Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I am pleased that Mr. Akin plans to withdraw his amendment #181 to defund the bipartisan indoor lighting provision of the historic Energy Independence and Security Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2007.

Let me underscore a few facts:

First, Chairman Upton plans to hold an oversight hearing on this provision in the near future--so action today would have been premature.

Second, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents the domestic manufacturers of light bulbs and includes GE, Sylvania and Phillips, urges a ``no'' vote.

Third, the law does not ban incandescent light bulbs, or force Americans to buy Chinese-made compact fluorescent bulbs that contain small traces of mercury.

Fourth, what the law does is set a glide path to US manufacture of more efficient light bulbs--which are already saving consumers an average of $200 per family per year. Manufacturing facilities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Torrance, CA--in my district--are creating thousands of new jobs right now.

Finally, when the law passed by a strong bipartisan vote my co-author Rep. Upton said: ``. . . it is a bipartisan effort in every way . . . this is where we need to be . . . where the world needs to be.''

And then-Ranking Member on Energy and Commerce Rep. Barton added: ``. . . this is one of the few areas where there has been constructive dialogue and bipartisanship . . .''

Withdrawing this amendment is the proper thing to do and I commend Rep. Akin for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, my congressional career will close on February 28th, so that the constitutionally required special election to replace me can coincide with a statewide referendum Governor Brown intends to hold later this year. This will save taxpayer money, assure a higher turnout, and most quickly fill the vacancy created by my resignation.

The messages that have flooded my offices since I announced my departure have touched me deeply. The extraordinary honor of a congratulatory statement by President Obama was completely unexpected and absolutely thrilling. But the message I may treasure most came from one of my children. It said, simply: Hon. ``Brave Mama.''

For 17 years, I have worked my heart out for the people of California's 36th congressional district. I cast votes with which some strongly disagreed--but I have always tried my best to listen, and to lead.

The opportunity awaiting me at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is enormous. It is truly a center of excellence, and a place where I believe I can add real value to bipartisan scholarship and policymaking.

But nothing--and I mean nothing--will ever replace the two-decade long journey I have just completed as I sought and won a seat in Congress--my first and only elected office.

I have worked closely with so many of you in committees, in caucuses like the Blue Dogs and New Democrats, and on legislation.

With some here I have visited garden spots like North Korea, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to assess the threats we face. Such foreign travel is, I believe, a wonderful way to build personal, bipartisan friendships--something dearly needed in Congress.

As a lifelong, passionate, bipartisan-in-my-bones Democrat I have been criticized by both sides. But the center is where, in my view, most Americans are--and where, in many cases, the best policy answers are. I will bring that perspective with me to my new post at the Wilson Center.

Let me make two final points. First, over the years I have worked hard to hire and train the best staff on the planet. We call ourselves ``Team Harman'' and at annual reunions I marvel at how they and their families have grown. I truly love them, and know how their extraordinary efforts are appreciated by my constituents and other offices.

But second, I always say that I represent the smartest constituents on earth. This is not a joke: they have helped me enormously to do my job well. Sidney and I and our ever-growing family thank them for the milestones and the memories. I may be changing my day job, but not my residence--or my heart.

So, as I conclude my final statement on the floor of this House, I depart with great affection and gratitude to wonderful colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who have also become wonderful friends.

Thank you, Norm Dicks, my longest-standing, certainly not my oldest, friend in the House, and thank you, colleagues.

My congressional career will close on February 28 so that the constitutionally required special election to replace me can coincide with a statewide referendum Governor Brown intends to hold in California later this year. This timing will save taxpayer money, a very good thing, ensure a higher turnout, and most quickly fill the vacancy created by my resignation.

The messages that have flooded my offices since I have announced my departure have touched me deeply. The extraordinary honor of a congratulatory statement by the President was completely unexpected and absolutely thrilling. But the message I may treasure most came from one of my four children. It said simply, ``Brave Mama.''

For 17 years, I have worked my heart out for the people of California's 36th Congressional District. I cast votes with which some strongly disagreed, but I have always tried my best to listen and lead.

The opportunity awaiting me at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is enormous, following in the footsteps of our former Member, Lee Hamilton. It is truly a center of excellence and a place where I believe I can add real value to bipartisan scholarship and policymaking. But nothing--and I mean nothing--will ever replace the two-decade long journey I have just completed as I sought and won a seat in Congress, my first and only elected office.

I have worked closely with many of you in committees and caucuses, like the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats, and on legislation. With some here, I have visited garden spots, like North Korea, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, to assess the threats we face. And those threats, as you all know, are extremely serious. Such foreign travel is, I believe, a wonderful way to build personal bipartisan friendships, something dearly needed here.

As a lifelong, passionate, ``bipartisan in my bones'' Democrat, I have been criticized by both sides. But the center is where, in my view, most Americans are and where, in many cases, the best policy answers are. I will bring that perspective with me to my new post at the Wilson Center.

Let me make two final points.

First, over the years, I have worked hard to hire and train the best staff on the planet.

We call ourselves Team Harman. And at annual reunions, I marvel at how they and their families have grown. I truly love them and know how their extraordinary efforts are appreciated by my constituents and by other offices.

And second, I always say that I represent the smartest constituents on earth. This is not a joke. They have

helped me enormously to do my job well. Sidney, my young Sidney and I, and our ever-growing family thank them for the milestones and the memories. I may be changing my day job, but not my residence or my heart.

So as I conclude my final statement on the floor of this House, I depart with great affection and gratitude to wonderful colleagues, to very longstanding friends, to a leadership with whom I have worked closely, to my sisters from California and throughout the United States, on both sides of the aisle, all of you have become valued, valued, valued, very valued friends. And I thank you, again, for the honor of serving with you.

Mr. Speaker, today's health care repeal debate reminds me of tennis great John McEnroe's famous rant, ``You can't be serious.''

Everyone knows this vote is symbolic, putting off for another day the hard work of revising portions of this historic law that need attention, or adding provisions that would greatly improve the law.

There is no disagreement about the need to repeal the 1099 requirement for small business, but we should also add provisions to allow the government to bargain for lower drug prices and create more competition among health care plans. To me, that's what the public option was for.

Health care changes already in effect are helping people in my district. Five thousand seniors received $250 last year to help cover the doughnut hole portion of their Medicare prescription drug costs, and they will get 50 percent drug discounts this year; 49,000 people under age 26 are now covered by their parents' insurance plans; 1,100 local families who went bankrupt due to health care expenses before the law was enacted no longer fear lifetime limits on insurance coverage; people like Elleni M., who suffers from Graves' disease and has gone without health insurance since 2000, can no longer be denied coverage.

There are similar statistics and stories in every congressional district.

But let me highlight one more issue brought into stark relief by the recent rampage in Tucson. Our colleague, Gabby Giffords, and other shooting victims received top-notch, timely care at the University of Arizona Medical Center's level 1 trauma facility. Such facilities give victims of severe injuries a 25 percent greater chance of survival. The law the House is poised to repeal expands level 1 trauma care through Medicaid and discretionary grants.

My home is home to the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center level 1 trauma center, and that's where victims of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, or another Tucson-like massacre will be brought. We can't be serious if we cut aid to level 1 trauma centers.

Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship is hard, and it sadly won't start with this vote.

Mr. Speaker, as Gabby's colleagues, we all have had moments with her, so many memories that we recall vividly and fondly. For me, she is a refreshing, frank, and inspiring younger member of the House sisterhood. She is whip smart and a serious and disciplined legislator. She is the kind of person we need so badly in this Chamber doing the people's business without rancor or vitriol.

Though the attack occurred in Tucson, it was an attack on all of us, and it strikes very close to home. Just a week ago today, I sat near Gabby at a New Democrat lunch in the Capitol Visitor Center. The group was assessing the recent election, and her contribution to the discussion was personal, impressive, and well delivered. But 7 days is a long time in politics, and our world here is in upheaval.

Beyond the heroic efforts of Tucson's emergency and medical teams, the FBI, and the Capitol Police, the alleged gunman must be fairly and swiftly prosecuted. But there is more. The Congress family must take additional, prudent steps to protect our staffs and constituents from random violence at our public events or offices. I serve here, as we all do, in loco parentis and take this very seriously.

And finally, we should revisit sensible Federal laws to control access to guns and ammunition. At a minimum, I believe we must promptly restore the expired Federal ban on extended magazine clips. I personally would urge us also to reenact the 1994 ban on assault weapons, which I was proud to support, and to bar sales of Saturday night specials.

Mr. Speaker, we can't roll back last Saturday, but we can and must learn its lessons.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I am very pleased that our colleague Nita Lowey has brought this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, after learning some encouraging news about Richard Holbrooke's condition last weekend, hearing that my friend had died felt like a sucker punch. Four days later, it still does.

I suppose, in an ironic way, Richard would smile at the enormous impact he had on friend and foe alike. He was a life force, a force of nature--someone always operating on multiple levels, in high gear, and in more than three dimensions. I used to chafe when in the middle of a phone call he would put me on hold to talk to someone else. But I bet he did that to everyone.

He was a consummate juggler--the master diplomat. He knew precisely what he was prepared to tell someone, and what he was not. Though it takes years to settle on how history will view someone, my guess is Richard Holbrooke will be considered, hands down, as the best diplomat of our generation. Indeed, he will be in a small pantheon that includes Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Averell Harriman.

But the public Richard is not all of it: The private Richard was a generous and loyal friend. Before joining the Obama administration, he chaired the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS. For a time, one of our grandchildren was on its staff. He loved her, and forever after asked about her life and her boyfriends. No question the huge staff he built over his many careers over many years is devastated by his untimely death. Surely Megan Quitken is. To Kati, whom he adored, and the extended Holbrooke family, we mourn your loss--and our country's loss.

I like to think that Richard has just put us all on hold while he takes another call.

Madam Speaker, as a rookie Member of Congress in 1993, I sat in the most junior chair on the Armed Services Committee, just a few feet from the witness table. Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell testified in favor of the Clinton administration's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I drew a deep breath and told the general that I thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was unconstitutional. I opposed it then, and I oppose it now.

No good has ever come of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but a lot of bad has. I applaud the personal courage of current Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who told Congress: ``It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'' He's right, and I have no doubt that America's Armed Forces will successfully transition to a post-DADT world.

We are hearing the alarms sounded again about morality and morale, unit cohesion, and readiness. Similar arguments were made when women and African Americans were allowed to serve alongside our white male counterparts. But be it race, gender, or now sexual orientation, our military services have demonstrated the commitment and ability to integrate and embrace diversity.

As a female officer in the 10th Mountain Division blogged recently, ``when

DADT is overturned, I won't be jumping out of my office screaming ``I'm gay'' to the world. I'll just be able to breathe easier knowing my job is secure.'' With this historic vote we will allow all service women and men who are holding their breath in fear--not of an enemy but of a law created by Congress--to breathe easier.

Vote ``aye'' on the rule and on the Hoyer-Murphy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the many achievements, years of public service and the tremendous contributions to the Asian American and Pacific Islander community made by my friend and former colleague, Norman Mineta.

Norman's remarkable life has taken him from a World War II Wyoming internment camp to the Halls of Congress and consecutive cabinet positions under two Presidents--one Democrat and one Republican.

He was still in Congress when I was first elected--and a mentor to California newbies like me. When he resigned in 1995 to join Lockheed Martin, he did a considerable amount of good in my district and our friendship grew.

In 2000, he was appointed by President Clinton as the Secretary or Commerce--the first Asian American to hold a Cabinet post. He then became the longest serving Secretary of Transportation in U.S. history, under President Bush.

As the lone Democrat in a Republican Cabinet, Norm was a trailblazer for bipartisanship at a time when the Nation was deeply divided.

When the planes hit the Pentagon and Twin Towers on 9/11, Norm was the steady hand that the country needed to issue the unprecedented order to ground all civilian aircraft traffic.

As a public official who has served his country for more than 40 years, Norm has been an advocate of equal rights and opportunity for all Americans, has faced and overcome serious debilitating back problems and been devoted to his wife Deni and their blended family.

Norm is a wonderful man and reflects the best in a public servant.

Madam Speaker, after hearing encouraging news over the last few days, learning that my friend Richard Holbrooke had died last night felt like a sucker punch. A day later, it still does.

I suppose, in an ironic way, Richard would smile at the enormous impact he had on friend and foe alike. He was a life force, a force of nature--someone always operating on multiple levels, in high gear, and in more than three dimensions. I used to chafe when in the middle of a phone call he would put me on hold to talk with someone else--but I bet he did it to everyone.

He was a consummate juggler--the master diplomat. He knew precisely what he was prepared to tell someone, and what he was not. Though it takes years to settle on how history will view someone, my guess is Richard Holbrooke will be considered, hands down, as the best diplomat of my generation. Indeed, he will be in a small pantheon that includes Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Averell Harriman.

But the public Richard is not all of it: the private Richard was a generous and loyal friend. Before joining the Obama Administration, he chaired the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. For a time, one of our grandchildren was on its staff. He loved her, and forever after asked about her life, boyfriends, etc. No question the huge staff he built over his many careers over many years is devastated by his untimely death. Surely Megan Quitkin is. To Kati, whom he adored, and the extended Holbrooke family, we mourn your loss-- and our country's loss.

I like to think that Richard has just put us all on hold while he takes another call...

Mr. Speaker, occasionally in politics, and in life, unusual allies surface. Former Bush speechwriter and well-known conservative Michael Gerson has embraced the Dream Act--legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for young people who, through no fault of their own, were brought to this country illegally.

In a Washington Post column titled ``How the Dream Act Transcends Politics'' Gerson not only endorses the legislation, he blows out of the water every cynical argument for denying citizenship to this group of young people while also making the case that the bill is good politics for his party.

Gerson writes: ``It would be difficult to define a more sympathetic group of potential Americans. They must demonstrate that they are law- abiding and education-oriented. Some seek to defend the country they hope to join. The Defense Department supports the Dream Act as a source of quality volunteers. Business groups welcome a supply of college- educated workers. The Department of Homeland Security endorses the legislation so it can focus on other, more threatening, groups of illegal immigrants.''

Applicants for normalization under the Dream Act must be high school graduates or have received a GED. They would be awarded conditional legal status for six years, during which they must serve at least two years in the military or complete two years of college. Failure to meet the requirements would cause them to lose their legal status and face possible deportation.

Far from rewarding illegal behavior or creating an incentive for ``future lawbreaking,'' Gerson rightly notes that this group of immigrants, ``categorized as illegal, have done nothing illegal. They are condemned to a shadow existence entirely by the actions of their parents. And the Dream Act is not an open invitation for future illegal immigrants to bring their minors to America. Only applicants who have lived in America continuously for five years before enactment of the law would qualify.''

Gerson cites the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade due to increased tax revenue. He refers to a UCLA study, which finds that Dream Act beneficiaries would generate $1.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion in income during their working lives.

Gerson asks, rhetorically, if Dream Act beneficiaries would ultimately be an advantage to America or a drain. His answer to his own question: ``It is a principle of democratic capitalism and non- Malthusian economics that ambitious human beings are not just mouths but hands and brains. They are a resource--the main source of future wealth.''

He writes: ``The Dream Act would be a potent incentive for assimilation. But for some, assimilation clearly is not the goal. They have no intention of sharing the honor of citizenship with anyone called illegal--even those who came as children, have grown up as neighbors and would be willing to give their lives in the nation's cause.''

I applaud Mike Gerson for his honesty and political courage. Everyone in this Chamber is familiar with the saying that politics makes strange bedfellows. Well, so does the Dream Act. I am a proud cosponsor, and urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2701. I commend the Speaker and committee majority for achieving administration support for more inclusive briefings.

Madam Speaker, during four years as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, I fought hard to expand the handful of Members briefed by the Bush administration. In my view, that administration abused the definition of covert action under the National Security Act of 1947.

Recently declassified transcripts from those briefings will show instances when serious concerns were raised regarding legal authorities for a range of policies, including ``enhanced interrogation techniques.''

Those were dark days, when even as Ranking Member, I struggled to get operational details about programs well within the jurisdiction of our committee.

As a member of the so-called ``Gang of 8,'' I had no ability to consult staff or other colleagues about the information I received.

By the end of the Bush administration, more Members were briefed about sensitive programs, but the changes were not sufficient. It has taken a lot of persuasion to convince the Obama administration to agree formally to brief the entire committee, in most cases, about the government's covert action programs.

The bill before us today requires the President to provide all Members of the Intelligence Committee the same briefings delivered to the ``Gang of 8'' within 6 months unless he certifies ``extraordinary circumstances.''

And all Members of the Intelligence Committee must be notified that a Gang of 8 briefing has occurred.

The bill also requires the Director of National Intelligence to work with GAO to gain access to information within the Intelligence Community to be included in their reports.

These changes go a long way toward correcting the problems that plagued both sides of the aisle during my tenure on the House Intelligence Committee.

I am also pleased that the bill contains a provision I authored to require the DNI, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to submit a report to Congress about the threat of dirty bombs (including highly dispersible substances such as cesium-137).

As an institution, Congress must exert our prerogative to monitor and rectify problems that surface in the programs that affect both our security and our liberty.

The American people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 553) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a strategy to prevent the over- classification of homeland security and other information and to promote the sharing of unclassified homeland security and other information, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 553, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For those who think nothing can happen in this very polarized year and toxic political environment, listen up. Congress is about to pass and send to the President H.R. 553, the Reducing Overclassification Act.

It has taken 3 long years to get to this point. After scores of hearings, the bill passed the House twice. The bill was amended by the Senate and finally passed that body yesterday.

H.R. 553 curbs overclassification, the practice of stamping intelligence ``secret'' for the wrong reasons, often to protect turf or avoid embarrassment. Overclassification prevents the sharing of accurate, actionable, and timely information horizontally across the government and vertically with State and local law enforcement. This is a problem now rampant throughout the intelligence community and one identified by the 9/11 Commission as a major obstacle in preventing future terror attacks.

To change the culture from ``need to know'' to ``need to share,''

I thank the gentleman for his remarks and am pleased that we have had this very polite and informative and bipartisan debate on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers. If the gentleman from Georgia has no more speakers, then I am prepared to close after he closes.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, police, firefighters and other first responders bravely put their lives on the line to protect us. They have proven their ability to unravel plots inside the U.S., like the Torrance, California, police department, which discovered a plot to attack military installations and religious sites in my district.

It is imperative that we give first responders and the public access to the threat information they need to find those among us who would seek to harm us. H.R. 553 ensures that. I urge its prompt passage, and I do hope that the President will sign it into law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and subcommittee chair, Mr. Pallone, and his ace staff for working to bring this bipartisan bill, the Emergency Medic Transition, or EMT Act, to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Buyer and others for their support in committee. Truly, it might be said that bipartisanship broke out in our committee during the debate on this bill.

As you heard from Mr. Pallone, the bill will help our brave men and women who serve as medics in Afghanistan and Iraq to transition into EMT jobs when they return. The act authorizes grants for States that have a shortage of EMTs to create a fast-track program for vets who received and completed military emergency medical training to become emergency responders. The funds authorized in this bill can be used to provide coursework and training, and reimbursement for the cost of coursework, and any certification fees.

Obviously, the bill is a win-win for the country and our vets. Its passage will enhance the surge capacities of local medical facilities and provide jobs for our vets, especially during this critical economic downturn.

It is worth noting that the unemployment rate last year for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans 18 to 24 years old was 21.1 percent. Let me repeat that. Our returning vets' unemployment rate was 21.1 percent unemployment, which is significantly higher than the 16.6 percent rate for nonveterans of the same age.

Presently, military medics who wish to become first responders must restart their training from scratch, fulfilling the same entry level criteria as people with no prior training or experience. These duplicative efforts waste time, money, and talent. At the same time, many hospitals and emergency medical services throughout the country operate at or near capacity, and a terrorist attack or natural disaster would result in a surge of patients that would overwhelm medical facilities. Correcting this requires having the largest possible pool of experienced medical personnel on hand.

With military medics' recent experience administering trauma care in Afghanistan and Iraq, these vets are ideally suited to respond to large-scale medical emergencies. They are ideal first responders, making life or death decisions amid a backdrop of chaos and confusion. Their work at the scenes of IED attacks, suicide bombings, and firefights prepares them for this.

In conclusion, the GAO study that Mr. Pallone referenced will report on barriers experienced by veteran medics and whether or not we should expand this program to other health care providers.

I urge support for the bill. It demonstrates in tangible form our appreciation for the service and skills of our returning military medics.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Aerospace Week.

At a time when there is so much discouraging economic news, we can look to the skies for some solace.

Los Angeles County's unemployment rate is hovering around 13 percent, worse than the national average. But my district, the 36th Congressional District, has an unemployment rate of less than half that--largely because of the cushion provided by the aerospace industry. It is our economic engine.

Our aerospace companies employ 819,000 Americans in high-skill, high- wage jobs--nearly 6,500 of them in California--who together contribute 3 to 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

The products produced by aerospace companies are in world-wide demand. Last year the U.S. exported $81 billion in aerospace technology, responsible for the largest foreign trade surplus in the American economy.

Aerospace is not only vital to the American economy--it is vital to our national security. From the Mexican border to the Pakistan frontier, unmanned aircraft and other platforms provide eyes and ears to our military and law enforcement.

These are American jobs, and they are a cornerstone of our economy. For reasons of national security, nearly two-thirds of these jobs cannot be performed overseas. They are here to stay.

But our aerospace workforce is aging. Some 60 percent of aerospace workers are over age 50, and almost 26 percent are eligible for retirement this year. Not enough young scientists and engineers are signing up to take the place of the ``gray wave.''

It used to be that being a rocket scientist was synonymous with genius. Now that mantle seems to apply only to the inventors of Facebook, eBay and Google. We are graduating just 70,000 engineers a year. And U.S. students recently ranked 21 out of 30 in science literacy, and performed even worse in math literacy.

The only way we'll maintain our edge in aerospace is by inspiring kids and making it ``cool'' again to design air and space craft. Dean Kamen--the inventor of the Segway--does this through a nonprofit after- school robotics program. FIRST--For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology--is partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to supply secondary schools with instructional materials, guidelines for starting robotics teams, and marketing support to interest children in studying the math and science behind construction of these devices.

Schools in my district participate in the robotics competition, and Dean Kamen has personally visited my district to take part in a panel on the need for more young people to pursue aerospace careers. Our economy and national security depend on it.

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness to note the passing of one of our Nation's preeminent cartoonists, Paul Conrad. Paul, who resided with his wife, Kay, in Palos Verdes, California--formerly a part of my district--was a friend and a political genius.

I was first elected to Congress in 1992, the so-called ``Year of the Woman.'' In that year, California elected two women Senators, and the number of women Members in the House doubled. Paul's cartoon was perfect, an outline of the State of California with a high heel down the left side.

His career spanned more than 50 years and 11 Presidents. He was intensely proud of being on President Nixon's so-called ``enemies list.'' Reportedly, that meant more to him than the Pulitzers he was awarded. President Gerald Ford reportedly said, ``Laugh and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and you've been the subject of a Paul Conrad cartoon.''

Born in 1924 in Iowa, a college dropout, Conrad's career began in Denver, where he won his first Pulitzer, but really took off when he moved to Los Angeles and sent shock waves through the then-staid Los Angeles Times, his home thereafter. Said L.A. Times editor Russ Stanton, ``Paul Conrad was simply the best ever.'' Right on.