Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much discourse today about two decisions handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday that addressed the constitutionality of displaying the 10 Commandments.

This is an important issue, but I believe that another case handed down yesterday, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, deserves serious attention as well.

Let me begin by saying that I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In that case, the Court revealed a policy that strikes fear and sadness in the hearts of domestic violence victims and those of us who fight on their behalf: victims do not have a federal constitutional right to due process when they seek enforcement of their protective orders.

Jessica Gonzales's story elicits anger and sadness. Jessica Gonzales's relationship with her husband was dangerous and abusive. Knowing the threat he posed to her and her children, she mustered a tremendous amount of personal strength and obtained a protective order against her husband from the State of Colorado. She went through this arduous process believing that the state and local authorities would come to her aid if her husband violated the order. She did not think she would have to beg and plead with them to enforce it.

She was wrong. The New York Times reported today that:

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales

tried to get the . . . police to find and arrest her

estranged husband . . . who was under a court order to stay

100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children,

ages 7, 9, and 10, as they played outside, and he later

called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an

amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but

they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police

station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the

girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the

scene.''

Mr. Gonzales murdered their daughters after Ms. Gonzales spent hours trying to get the police to pay attention to her plight. This should never have happened.

A protective order without guaranteed enforcement does not protect victims. It puts them in the position of being victimized over and over again.

Domestic violence victims are already among the most vulnerable in our system. When they have children they are trying to protect, that vulnerability is compounded. Victims and their families rely on protective orders as one of the only tools they have to escape violent homes and relationships.

We need to make sure that they know that a court-issued protective order, accompanied by a hearing and court appearance in front of their abuser, is worth more than the paper it is printed on.

Recently, I introduced legislation that has received bipartisan support. H.R. 2947 seeks to require domestic violence education programs in high schools to teach teenage victims of dating violence about the legal options available to them as they seek to extricate themselves from abusive relationships.

I want this legislation to have its intended impact: that more teenage victims will have the knowledge that they are not alone in their struggle to end abusive relationships and that there are legal processes available to aid them in this process.

These young people, and every victim seeking the same assistance, need to know that the legal steps in place will actually protect them.

We cannot change the Supreme Court's decision, but we can do our part to prevent Jessica Gonzales's horrific situation from replicating itself across the nation.

First, we can pass my legislation, H.R. 2947. Second, we can strengthen and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act before it expires on September 30th of this year. These victims deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 19-day extension of the surface transportation bill. This is our ninth time extending our Nation's transportation bill. Our transportation bill is over 18 months, late.

Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, I applaud your good faith efforts to complete negotiations on a balanced conference report by the July 4th recess. Unfortunately, it was not to be.

As Members of Congress, we will all have to answer to our constituents and businesses about the state of our transportation infrastructure when we return home tomorrow. The Fourth of July is one of the busiest travel holidays of the year and our transportation infrastructure will be put to the test, as it is everyday.

In parts of my district, Long Beach, California, as we celebrate the Fourth of July, under the colorful umbrella of our annual fireworks display when we look out over the Pacific Ocean, we will be reminded just how much we need this transportation bill.

Ships are lined up against the horizon of the California coastline because the congestion on our highways is impeding the movement of goods through our ports.

Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, you have heard me say this before: 80 percent of the goods that come into this country from the Pacific Rim and upwards, of 45 percent of all containerized goods come through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Fifteen percent of our Nation's economy travels on the I-710 annually, which is a corridor of national significance and the lifeline of our national economy.

Our national and regional economy begins in Long Beach. We need this bill. We need to invest in our infrastructure and our economy. I look forward to completing this bill when we return from recess.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for an explanation of his request.

Mr. Speaker, I further reserve my right to object and thank the chairman for his explanation.

I do now join the chairman in support of his request to permit the incumbent Executive Director, the two Deputy Executive Directors, and the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance to serve second 5-year terms.

The Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and created the Office of Compliance as a reform design to ensure that Congress must live under the same laws as everybody else. The Act limited the service of the office board of directors and of its senior staff to single 5-year terms. Last year, Congress unanimously passed legislation allowing the members of board to serve second 5-year terms.

This bill will allow the four incumbent senior staffers who must otherwise leave their posts later this year also for an additional 5 years. In a recent report requested by the House Committee on Appropriations, the Government Accountability Office concluded that this change would enhance the Compliance Office's business continuity. In recent testimony before the Senate appropriations legislative branch subcommittee, the board of directors requested such a change for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the changes make sense. I urge the House to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the LaTourette/Oberstar amendment for $626 million to restore funding for Amtrak.

Our vision for our country should be more far reaching, our dialogue more elevated. When we talk about the future of Amtrak it should not be in one year intervals. We should set forth a plan that begins with a responsible Amtrak reauthorization bill that Congress will commit to fund every year. This piecemeal approach that Congress currently engages in to budget for Amtrak is unacceptable and irresponsible.

The opponents of Amtrak should take a moment and look at all the Members of Congress lined up to speak on behalf of Amtrak today. Support for our nation's rail system is not fading--it is getting stronger.

The American people have spoken through action in their support of Amtrak. Last year, Amtrak provided service to 25 million passengers. For the past three years, Amtrak has had an increase in passengers. In Southern California, the Pacific Surf liner had an increase in ridership of 25 percent last year alone.

Given the increased ridership both locally and nationally, anything but a continued investment in Amtrak would be a tragic misuse of Federal resources and would be extremely shortsighted.

I look forward to standing here next year and praising our leadership for having done the responsible thing and budgeted for Amtrak, so that we will not have to debate this issue on the floor year after year.

I join my many colleagues in support of the LaTourette/Oberstar amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 152 commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Mystic Seaport, Museum of America and the Sea. Many Americans do not appreciate their U.S. maritime history and the legacy of the sea.

The Mystic Seaport Museum was established in 1929 to protect that history and legacy. The Mystic Seaport Museum is the largest and most diverse maritime museum in the United States. Its collections include many types of ships from our past, including a whaling ship, a fishing schooner, a coal-fired steamship, and a wooden shipping vessel built in 1866.

Mystic Seaport is providing a valuable service to our Nation by teaching Americans about our Nation's maritime history, promoting research in their vast collections of artifacts, photographs and books, and conducting outreach programs to students of all ages.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution commemorating the 75th anniversary of Mystic Seaport, and I hope that they will continue their programs to continue to grow and flourish in the years ahead. I urge the adoption of the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act of 2005. On November 26, 2004, the tanker ATHOS I hit a piece of pipe and an anchor that had been dumped into the Delaware River, spilling oil into the Delaware River near Paulsboro, New Jersey. The Coast Guard immediately began coordinating the response to this large spill.

On January 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation conducted a field hearing in Philadelphia to see what policy changes should be made to help prevent this type of accident from happening again. H.R. 1412 was written as a result of that hearing.

No one seems to know where the pipe and anchor came from that the ATHOS I hit, but H.R. 1412 will require a person to notify the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers if they know of any object that has been dumped into the water that creates an obstruction to navigation.

As the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) pointed out at the hearing, the limit of liability of tank vessel owners has not been increased since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted in response to the Exxon Valdez. OPA granted the Coast Guard the authority to increase the limits of liability for tank vessel owners based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index. However, they have never increased those limits. H.R. 1412 will increase the liability limits for oil spills up to a more modern amount and require these amounts to be adjusted not less than every 3 years.

One of the significant problems facing the agencies trying to clean up this spill is the fact that much of the heavy oil is sitting on the bottom of the river. H.R. 1412 will establish a program to monitor and evaluate the environmental effects of submerged oil.

H.R. 1412 also establishes the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee to make recommendations on methodologies to improve the prevention and response to future oil spills on the Delaware River and Delaware Bay.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) for the bipartisan approach that he has used to develop this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act of 2005.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate an extremely important anniversary.

Thirty-three years ago today, Title IX, the landmark legislation banning gender discrimination in federally funded education programs, was enacted into law.

I adamantly oppose restrictions to Title IX. Recent ``clarifications'' to the law will only lead to allowing schools to avoid providing equal opportunities to female students.

For women, especially young women, Title IX is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the past half century.

Title IX helps those who need help the most, particularly in low- income areas.

Girls who participate in athletics at the high school and college levels are more likely to graduate with higher grades than their peers who do not play sports. The health benefits of exercise are well documented and girls who play sports often take their appreciation of exercise and activity into their adulthood.

Team sports prepare girls for success in the workplace by teaching the benefits of teamwork and tenacity at a young and receptive age. Athletics imbue girls with self-confidence they may not be able to develop elsewhere.

We must not interfere with Title IX's effectiveness. That is why I oppose the recent clarification and advocate for increased equality in sports for female students.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Washington for his long-time leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to strike legislation which has nothing to do with the appropriations process, legislation which has been improperly placed in this bill, the text of H.R. 841, the ``Continuity in Representation Act of 2005.'' That bill has already passed the House twice, in slightly different forms, in the spring of 2004 and most recently on March 3, 2005. The Senate refused to consider it the first time, and it is currently pending on the Legislative Calendar in the Senate, where it

will remain unless objections by various senators are dealt with.

Make no mistake: there are senators who strongly oppose this bill, and virtually none who care about it, or strongly support it, or want to take up the Senate's time with it. This means that, if the bill is to move at all, its supporters need to take the objections seriously, be prepared to negotiate, and avoid further antagonizing the opponents.

As Ranking Member of the committee of actual jurisdiction, the Committee on House Administration, I have never been consulted by the Majority about beginning negotiations with the Senate to try to resolve the objections and get a bill which can clear both chambers. Whether such as effort could succeed is unclear, but--nothing ventured, nothing gained. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee has, to its obvious discomfort, effectively been hijacked by the House majority leadership to load the bill onto Legislative Branch Appropriations in the belief that the Senate will meekly submit to anything tucked into the House title.

I am not going to reargue the substantive issues here. H.R. 841 was and is a bad bill. I oppose it and voted against it. We should not be recycling failed legislation. If the bill's supporters ever hope to get it passed in some form, they need to make a serious effort to address the objections rather than to employ parliamentary games. They should not be misled by the margins by which the House has passed the bill. Congress consists of two chambers.

Unfortunately, some of the House sponsors appear to be treating a controversial and sensitive subject as if it were a perk of the House, as though the House alone somehow had acquired, contrary to the Constitution and other Federal laws, the right to control the procedure under which its Members are elected. This position has gotten them nowhere. I believe it is in fact counter-productive.

During the Appropriations markup, there were numerous questions about the continuity amendment which Chairman Lewis, who offered it, was unable to answer. It was obvious that the committee had no idea what it was being asked to do and, based on the thunderous chorus of ``nays'' on the voice vote, was reluctant to be forced to do it.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 841 is under the jurisdictions of the Committee on House Administration. It has nothing to do with the appropriations process. It has serious problems. The sponsors need to change their tune. Attempting an end run around the regular order on what is, despite their spin, a very controversial bill, does nothing to enhance credibility in potential negotiations with the Senate.

If this bill is to be saved, let the Members who care about and understand the issues engage seriously with those of differing views. That is how legislation becomes law. Not this way.

I urge adoption of the Baird amendment to strike Title 3.

Mr. Chairman, as Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over the United States Capitol Police, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia (Ms. Jo Ann Davis).

The USCP mounted unit was not authorized by either the Committee on House Administration nor the Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration. It reportedly came into existence as the brainchild of a Senator from Colorado, now retired, without any formal examination of the merits and demerits of using horses in the Capitol Police environment. Unlike the U.S. Park Police, which must patrol thousands of acres of wooded parkland in northwest Washington, the Capitol Police patrols a confined area readily accessible to non-mounted officers, and much of which is not even accessible to the public at all.

Some argue that the mounted unit is especially useful in crowd control, and maybe that is so. However, on those occasions where crowds needing control may develop on the Capitol grounds--and these occasions are usually well anticipated--the Capitol Police can easily ask for assistance from their Park Police colleagues, who are well trained in the use of horses and can also be trained about the Capitol and working here.

Finally, some offer the intangible value of public relations as a justification for spending the hundreds of thousands to maintain the horses and train their handlers. Maybe there is value in that, when elsewhere on and around the grounds, other Capitol Police officers are routinely brandishing automatic weapons. But what about the public relations cost of the horse manure deposited across the grounds, and the tens of thousands it costs to clean it up?

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Member of the Joint Committee on Printing, I oppose the amendment offered by my friends from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

According to the GPO, the congressional printing and binding appropriation supports the distribution of 3,994 copies of the Congressional Record, of which 2,293 copies, or more than 57 percent, go to the Senate. If there are too many copies of the Record being charged to the Congress, the problem lies in the other chamber.

Mr. Chairman, Congress has addressed this problem in recent years. Not long ago, there were 18,000 copies of the Record produced each day. Now there are fewer than 4,000. The law provides for Members to receive three copies, and Members who don't need three copies can reduce printing costs by informing the Clerk of that fact. This is a reasonable approach, since the Record is available on-line, and perhaps for some Members the on-line version will suffice. But the printed Record remains an important resource for many Members of both Houses, and I don't believe the proper approach to this question is to reduce funds for the Record by 83 percent, as this amendment would do.

I believe the Appropriations Committee has looked at this very carefully over the past several years. Speaking for the minority side of the Joint Committee on Printing, I am certainly willing to examine this question further.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McHenry].

As the Ranking Member of the Joint Committee on Printing, I can appreciate the gentleman's interest in reducing excessive printing and diverting the funds to more useful purposes. However, rather than shifting spending from GPO to the Capitol Police, the amendment has the potential merely to increase spending.

This is because the congressional printing and binding appropriation is not a traditional appropriation to support a predetermined amount of work by the GPO. It is a pre-payment for the work Congress orders from GPO. The GPO will perform whatever work Congress orders, and Congress will pay for it in a subsequent appropriation, if necessary. Merely reducing the printing and binding appropriation will not reduce the amount of printing.

By contrast, the amendment would shift the GPO funds to the Capitol Police, which could and presumably would spend the money for its general expenses. The Appropriations Committee has recommended the sum of $29.3 million for the Capitol Police's general expenses. As Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Capitol Police, I believe we should accept the Appropriations Committee's recommendation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the ``Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act of 2005.''

Far too many children in this Nation are not covered by even the most basic health insurance. In my home State of California, 10 percent of the approximately 10 million children do not have health insurance. Close to 9 million children nationwide are in similar situations.

This does not have to be the case. Of the almost 9 million children who are uninsured, an estimated 6.9 million are eligible for public health insurance coverage. What is keeping them from obtaining coverage?

In many cases, children who are eligible for subsidized health care do not receive it because of the cumbersome and confusing process families must go through to obtain health insurance for their children.

The bill I introduce today, the Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act, a companion bill to the one introduced by my colleagues in the Senate: Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Cochran, will streamline the process by which children are enrolled in both Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs or SCHIP.

This legislation will allow States to streamline enrollment in Medicaid and SCHIP. It would allow a child's enrollment in WIC and similar assistance programs to serve as a gateway to health coverage, thus avoiding a separate lengthy and confusing application process.

The need for health care coverage for these children is urgent. Without health insurance, children do not see doctors with the regularity that is essential for their well-being and the well-being of their peers they come into contact with at school, at daycare and on the playground. Many children without health insurance end up in the emergency room with illnesses that could easily be treated in a doctor's office. Emergency room visits are extremely costly, both for parents and for hospitals. The cost of health care for everyone increases as a result.

For the good of our Nation's children and for the good of our Nation's communities, I ask my colleagues today to join me in support of this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, while teenage dating violence often does not get the widespread attention that adult domestic violence receives, it is no less of an insidious epidemic. Currently, girls and women between the ages of 16 and 24 are the most vulnerable to domestic violence, experiencing the highest per capita rates of non- fatal intimate partner violence. One-third of teens report experiencing some kind of abuse in their romantic relationships and approximately one in five adolescent girls report being physically or sexually hurt by a dating partner.

Both CNN and ABC News have recently run reports on the tragic consequences of teen dating violence. In one such incident, an Austin, Texas 16-year-old star football player stabbed his 15-year-old girlfriend to death. The perpetrator of this crime had a history of teen dating violence that started when he was in the 8th grade. This horrifying incident may have been preventable had the victim of this crime or his previous girlfriends had full access to information about legal steps they could have taken to ensure they would not be in further danger.

Unfortunately, this act of violence is not an isolated incidence. These situations play themselves out across this nation. Dating violence cuts across ethnic, racial and socio-economic lines.

We can take affirmative steps to ensure that this type of tragedy is not repeated in other forms. Preventative action is necessary.

Today, I introduce legislation that will empower young victims of dating violence with information about their legal rights. The ``Teenage Dating Violence Education Act of 2005'' mandates that domestic violence educational programs geared towards elementary and high school students include information about the legal rights of teenage victims of dating violence.

It is not enough to tell students that abusive relationships are wrong. We also need to specifically inform them on the various ways they can get out of those relationships. The legal system is one place they can turn. They deserve to know about these recourses. For victims of dating violence, knowledge really is power.

Teenagers who engage in dating violence in this country need to know that there are legal ramifications for their actions. Teenage victims of dating violence need to know that mechanisms in the legal system exist to help them.

Educating teenagers in this area is a matter of safety and a matter of common sense. We can do our part to make sure the cycle of violence is not perpetuated. We must do our part.

I ask my colleagues today to join me in support of this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 939.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the introduction of a bill that I dropped in yesterday, the Vending Machine Safety Act of 2005. This is a bill I introduced three Congresses ago due to its importance in protecting our children.

Imagine going on a routine grocery shopping trip with your child, Mr. Speaker. While shopping, you suddenly notice that your child is missing. This is every parent's nightmare. Last month, this nightmare became a frightening reality for a mother in Indiana. However, in this incident, there was a twist.

Her 3-year-old child was found trapped in a crane vending machine that he had crawled into. Without safety measures and immediate access to the owner, the machine held the young boy captive until the local fire department was brought in to release him.

While this event was not life-threatening, about one-third of vending machine injuries reported since 1978 have been. In the interest of protecting both children and adults, it is the reason I introduced the Vending Machine Safety Act.

This Vending Machine Safety Act of 2005 directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a consumer product safety standard for the manufacturing and installation of all vending machines. Whether in signage or further protective measures, the Consumer Product Safety Commission will report on how best to ensure the safety uses of these vending machines that are both cost-effective for manufacturers and protect the stores from liability.

Since 1990, 43 vending machine injuries have been reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Almost 60 percent of these vending injuries involved minors, and almost 35 percent of the injuries were children under 10. While some vending machine manufacturers may place warnings on their machines, most do not.

The need to protect our children from further vending machine related injuries is clear. I ask my colleagues to support the Vending Machine Safety Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I have been watching today's proceedings from California as I recuperate from surgery. I feel compelled to reach out to my colleagues to underscore the utmost importance of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.''

H.R. 810 is a comprehensive bill that fully balances the ethical concerns associated with stem cell research with the incalculable benefits such research can confer upon millions of Americans.

Now is the time for action! We must continue to expand the scope of embryonic stem cell research. We must not tie the hands of researchers who will hopefully deliver to our communities cures for these life threatening diseases.

Research on adult stem cells is important. However, I think we need to recognize the limitations that are inherent in that type of research. While adult stem cells are being used to treat blood diseases such as leukemia and lymphoma, adult stem cells cannot be used to form any cell. Experts believe that adult stem cells are not going to produce the answers to diseases like sickle cell disease, Multiple Sclerosis, heart disease, liver disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and numerous kinds of cancers we so desperately seek. Adult stem cells are not a substitute for embryonic stems cells.

I would like to speak specifically to the large numbers of African Americans and other minorities who will hugely benefit from this potentially lifesaving research. Too many of my constituents are disproportionally affected by many of the diseases researchers hope to cure with information gleaned from embryonic stem cell research.

In particular, diabetes, Parkinson's, and especially sickle cell disease run rampant in our communities. I want to be able to look at every single one of my constituents who is afflicted with a disease that researchers believe they can treat eventually based on research done on embryonic stem cells and tell them that here in Washington we are doing absolutely everything we can to save their lives and assuage their pain.

I introduced bills over the last two Congresses to bring awareness to the need for expanding the number of stem cell lines because I recognize that we must embrace groundbreaking solutions to the problems posed by fatal diseases.

The research has progressed so far since 1998, when scientists first isolated human embryonic stem cells. Amazing discoveries have been made in such a short time. What sense would there be in restricting the ability of researchers to, within the boundaries set by, strict ethical guidelines, progress with this research as far as is possible? Why are we tying the hands of our scientific community to save lives on the basis of an arbitrary date, while across the world this research will be used to save lives?

This bill answers those questions resoundingly: we will not unduly restrict the essential research that could save the lives of millions. We will move forward. We will find an end to suffering that could be prevented, in my community and nationwide.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in support of the concurrent resolution. On May 15, 2005, America will observe National Peace Officers' Memorial Day and hold the National Memorial Service. We commemorate this day each year to honor the heroes of law enforcement who have lost their lives in the line of duty. As the Ranking Democrat on the Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Capitol Police, the Library of Congress Police, and the Government Printing Office Police, this year's observance has additional significance for me. On this occasion, I rise to offer the tribute of the Californians I have the honor to represent, and my Committee's, as well as my own.

The need for such a memorial day arose in the earliest days of our republic. Since America's first line-of-duty death was recorded in 1792, more than 16,500 men and women have fallen, including three Capitol Police officers, one in 1984, and two in 1998. Nationwide, 153 officers died in the line of duty last year, 13 of them in California, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Thus, in 2004, somewhere in the United States a law-enforcement officer fell in the line of duty ever 57 hours.

I wish it were not so, Madam Speaker. We all wish it were not so. But at least 35 have already fallen in 2005, and still others will follow. If anyone among us could do anything to prevent even one more law- enforcement officer's death, we would surely do it. I certainly hope that this Congress, every state legislature, and every other policymaking body will do everything possible to prevent more such deaths.

Madam Speaker, as we pause on this year's National Peace Officers' Memorial Day to reflect upon the sacrifices made by the valiant men and women of law enforcement who have given their lives for our communities, let us resolve to cherish their memory on May 15 and every day. Let us also honor the brave men and women now working across this land who may, at any moment of any shift, give their lives to make us safe. Let us resolve to show them our respect and gratitude every day of the year. I urge all Members to vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we solemnly commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Khmer Rouge regime when they deliberately and systemically massacred millions of innocent Cambodians, with a large percentage of women and children. However, in the midst of this past sorrow, we have seen great hope as a result of the strength, resiliency, and courage of the Cambodian people. So while we mourn the loss, we celebrate the future filled with hope and promise.

In 1975, Pol Pot led the Communist guerrilla group, the Khmer Rouge, in a large-scale insurgency that resulted in the removal of Cambodians from their homes and into labor camps in an attempt to restructure Khmer society. The Khmer Rouge maintained control by mass public tortures and executions. Families were separated. Men, women and young children were sent into labor camps and forced to do strenuous farm work with very little food. Famine and disease were epidemic while health care was non-existent. Between April 1975 and January 1979 more than 1.7 million Cambodians were killed.

When the Khmer Rouge was overthrown in 1979, thousands of Cambodians fled to nearby refugee camps, and over 145,000 Cambodians made their way to the United States. With the assistance of the Federal government, state, local, and voluntary agencies, Cambodians were resettled in communities across America.

Despite the tremendous loss of family members, home, and even parts of their heritage, Cambodians have shown enormous resiliency. I am proud that the largest Cambodian population in the United States resides in my District. Their culture and contributions have enriched our communities and the American landscape.

Finally, Cambodians have been waiting for the past twenty-five years for the Khmer Rouge perpetrators to be brought to justice. Just a few days ago, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared that UN-Cambodian agreement funding requirements had been met and there is now enough funds to finance the Tribunal's staffing and operations for a sustained period of time.

This means that the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, only a dream for twenty- five years, will now become a reality. This means that the Cambodians can finally find closure on this brutal part of their history. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.''