Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me, and I rise just to make one point to my colleagues and friends, and that is, to compare what we are being asked to do today with what we have done since I have been in this Congress for 17 years.

Mr. Chairman, President Bush, with the strong support of both parties and both bodies, agreed to commit us to end the reign of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to aid in removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we committed to that effort with a great vote in both bodies. This is much like what happened during the previous 8 years under President Clinton when he requested us to deploy our troops 38 times in 8 years.

I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that in the previous 40 years, from 1950 to 1990, all the Presidents combined deployed our troops 10 times. In the 8 years from 1991 until 1999, 2000, largely under President Clinton, our troops were deployed 38 times. One of those deployments, actually under President Bush, Senior, in Desert Storm, was actually reimbursed $51 billion from our allies. In the other 37 deployments, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, largely controlled by the Republican party, gave President Clinton the money that he needed for every deployment.

Let us look at some of those deployments. They were in Somalia, East Timor, Macedonia, Cambodia, Colombia, Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, here is the irony of what we are debating today. Eleven times we have approved supplementals in the 1990s for President Clinton, after the fact, to reimburse our military for the costs that we spent for the deployments that he got us into, 11 supplementals.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we cut our Defense budget so bad that Democrats and Republicans on this floor restored $43 billion over 6 years that had to be put in because those moneys went from our military budget to subsidize the deployments.

What did we deploy in the 1990s? Let us see, Mr. Chairman. We subsidized troops from other countries and Kosovo and Bosnia and Macedonia. We paid for OSCE inspectors. We built hundreds of schools. Mr. Chairman, during the 1990s, under President Clinton, this Congress built hundreds of schools. In fact, we did more than build hundreds of schools. We trained police forces. We trained and equipped local police forces. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we used taxpayer money to send fire trucks to Sarajevo. We paid for fire equipment. We rebuilt countries. In fact, in addition, we started small business loans.

All of these things were done with 11 supplementals for the 37 deployments that President Clinton got us into, but Mr. Chairman, there is one difference. President Clinton never came up to us in advance and said this is what it is going to cost. He simply put the troops in harm's way. He started the process of building the schools, training the police departments and doing all the other nation-building work, and then came to us and said to the Congress, you find the money. So $43 billion of that money came out of our Defense budget and we had to replace it.

In addition to that, we spent 10s of billions of dollars of supplemental money through 11 supplemental bills which were supported with the Republican party in control.

Mr. Chairman, there is an inconsistency here. I did not hear my colleagues saying back in Bosnia we were told we would be out in December 1996, that it should be a loan. We have now spent $25 billion in Bosnia. We are still there. Where is the loan request? Where was the loan request from the Bosnian government? Where was the loan request from Kosovo? Where was the loan request from Macedonia, from East Timor, from Colombia?

This Congress supported Democratic President Bill Clinton, and I think this Congress has an obligation. I think this Congress has an obligation to be consistent. We as Republicans supported the funding through 11 supplementals to pay for those same items that President Bush has asked for here, and if we total up the amount of money of these 37 supplementals, it is far in excess of what we are talking about with this bill. The difference is we have been asked to approve it in advance. In every other case, in the 1990s, it was done after the fact.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I will remind my colleague I was the one who took 11 Members of Congress, including five from his side, to Vienna, and the reason was, we did not disagree with the actions against Milosevic. We felt we had not put enough pressure on Russia, and in going to Vienna, and my colleague can ask the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentleman can ask the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), we wrote the plan that became the basis of the G-8 agreement to end the war. If we had brought Russia in earlier, we could have avoided much of that.

Reclaiming my time, I supported removing Milosevic.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership, and I look forward to this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make one simple point. From the period of time in the 1990s, starting with President Bush, Sr., and continuing through President Clinton, our troops were deployed 149 times around the world. Many of these deployments were considered minor deployments. But of the 149 deployments that President Clinton and President Bush got us into, President Bush, Sr., 38 were considered major deployments. One of those deployments, which President Bush, Sr. got us into, was Desert Storm. And he went out, with no requirement legislatively by this body, and was able to bring in over $50 billion of reimbursements from our allies after Desert Storm was over. There was no mandate. There was no loan. He did it.

The other 37 deployments, Mr. Chairman, which President Clinton got us into, which includes Macedonia, East Timor, Somalia, Haiti, Colombia, Kosovo, Bosnia, all of those were paid for after the fact. The President inserted the troops in harm's way, and we were left to foot the bill.

Now, what was the cost of that? Mr. Chairman, those deployments cost well in excess of what we are talking about today. In fact, we passed, under the Republican leadership, 11 emergency supplementals funding President Clinton's deployments after the fact. Eleven. Eleven emergency supplementals. And we cut the defense budget by $43 billion to put that money into those deployments.

All of those supplementals and those cuts in defense spending, which in a bipartisan way we replaced, were to fund what kinds of activities, Mr. Chairman? Well, let us see. We subsidized the troops for other countries, we paid for OSCE observers, we built hundreds of new schools, we trained police departments in these countries, we bought fire engines and sent the fire engines overseas, and we started small businesses. All of those expenditures were funded by the Republican Congress in support of a Democrat President who had gotten us into 37 major deployments.

There was no loan. There was no situation where my colleagues on the other side or this side stood up and said, well, Macedonia should pay us back, Colombia should pay us back, or East Timor

should pay us back, or Bosnia, where we have spent $25 billion and where we were told we would be out of by Christmas of 1996. None of that money was offered in the form of a loan. All of that came out of the taxpayers' pockets.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand how all of a sudden, because the President does a legitimate thing, the honorable thing, and tells us up front how much it is going to cost to do the same things we funded in the entire period of the 1990s, how we can say that somehow this is different.

Do I hope that President Bush will negotiate our allies reimbursing us? Absolutely. I hope he will do what his father did in 1991 and what President Clinton did not do in those other 37 deployments. It should not be a mandate. We should fund the President's request and it should be bipartisan, and the Democrats and Republicans in this body and the other body should come together and do what we did time and again in paying for President Clinton's deployments. We should fund this provision, we should support the base bill, and we should oppose the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here 17 years. I was not going to speak on this issue, but as I sat in my office I heard speaker after speaker mention the word ``firefighter.''

Now, I came to the Congress as a firefighter, and I spent the first part of my career when the other side had control of this body fighting on behalf of firefighters. It was not the other side who delivered a program for grants for fire departments in America, although we had bipartisan support, it was when we controlled the Congress that we passed the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program, which this year is providing $750 million for fire departments across the country.

And it was not during the control of the other side, despite the rhetoric that we have heard out of the leadership on that side, and will hear later on, that we do not care about firefighters. It was not the other side when they controlled the Congress that started a grant program to hire more firefighters, but when the defense bill passes next week on the floor of the House, the conference report, there will be a $7.6 billion program for firefighters. That was done under Republican control of the Congress.

So when my colleagues stand up and say we are hurting firefighters, cut me a break. In my 17 years here, we have worked in a bipartisan way for firefighters, and for them to come to the floor today and say that somehow this is meant to gut them is an absolute lie.

I just got off the phone with the firefighters' union, the firefighters' union. I set up the meeting with Secretary Chao and the firefighters over a month ago, and they are satisfied and they told me I could say this on the floor, they are satisfied with the assurances they have that they will not be impacted by this, and neither will the paramedics and neither will the FOP and the first responder community.

So for the other side to stand up here and use that over and over again galls me because where were they when I was fighting for the firefighters for the years that they controlled this body? What did you do to give us a grant program? What did you do to put more firefighters into the cities? You did nothing. You did nothing. For you to stand up here and say somehow you are protecting the firefighters, you can be as smug as you want as you sit there, but you did nothing to support the firefighters and the emergency responders of this country.

This motion to instruct does not protect them. They are already satisfied. The leadership of the union told me that 10 minutes ago, so I stand up here and tell my colleagues on the Republican side, you can vote against this motion to instruct, and you are not going to hurt any firefighters. You are not going to hurt any paramedics or nurses or police, and their national associations will tell you that. Sure, they are not going to endorse this because the AFL-CIO has come out against it, but the facts are the facts.

So I ask my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle to consider it based on the facts and do not listen to the rhetoric that I heard out of every Member on the other side, or I would not have been here for the last few minutes' rail about how they are concerned about the Nation's firefighters. I urge Members to oppose the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Edward Teller, perhaps the most important scientist of the 20th century, who died Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at his home on the campus of Stanford University, at the age of 95.

Edward Teller was born into a prosperous family of Jewish Hungarians in 1908. After attending schools in Budapest, he went to Munich and Leipzig to earn a PhD. in physical chemistry in 1930. His doctoral thesis, on the hydrogen molecular ion, helped lay the foundation for a theory of molecular orbitals that remains widely accepted today.

Teller studied atomic physics under Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the early 1930s. In 1935, Teller and his bride, Augusta Harkanyi, went to the United States where he taught at George Washington University. Together with his colleague George Gamow, he established new rules for classifying the ways subatomic particles can escape the nucleus during radioactive decay.

In 1941, Teller became a U.S. citizen, and joined Enrico Fermi's team at the University of Chicago in the epochal experiment that produced the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Teller then accepted an invitation from the University at Berkeley to work on theoretical studies on the atomic bomb with J. Robert Oppenheimer. When Oppenheimer set up the secret Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico in 1943, Teller was among the first recruited.

As early as 1943, Teller conceived the idea for the hydrogen bomb, a weapon potentially thousands of times more powerful than the atomic bomb. Teller's idea for an H-bomb was a decade ahead of his fellow scientists, who were the best and brightest in their field.

After World War II, in 1946, Teller accepted a position with the University of Chicago, while also serving as a consultant to Los Alamos. When the Soviet Union exploded an atomic bomb in 1949-years before they were expected to do so--the Atomic Energy Commission investigated Teller's proposal for developing an H-bomb. Oppenheimer voted against such a program, siding with scientists who claimed the H- bomb was technologically impossible. The debate was settled by the confession of the British atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs that he had been spying for the Soviet Union since 1942. Fuchs had known of American interest in a hydrogen bomb and passed along U.S. data to the Soviets. In response, President Truman ordered the H-bomb project to proceed.

Teller solved a key problem in designing the H-bomb, proposing that radiation, instead of mechanical shock, could be used to compress and ignite the thermonuclear core. Teller's H-bomb was successfully tested on November 1, 1952. It yielded an explosion of 10 megatons, one thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima A-bomb.

By the way, on August 12, 1953, the Soviet Union successfully tested their H-bomb, less than one year after Teller's test. So Teller was proven right both about the technical feasibility of the H-bomb, and about the imminent Soviet threat. If Teller had lost his argument with Oppenheimer, the Soviet Union would have beaten the United States to the H-bomb, and the Cold War might have had a very different outcome.

Teller was instrumental in the creation of the United States' second nuclear weapons laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, in 1952. For the next four decades, with Teller often at its head, Lawrence Livermore was the United States' chief laboratory for the design of nuclear weapons.

Throughout his life, Teller served as a prominent government advisor on nuclear weapons, nuclear strategy, and national security issues. In 1982-83, he was a major influence on President Ronald Reagan's proposal to defend the United States from nuclear missile attacks by means of a Strategic Defense Initiative.

In 2003, Edward Teller was awarded the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

Although no longer with us, Teller will always live through his technological achievements and his political ideals. Edward Teller's scientific vision combined with his patriotism and far-sighted wisdom to create a safer world. Teller's invention of the hydrogen bomb thwarted the Soviet Union from achieving a decisive technological advantage over the United States and probably prevented nuclear war. The H-bomb also deterred the USSR from attempting to enslave the western democracies by invading with its vast preponderance of tanks, soldiers, and aircraft. So Teller's awesome invention prevented the Cold War from turning hot, made possible the long half-century stalemate between East and West, and avoided the Third World War that many, but not Teller, thought inevitable. The Cold War ended with the peaceful triumph of democracy and the emergence between the United States and Russia of friendship. Edward Teller deserves a huge amount of credit for this happy outcome.

Edward Teller also deserves credit for conceiving the idea of missile defense as a way of defeating weapons of mass destruction. As early as 1945, Teller authored a report for the Navy arguing that missile defense against atomic weapons is possible. Teller never stopped thinking about the idea of missile defense. He briefed then Governor Ronald Reagan on the possibility of a national missile defense in 1967. He again promoted the idea of strategic missile defenses to President Reagan in the early 1980s. Teller's ideas became the basis for Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. SDI has evolved into the reality of a National Missile Defense to protect the United States from weapons of mass destruction launched by rogue states and terrorists.

Critics claim that missile defenses against weapons of mass destruction cannot work. Ironically, back in the 1950s, Teller's liberal critics said the same thing about the hydrogen bomb, claiming the H-bomb would not work. Those critics were wrong then and they are wrong now. Missile defenses are already technologically proven.

The bottom line about Edward Teller is that, had he never lived, millions would probably be dead today, and the Western democracies might not exist. In the future, millions will continue to enjoy the fruits of freedom and security, sheltered by missile defenses, because of the genius of Edward Teller.

I have introduced two bills that honor the memory of Edward Teller by trying to carry on his work. One bill establishes the Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace. The Teller-Kurchatov Alliance will support joint research on peaceful uses of nuclear energy and promote cooperation and friendship between the United States and Russia. The other bill establishes a Commission on Nuclear Strategy of the United States. The Commission will think broadly and deeply, twenty years into the future, about the long-term role of nuclear weapons given the end of the Cold War and the rapidly changing global security environment. The Commission will harness the intellectual power of men like Edward Teller, the leading intellects of that Great Generation that guided the United States safely through the nuclear perils of the Cold War, in order to gain their wisdom and guidance on the safest course to follow in the future.

In closing, on behalf of the U.S. Congress and the American people, we say farewell to Edward Teller, the lion of science. Following his leadership and vision, we must continue to search for scientific answers to the world's most demanding challenges.

We must embrace his calls for greater cooperation with our former adversaries in the Soviet Union. Dr. Teller's life and work make clear that we can solve any problem, overcome any challenge and rise to any occasion for the good of humanity.

Mr. Speaker, Saturday, September 20, 2003 will be a special day for legendary baseball batting champ Mickey Vernon as his hometown of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania honors their favorite son by unveiling a life size statue of Vernon on the same ball field where he played sandlot ball. The statue will be unveiled at 2:30 p.m. at the Marcus Hook Memorial Field on Market Street.

Mickey Vernon is a hero in my hometown. Marcus Hook is a close-knit, working-class town on the Delaware River. The people of Marcus Hook have community spirit and have much cause for civic pride. One of the unifying bonds in our hometown is our great pride in the career and achievements of Mickey Vernon. In the ballparks of Marcus Hook the name of Mickey Vernon is revered. Even today, more than thirty years after his retirement, kids in Marcus Hook still play ball in the Mickey Vernon Little League.

Mickey Vernon, one of baseball's greatest first basemen of all time has earned a special place in the annals of baseball history. Mickey played 21 years in the big leagues, thirteen of those in our Nation's Capital where he played for the Washington Senators. He was known as a slick-fielding left-handed first baseman with a short, compact lefty swing.

In 1946, Mickey won the first of his two American League batting titles, hitting .353 while banging out a league-leading 51 doubles and knocking in 85 runs. He won a second Silver Bat in 1953, when be again lead the league with a .337 average and 43 doubles. That year, he also smashed 15 home runs and drove in a career-best 115 runs.

For his career, Mickey batted .286, drove in 1,311 runs, and hit 490 doubles. He played in seven All-Star games, and after a time held career records for first basemen in assists, put-outs, chances, and games played. He was durable and consistent, playing 115 or more games for 14 straight years.

It is well known that Mickey Vernon was President Dwight D. Eisenhower's favorite player. On opening day, 1954, with Ike in attendance, Vernon hit a home run in the 10th inning to defeat the New York Yankees. President Eisenhower called Vernon into his box to congratulate him.

Typical of many ballplayers of his era, Mickey lost two years in the prime of his career, 1944-45, because he answered his country's call to service during World War II. When we honor individuals like Mickey Vernon we promote the essence of what is good and wholesome in our Nation. Individuals like Mickey Vernon represent the essence of courage and endurance--the qualities that helped make our Nation great. He is a true American hero in every sense of the word.

Few towns in America can claim to be birthplace of a genuine baseball hero, and the people of Marcus Hook are very proud to call Mickey Vernon one of our own.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mickey Vernon for his outstanding career and his major league contributions to baseball, to his community, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to the Nation with best wishes as well to his wife, Libby.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my good friend and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, and with the support of the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

The colloquy deals with a surprising and very damaging change in Social Security annuities for district firefighters, police, Secret Service agents, Park Police and others.

Mr. Chairman, on October 1, 2002 the above District public service employees were notified for the first time of a reduction in their monthly retirement benefit payments by removing any credit received for military service performed after 1956 pursuant to D.C. Code 5-704(h). In other words, the firefighters and police who expected to have their military service count towards retirement are now being told that their benefits will be dramatically reduced or that they will have to pay back benefits received to account for the calculation.

It is unfortunate and sad to expect the protectors of our Capitol, who also served our country in the military, to be penalized for government's mistake in not notifying them of this administrative change.

Mr. Chairman, if Congress desires to continue to prohibit a military service credit for Social Security contributions, then we have two choices that would permit us to look at our firefighters and police officers with a straight face. We can either restore the military credit for those who were not notified of the change prior to October of 2002 or we can permit them to buy back the benefits they have received by having them submit adjusted payments that were due while in the military.

Mr. Chairman, the harm our public safety personnel will endure from these drastic annuity reductions or penalties will be severe. And I encourage Members to support a correction to the D.C. Code that permits them to manage this terrible mistake. I have committed to work with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to correct this mistake.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the legendary Chief Traynor Halftown, the children's entertainer who passed away on July 5, 2003. His passing was broadly covered in the media and accepted as a personal loss for millions in the Philadelphia region who felt they knew him as a friend.

Chief Halftown was a true original and an entertainer at heart. Chief Halftown delighted the children of Delaware Valley for 49 years with his stories, cartoons and live talent acts. He offered a different view of Native Americans than was seen in most TV westerns. The Chief Halftown Show was one of Philadelphia's most popular programs. It was the longest running children's TV show in history, from 1951 to 1999-- 48 years on WFIL-TV Channel 6--Philadelphia. He had a live audience with selected children visiting his set each week. Some little known facts about the ``Chief'' include the fact that he had a fabulous voice. Prior to his children's TV career, he was a successful nightclub singer and had a much in demand lounge act. He was also quite a sportsman, including the fact that he was an ``Ace'' bowler.

Beginning from the early 1950's, Chief Halftown was an outstanding presence at community activities, business openings, sports events and holiday parades in countless towns. His scheduled appearances filled the calendar and drew adoring crowds at personal appearances until just recently.

A veteran of World War II, he served his country honorably and after discharge from the Army moved into Springfield, PA with his wife, Margaret. Unable to have children, this remarkable couple opened their home to three children from reservation families who then attended Delaware County, PA schools. Two boys and one girl, all now enjoy success in business and have families of their own.

Because of early exposure to substance abuse on his Seneca reservation, upper New York State, and due to a short period of personal dependency, he became known as a ``sponsor helper'' for others having such problems. He aided thousands of Pennsylvanians through his example and guidance for nearly 60 years. His passing is a tragic loss to many professionals who dedicated their own lives to this specific health care field.

In his eighties, he continued to produce children's ``amateur contests'' and made visits to nursing homes and assisted living facilities. For those elder citizens he wrote and presented a series of programs on the culture of Native Americans. The visits became popular events for confined and ailing seniors.

Mr. Speaker, our region has lost not only a legend in the broadcast industry, but a dear friend. I wish Margaret Halftown, his widow, my heartfelt condolences and may she find comfort in knowing that the many children and adults the Chief impacted deeply value his dedication and generosity of spirit and the example of his life and work. Chief Traynor Halftown exemplified the spirit of service that has made this country great. It is proper to remember and honor a man of such worth and character with great respect for what he accomplished and stood for.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I sat in my office last night and listened to Member after Member on the other side rail about President Bush and whether or not we could trust him in the Iraqi situation. I have listened to my colleagues tonight. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, this is just outrageous.

So what I have done is I have got a whole file here, and I am going to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about their President for the previous 8 years, and I am going to cite articles and claims and I am going to cite the justification for the invasion of Yugoslavia as outlined by President Clinton.

Where were these voices, where were these petitions, where were these outcries when President Clinton told us about the Balkans mass deaths to justify NATO's invasion into the Balkans? The Clinton administration claimed that ethnic cleansing had killed hundreds of thousands of people, and I will include the articles from the papers in the Congressional Record.

The Clinton administration was later criticized, and I have newspaper articles here to back it up by the press for grossly exaggerating the number of victims of ethnic cleansing, the mass graves. President Clinton told us we would find 100,000 people that were murdered and that was his justification for using NATO for the only time ever to invade a non-NATO country in order to justify a war against Slobodan Milosevic where U.S. citizens, where U.S. troops, and where innocent Serbs were killed. That is the first example.

And how about when President Clinton, to justify preservation of the outdated ABM treaty and to resist congressional pressure to deploy national missile defense asserted that the U.S. would not face an ICBM threat from rogue states for decades? In fact, in 1995 the Clinton administration took the unprecedented step of releasing a classified national intelligence estimate in an effort to sway public opinion because he had vetoed the defense bill. The notorious NIE-95-19 was widely criticized by experts, including the Clinton administration's own director of the CIA, Jim Woolsey, because he said that the President was exaggerating the facts. Just 3 years later in August of 1998, North Korea exposed the Clinton administration lie when it tested an ICBM missile, the Taepo Dong-1 missile. But the Clinton administration used the CIA to mislead this Congress. His own CIA director, Jim Woolsey, on the public record said so.

Let us talk about the agreed-upon framework. It was the Clinton administration that credited itself with stopping the emergence of a nuclear-armed North Korea when it concluded the agreed-framework with Pyongyang in 1994. Critics pointed out that North Korea had already built one or two atomic bombs and was continuing its nuclear weapons program, cheating on the agreed framework. Among these critics was the North Korea advisory group of this body and we stated in November 1999 that North Korea was developing atomic weapons despite the agreed framework. And what did the administration do? They said it was not happening.

Recently, North Korea exposed the Clinton administration lie when Pyongyang admitted that for the past several years it had been cheating on the agreed framework.

How about the most famous Clinton administration distortion, the grand

lie? On over 100 occasions, including two State of the Union speeches, President Clinton credited himself with making America's children safe from the threat of nuclear war through the Moscow declaration of 1994 that supposedly removed the U.S. as a target from the guidance systems of Russian missiles. Less than 1 month after detargeting was supposed to take effect, during a major Russian strategic forces exercise held on June 22, 1994, Russian missile launches simulated strikes on the U.S., but President Clinton in the State of the Union speech on two occasions said you can sleep well tonight, America, because we have reassured the children of America that there is no fear of an offensive missile attack from Russia because we have detargeted those missiles.

High-ranking Russian officials contradicted the Clinton administration. In fact, Anton Surikov, a senior adviser to the Russian Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in a March 1995 interview, and this is after the State of the Union speech, when it was decided to detarget missiles, the decision was mostly of a political, propaganda character. And yet our President was at that podium telling the American people in two State of the Union speeches, you have nothing to worry about.

Where were my colleagues on the other side? Were they asleep? Where were their petition gatherings? Where were their demands for the honesty of the White House? Where were their outcries for the neck of the President? Where was their righteous indignation that we have been hearing on this floor tonight from my colleagues and last night from my colleagues? The silence is deafening because it is all partisan rhetoric. It is nothing but partisan rhetoric with no basis of substance.

President Clinton's former Director of CIA in testimony before Congress on February 12, 1998, said that the detargeting agreement was unverifiable, quickly reversible, and characterized as misleading.

Mr. Speaker, that was not a Republican talking; that was Jim Woolsey, CIA Director under Bill Clinton, calling his own President, who appointed him, misleading.

Where were the outcries from the other side? Where were the liberal groups across America demanding that President Clinton be held accountable? Where were they? All of a sudden today, this righteous indignation ringing out from our Democratic colleagues is sickening and disgusting.

Let us talk about M-11 missiles in Pakistan. The Clinton administration credited itself with greatly improving relations with China and achieving an understanding with Beijing on nonproliferation of technologies for missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Yet compelling evidence soon emerged that China was exporting M-11 missiles to Pakistan in direct violation of its understanding with the Clinton administration and the Missile Technology Control Regime.

The Clinton administration resisted congressional pressure to impose sanctions on China even though that is what should have been done for violating its commitments because it wanted to protect the administration's foreign policy record and public standing in the polls.

Consequently, despite overwhelming evidence that China was exporting missiles to Pakistan, the Clinton administration pretended that those missiles did not exist.

Mr. Speaker, in one night, in one day, I have listed five times of major significance that the leader of the party of the other side, these righteous, indignant people who have railed and whined and cried on the floor of this body said nothing about lies to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, some would say, well, these did not involve death of American citizens or war, and I would remind my colleagues, the justification that President Clinton used to take this country into war in Yugoslavia was basically a bunch of false information. In fact, it was the USA Today in July of 1999, an article that said, ``As the allied forces take control in Kosovo, many of the figures used by the Clinton administration and NATO were greatly exaggerated. Six hundred thousand ethnic Albanian men were not trapped within Kosovo or buried in mass graves, as President Clinton told a veterans group. Instead of 100,000 ethnic Albanian men feared murdered, officials now estimate about 10,000; and we think the confirmed number was 3,000.''

Mr. Speaker, that was from USA Today in 1999.

Let us go to the Little Rock newspapers. They did an investigative story on January 16, 2000, after the Clinton administration had made these outrageous claims of ethnic cleansing. Why did they say these things, Mr. Speaker? Because they wanted the Congress and they wanted the American people to support his war to get Milosevic out of power.

Let us read some of the quotes from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, January 16, 2000:

``Of 500 potential grave sites, 150 have been opened and, no, we have not found the 100,000 missing declared by President Clinton, or the lower but probably equally preposterous figure of 10,000 advanced by British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and repeated by the BBC.''

This was not the Republican Party. This was the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on January 16, 2000, saying that all the justification that Clinton used to go to war in Yugoslavia was false, it was erroneous.

Where was the outcry by these liberal groups in this country? Where was the outcry by the Democrats we have seen running down to the well complaining that this President needs to be investigated? Where was the consistency of the principled position of my colleagues on the other side?

Let us go on, Mr. Speaker, with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article of January 16, 2000: ``We have more than 10,000 photographs of graves, sites and bodies, and more than 300 hours of video, and we share all our evidence with the war crimes tribunal. From survivors who are giving us testimonies, we calculate there were 6,000 Kosovo Albanians killed in the 3 months of the war,'' not before the war, in the 3 months of the war which President Clinton led, ``and perhaps 2,000 still in Serbian prisons.''

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. In the previous 12 months before the war, there were 1,000 killed. So 1,000 were killed in the previous months, 6,000 were killed in the immediate 3 months of the war itself by the bombs of the U.S., France and Germany and the other NATO countries.

``But then the figures become a little vague. The total of dead and missing becomes 7,000 rather than 8,000; the figure of prewar killings rises from 1,000 to 2,000.'' Mr. Speaker, the information leading up to President Clinton's decision to go to war in Yugoslavia is filled with gross, not just information distorted, gross distortions of fact, lies.

Where are my colleagues? What were they saying?

Let us go on, Mr. Speaker, to some other examples.

Here is an article from the Washington Post, March 26, 2000. The headline, Was It a Mistake? We Were Suckers for the KLA was the headline of this article written by Christopher Layne and Benjamin Schwartz. Let us go through some of the claims.

``Clinton's assertion,'' and I am quoting here, Mr. Speaker, ``at a June 25, 1999, postwar news conference that the bombing was a way to stop, quote, deliberate, systematic efforts at genocide,'' he called it genocide in Kosovo. It goes on to say, ``was either disingenuous or ignorant. Before the start of NATO's bombing on March 24, 1999, almost 2,000 civilians, overwhelmingly ethnic Albanians but also Serbs, had been killed in 15 months of bitter warfare. Up to that point, there had been no genocide or ethnic cleansing.'' The genocide and ethnic cleansing started when Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac started the war against Milosevic.

I will go on, Mr. Speaker, this same article, Washington Post, March 26, 2000:

``Not only did the forced removal of civilians result from the NATO bombing, but administration claims of mass killings, made to rally popular support for the war, turn out to have been exaggerated. Clinton defended the intervention on the grounds that the Yugoslavs had slaughtered tens of thousands.'' President Clinton said tens of thousands, Mr. Speaker. It never turned out to be true. All lies. Secretary of Defense William Cohen termed it a, quote, horrific slaughter. The numbers we now have, according

to this article in the Post, disprove those claims. U.N. numbers and U.S. numbers and Allied numbers say the information provided to Congress was wrong.

Let us go on to a story in the Contra Costa Times, March 4, 2000. ``We became involved in Kosovo after being bombarded with exorbitant claims of ethnic cleansing, subsequently proven exaggerated and largely committed after NATO started bombing.''

Another newspaper, Mr. Speaker. I do not remember my colleagues quoting from these papers. I do not remember my colleagues coming to the floor and demanding an investigation of Bill Clinton for distorting things. Not only were these distortions, they were outright, outright lies.

We will go on with that Contra Costa story of March 4, 2000:

``As a result of false and misleading news reports, Americans were led to believe tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians were killed by the Serbs and buried in mass graves. Many are still under that impression.

``According to U.N. investigators who have been scouring the area since the bombing stopped, the total number of ethnic Albanians killed by the Serbs is closer to 2,000, far fewer than the number of civilians killed by NATO bombers.''

Let me repeat that statement again, Mr. Speaker. Listen to this, please, quoted from the Contra Costa Times, March 4, 2000: ``According to U.N. investigators who scoured the area since the bombing stopped, the total number of ethnic Albanians killed by the Serbs is closer to 2,000, far fewer than the total number of civilians killed by NATO bombers.''

Let us go on to some additional articles, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the distortions of the other side are outrageous. I did not want to get up and do this. But I, Mr. Speaker, was sick and tired of sitting in my office listening to Members parade down here, 1-hour special orders, talking about how they were misled. What a crock, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, if any Member of Congress was misled by President Bush's State of the Union speech, then there has got to be something wrong with them, because the vote to give the President the use of force was in October of last year. What did they do, read the speech 3 months before it occurred? The vote did not come after the President's speech. These Members on the other side who voted to give the President the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein voted in the fall of last year, 3 months before President Bush made the State of the Union speech here.

Mr. Speaker, it is all partisan rhetoric, and I am sick of it. I am sick of it because it has no place. It has no place in this body on such a serious issue as our effort to fight the war on terrorism.

We saw the same thing with the agreed-upon framework, the lies about how we had stopped the nuclear program, and we found out just last summer that the North Koreans publicly admitted that they now had a highly enriched uranium program, were building nuclear bombs, reprocessing rods and could have cared less about an agreement signed in 1994. Yet the Clinton administration told us all along, don't worry.

Mr. Speaker, the North Korean advisory committee that issued a report to this body in 1999 had all of that documentation contained inside of it.

And, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before the President's most famous line in the nineties, President Clinton's most famous line, that he did two times from that podium, was to stand up to the American people, look in the camera and bite his lip and say, you know, tonight the American people can sleep well because their children are protected, because no longer are Russian missiles pointed at America's children.

Mr. Speaker, that was a lie. It was a lie because the leader that I quoted from the Russian media said it, that it was purely for political purposes.

Jim Woolsey, who was Clinton's CIA Director, repeatedly said he wished the President would stop making those statements because there was no way to verify a detargeting practice. Did I hear my colleagues stand up and say what are they doing? Let us have an investigation of the President? Let us ask for an inquiry about what he is saying? Did I hear one Member on that side besides Jim Woolsey stand up publicly and say that Bill Clinton was misleading the American people? All of a sudden now it is election time, and they are attempting to tear George Bush down.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely sickening. It is disgusting, and I am not going to let it stand. If I have to get up here every night and repeat this information and ask my colleagues where they were during the 1990s, then I will do that.

On February 12, 1998, President Clinton's former CIA Director, Jim Woolsey, in testimony before Congress, strongly condemned as ``misleading'' the President's repeated claims that missile detargeting had reduced the Russian nuclear threat.

Let me read what Jim Woolsey said, Mr. Speaker. This is what Jim Woolsey, Bill Clinton's hand-appointed CIA Director said about the President: ``I wish he (President Clinton) would not continue to make that statement (about Russian missile detargeting) because though it may be technically correct . . . it is misleading . . . These missiles, (based upon) everything I have known about them over the years, could be retargeted'' in a manner of minutes or seconds. ``It is almost like saying . . . if I had a revolver here in my pocket and I took it out and pointed it at the ceiling, saying I am not targeting'' it, ``it is true. I would not be . . . I am pointing it at the ceiling. But if I lowered it,'' within a matter of seconds, ``I would be. It just takes a few seconds.''

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in an article written by Michael Waller for the American Foreign Policy Council about this whole issue of detargeting, it was actually not an article but it was testimony before the House Committee on Armed Services, he said about President Clinton's claim: ``This is a very serious claim. Yet technical experts say that the claim is impossible to make truthfully because the detargeting agreement is inherently impossible to verify.''

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I did the research in 1 day. I could have gone on and probably spent weeks and weeks getting tons of additional information about the misstatements, about the denial of the missiles that were sent to Pakistan, about the misleading information leading up to the war in Kosovo. Yet we never heard one peep out of the other body. I raise all of these facts, Mr. Speaker, only as a defensive response to my colleagues on the other side. They have made such outrageous claims, and I heard it in 5-minute speeches tonight. I heard it in 1-hour Special Orders last night. I heard it right before I spoke here tonight like somehow this is not going to go refuted and, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that. George Bush had the decency and honesty to say that when he made the State of the Union speech from that podium, perhaps that information given him, even though today he maintains it is still factually correct, should not have been included in the State of the Union speech. He was honest.

Where was the honesty of the previous President? Where was the other party that was down here railing about Bush and demanding a retraction? Where were these interest groups on the Internet demanding that we have accountability through petition drives? Where were they? They did not exist because they are a part of the Democrat machine that did not care what Bill Clinton said, did not care about distortions, did not care about out-and-out lies.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot put this entire statement in the Record because it would not be acceptable. I am going to put the major thrust of it in the Record, and I am going to ask that the quotations that I have outlined be highlighted for my colleagues to read tomorrow and for the American people to see.

Mr. Speaker, the vote on supporting the use of force for President Bush was not taken after the President's State of the Union speech. The vote by my colleagues, and they claim they were affected by what he said. I do not know how they could have been affected because that vote was taken last October, 3 months before President Bush spoke here; and what is interesting, Mr.

Speaker, is the vote was not close. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly supported giving the President the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Why did we do that? Because Saddam Hussein for 10 years had denied the demands of the unified world community. Everyone knew he had weapons of mass destruction. He used them on his own people. In a previous floor speech, I gave the numbers of the amount of innocent Iraqi people and Kurdish people that were killed. But what amazes me, Mr. Speaker, is this rhetoric coming from the other side.

I heard one of my colleagues stand up and say never has a President used force to remove someone from office for human rights violations. And I remember who the speaker was, Mr. Speaker; but I am not going to name him tonight, but I know the gentleman and if I get pressed on it, I will name him and I will pull his comments out of the Congressional Record. Where was that gentleman, who happens to be a Democrat, when President Clinton justified the use of our military to remove Slobodan Milosevic from power because of human rights violations? Where are my colleagues? In fact, that is exactly what happened.

I think the administration made some mistakes in leading up to the Iraqi war. I remember being on this floor, Mr. Speaker, when Secretary of State Colin Powell was giving us a briefing, and he was talking about weapons of mass destruction. I had a chance to ask him a question. I said, Mr. Secretary, you need to talk more about the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein, which the American people can relate to. After all, it was Bill Clinton who justified the use of force to remove Milosevic from power for human rights violations, and everyone in the world from the U.N. to Amnesty International admits publicly that Saddam Hussein is far worse than Milosevic ever was. So why do you not bring out the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein?

Why would my colleagues on the other side think it was okay to support President Clinton in using military force to remove Milosevic from power, and, by the way, they did not go to the U.N. for that vote because France knew Russia would veto a U.N. resolution? How could they support that military action, but then question President Bush when he uses military action to remove the worst human rights violator since Adolph Hitler from power just this year? And that claim of Saddam Hussein's being the worst human rights violator since Adolph Hitler does not come from me. It comes from the U.N. Special Rappateur for human rights when he was comparing the human rights record of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Members of the other side have whined. They have cried. They have screamed. They have been absolutely outrageously loud in saying that George Bush needs to be held accountable. Mr. Speaker, George Bush is accountable. The U.S. Congress supported the President in his actions against Saddam. Almost 50 nations of the world supported George Bush in our actions against Saddam. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supported George Bush in his actions against Saddam. And they did not do that because of any speech made here. They did it because of the facts. And for my colleagues to run around this city, for the contenders for the Presidency on the Democrat side to go to a national forum and declare that George Bush has misled the American people is garbage. It is poppycock. There has been no misleading. If my colleagues on the other side and if the nine candidates for the Presidential nomination of the other party want to take and look at some misleading statements, I invite them to get the Congressional Record from tonight.

Look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. Look at the facts on the Balkan mass death claims, those hundreds of thousands of people that Bill Clinton said were murdered that justified our use of military action. Look at the President's statements about new missile threats and how the national intelligence estimate in 1995 was politicized, the only national intelligence estimate ever changed by the CIA because of the Rumsfeld Commission, 3 years after Bill Clinton vetoed our defense bill based on his misstatements; the agreed-upon framework with North Korea where the Clinton administration, until it left office, said that it was in fact successful in accomplishing the objective of eliminating the North Korean nuclear program. Lies and distortions. The detargeting agreement, President Clinton's famous statement of over 100 times. In fact, we used to have a contract to keep track of him.

It got up to 135 times, that we could count, that President Clinton's speeches made the same statement he made twice here from this pulpit, distorting the facts to the American people for his political benefit, or the story about the M-11 missiles not being in Pakistan, when everyone knew they were there. These are just a few, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will make this commitment to my colleagues. If this partisan rhetoric continues on the floor, I will be back here every night and I will refute it, and I will bring out more of the gross Clinton lies and distortions which that side remained silent on year after year after year. I challenge them to end this garbage. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 51 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, July 17, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment concerns the loss of an investment in Moldova by a constituent of mine due to the actions of the Moldovan government. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, will enter into a colloquy with me.

Mr. Chairman, a long-time constituent of mine invested $2.5 million in Moldova for the purpose of purchasing a distillery in that country. The Moldovan government gave him a promissory note as security for $76 million and also produced a signed deed from the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Privatization together with a legal opinion from the dean of their law school stating that these documents were legal and binding in Moldova. The property was never sold by the government, and my constituent never saw his money again.

I have taken this matter to the President of Moldova on several occasions. Recently, my constituent met with President Voronin in March of this year. The President promised this matter would be resolved in 3 to 4 weeks. It is July now, and the matter has still not been resolved.

I have visited Moldova twice. I have led delegations. In fact, I spoke to their parliament when they convened on a Saturday session. I enjoyed meeting and want to work with the government leaders of that country. It is not my intention to alienate Moldova by withholding foreign aid. However, this type of outright fraud and corruption frightens many Americans from investing in Moldova and other former Soviet states. The Moldovan government must remedy this matter and provide assurances to other investors that Moldova is ready to safeguard foreign investment.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before, I do not want to alienate Moldova. The citizens of Moldova are not at fault. They are good people. It is their government that is at fault, and I do not think it is fair that its people suffer. Something must be done to remedy this matter. I will request to withdraw my amendment with assurances from the gentleman from Illinois that we will try to remedy this situation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the ranking member who do such a great job for consideration of all issues. I look forward to working with him on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the outstanding service of one of America's true heroes, General Eric K. Shinseki.

General Shinseki retires from the Army after a career that spanned the globe and 38 years of service in peace and war. Let me be very clear, what General Shinseki has accomplished as chief is tied directly to the welfare of soldiers and their ability to remain the world's greatest warfighters and we owe him a debt of gratitude.

General Shinseki was just a young cadet at West Point, when General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, gave his distinguished Farewell Speech on the banks of the Hudson to the Corps of Cadets. General MacArthur's words embodied the creed of military service:

``Duty,'' ``honor,'' ``country''--Those three hallowed

words reverently dictate what you

want to be, what you can be. They are your rallying points to

build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith

when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope

when hope becomes forlorn.--General Douglas MacArthur's

Farewell Speech, May 12, 1962

These ideals--of duty, honor and country so eloquently expressed by General MacArthur that day have been personified in General Shinseki's distinguished career. General Shinseki graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1965 and later received a Master of Arts Degree in English Literature from Duke University.

As a young officer, General Shinseki served two combat tours in Vietnam. He was twice wounded, and earned two Purple Hearts as well as four Bronze Star Medals. He then went on to serve for more than ten years throughout Europe in positions of increasing authority and responsibility. In 1996, General Shinseki was promoted to lieutenant general and returned to the Pentagon as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Planning.

General Shinseki's duties culminated with his promotion and assignment as Chief of Staff of the Army in 1999. Already, as Vice Chief of Staff, he had developed an innovative plan to prepare the Army to face the unique challenges of the 21st century. Soon after becoming Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki embarked on a bold plan to transform the Army to a lighter, more lethal, more flexible and transportable force that would be fully capable of meeting the full range of threats that face today's Army. He was a visionary who began transformation long before the term became popular.

Perhaps most poignantly, General Shinseki should be remembered as the gladiator President Roosevelt spoke of so long ago:

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out

how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could

have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is

actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat

and blood: who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short

again and again, because there is no effort without error and

shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds;

who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who

spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the

end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if

he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his

place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know

neither victory nor defeat.--Address at the Sorbonne, Paris,

France, April 23, 1910.

Throughout his thirty-eight years of service General Shinseki's first and primary focus has always been the men and women of the United States Army. Among his many accomplishments, General Shinseki revolutionized recruitment, training and education. Just one example of General Shinseki's innovative approach is eCybermission, a program that encourages young men and women to pursue education and careers in engineering and science, which he sees as fundamental to the future of the Army and the nation.

General Shinseki attributes much of his success to the support of his wife Patty, who has also contributed greatly to aid the wives and families of our service men and women. Together, they have raised two wonderful children, Lori and Ken.

This nation, the Congress, the Department of Defense, and the men and women of the Army, owe a debt of gratitude to General Shinseki and his wife Patty for their selfless service. They have given meaning to the timeless values that continue to reverberate across the plain at West Point--``Duty, Honor, Country.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Adrian Spotten Hooper, one of Pennsylvania's most distinguished business, maritime and community leaders. Mr. Hooper was Chairman of Penn's Landing Corporation, in Philadelphia, PA, during the area's initial development and head of the Independence Seaport Museum when it was moved to the waterfront. In fact, there would be no Independence Seaport Museum without Adrian's leadership.

Mr. Hooper, born and raised in West Philadelphia, had been fascinated by the sea since his youth. He ran away from home at the age of 15 and tried to join the Merchant Marine, but was forced to return after his father intervened and arranged for him to sail on a Norwegian vessel in the North Atlantic for a few months. Mr. Hooper got sailing out of his system for a while, and graduated from Lower Merion High School in 1941. But to the sea he soon returned. As soon as World War II broke out, Adrian joined the Navy. He wanted to be at sea and fight in the war so badly that he memorized the eye chart, because he was blind in one eye. He went on to serve our country as a torpedoman on a destroyer in the Atlantic and the Pacific until 1945.

After the war, Mr. Hooper earned a bachelor's in business from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1950. That year, he married Elizabeth Wharton Shober, and they moved to Devon, PA. He also began his professional career as a dispatcher for Interstate Oil Transport Company in Philadelphia.

Mr. Hooper's career was interrupted in 1951 when he joined the Army during the Korean War. He served stateside until 1953.

After the war, Mr. Hooper returned to the Interstate Oil Transport Company and served as chief executive officer until the company was sold in 1981 to Southern Natural Resources.

Mr. Hooper's public service began in the early 1970s, when former Mayor Frank L. Rizzo appointed him chairman of Penn's Landing Corporation. At the time, the 22.5-acre area along the Delaware River from Market to Lombard Streets, commemorating where Philadelphia began more than 300 years ago, was fallow. Under Mr. Hooper's direction and able leadership, Penn's Landing became an entertainment center.

Mr. Hooper dedicated his life to maritime issues. He served as chairman of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping in the mid- 1970s. While president of the Independence Seaport Museum, then called the Philadelphia Maritime Museum, Mr. Hooper led a $15 million fund drive that enabled the museum to move from Chestnut Street to Penn's Landing in 1995.

Mr. Hooper had many other exciting ventures outside of Philadelphia.

In 1966, Mr. Hooper and the late Charles P. ``Pete'' Conrad, Apollo 12 commander, founded Universal Space Net, a satellite tracking firm in California. The firm has done work for NASA, the Air Force, and aerospace firms.

Mr. Hooper's first wife died in 1996, and he married Susan M. Borresen Hooper in 1999. In addition to his wife, Mr. Hooper is survived by daughters Suzanne, Elizabeth, and Dana; a son, Adrian Jr.; stepchildren Karen and Devon Walsh; and four grandchildren.

Mr. Hooper's legacy will endure not only in the principles he stood for and the improvements he brought to Pennsylvania, but also his wonderful family, his wife and children. Mr. Hooper's legacy is sure to include his keen understanding that the most important elements of our maritime infrastructure are people--shipyard workers, commercial seafarers, merchant fleet operators, and many others who make America the maritime nation that it is today.

Mr. Speaker, our region has lost an exceptional leader, and I have lost a good friend. I wish the family of Adrian Hooper my heartfelt condolences and may they find comfort in knowing that the many people he impacted deeply value his dedication and generosity and the example of his life and work. Adrian Hooper exemplified the spirit of service that has made this country great. It is proper to remember and honor a man of such worth and character with great respect for what he accomplished and stood for.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, before I enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman, thank the chairman of the subcommittee. Even before it was created, the leaders on this subcommittee were instrumental in helping our first responders.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about this Congress not doing enough for the first responders. Let me say to my colleagues in this body that before 9-11 occurred there was no program to assist our first responders nationwide, nothing. And Congress has, over the past years, had plenty of opportunities, but never saw fit. And disasters were not new. We had them all during the history of this country.

It was this Congress in 2000, with the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the full committee and the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, who saw fit to create a grant program for our 32,000 fire and EMS departments in America. That was created in 2000, the year before 9-11. Initially, it was funded at $100 million. It went to $300 million, and this year, because of the leadership of the distinguished chairman from Kentucky and the support of the ranking member, the support for our firefighter grant program is at $715 million.

Many of our colleagues have said it is the most popular and most successful program that Congress has created. We are doing good work on behalf of the Nation's first responders. I want to applaud this subcommittee for their outstanding efforts and let them know, as the founder and chairman of the Fire Caucus and a former fire chief myself, they have done outstanding work; and it is paying dividends all over the country.

So, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for your strong support of the Nation's first responders.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, regarding a very important program called FIRESAT.

Mr. Chairman, one need not look further than the news reports of the destructive and violent wildfires in Arizona. In 2000, over 8 million acres of pristine wilderness burned, and Federal agencies expended more than $1.3 billion in fire suppression costs. Last year, in 2002, wildfires scorched over 7 million acres. Hundreds of homes were destroyed and firefighters gave their lives.

FIRESAT is a satellite system that is able to detect wildfires in their early stages while they are still less than 1 acre in size. While the tools are at our disposal to save lives and billions of dollars, the equipment for this program remains boxed in offices in Reston, Virginia. This project can be fully activated with the necessary security upgrades and software upgrades in time for the fire season this year for $7.5 million. In relation to the billions of dollars lost in these wild land fires every year, this is truly a smart investment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have the technology and the means to do something about this.

FIRESAT was originally labeled the Hazard Support System and developed by Ratheon with funds which I obtained from the Department of Defense in 1997. The system was subsequently transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA who, for unknown reasons, did not request funds for the program in their budget. At the request last year of Joe Albaugh, the director of FEMA, we successfully transferred the system, now named FIRESAT, within the Homeland Security Act to the Department of Homeland Security's Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and Response.

Today is our opportunity to install a commonsense solution to the annual wildfires that wreck havoc to communities and forests all over America and place countless firefighters in danger. I hope that under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) an opportunity will present itself to fund this economical and much-needed program.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, family reunions are an important part of our personal histories. On June 21 and 22, 2003, the Bonsall Family Reunion will be held at Stagecoach Farm in Cheyney, Pennsylvania in the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. This will be the 320th anniversary of Richard, Mary and Obadiah Bonsall sailing out of Liverpool, England to America, arriving on the Duke of Yorke in the spring of 1683. I am proud to salute the Bonsall family on this important occasion.

Their story begins when Richard Bonsall and his wife, Mary (nee Wood) and their five young daughters ages 1 to 6 boarded a sailing vessel in Liverpool and endured a six to ten week voyage across the Atlantic Ocean with great hardships and danger. They arrived in Chester, Pennsylvania in the spring of 1683. Richard had received a Land Grant from William Penn in the area east of Chester Creek in what is now part of Lansdowne and part of Darby, Pennsylvania. Mary's parents had arrived in 1682 and had landed next to Richard's family. Richard built a dam on Chester Creek and established a Grain and Saw Mill. Richard and Mary added three sons and another daughter to the family. Richard and their other Quaker neighbors established the Darby Friends Meeting in 1699. Their children produced sixty-one (61) grandchildren and so started a very large family, many of whom served in every war that the United States was involved in from the Revolution to the recent conflict in Iraq.

Reuben Fayette Bonsall, a seventh generation descendant of Richard was born and raised just outside of Media, Pennsylvania in what is now Elwyn and had a large family of fourteen (14) children. In 1934 the descendants of Reuben held their first Reunion in honor of their parents. The tradition has continued each year since 1934 and is now held at Peggy Bonsall's home called Stagecoach Farm on Tanguy Road in Cheyney, Pennsylvania on the Sunday following Father's Day. In 1983 a worldwide reunion was held at Rose Tree Park and it was attended by nearly 1,000 descendants and family. There were genealogy displays, skits depicting some outstanding Bonsall's, Amos (explorer, soldier), Joseph (librarian, third library in America), Philip (last U.S. Ambassador to Cuba), bus tours to the ancestral homes (many are still being occupied), games for all ages and a dinner at Springton School.

After the reunion a committee was formed to establish a plan to keep the family aware of their heritage and contributions to America. It was decided to continue the regional yearly reunion and plan a U.S.A. reunion every ten years. The first ten year reunion was held in 1993, celebrating 310 years since Richard came to America and now we are celebrating the second ten-year Reunion on June 21 and 22, 2003 at Stagecoach Farm, 87 Tanguy Road, Cheyney, Pennsylvania. The program will include entertainment, games, genealogy displays, speakers, singers and depictions of famous Americans, William Penn, Ben Franklin and George Washington, all of whom knew Bonsall in early America.

The Bonsall's are planning for 300 descendants and family to attend this 320th anniversary of Richard and Mary (Wood) Bonsall arriving in America. These committed descendants represent nearly every state in our country. I am pleased that a very large population of Bonsall's still live, work and play in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. There are over 35 streets named after various Bonsalls in the Delaware Valley. There are three states that have towns named Bonsall or Bonsal.

Mr. Speaker, family reunions offer a special time for families to come together for celebration and renewal of the ties that bind them. Although the Bonsall Family has endured trials and tribulations over the years, the family has maintained their love, devotion, and commitment to one another. I am certain that this year's reunion will be a very special and joyous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in extending best wishes to the entire Bonsall Family for a successful and heartwarming family reunion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest possible terms this weekend's violent crackdown on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD). The Nobel Peace Prize winner was concluding a month

long speaking tour in Burma. The NLD won Burma's last democratic election in 1990, however, Burma's military regime has refused to honor the election results. I'm outraged to learn that Ms. Suu Kyi may have been seriously injured and many of her supporters killed.

I want to express my solidarity with the peoples of Burma and their struggle for democracy. As Ronald Reagan once said, ``Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root''. Now is the time for the United States to express our support for freedom in Burma.

Mr. Speaker, we should immediately move to increase pressure against this despicable regime.