Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sadness in the passing of a great community and civic leader, Dr. Edward Victor Hill Sr.

He was known throughout the United States and the world for his compassionate sermons and teaching. He will be dearly missed.

For the past 42 years, Rev. E.V. Hill has been the pastor of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles. He grew up in poverty in a Texas log cabin. By the age of 21 he became pastor of the Mount Corinth Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, where he was one of seven black pastors who joined Dr. Martin Luther King in forming the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Rev. Hill soon became a confidant of Dr. King and a central leader to the civil rights struggle.

Rev. Hill came to Los Angles in 1961 to become the pastor of Mount Zion. By 1972, he was elected as the youngest president of the California State Baptist Convention. Under Rev. Hill's leadership, his congregation became a center of political and social activism in Los Angeles. He fought for government programs that would bring housing and economic development to his communities. He also started a number of church-based programs, among them the creation of senior citizen housing, a credit union, and a service for the hungry called the ``Lord's Kitchen.''

I send my heartfelt condolences to the Hill family. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage my colleagues to cosponsor a bill I have introduced today, which will extend the authority to construct a memorial to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. here in our nation's capital.

I must commend Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, of which Dr. King was a member, for their tireless efforts in bringing this project to fruition. In 1996, Congress authorized the fraternity to establish a foundation to manage the fundraising and design of a memorial to Dr. King. Alpha Phi Alpha accomplished both tasks by launching the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation Fund, Incorporated and developing and appropriate design.

The site for the monument covers four acres on the Tidal Basin between the Presidents Lincoln and Jefferson memorials. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be the first African American honored as such on the Mall of the nation's capital. Similar to the everlasting work and message of Dr. King, the memorial will last in perpetuity.

Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that a monument is raised to honor the life and legacy of Dr. King. He made an enormous impact on America's collective moral fiber like no other human being. His principles of non-violence are universal and helped millions of people to overcome what seemed like insurmountable obstacles. It is fitting that his image be placed in the nation's capitol and enjoy the same status and significance as others who have left an indelible imprint on our nation and the world.

I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my pride over the nomination of Ms. Julie Dash for a prestigious Director's Guild Award for her work on The Rosa Parks Story. She was nominated in the category of Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Movies for Television for 2002. The winners will be announced at the 55th Annual DGA Awards Dinner on Saturday, March 1, 2003 at The Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles. Ms. Dash is the only female nominated in this category this year.

The Rosa Parks Story stars Angela Bassett, Cicily Tyson and Dexter Scott King, the son of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The film brings to life the peaceful dissent an exhausted Rosa Parks showed on a crowded Montgomery, Alabama bus in 1955, and the Civil Rights Movement that ensued. The movie originally aired on television on February 24, 2002.

It seems appropriate that Ms. Dash would be nominated for this award during Black History Month. African American actors, directors and others in the industry are hard-pressed to find meaningful, quality projects. Given these challenges, I am even more proud of Ms. Dash's achievement today.

Ms. Dash's own story of success is also very inspiring. She was born and raised in New York City, and in 1992 became the first African American woman to have her film, Daughters of the Dust, receive a full- length theatrical release. In 1994 Ms. Dash was chosen as one of the 100 Fearless Women by Mirabella magazine.

She has received numerous awards, including The Sojourner Truth Award from the New York Chapter of the Links, the Maya Deren Award from the American Film Institute, a Candace Award from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, and the prestigious John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship.

I was honored to host a congressional screening of the film, The Rosa Parks Story, last year prior to the film's television debut. I had the good fortune then of meeting Ms. Dash, along with Ms. Cicily Tyson, Ms. Angela Bassett, and many others who were instrumental in the success of this movie.

This film has held meaning and significance for me personally, and it brings me great joy to see Ms. Dash's work recognized by the Director's Guild of America. I wish her the best at the awards ceremony on March 1st!

Mr. Chairman, the bill that is on the floor today comes without any committee consideration by either the Committee on Education and the Workforce or the Committee on Ways and Means.

Yesterday, I testified before the Committee on Rules on two amendments that would ensure fair and equitable access to ex-drug offenders, since the President pointed out in his State of the Union that we need to do more to rehabilitate ex-drug offenders, and also one that would protect the Federal civil rights and workplace rights for welfare recipients. Like so many other amendments, they were summarily rejected. My bills were fair and reasonable, and I believe they deserved a chance.

H.R. 4 imposes massive and costly new mandates on States that they cannot afford. My State alone has a $35 billion shortfall. The billions of new costs that States are being asked to burden will force many States to raise taxes and cut necessary services. Cutting services will include a reduction in welfare programs such as child care, transportation, and skills training to make welfare recipients job- ready. Is this reform? No, it is not.

Implementing the Republican proposals in California will cost our State an additional $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, and we do not have the money.

Without additional funding, the costs for child care in California alone are projected to increase by $130 million. Reject this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because it would maintain current work requirements and increase the block grant by inflation so

its value can be retained; and it would allow States to address barriers to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental illness. We must improve on a program that has already shown success. This particular substitute would do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich- Lee substitute to H.R. 4. This substitute is almost identical to the TANF Reauthorization Act introduced by the late Congresswoman Patsy Mink last year. I want to thank Representatives Kucinich and Lee for re-introducing her bill as a substitute amendment so we can all honor and recognize the hard work Patsy Mink has done on behalf of our nation's poor.

The Kucinich-Lee substitute would maintain current work requirements, it would increase the block grant by inflation so its value could be retained. These are resources essential for the states to really address the core issues of poverty and help lift families from dependency to self-sufficiency.

Specifically, the Kucinich-Lee substitute would allow states to address barriers to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse and mental illness. States would have the resources to train caseworkers so they can properly screen recipients. Recipients with limited education can pursue an opportunity to earn a degree or receive vocational training. These are the tools for self-sufficiency that would last them a life time!

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich- Lee substitute and honor the contribution of our dearly missed former colleague Patsy T. Mink.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the accomplishments of the University of Southern California football team. Congratulations are indeed in order for USC President Steven Sample, Head Coach Pete Carroll, and the Orange Bowl champions, who finished the season with the #I ranking in the Sagarin and Matthews/Scripps Howard ratings and the nation's #4 ranking in the final AP and ESPN/USA Today polls.

The USC Trojan football team has shown unique skill, charisma, dedication, and love for the sport. The Trojans accumulated an 11 and 2 win-loss record while competing against some of the best programs in the country. The Trojans regular season performance and their strength of schedule earned them a Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, berth. Teamwork and a motivated work ethic combined to create second half domination over Iowa in the Orange Bowl. After going into the half tied 10-10, the Trojans mounted long touchdown marches on their first three possessions of the second half to blow open the game. USC finished the game 38-17, defeating a higher ranked Iowa Hawkeye team.

Now is also the appropriate time to congratulate quarterback Carson Palmer for winning the prestigious Heisman Trophy. This is the first time the trophy has returned to the west coast since USC running back Marcus Allen managed the feat 21 years ago. Carson Palmer is the 5th Heisman winner from USC. Palmer himself summed up the Trojan mind set this year when he stated, ``I couldn't be more honored to take this trophy back to share with my teammates in Los Angeles . . . This award is as much theirs as it is mine.''

Mr. Speaker, again I congratulate USC President Steven Sample, Head Coach Pete Caroll, and the football team at the University of Southern California for a season to remember.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Cheney Task Force Records and GAO Authority

Mr. Speaker, the American economy has been mired in recession since March of 2001. This past December saw the unemployment rate rise to 6 percent, meaning that one in every 17 American workers was out of work.

One of the most troubling aspects of this rescission is the amount of time that workers have been idle. During the Clinton economic expansion of the 1990s, America dramatically reduced long-term unemployment, those workers who had been out of work 27 weeks or more. From February of 1993 until February of 2001, roughly the amount of time Bill Clinton was in office, long-term unemployment fell by two-thirds. That is 1.2 million long-term unemployed Americans who went back to work.

But in less than 2 years of this administration, there is a recession and the administration has managed to completely erase those gains. By this past December, the administration's economic mismanagement has managed to push long-term unemployment back up to where it was when his father was in office.

I remember feeling a certain amount of deja vu after having another President Bush in office. But I do not think that many people realized that this administration would mismanage the economy so badly that we would return to economic stagnation reminiscent of the early 1990s.

But these broader economic statistics only tell half the story. During the Clinton expansion of the 1990s, minority communities made enormous strides in breaking out of poverty, as more African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos found good jobs in the prosperous economy.

Since the beginning of this recession, however, these numbers have turned around sharply. More than one in 10 African American workers are now out of a job. American workers of minority heritage have historically worked at the edges of the economy. Because of the jobs they possess, too many of these workers are forced to bear the full brunt of swings in the labor market.

We need to get America back to work. We have to help this President realize that his fiscal and economic policies have not helped America out of the recession, and it is possible that it has been prolonged.

The budget that this President has submitted to Congress is a sweetheart deal for the President's wealthiest supporters. Meanwhile, budgets at all levels of government, Federal, State and local, are swimming in red ink. The President's budget, in effect, hides a $1 trillion tax increase. His budget borrows against the future, leaving us with a $1 trillion bill that Americans will have to pay over the next decade in higher taxes, higher interest rates, and lower growth.

We will only get out of this recession when average Americans get money back into their pockets. I urge the President to rethink his failed economic policies and get America back to work.

Mr. Speaker, words are not sufficient to describe how I felt on Saturday morning when the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced that the space shuttle Columbia had gone down. My heart goes out to the families and friends of the seven courageous men and women astronauts. We mourn the tragic loss of Columbia's crew, whose lives were precious to all Americans.

Today, as NASA and the Nation continues to struggle with shock and sadness, I want to take this opportunity to commend three Dorsey High School Students from my Congressional District--Atiabet Ijan Amabel, Christina Mojarro, and Juan Carlos Ortega--for participating in the STARS Academy Research Mission with an experiment that was placed aboard space shuttle Columbia.

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, Silk Worm Experiment.

These students were involved for over two years.

Just over one year ago this wonderful project came to my attention, and I immediately approached Principal Mahmud of Dorsey High School with the idea. The Dorsey science students were required to write an essay explaining why they wanted to participate in the STARS Academy. The three students represent some of the best and finest that Los Angeles Unified School District has to offer. If you do nothing else but read their essays you will know why.

Although the Dorsey students joined STARS late in the program, I was pleased that they could participate in this most worthy and highly sophisticated scientific experiment. It is this kind of event that can provide the inspiration to a young man or woman to pursue a career in science and space exploration.

After the July 2002 launch postponement, and the Chinese students' visa problems, the Dorsey students were challenged to move from observers to collaborators on the Silk Worm Experiment. This bi- national experiment investigates the effects of microgravity on silkworm larvae development and silk production. Juan, Christina, and Amabel fully constructed the silk worm habitat and installed it aboard the payload module, prior to Columbia's launch.

I applaud the dedication of LA Unified Instructional Technology Administrator Joe Oliver for his work with the students to instruct them in a short amount of time. Joe changed his focus from a little of everything to Silk Worm 101, and was pleasantly surprised at how quickly the students learned the new material. I am especially proud of Christina Mojarro, Juan Ortega, and Amabel Atiabet who have represented themselves, their families, Dorsey High School, LAUSD, California's 33rd District, and Los Angeles, so well.

Mr. Speaker, despite the tragic events, this is an historic moment for Dorsey High School and its students who participated in the Silk Worm 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.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has campaigned across the 50 States, has campaigned by issuing promises to strengthen our Nation. He has pledged to improve our schools, to create jobs, to protect our homeland, but soon after these promises were made, we see how empty they are.

President Bush fought against providing funds for his own education bill. It is still unfunded and leaves our children behind.

President Bush fought to prevent Congress from extending unemployment benefits for laid-off workers. We worked hard to at least to get a reference, and now President Bush is fighting to prevent the Federal Government from spending the funds necessary to protect our homeland.

When we say ``homeland security,'' we are not talking about fancy technology or a building. We are talking about training and equipment for first responders, the men and women of our local police force and fire departments, the ones who will be putting their lives on the line in case of a terrorist attack.

Warren Rudman, the former Republican Senator, who helped lead the United States Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, said about the Bush budget, ``The bottom line is that it appears to us we are going to be underfunded in several key areas.'' His comments were echoed by a current Republican Senator and decorated Vietnam veteran who said Bush's budget is ``not even sufficient to provide for the first responder program in the States. It is not sufficient to provide for broader security.''

We have known for some time that this President puts children second to tax cuts for the rich. We have known he puts jobs second to tax cuts, but to see our national security sacrificed in favor of a tax cut skewed to millionaires really takes the cake.

Now the President has an opportunity tonight to prove that he values national security more than tax cuts. I urge him to embrace that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in sadness to share the passing of a good friend and a model parent, Mr. Willie James Chisholm. He was better known to me and his other friends and family as ``Buddy.''

His passing will be strongly felt by all of us because he was such a dedicated and caring person. One of the many things I admired about him was his joy in being a father. He made it a priority in his life to spend quality time with his two children, William and Cheryl.

The time spent with children is priceless and something that is hard to do for most parents, given how busy our lives have become. But Buddy knew how important it was and made sure to be a strong role model for his children, grandchildren, and other young people he knew in his community.

Indeed, Buddy exhibited traits that are fast becoming relics of the past: a dedicated and fulfilling faith, commitment to his 27-year career at McDonnell Douglas as a brick mason, and a love for the outdoors, sports, and traveling.

The world is a better place with people like Buddy Chisholm in it. His presence will certainly be missed. His memory will live on spiritually in the lives of those he touched, as well as physically in the many brick-laying projects he was involved with that beautified the Los Angeles area.

I send my heartfelt condolences to the Chisholm family. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding.

This month marks the beginning of the third year of the Bush recession, and I would like to say that even if the Clinton administration is being blamed, it is on this administration's watch that these things are occurring. Across the Nation workers continue to lose their jobs on this watch. Nationwide 800,000 laid-off workers lost their benefits on December 28, and I appreciate the 13-week expansion that was signed today, but I think 26 weeks would have been more likely, more acceptable, and make a better difference.

In my own State, the State of California, our budget deficit has mushroomed to 35 billion, with a ``b,'' dollars, while unemployment has risen by 6.5 percent, and that is only those that can be counted who are still in the system. Many have dropped out of the system, do not even report for unemployment, do not even report seeking jobs. They are just out there on the streets. So I am sure in my district this number would be higher.

As millions of people are out of work and the economy continues in a weak and jobless recovery at its best, it is important to have a strong and immediate economic program that will put money in the hands of consumers now. I am sorry to say that this administration has been more consumed with initiating a war than it has been with initiating a domestic economic policy that will benefit this country and make it stronger in defending against those who would attack us.

Earlier this week the President announced his plan to deal with this slow economy. Why were we not talking about it last year? Why did we have to go through the Christmas holidays with parents wondering if they could afford to buy gifts for their children? Are parents wondering if they can keep shelter, keep a roof over their heads? We knew the economy had slowed, but it was just this week that finally the administration awakened. This was the President's chance to ask Congress for real job-creating plans, to immediately address the economic problems faced by that working class ordinary Americans. Instead, the President chose to stick with more of the same tax schemes that he tried last year.

I wonder if anyone noticed except me that in September a year ago when the tax cut plan was passed that we saw more bankruptcies, corporate misconduct was revealed, and we were in a mess. We saw the jobless rate grow. Now, if the tax cut was meant to stimulate investments in business, it had

the opposite effect, and I would be truly concerned if I were the administration why there were so many bankruptcies when we gave a tax break to corporate America. What happened? I think I know. All we need to do is watch any program that deals with wealth and the wealthy in this country. We will see that they are building larger homes in exotic places, 3,800 square foot homes for these executives of these companies that have gone bankrupt, larger yachts, are buying more business but not employing more people. Some of the biggest corporations cut staff, pare down. Somebody ought to explain that. These policies were skewed to favor these same wealthy Americans, and to think that we have a homeland security proposal that allows a lot of these business owners to escape paying their fair taxes and run to other exotic places to hide their companies I think is un-American. His plan will blow an even bigger hole in the budget and threaten economic growth, and only 15 percent of the Bush package will take effect this year, meaning that most of the economic impact of the program would not be felt until 2004 and thereafter. The centerpiece of the plan, the complete elimination of taxes on stock dividends, and think for a second, many of the people I represent do not know what a stock dividend is. Investing dollars? Are we kidding? They are trying to pay their rent. They are trying to pay their house notes. They are trying to send their children to college if they can even get through elementary, middle school, and high school. They are trying to keep their families together. So they are not the ones that are going to feel any benefit from the elimination of these taxes. And they say it will benefit the seniors. Certainly I think today when you get 50 years old you can claim being a senior, and certainly the guys and gals who have made the big money are in their 60's and they can sit back with all this money flowing in because they do not have taxes to pay. It certainly will benefit them, but it certainly will not get to the people that really make up the core of America. So it primarily benefits this elite class, the wealthy, instead of putting money in the hands of the hard-working Americans who keep this country going.

According to preliminary estimates of the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 45 percent of the benefits of the entire Bush proposal would go, and now get this, do not take my word for it, check it out yourself, but the benefit will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers who have an average income of $350,000. In fact, those making over a million dollars will see an average tax break of $88,000-plus, more than a hundred times the tax cut for the vast majority of taxpayers making less than $75,000. Do not take my figures. Do the math. Be analytical in your thinking. Look at the President's proposal and see who fits the description of the provisions in it.

As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded last year, tax cuts that are targeted towards lower income households are likely to generate more stimulus dollar for dollar of revenue loss, that is, be more cost effective and have more bang for the buck, than those concentrated among higher income households. This is because higher income families are less likely to put that money back into the economy by spending it. So by targeting their tax cuts on the wealthy, the Bush administration has undermined its stimulus effect. Look what happened with the last tax cut.

Furthermore, the Bush plan would worsen the current budget deficits. Anybody concerned about deficits today? I remember several years ago they were. But the Bush plan would worsen the current budget deficits that have ballooned since the Bush administration took over. Check it out. The Bush plan would increase the deficit by nearly $700 billion over 10 years, and I do not think there is any argument over that. We are dealing with concrete numbers. Not only does this threaten key investments like Social Security and Medicare, this growth in deficits would promote higher interest rates and threaten to worsen the economy instead of spurring economic growth. Where is the concern of current Republicans? And I remember under the Newt Gingrich era, they were very concerned about deficit. Maybe it is amnesia.

Democrats have put forth an alternative stimulus plan, one that delivers a real immediate boost for our economy. The House Democratic alternative, economic stimulus package, is fast acting, fair, and fiscally responsible. Does anyone care about fiscal responsibility, or is it smoke and mirrors? It focuses on jump-starting the economy now and quickly moving the United States to a long-term growth agenda. It does not deceive people. It does not make people buy this fluff and try to feel good about it when it is not real. Our package is.

The Democratic economic stimulus plan aimed at those who need it most avoids increasing the deficit and helps States that are deeply suffering through this recession. Not only California but across this country, States are suffering. We ought to have the governors in here to debate these proposals. The Democratic plan will immediately target $18 billion to extend unemployment benefits for laid-off workers who have already exhausted their claims and in addition provide more needed relief to cash strap States and localities. The Democratic plan also provides immediate tax relief for small businesses to generate investment and jobs. It allocates additional funds for transportation, homeland security, healthcare, and extends unemployment benefits for workers whose insurance has run out and who have been unable to find jobs. The plan also puts money in the hands of consumers who drive the economy by giving a $300 tax rebate to every working American and also $600 for couples. Unlike the Republican tax plan which favors the wealthy by providing tax cuts on stock dividends and does little to grow the economy, the Democrats' stimulus package focuses tax cuts on lower and middle class taxpayers and actually will cost less than Republican plan.

In addition, the Democratic plan will spur the economy by providing funding for homeland security. Let us make America secure on the real side that targets rebuilding our Nation's long-neglected infrastructure. Most importantly, the Democratic plan is fiscally responsive and fair. It provides the proper amount of targeted economic stimulus and, at the same time, will not impact the budget deficit.

So in closing, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the two plans and to give some real numbers and real figures. I represent one of those States that is sorely in need of help. But of the $35 billion deficit, that is with a ``B,'' we cannot cut enough and we cannot raise enough taxes to fill in that gap. We need to put America back to work. We need to put Californians back to work. We need to generate real jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to request from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) if we can do a side-by-side chart on the cost of waging war in Iraq. I understand we have several thousand troops already over in the Middle East, and possibly the dispute with North Korea might require us to commit dollars.

I would like to see a chart with the cost of war and the cost of nationbuilding if we are trying to create a new regime. What is our commitment going to be to this new regime that we have called for? I can tell the Members from my own experience as the ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia, they were a trust territory until 1986. In 1986, we signed a compact of free association with them that was to last 15 years. It has cost us $5 billion, and we are getting ready to sign on another 20 years.

Now, I saw taxpayers' dollars go into the ocean. I was there. I knew. We had to close down some programs because that money was going into people's pockets, and into building homes for the very wealthy and the families of the very wealthy. We were not monitoring it.

I came back here many times saying, give me not only audits but oversight and follow-up; get the FBI out here, because our money is being taken. I could not get anyone to listen. I left; the problem got worse. Ask the current ambassador.

What is going to happen in Afghanistan in the long run and in Iraq in the long run? We talked about the axis of evil, so let us talk about Iran, too, and let us talk about North Korea. We did not say that; the President stood on this floor and talked about the axis of evil. Getting rid of the evil means changing those who are running those countries now. What is our obligation as Congress, as the Federal Government, and taxpayers? All this has to be

taken into consideration in terms of the proposed tax cuts.

If we talk about homeland security, how do we secure our own home if we cannot even educate our children, if we cannot even improve our infrastructure, if we cannot set out a budget for first responders? In my own city of Los Angeles we only have 9,000 police officers, as compared to Giuliani's New York with 30,000. We have 2 million people.

So are we sincere about protecting our homeland? That means not the home land, that means America's people. What is our plan for seriously doing that? I just wanted to put that out as we go about looking at the budget. I think it is very important to be heard. That is why I said it.

We are cutting our revenue base, and we are fighting a war over 10,000 miles away that we really do not need to fight, we really do not need to fight.

Let me say, we are a member of the United Nations. We went to the Security Council. They have their inspectors out there. If they do not find what they are looking for, it needs to go back to the Security Council.

We are working on an assumption, and North Korea says, we have your bomb. The monies that we give them for food and so on, does it really get to the people? If it did, why do we have such massive starvation over in North Korea? And I do not see why we are treating them any differently than we are treating Iraq.

Where is our commitment? How do we secure the United States? A country is only as strong as its people, and we cannot let the general public forget that. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to add my voice to those of the other Members who have spoken regarding the death of Joe Remcho. We will miss him greatly. He served the people of California well. As long as I can remember during my stint in the Senate, Joe Remcho has been there,

representing us at every level of the justice system. He was a determined, an experienced, and a knowledgeable attorney. His accidental and untimely death shall be regretted by all the people of California as well as those that he worked with. We mourn him, but we salute him as a lawyer who represented us at the highest level of performance. We extend our deepest sympathy to his family.