Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring our friend, former colleague, and my former neighbor, Stephen Horn, by naming the United States post office in Signal Hill after him.

Steve served in Congress with great distinction for 10 years. My friendship with him began in the 103rd Congress, the first Congress for both of us. Steve represented the 38th Congressional District, which included most of Long Beach and Lakewood, all of Signal Hill, Bellflower, Paramount, Downey, and a small portion of San Pedro, while I represented the neighboring 36th District.

Steve, of course, was a student of Congress. As a political scientist, Steve has written books on parliamentary procedures, the Senate Appropriations Committee and campaign finance. He worked at the Brookings Institution, was a dean at American University, and then from 1970 to 1988, was president of Cal State University at Long Beach.

Early in his career, he was appointed Administrative Assistant to Secretary of Labor James P. Mitchell, followed in late 1960 with a move to Capitol Hill where he served as the

Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-Calif.), one of the four leaders of the Senate. And, he was in Everett Dirksen's office helping draft the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

With his election to the 103rd Congress, Steve had an opportunity to put his love of politics and governing into practice. I am particularly proud that we worked together to lead a successful bi-partisan coalition that saved the McDonnell Douglas/Boeing C-17 program. Congress approved the multi-year purchase of this cargo aircraft, which employed 9,000 workers in our respective districts and, as demonstrated in the recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, has proven to be one of the most versatile cargo aircraft in the military's inventory.

When his party took control of the House in 1994, Steve became chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations--a position which he used to improve government services, overhaul federal agencies' debt collection practices, and help prepare agencies to meet the Y2K problem.

Steve was also a leader of Southern California's effort to secure funding for the Alameda Corridor, a below-grade rail line linking the busy Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles with the rest of the nation. He was also known for his advocacy of higher education and as a passionate supporter of the arts and I recall Steve's strong defense of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Arts Caucus.

Always the keen observer, Steve was known for the ubiquitous notebooks in which he detailed his daily activities, insights and observations while in Congress. Undoubtedly, these volumes help refresh the recollections which he now uses to teach others at Cal State Long Beach about politics, governance, and responsibility in a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, never one to falter in his congressional duties or to toe the party line, Steve Horn served in Congress with courage and independence. I am proud to have served with him and to cosponsor and urge passage of this measure honoring him with the designation of J. Stephen Horn post office in Signal Hill, California.

Mr. Speaker, as a California mother of four who values early education, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210.

Mr. Speaker, Chesterfield Smith, who died in Florida yesterday at 85, invented the modern law firm and the modern legal profession. Either of these accomplishments is more than enough for a lifetime.

He was my dear friend, a mentor to me and thousands of idealistic lawyers. Improving the world was axiomatic to him: it came with legal training and a law license. Doing anything less was unacceptable.

Probably his most important chapter was 1973-74, when he was president of the American Bar Association during the Nixon impeachment. He steered the organization and helped steer the country through a crisis in which our legal system was tested. It survived, and so did we.

We will miss Chesterfield's skills, his heart, his compass, his courage, and his loyalty. His wife, Jacqueline, and his family, are in our hearts.

Speaker, in the course of my career as a public official I have been privileged to work with some truly remarkable people--often unsung heroes who contribute every day, unselfishly and unswervingly, to the health and well-being of our communities. One such person is my friend and constituent Charlotte Lesser, and I rise today on the occasion of her retirement as Director of Health Education at the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) to commend her for her many achievements and contributions.

For 10 years, Charlotte Lesser has successfully spearheaded BCHD efforts to provide critical assistance to South Bay citizens in need. Under her leadership, BCHD has developed organizations and services that promote health education activities and fitness awareness for the residents of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach.

And as is the case with so many local leaders, Ms. Lesser volunteered her time to strengthen South Bay communities through her involvement with the South Bay Family Healthcare Center, the South Bay Youth Project, the Wellness Community, and the South Bay Coalition for Alcohol and Drug-Free Youth.

In addition to her work as a champion of local health care services, Charlotte Lesser chaired the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and founded and directed the Manhattan Beach Neighborhood Watch.

In recognition of her unwavering commitment to the community, in 1999, Charlotte Lesser was named Los Angeles County Woman of the Year. But Charlotte is also my trusted friend and has been a wonderful resource to my staff and me.

Mr. President, I join the community in thanking Charlotte Lesser for her years of service and accomplishment, for they are evidence of her dedication and boundless energy. Although she is retiring from BCHD, her achievements will not end there. I look forward to her upcoming appointment to the Los Angeles County Commission for Women. I know she will continue to be an active leader and community advocate.

Mr. Speaker, now that we have completed debate on our intelligence authorization bill for 2004, I just wanted to thank our chairman who is graceful, collaborative and bipartisan and the members and staff on the majority side and to thank the strong team we have on the Democratic side and especially our staff. By name: Christine Healey, John Keefe, Marcel Lettre, Wyndee Parker, Beth Larson, Kirk McConnell, Bob Emmett and Ilene Romack; and also David Flanders of my personal staff for all the effort they put into yesterday's very thorough and, I thought, outstanding debate.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Goss was allowed to speak out of order.)

Thanking Members and Staff

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill to end Medicare as we know it, which will hurt our sisters, mothers, and grandmothers.

Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a refugee from Nazi Germany, issues of anti-Semitism and the continuing terrorist violence against Israel are close to my heart.

I strongly support the resolutions debated this afternoon and commend their sponsors. There is a fleeting chance for peace in the Middle East, the first since the brutal and feckless second Intifada began almost 3 years ago. But success depends on reining in Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic jihad, and others committed to ongoing terror.

One of those others is Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassir Arafat, who should be pressed or forced to step aside in order to allow the nation's government of Mahmoud Abbas to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago I accompanied President Clinton to Gaza and to Israel. Much of what he sought has been undone by the second Intifada. The escalation of violence has not only killed people, it has all but killed hope. We need to rekindle that hope. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would state that I do not intend to use all the time. I will spend the first part of the debate on H.R. 2417 sharing my views about our bill and several other issues of enormous interest to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the underlying bill, H.R. 2417. It is interesting and wonderful that both managers of this rule also ably serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is our bipartisan and collaborative chairman, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is a senior member on the Democratic side. Both have contributed enormously to this rule and, obviously, enormously to the product we will soon debate.

Under this rule, as has been explained, amendments will be considered under the 5-minute rule and thus debate on all amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee, germane and did not require waivers will be in order. I am certain we will have a spirited debate on several of those amendments, and I think that is exactly what we should be doing in the people's House. In that vein, I will conclude, and I look forward to a spirited debate in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that our committee is one of the users of intelligence. We are part of this community that uses intelligence information; and so it seems to me her point is right, and we are, therefore, the right committee to be assessing these questions and issues..

Second, we have already agreed on a bipartisan basis to hold public hearings as appropriate, and the subject and timing of our first hearing is under active discussion right now. I am hopeful it will be held in July. I certainly agree that the public needs to know about some of these questions. We will discuss them in more detail in a moment. I do commend her for raising this issue. We are trying to address it responsibly in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. If we should fail, then it would be timely to set up a different committee, or a commission, or use another mechanism.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in support of H.R. 2417.

First, I want to thank the chairman of our committee for the way he runs the committee. His approach is constructive, collaborative and cooperative and shows a real willingness to work with every member of the committee. I have had the privilege of serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 6 years. Chairman Goss has gracefully and competently chaired the committee since 1997 and my predecessors as ranking member during my service include the late and great Julian Dixon and our able leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). The membership of our committee is truly talented, diverse and hardworking, and deeply committed to fulfilling its oversight duties and responsibilities to the House. By the way, Mr. Chairman, so is our staff. Committee members and staff worked closely together to craft a bill that provides new and better capabilities to fight the war on terrorism as well as address a range of global challenges. As we have just heard from our chairman, it is a good bill and it received the unanimous vote of our committee.

An excellent summary of the public portions of our bill has been presented by the chairman, so I will not repeat it. The committee made thorough but sensible decisions to focus resources on the highest priority intelligence collections programs and placed limitations on certain new programs until they are defined in more detail. The bill also supports the strategic vision of the committee for strengthening the Intelligence Community. It provides additional support for all- source analysis and encourages virtual reorganization for better information sharing and collaboration across the agencies.

Mr. Chairman, whatever the details of this intelligence authorization bill, we all know that it was developed at a time of heightened concern about the nature and quality of the intelligence that led to the decision to go to war in Iraq. I know that there are questions on both sides of the aisle about this intelligence, questions which our committee is already asking. While an independent commission or other mechanism might be needed at some later date, the members of our committee have now initiated an investigation and I would like to spend a few minutes discussing our effort.

As our colleagues know, I voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq because I believed the intelligence case was compelling. The Intelligence Community judged that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the danger, in the President's words, was grave and gathering. The aftermath of the war has revealed just how brutal Saddam Hussein's regime was. The discovery of mass graves in Iraq and the gut-wrenching grief of families victimized by the regime speak for themselves.

To date, however, coalition forces have only uncovered two suspected Iraqi mobile biological warfare agent production plants. Coalition forces have yet to uncover chemical or biological weapons or further evidence of Iraqi links to terrorism. Where are Iraq's chemical and biological weapons? Why can't our forces find them? For our committee, these questions have loomed over the preparation of this authorization bill. It has been anything but business as usual.

On May 22, Chairman Goss and I sent a letter to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, expressing the committee's interest in learning in detail how the intelligence picture regarding Iraq's WMD and ties to terrorism was developed. The chairman and I have also met twice with the Director on this subject. In response to our request, the Intelligence Community has provided 19 volumes of information on Iraq's WMD programs and ties to terrorism. On June 12, the chairman and I announced the bipartisan and unanimous commitment of our committee to a serious, focused, comprehensive review of the quality and objectivity of prewar intelligence. We announced that we would hold hearings, closed and open--open means public--to question senior administration and intelligence officials about the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD and its links to terrorism.

I think it is very important that the committee hold public hearings, and I have the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Goss) personal commitment that we will. I hope our first hearing will occur in July. Our committee also decided to produce a written, unclassified report as promptly as possible, and in addition we agreed to give all House Members access to the materials provided by the intelligence community in response to the committee's request, under appropriate security conditions and House rules.

Last week our committee held two hearings in connection with our investigation, one examining the October, 2002, National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the other on the current search for Iraq's weapons. While we are still at an early stage in this investigation, I want to comment on what we have reviewed so far.

First, past possession of WMD. We know that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the past. In the 1980s the Iraqi military used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. In the 1990s Iraq admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced over 8,400 liters of anthrax and 3.9 tons of the chemical warfare agent VX. Drawing on both direct and circumstantial evidence collected over many years, the intelligence community also concluded that Iraq had people, planning documents, and equipment to support WMD production.

Number two, hiding WMD. The agents that comprise weapons of mass destruction are exceedingly easy to hide, a point neither the administration nor the intelligence community made adequately clear before the war in Iraq. Five hundred metric tons of bulk chemical agents would fill a backyard swimming pool. Biological agents can be hidden in small vials in private residences. But it is not so easy to hide delivery vehicles like unmanned aerial drones, missiles, or munitions. That none of these other harder-to-hide items has been found is cause for real concern.

Number three, overstating the case. When discussing Iraq's WMD, administration officials rarely included the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence community's judgments. Secretary of State Powell, for example, told the U.N. Security Council that ``we know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction . . . '' On the eve of war, President Bush said, ``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'' And on a March 30 Sunday news show, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said that he knew where the WMD were located. Bogus information on Iraq's alleged nuclear connection to Niger was even included in the President's State of the Union Address. For many Americans, the administration's certainty gave the impression that there was even stronger intelligence about Iraq's possession of and intention to use WMD.

Number four, circumstantial evidence. The committee is now investigating whether the intelligence case on Iraq's WMD was based on circumstantial evidence rather than hard facts and whether the intelligence community made clear to the policy-makers and Congress that most of its analytic judgments were based on things like aerial photographs and Iraqi defector interviews, not hard facts. This is an issue that we have to explore.

And, finally, number five, weak ties to al Qaeda. Iraq did have ties to terrorist groups, but the investigation suggests that the intelligence linking al Qaeda to Iraq, a prominent theme in the administration's statements prior to the war, contradictary contrary to what was claimed by the administration. Much remains to be investigated in this area.

Mr. Chairman, the highest priority of our committee, and I think of our Nation, remains finding and dismantling Iraq's WMD. It is counterintuitive to think that Iraq destroyed its weapons and did not report this to the United Nations. It is conceivable that Saddam destroyed them on the eve of or even after the start of the war once he recognized the futility of using them and the political advantage of keeping the United States from finding them; but the more likely scenario is that he buried or dispersed his weapons of mass destruction and that some may now be in the hands of terrorist groups outside of Iraq or counterinsurgents in Iraq who continue to harm and kill U.S. and British troops.

But even if Iraq's chemical and biological weapons are found tomorrow, and I hope they are, these issues warrant scrutiny by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is already clear that there were flaws in U.S. intelligence. Iraq's WMD was not located where the intelligence community thought it might be. Chemical weapons were not used in the war despite the intelligence community's judgment that their use was likely. I urge this administration not to contemplate military action, especially preemptive action, in Iran, North Korea or Syria until these issues are cleared up. Certainly this Member would not support such action until these matters are cleared up.

As the committee moves forward with its investigation, we need also be mindful of the burden the intelligence agencies are carrying, not only in Iraq but also in the war on terrorism in other areas of the world. Our Nation is best served by an effective intelligence community, not one hobbled by risk aversion and finger-pointing. The committee's review must be based on facts, which I and others intend to follow unflinchingly wherever they may lead.

Our Nation needs a robust intelligence budget, which this authorization bill supports. At the same time, the committee's immediate priority is to resolve the questions regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups. If the answers dictate changes in the future intelligence budgets or policy, I am committed to bringing those recommendations forward. Meanwhile, this authorization bill deserves our strong support.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I have great faith that the WMD will be found too, and in the seriousness and responsibleness of the Members of the House.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence.

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, TNT, who became a grandfather for the second time yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The 15 seconds is to tell the prior speaker, our wonderful colleague, that I totally agree with him. As the representative from the district in America that probably makes most of our intelligence satellites and has fabulous technology, that is great; but we need more investment in human intelligence. And he is right.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a classmate and good friend, one of the rookies on our committee, but already the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Policy, and National Security.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We are all proud to serve on this committee. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the rookie on the committee and a rookie in Congress, but he is no rookie to these issues.

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers except for me and I have some brief closing remarks. So I would yield if there are speakers over there and perhaps speak just before our chairman closes this debate.

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

This debate has been friendly, collaborative, supportive, not just of each other but our staffs. It is clear that committee members are putting the country first in our service on the committee. I believe that our authorization bill is putting the country first in terms of the priorities it chooses, and I believe further, Mr. Chairman, that our investigation of the quality of intelligence supporting the war in Iraq is also putting the country first.

Our investigation has a long way to go but it is serious, collaborative, and bipartisan. We will do as much as possible in public, and we will report to the public on our findings.

Should we hit the wall and fail in our endeavor, then it may be time for a commission or an alternative committee or set of committees of Congress to take over. But meanwhile, I

want to commend the Members of this committee who serve with great distinction, and I urge the passage of this authorization bill, H.R. 2417.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to state that I fully support the agreement that has been worked out between the chairmen of the two committees on which I serve. Since the language at issue was language that was inserted in our bill at my request, I want to make clear that we should work out these jurisdictional issues, but we also should proceed to find the right sections of the right bills to insert additional language on information sharing which is still a critical need in the homeland security and the terrorist threat areas.

We also need to insert language at the right places about the protection of civil liberties. I listened to the comments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) concerning the fact that we have no statutory language for TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, and perhaps we should decide about that in some other forum. Nonetheless, TTIC exists, and it is critically important that we make sure that it respects the civil liberties of Americans. So we will continue to search for new venues, but I thank both chairmen for finding the proper way to solve this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me say first that the amendment which the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) would have offered is an excellent amendment having to do with language skills, and my understanding is that we have accommodated him in some other way. I am sure the chairman will speak to that. And I would be happy to yield to him first on that subject.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, turning to my amendment, in August, 2001, the FBI was frantically looking for two men who became part of the terrorist suicide team on 9-11. Had we been able to find Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khaled al-Mihdhar, we may have been able to unravel the plot for 9- 11. At least we would have stopped these two individuals from participating in it.

The problem, it turns out, was that the State Department and INS watchlists, which included their names, were not available to the FAA and the airlines. So the hijackers were freely allowed to board the ill-fated American Airlines Flight 77.

Two years later, the Federal Government still has as many as 50 databases used for tracking international terrorists and international terrorist organizations. Just recently, the GAO highlighted 12 watchlists run by nine agencies.

This is shocking. Information contained in one database need not be connected to information in another. Vital data that could help prevent the next terrorist attack could be missed. We must consolidate or at least ensure the interoperability of government watchlists, and my amendment pending before this House to this intelligence authorization bill addresses this.

In last year's intelligence authorization act, the Congress required the creation of a Terrorist Identification Classification System, TICS. This system is intended to be an authoritative real-time compilation of individuals and organizations known or suspected of international terrorism derived from all-source intelligence and available for use by other government agencies. The establishment of TICS is still a work in progress. The Director of Central Intelligence is required to report on progress by the end of November.

My amendment requires the Director of Central Intelligence to certify whether further consolidation, or increased interoperability, is the best way to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of TICS. Either way we go, the point is to connect the dots in real time.

The concept of a single government database to track suspected terrorists does raise some civil liberties concerns. To address the privacy and civil liberties concerns, my amendment requires the Director of Central Intelligence to establish an advisory council of experts on matters of civil liberties and privacy.

Mr. Chairman, the relationship of civil liberties and security has been an abiding concern for this committee. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), one of our members, has been active in this area, and so has our chairman, who convened the first hearing, public hearing, on civil liberties earlier this year where a panel of witnesses from the ACLU to the Heritage Foundation agreed that we need to balance civil liberty and security.

As Ben Franklin once said: ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' The Harman amendment addresses both liberty and safety, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the civilized and collaborative way in which this whole debate is going.

I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I just want to make a few brief points, Mr. Chairman.

When the DDCICM, the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management--that is a mouthful--Joan Dempsey, came to say good-bye recently, it occurred to me that she was one of the few senior women in the entire Intelligence Community. The only other one I can think of is Joanne Isham, who is the Deputy Director of the National Security Agency. The same story can be said about people from other ethnic groups. That is unfortunate.

This amendment, which is carefully drafted and consistent with our policy in our committee for the last 15 years, will hopefully move the Community forward.

Earlier in this debate, I spoke, and others did, about the importance of beefing up HUMINT, our human intelligence resources. What is the point of human intelligence? The point is obviously to learn about terrorists. Their plans and intentions.

How do you do that? Well, you try to penetrate terrorist cells. How do you do that? Well, it would help if you looked like the terrorists and spoke their languages. And we cannot succeed in our effort if we just recruit the same old, same old. So it should be obvious that this is not the politically correct thing to do; it is the intelligent thing to do if we are trying to expand the talent pool and the capability of our intelligence agencies.

I strongly support this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). They and others have done us a huge service.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio raises the serious issue of politicization of intelligence. The question of the integrity of the intelligence process is a legitimate one and has

been a continuing concern in the oversight of the intelligence agencies. The question of politicization of intelligence is an area that our committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will explore in its investigation of Iraq intelligence.

I must, however, oppose the gentleman's amendment. The amendment, in my view, does not take the best approach to ensuring a comprehensive look at the matter. It is narrowly focused on one possible area for investigation, and it addresses that one area in a way I believe would be counterproductive.

It is not clear to me that the audit as described in the amendment would develop useful information. The offices of the Inspectors General can be effectively utilized in congressional investigations and oversight, but the resources of these offices should be deployed according to a comprehensive plan of investigation.

In sum, I believe the gentleman has raised an important issue, and that issue should and will be examined in the context of our committee's investigation. The amendment in this form should be defeated.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we can get to the issue of politicization of intelligence in a different manner, one that is bipartisan and one that falls within the thorough and comprehensive investigation of this committee. That would be a better way for this House to go.

Once again, I commend the gentleman for raising this issue but hope that we will decide to take a different course on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words, and it's nice that the gentleman from Illinois is worried about me and whether I am respected. I believe I am respected, and I believe that the person who offers this amendment respects me, and I certainly hope that he respects our committee.

I just want repeat something I said earlier, which is that our investigation will be thorough and it will be bipartisan and we will follow the facts unflinchingly. So I do not want the gentleman from Ohio to assert, because it is not correct, that we are taking things off limits. The reason I oppose the gentleman's amendment is that I think we will do a comprehensive job in a fair way, and all of us, on a unanimous basis, will proceed and go forward. We will do the right job for this House, and we should have a chance to proceed and do it that way.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for the sponsor of this amendment. She is prepared to vote her conscience in this House, even if she is a minority of one. I think that is admirable, courageous and her constituents should be enormously proud to be represented by her. I am certainly proud to serve with her.

I listened carefully to the comments made by the gentleman from Nebraska. Frankly, I agree with them. I think that is the context of the search for weapons by the U.N. inspector. However, agreeing with them does not get me to his conclusion. My conclusion is that we should support this amendment because it contains a specific request for a discrete investigation that would be of value in understanding precisely what information was shared with the U.N. weapons inspectors.

It may turn out that more was shared than we know. It may turn out that less was shared than we know. And it may turn out, and I think it will, that what the gentleman from Nebraska had to say includes the context in which it was shared. Nonetheless, I think this investigation could provide a constructive baseline in understanding the difficulties of conducting U.N. inspections.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the specific matters to be studied under this amendment are not to my knowledge currently part of the scope of our Committee's review. We are not specifically investigating what information was shared with the U.N., though we certainly could, I suppose. Thus, I believe the amendment is helpful and I would urge us to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue and so many others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which honors our troops and calls on communities all across the Nation to warmly welcome home the service women and men serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Such an expression is critically important. Many of us who grew up during the Vietnam War are haunted by memories of the treatment afforded returning veterans of that conflict. Painted by an unpopular policy, many who risked their lives for their country and suffered physical and emotional wounds were ignored and their courage and sacrifice dishonored and ridiculed.

We must not let that happen again.

The resolution before us, like the one introduced earlier by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and me, recognizes the service of more than 380,000 members of the United States Armed Forces, comprised of active component forces, National Guard and Reserve personnel, who were deployed thousands of miles from home as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Thirty-five service members from the Los Angeles Air Force base located in my district were sent to the Persian Gulf. Many more were local Guard and Reserve members who were required to take indefinite leave from places of employment. All left loved ones behind and faced danger. And as my colleagues have heard, our Armed Forces suffered a number of casualties, including deaths, injuries and incarceration as prisoners of war.

One of the first casualties of Operation Iraqi Freedom was Marine Corps Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, who came from his native Guatemala to my district in California, lived with a foster family before joining the Marines to ``pay back a little of what he'd gotten from the U.S.'' Our condolences go out to his family and all families who lost loved ones during war.

Mr. Speaker, the homecomings have already begun. The city of Torrance, California, dedicated its May 17 Armed Forces Day parade to the returning servicemembers. Other cities have scheduled 4th of July festivities, and families throughout my district are planning neighborhood block parties and other celebrations to welcome home sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers.

I commend the Committee on Armed Services, its chair and ranking member especially, for bringing this resolution to the floor today. We must never forget the courage and selfless sacrifice of the women and men in our Armed Forces. We must always undertake efforts to protect their safety as they continue to be deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and other theaters in which they will continue to face danger; and we must afford them a warm welcome home.

These are important steps. This resolution does this. Again, I commend its passage and hope our vote will be unanimous.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier-Lofgren amendment, which would repeal the requirement to use MTOPS as the metric for restricting exports of high-powered computers and authorize the President to devise a new approach that is both more effective at protecting national security and less injurious to U.S. commercial interests.

When Congress imposed the MTOPS requirements as part of the National Defense Authorization Act back in 1998, we made a terrible mistake by mandating a metric that was poorly matched to the threat it was designed to address. At the same time, we handicapped U.S. high tech companies trying to break into the world's fastest growing markets--and gave an artificial advantage to all the companies abroad who would like to move the leading edge in high-powered computing to other nations.

The MTOPS metric has been ineffective at controlling the diffusion of technology primarily because computing power has advanced at such a furious pace over the past decade and a half. In 1991 when the MTOPS metric was first devised, the fastest supercomputer in the world was the Cray C90, which was the size of two refrigerators and cost about $10 million. Do you realize that today a Dell Pentium 4 laptop computer, which costs about $1,000, has more computing power than the Cray C90?

What's more, ``clustering'' technology allows a foreign government whose technological capabilities we are trying to limit to buy mass market PCs off the shelves of Radio Shack or Wal-Mart and achieve the same computing power by harnessing them together.

The most important point I want to make today is that this amendment repealing the MTOPS mandate will not injure national security. To that end, I want to cite just a few sources:

A May 2001 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded that the MTOPS system is ``ineffective, given the global diffusion of information technology and the rapid increases in performance'' and ``irrelevant'' because it ``cannot accurately measure performance of current microprocessors or alternative sources of supercomputing like clustering.''

A February 2001 study by DOD's Office of Science and Technology similarly concluded that ``MTOPS has lost its effectiveness * * * due to rapid technology advances.''

President George W. Bush commented in March 2001 that ``With computing power doubling every 18 months, these controls have the shelf life of sliced bread. They don't work.''

Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment will give the President the power to devise a better system to protect national security. Let's do the right thing and approve the Dreier-Lofgren amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the achievements of the Federal Security Director at the Los Angeles International Airport, retired Rear Admiral David M. Stone.

During his tenure with the Transportation Security Administration, Admiral Stone has been instrumental in enhancing the security of the Los Angeles International Airport, the largest origin and destination airport in the world. In addition to working closely with my office, he has worked closely with the aviation and transportation industry, elected officials at every level of government, and, most important, with the talented pool of workers and applicants for employment at LAX.

Through Admiral Stone's efforts, Los Angeles is a safer place. Under his leadership, TSA was able to mobilize, train, and deploy the largest federalized screener force in the United States, two weeks before the national deadline. He also implemented the 100 percent checked baggage screening program at LAX, screening in excess of 150,000 bags per day. He did a superb job of demonstrating TSA's competence, which Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge had the opportunity to see when he visited LAX on April 25, 2003.

I was proud that Admiral Stone served on my Service Academy Selection Committee. As a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, his evaluation of prospective cadets contributed to the selection of the most qualified candidates in the 36th District of California for nomination to our Nation's military academies.

Mr. Speaker, I will miss working with David Stone on enhancing security at LAX. I salute his accomplishments and wish him well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my friend, Mike Gin, who retires this week from the Redondo Beach City Council after 8 years of distinguished service.

In addition to his work on the council, Mike's service to his community covers a wide range of community groups including the Redondo Beach Historical Society, the Chinese Americans United for Self- Empowerment, and the Beach Cities Branch of the American Heart Association. He is also a member of the Redondo Beach Sister Cities Association, the Redondo Beach Jaycees, the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and the Redondo Beach Rotary Club.

I consider Mike a ``lunch-pail politician,'' who prides himself on doing the little things--like parks and potholes--that help make the City of Redondo Beach one of the nicest places to live in California. He was famous for holding Saturday morning office hours with his constituents so he could spend time listening to their concerns.

But Mike's retirement from the City Council does not mean he is giving up on public service. In fact, this month Mike left his information services job to become Deputy to another good friend, Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe. I am delighted that much of the area Mike will cover for Supervisor Knabe remains in my own Congressional district. My staff and I look forward to working with Mike in this new capacity.

Mr. Speaker, I will miss Mike's warm personality on the City Council but am glad he will continue to play an active role in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a close friend, a remarkable public servant and courageous advocate for the people of California-- the Honorable Ruth Galanter. Ruth is retiring from the Los Angeles City Council after 16 years of service, where her insights, legislative acumen, and keen intellect will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, there is no magic formula for determining what makes a good public servant, but in Ruth Galanter all the ingredients for success were there. Ruth brought her intelligence, wit, and political skills to bear on behalf of her constituents, her community and countless important causes. And all the people of Los Angeles benefited from her ability to get things done.

It has been my great pleasure to work with Ruth on many of these causes. Just last month, Ruth and I participated in a ceremony with the Army Corps of Engineers commemorating the installation of tidal gates along the Ballona Creek in my district. The gates will help preserve scarce wetlands, restore critical habitat, and provide recreational and educational opportunities for the community for years to come.

The project, more than 10 years in the making, is a perfect illustration of a top-notch public servant at the peak of her powers. Ruth Galanter's ability to focus on a particular outcome; to build and nurture diverse coalitions; to bring together all levels of government in support of a common goal; her fundamental and unwavering commitment to a healthy environment--these are the gifts that she unselfishly shared with the community.

Over the years, Ruth's work resulted in the preservation of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and the El Segundo Dunes, and she spearheaded efforts to clean up Santa Monica Bay and conserve the Ballona wetlands. She led the effort to renovate Venice Beach and preserve the Venice Pier.

She has promoted smart growth and sustainable development, advocated for a regional airport system and high-speed rail, and tirelessly promoted water conservation and recycling.

While this chapter of Ruth Galanter's public service may be coming to a close, she leaves

behind a proud and lasting legacy. The crowning achievement of an environmentalist is to leave the earth a little cleaner, a little greener and a little brighter than when they started. Ruth Galanter has accomplished this and more.