998 to be shot and killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, as many of us know, domestic violence calls can be the most volatile and unpredictable situations to which police officers respond. After a woman flagged down Officer Lizarraga's police car and asked for help, the officer and his partner went to remove an abusive boyfriend from her apartment. According to official accounts, the suspect emerged with a gun and shot the 30-year-old officer just below his bulletproof vest.

Officer Lizarraga had only recently joined the police force 2 years ago. Fellow officers described him as cheerful,

soft-spoken, hardworking, who loved his job and in April had landed an assignment on a fledgling special problems unit in the Newton division, where my father served and died of injuries related to his service. A fellow officer called Officer Lizarraga a gentle giant, who could look intimidating; but all one had to do was talk to him, and he would respond softly. He was very nice, very quiet, and it belied his stature.

Officer Lizarraga was born and raised in Los Angeles and attended Hamilton High School and Santa Monica College. He worked for the Ralphs Supermarket chain before fulfilling a long-time goal of joining the LAPD in September 2001. He leaves a wife, Joyce, and a mother who resides in Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, my deepest sympathies are extended to Officer Lizarraga's colleagues at the LAPD and his wife, family, and friends. It is my sincerest hope that Officer Lizarraga's death will not be in vain, but once again remind us that our business is unfinished in dealing with domestic violence, gang violence, and the proliferation of handguns which remain the weapons of mass destruction in many of our Nation's urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks, my constituents have watched the escalating violence in Haiti with increasing alarm. Their alarm is caused not just by the brutality and the chaos of the revolt, but by this seeming lack of resolve of our own United States Government in confronting this threat to democracy in our own backyard.

While the President has responded admirably in dispatching envoys to seek a negotiated solution, I remain concerned that this push for dialogue is not matched by equal resolve to prevent the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. If the Bush administration turns its back on the democratically elected government of Haiti in this crisis, the President will lose any and all credibility he has on preserving the rule of law.

By now, there should be few illusions about Jean Bertrand Aristide. He is not a paragon of virtue. He deserves an equal share of the blame, along with the legitimate opposition in Haiti, for the political gridlock which has paralyzed Haiti for years and prevented both political maturity and economic growth. But he remains a democratically elected leader, one of the few in Haiti's two violent centuries of independence. To turn our back on him would be to turn our back on the values America was founded upon, the values which have guided our foreign policy from Jefferson through Wilson, through Truman, through Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Haiti's political deadlock is no excuse for violent hooliganism. The forces creating violence in Haiti today are opponents of democracy. If President Bush fails to support the elected government against violent hooligans, the United States will forfeit its role as the leader in this hemisphere. How can our government lead in advocating for democracy in Cuba when we will not raise our voices for democracy just a few miles away in Haiti?

The President's initial efforts have so far been positive; but I fear that without firm resolve, backed by a credible threat of repercussions, America risks losing her credibility as an advocate for democracy. The President needs to be more forceful in stating that he will not accept the violent overthrow of the Aristide government and that we remain adamant that we will only accept a peaceful, negotiated solution to this crisis.

The President has outlined a bold vision for expanding democracy, freedom, and the rule of law throughout the world. But if the President will not even defend democracy in our own hemisphere, he will expose his vision as little more than empty posturing.

I urge the President to take action to prevent the violent overthrow of the Aristide government and to preserve America's leadership role in fighting for democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 357, authorizing the use of the capital rotunda to award the congressional gold medal to Dr. Dorothy Height, is offered today to sanction the venue for the upcoming award of the medal to Dr. Height on March 24, 2004.

I want to thank Congressman Ney, Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and Congressman Larson, Ranking Member, for their cooperation and support in bringing this bill to the floor in an expeditious manner. I also want to thank Maria Robinson and Catherine Tran, House Administration Committee staff members, for their work.

Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 2003, President Bush signed into law P.L. 108-162, which authorizes Congress to present a congressional gold medal to Dr. Height in recognition of her many distinguished contributions to the nation. The presentation of the congressional medal to Dr. Height will appropriately recognize her long and productive public career and her superior service to our Nation.

Dr. Height's numerous accomplishments span the history of the 20th Century. She is currently President of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), a position to which she was appointed in 1957 upon the retirement of Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, one of the most influential African-American women in U.S. history. Under Dr. Height's leadership, the National Council of Negro Women implemented a number of new and innovative programs, including leadership training for African-American women in the rural South; the Bethune Museum and Archives, devoted to African-American women's history; the Black Family Reunion, a nationwide annual gathering to celebrate not only the black family, but all families; and Operation Woman Power, a project to expand business ownership by women and to provide funds for vocational training.

In addition to her many accomplishments as president of the NCNW, Dr. Height had a persistent, active, and significant presence during our Nation's historic civil rights movement. As a member of the so-called ``big six'' civil rights leaders, which included A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King, and Roy Wilkins, Dr. Height was the only female who participated in the major planning of one of the most important movements in U.S. history. She has been an advisor to presidents, and remains and active and respected advocate for human rights around the globe.

Dr. Height is the recipient of numerous awards over her long and active life, including the Citizens Medal Award, presented by President Reagan, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by President Clinton.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 357 so that Congress can appropriately honor a woman who has done and given so much to better our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in support of House Resolution 511, which recognizes the accomplishments of the University of Southern California's 2002-2003 football, women's volleyball, and men's water polo teams.

The University of Southern California is a cornerstone of California's 33rd Congressional District. This institution is a magnet for diverse

people and ideas, attracting students from all 50 States and more than 100 foreign countries. In fact, USC is ranked as one of the most diverse private research universities in the Nation. As an educator, I am inspired by USC's commitment to academic excellence. The university's dedication to the highest standards is also reflected in its sports programs, which consistently produce some of the best student-athletes in the nation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the first three teams in USC's history to win championships in the same fall season. Incredibly, all three squads also feature coaches who are National Coach of the Year honorees.

The USC Trojan football team has shown unique skill, charisma, dedication and love for the sport. The Trojans accumulated a 12-1 record while competing against some of the best programs in the country. The football team secured its second consecutive Pac-10 title, won the Rose Bowl, its 21st Rose Bowl win, and was awarded the national championship by the Associated Press, its ninth national title, and first in 25 years. Five USC football players were selected as first team All-Americans and nine team members were selected to the All-Pac- 10 first team. Football coach Pete Carroll also received two more national championship trophies from the Football Writers Association of America (The Grantland Rice Trophy) and The Sporting News.

The Women of Troy volleyball team capped an undefeated (35-0) season to capture its second consecutive NCAA crown, the first time in the history of USC women's volleyball, and its sixth national championship. The team also became the first repeat champion to go undefeated. Many consider this year's women's volleyball team to be one of the greatest teams to have played the game.

The USC men's water polo team, with a 24-3 record, won its second- ever NCAA title. Three of the water polo team members were selected as first team All-Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate USC President Steven Sample, Athletic Director Mike Garrett, Coach Pete Carroll, USC football, Coach Mick Haley, USC women's volleyball, and Coach Jovan Vavick, USC men's water polo, for a season to remember.

Mr. Speaker, words are not sufficient to describe how I felt on Saturday morning, February 1, 2003, when the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced that the Space Shuttle Columbia had gone down. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to the families and friends of the astronauts we lost. One year later, we remember and honor Columbia's crew whose lives were precious to all Americans.

As part of the positive legacy emanating from the Columbia space shuttle disaster, I want to take this opportunity to commend three Dorsey High School Students from my Congressional District--Atiabet Ijan Amabel, Cristina Mojarro, and Juan Carlos Ortega--for participating in the STARS Academy research mission which assisted the students, along with their counterparts from China, in formulating and constructing a silk worm experiment that was placed aboard the shuttle.

The STARS Academy is an online cultural and scientific global learning program. It incorporates a standards based curriculum in math, science, language arts, geography, and technology. On the STS-107 mission, schools from six countries developed life and physical sciences experiments, while working with astronauts, space scientists, engineers, and other experts. For this mission the participating schools came from: Australia--Spider Experiment; Israel--Crystalline fiber growth; Japan--Medaka fish growth; USA--Syracuse Ants Experiment; Liechtenstein--Carpenter Bee Experiment; and China & USA--Silk Worm Experiment.

Mr. Speaker, despite the tragic events, this is an historic moment for Dorsey High School and its students who participated in the silkworm experiment. Their projects and dedication to science are fitting honors to the astronauts who lost their lives and an inspiration to all future space explorers.