Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my absence for rollcall number 401. During the vote, I was at the U.S. Department of State attending a swearing-in ceremony for Ambassador Eric Edelman, the new U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. After having the chance to work with Ambassador Edelman during his tenure with the Vice President, I wanted to personally extend my congratulations and express my appreciation for his long-standing service to our country.

However, had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It has traditionally been the right of the States to determine what hunting methods can and should be used for wildlife management purposes.

New Jersey is in a unique position, being the most densely populated State in the country and having a very fast-growing bear population at the same time. Our State is in dire need of this management tool. As a matter of fact, the Wall Street Journal reported this week, and I quote: ``The New Jersey Fish and Game Council voted to allow the State's first black bear hunt in 33 years. Officials will hand out 10,000 bear permits in hopes of making a dent in the bear population that has been ransacking garbage cans, breaking into houses, killing livestock and mauling residents.''

This is a very, very serious issue, Mr. Chairman. And for the rights of the residents of New Jersey and the nine States that currently allow bear baiting, this amendment goes too far in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael J. Hogan whose selfless service and contributions to the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Holy Eucharist Parish in Tabernacle, New Jersey are worthy of recognition.

Mr. Hogan, one of ten children, was born in 1938 in New York. He began serving those in need during his high school and college years through the St. Vincent de Paul Society of his parish.

Mike and his wife, Elizabeth, have three children and one grandchild. He has always been a devoted husband, father and grandfather. He has a great passion for and dedication to children which is demonstrated through his generous volunteer hours as guest lecturer of astronomy in grammar schools through the Star Lab program, and his volunteer work as a teacher of religious education classes.

Involved in the construction of the St. Vincent de Paul Society Food Pantry, Mike volunteers as its Coordinator, working with the USDA Food Bank to ensure that there is an adequate food supply at all times. When there is a need in the community, Mr. Hogan ensures that food and other services are given with dignity and respect. He provides a critical blend of self-help encouragement with monetary assistance.

As Regional Coordinator of the NJ Shares Program, Mike acts as liaison between utility companies and statewide energy assistance funds. As Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Salt and Light Company, Inc., Mike helps to provide affordable housing to low-income individuals and families in Burlington County.

As one of the most valued, dependable and respected volunteers of the Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Burlington County, Mike is heading up the Master Gardener Donation Garden in which vegetables will be grown for donation to local food banks.

As you see, Mike Hogan is a volunteer without equal in our area, and it is with gratitude and respect that I honor him today.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, June 25, 2003, I was unable to cast my vote for rollcall numbers 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, and 317 due to the fact that I was attending a funeral for my dear friend from Arizona, Representative Bob Stump.

Had I been presented, I would have voted ``aye'' for all 6 votes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the retirement of Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar after 3 years of public service. Dr. Johnson- Winegar led a distinguished career, culminating as the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense. In this position, Dr. Johnson-Winegar served as the focal point within the Office of the Secretary of Defense for all issues related to the highly critical Chemical and Biological Defense Program.

Dr. Johnson-Winegar received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biology from Hood College, and Masters of Science and Ph.D. degrees in Microbiology from Catholic University of America. Along her career, she has served at the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, the Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, and the Office of Naval Research. She also participated as a biological weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations Special Commission, UNSCOM. In 1998 she received the Lifetime Achievement Award from Women in Science and Engineering. Dr. Johnson-Winegar came to her current position in October 1999.

In response to the President's emerging defense strategy, coupled with the events of September 11, 2001, Dr. Johnson-Winegar spearheaded a paradigm shift within the Department of Defense Chemical Biological Defense Program. Under her leadership and expertise, defending our men and women in uniform against the threat of biological and chemical attack has taken on a heightened priority at the forefront of defense planning. She has lead the effort to improve the overall capability to defend against weapons of mass destruction, from increasing and focusing research efforts which identify and mature promising new technologies, to fielding tested and proven equipment to the warfighter engaged in on-going operations worldwide. In an era of increasing global threat, Dr. Johnson-Winegar has helped shape how this Nation will defend both itself and its soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines against the threat of chemical and biological warfare agents. We honor Dr. Johnson-Winegar as a true patriot whose many accomplishments serving our country have helped keep this Nation strong and secure.

Mr. Speaker, with yesterday's passage of H. Con. Res. 177, we formally recognized and commended our Armed Forces for their participation and success in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our magnificent men and women in uniform serve as the greatest ambassadors of what is good and right in our world. They are the bearers of the tremendous might, the indomitable spirit, and the boundless compassion of our nation and the freedom loving people everywhere.

Our forces are, as they always have been throughout our history, Americans first, citizen soldiers, and great patriots. They have come from ordinary walks of life rising to do extraordinary things that shape our world and leave us forever awestruck. I again want to extend our collective and sincere thanks to all our members who serve, and I also want to recognize a particular group of truly unsung yet most deserving heroes--our U.S. Merchant Mariners.

Once again, our country has turned to its mariners to take the fight to the enemy, to project our force half a world away, to secure the precious freedom that now spreads to an Iraqi people free to choose their own destiny, to raise their families as they choose, and to renew the glories of one of the world's greatest civilizations. Our liberating force was decisive and it moved on the brawn, ingenuity, and dedication of our merchant marine. Not in 12 years have we moved such a force by sea, and we have done it better, against greater challenge than ever before.

We recently saw a line of ships spread from our east coast through the Straights of Gibraltar, through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, and into the Gulf of Oman--a ``steel bridge'' of resolve. A bridge as strong as those mariners who crew our enormous ships and who go on in harms way to deliver our force anyplace, anytime they are called.

Since the beginning of the War on Terrorism, over 6,800 U.S. merchant mariners and civil servant mariners have served and provided support to our global military operations. Currently serving on 211 vessels, our U.S. mariners face many of the same hazards confronting our uniformed military as they regularly transit and operate within potential targeted areas of chemical and biological weapons, waterborne mines, and terrorist activities. Truly, our country's merchant mariners have answered the call selflessly and brilliantly.

Our mariners activated and crewed 40 vessels of our ready reserve force, essential to the early movement of ammunition, tanks, aircraft, and military vehicles. These U.S. mariners crewed our vital prepositioned ships and our fast response surge sealift vessels, providing time-critical warfighting equipment and supplies to the battlefield. Over 4,000 civil servant mariners manned and supported the continuous worldwide operations of our ships supporting U.S. naval and coalition forces at sea. Around the clock, every day, across the globe, our mariners make it happen.

At this crucial time in history, our U.S. mariners stepped forward with skill, bravery, and an unrivaled legacy of service. They made all the difference. Our nation continues to rely on these warriors, and their impact is profound. Long after the fighting stops, our mariners will still be on the watch, returning the troops, sustaining the force, and providing for the needy as we renew a proud but shattered land.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our Congress and a grateful Nation, it is my humble honor to say thank you to all our U.S. Merchant Mariners. We wish them God Speed and a safe return. They are indeed a national treasure--long may they serve.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman mentioned at the beginning of this session, the Committee on Armed Services set up a new subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing. One of our responsibilities on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities is to review matters just such as this one that would have to do with the proliferation of weapons of a variety of kinds and the materials that could be used to construct them. This very amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is just such a subject that should be reviewed by this subcommittee. That is what we are staffed for, and that is what we do; and here we are on the floor considering this amendment without even having had the opportunity to consider it by our subcommittee.

We are for international trade. We are for export of computer systems to the right people. However, this is a wrongheaded, in my opinion, at least at this point without having had a chance to study it before today, amendment which goes, in my opinion, in the wrong direction as has been stated by the developing coalition, including the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). This year, for the first time in the new subcommittee laydown, the chairman and the committee members decided to combine the Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Military Construction as part of the new configuration. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has a committee report on this new subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Last week, the Committee on Armed Services approved this bill by a vote of 58-2, continuing the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the defense needs of this Nation. The bill contains several initiatives that will aid the armed services and the Federal Government as a whole in the ongoing war against terrorism and contains several promising provisions which will help to transform the military services into the condition in which they need to be for the future.

I have the honor of chairing the first standing committee in this House devoted exclusively to defending from the terrorist threat, the Subcommittee on

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. As many in this body know, I worked for many years toward the establishment of such a subcommittee, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his wisdom in bringing this idea to fruition.

I believe our subcommittee has already proven its worth, and we plan to do much more in the weeks and months to come.

The subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I have worked hard together to explore a multitude of ways to provide the Department of Defense with the capability to defeat and defend against terrorists at home as well as abroad.

I will be the first to acknowledge that we are off to a good start, but we have a long, long way to go before we are satisfied that we on this committee and in the Congress have done all we can to protect our country against the scourge of terrorism. There are many areas to address and so many good ideas abound that in some ways it is difficult to know where to concentrate our efforts. However, several enduring themes have appeared since the establishment of our subcommittee, all of which are addressed in some measure in this bill.

For example, we learned that the best way to fight terrorism is to keep terrorists as far from our shores as possible. I believe the Special Operations Command is our best weapon for this mission. This bill bolsters the bill's capabilities in several areas.

Let me just say this about the Special Operations Command. The defense of our country in the new war on terrorism is a many-fold type of defense, but for the purposes of this conversation, let me just separate it into two parts. The area of homeland security is important; and, to that end, this Congress and our government have established a new Department on Homeland Security. It is important. It works here within and close to the borders of the United States to put in place defensive measures as well as measures that will help us react properly should a terrorist attack occur.

The second part, and perhaps at least from my point of view an equally important part of the task, is the offensive and defensive capabilities offered to us through the Special Operations Command. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, an immense part of the effort went largely unnoticed by the American public. We embedded reporters, hundreds of them, within the ranks of our troops, and each day on television we could watch as we progressed in the desert.

A lady back home said, why did the American Department of Defense decide to put the Special Operations Command on television? I said, ma'am, we did not. You did not see what they did. But suffice it to say in this conversation, they were an extremely effective force that did a great deal. They are made up of Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Green Berets. There is an Air Force unit located at its permanent base here in Herbert Field in Texas, and we are standing up new Marine units to act in concert with the Special Forces groups.

This year we believe that they are so important that we are increasing the funding allotted for Special Forces by 33 percent, from about $4.3 billion to about $6 billion. This is important, and we recognize the wonderful job they have done. I will not go on to describe their methods of operation and the kinds of things that they do because it would in some ways perhaps inhibit their capabilities, but suffice it to say they are extremely important to today's war on terrorism.

In addition to the groups that I listed, there are some folks that do some other special kinds of jobs that are also in the Special Forces. Civil operations, for example. During a fight, is it important to try to bring along the people, the population within whom our Special Forces are working? Of course it is. We have civil operations units to do that. We also have communicators known as psychological operators who are part of the Special Forces, and they do a wonderful job in communicating messages to the people in the theater of operation.

Last week I had an opportunity to go to Walter Reed Hospital and visit some of our wounded soldiers. There were some special operators who had been wounded as well. They are great people, and to the person when I asked them what it is that they would wish most about their future, they said I would like to get out of this bed and go back to my unit. They are great people, and my hat is off to them for the great job they do under the leadership that we have provided them.

There are also emerging issues involving the role of the National Guard. We are working on these questions with the new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and will involve the Department of Homeland Security and the National Guard in the resolution of these matters.

There is need for more and better and cheaper chemical and biological detectors and countermeasures of various sorts. To meet this need, we have established a chemical and biological initiative fund to allow promising ideas to compete for funding.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on for a long time and talk about the activities of the subcommittee and the things that we oversee. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) mentioned information technology which is critical. We are trying to get our arms around that.

I strongly encourage all Members to support H.R. 1588. This is an excellent bill that should receive the overwhelming support of this body.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), whose congressional district includes Camp Pendleton.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The amendment that we are debating is, I think, a pretty commonsense amendment. The military, DOD, came to us and said, we need some limited relief from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This gives them essentially what they want without going outside or further than they requested. And so it seems to me that this is a good, commonsense amendment. I commend the gentleman from Colorado for bringing it forward.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. As we stand here today, we are under this enhanced threat level of attack from terrorists, and it seems to me that this amendment and the provisions of this amendment are absolutely essential to give our Department of Defense and our Commander in Chief the option of using our military forces to secure our border if it becomes necessary. And while the Department of Defense may help other Federal agencies, this amendment simply reinforces the primary role of the armed services to protect the homeland.

The newest combat command, Northern Command, is involved in this very issue. The statutory language supporting North Com's efforts to reinforce the Department of Homeland Security and to set training and policy ground rules is extremely helpful. The authority is only in effect for 1 year and is essentially a pilot program. In other words, let us put this in place and see how it works. If it causes problems, we will know, and we will not renew it. But I do not see problems occurring, and I think it is a test that we ought to run.

The use of this authority will allow North Com to better integrate active forces and National Guard forces into homeland defense plans, a commonsense approach and one that I commend the gentleman from Virginia for bringing forward.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment will repeal the statutory requirement that an officer in our Armed Forces, in order to be selected for assignment as the Defense Attache to France, must hold the rank of brigadier general, or, in the case of a Navy officer, rear admiral lower half.

The Department of Defense included the repeal of this requirement as part of their budget request for fiscal year 2004, and there is no justification for continuing this statutory mandate, in my opinion.

The adoption of this amendment will not prevent our military attache in Paris from being a brigadier general or a rear admiral; rather, it will only remove the requirement that they be of that rank. It will permit the Department of Defense greater flexibility in making their decisions to assign officers to that position.

Most importantly, adoption of this amendment will end the unnecessary requirement that our military attache to France be of a higher rank than our military attaches everywhere else in the world. The United States has 135 defense attache positions in our embassies around the world. Of those 135, only three, those of France, Russia, and China, are officers that hold the rank of brigadier general or rear admiral.

Our attache to France is the only military attache whose rank is mandated by law in title 10. Accordingly, France is the exception to the rule. The requirement that our military attache to France be a brigadier general is not consistent with our military attaches to other nations.

Today I believe we all need to question whether it is appropriate to mandate that our military attache to France be of a higher rank than everywhere else in the world.

Under President Jacques Chirac, France actively opposed the United States and our allies in the recent war with Iraq. The French government used all of its influence to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and hindered our efforts to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions that required the removal of weapons of mass destruction from his possession. By doing so, France failed to accept its responsibilities and deliberately acted counter to the national security interests of the United States. In NATO, France does not fully participate in the Organization's integrated

military command, yet we require that our military attache to Paris be of a higher rank than all of our attaches in NATO member countries. We thus provide France with a status not in line with its NATO responsibilities.

I find it entirely inappropriate that we have mandated that our military attache to France be a higher rank than military attaches to nations such as Great Britain, who never balked at fighting side by side with us in our war on terrorism.

As the position of defense attache to France is now vacant, the repeal of the statute would have no impact on an incumbent, and this is the perfect opportunity to bring consistency to our military attache postings.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the full committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would require door-to-door delivery service for senior citizens.

Over the years, I have been contacted by many seniors who live in adult-restricted communities and receive their mail in ``cluster'' mailboxes. This means that their mail is delivered to one central location instead of being placed in a mailbox at their own doorstep. With this type of mail delivery, seniors are forced to endure steps, curbs, bad weather, and moving cars in order to pick up their mail. Under these circumstances, something as simple as receiving mail can be one of the most inconvenient and dangerous daily tasks for those who are elderly.

Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to require the U.S. Postal Service to make door-to-door deliveries in senior housing areas. Under this bill, 80 percent of the residents in a community must be 55 and older in order to qualify to receive this service. Door-to-door deliveries would begin six months after enactment. Also, the bill clarifies that senior apartment buildings are specifically excluded from this bill.

It is imperative that we help our seniors receive their mail without putting their lives in danger, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of the Nethercutt amendment.

Last month I introduced legislation to block any French company in particular from participating or receiving any U.S. Government aid or financing in any reconstruction of Iraq in the post-conflict setting. From the beginning, in particular, the French position on the war with Iraq encouraged Iraqi defiance of the United Nations Resolution 1441. In fact, the French position was probably well received in Baghdad itself, and resulted in the opinion of most people in encouraging Saddam Hussein to continue to fail to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors and into compliance with Resolution 1441.

I heard on the news just the other day that the French continue their diatribe against the coalition forces and, in fact, have received some current publications from France that I would like to share with the Members in case there is any doubt about the situation involving the French attitude.

Here is a magazine called The Observateur, and the cover headline is ``Iraq: The Traps of a Crazy War.'' The article that follows is entitled, ``The Insane Ones of God'' and goes on to say that they are crazy, meaning anyone who has ever supported a use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein, saying they are crazy and do not have an ounce of judgment. That refers to a lot of people who voted to support the use of force who happen to be here in this Chamber.

Another publication called L'Express has an article entitled, ``Baghdad: Victory at What Price?'' And then we have Le Point. They refer to this action in disarming Saddam Hussein as ``the tragedy.'' It is the cover story, and uses words such as ``arrogance'' and ``propaganda'' to describe the U.S. position.

So I commend the gentleman for moving forward with this amendment and I ask everyone to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this important piece of conservation legislation. In the last session of Congress the Resources Committee worked hard to report out, my good friend from Maryland and Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Gilchrest's bill, H.R. 4749, the Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002. While I was pleased with many of the provisions, I felt the bycatch section could be strengthened and was successful in getting a provision added to H.R. 4749 addressing the concerns I still have today, with regard to the amount of bycatch of white marlin by the domestic longline industry, which is why I am introducing this bill today.

This bill creates a closed area in the mid-Atlantic that protects marlin from being caught by longlines, when marlin are the most prevalent in those waters. This area consists of the entire Mid- Atlantic Conservation Zone for Highly Migratory Species and closes the upper zone July 15 through September 1, and closes the lower zone from August 15 through October 1. The bill allows for the maximum fishing effort by the longline industry consistent with the conservation.

I continue to be concerned about this species because stocks domestically and internationally have continued to rapidly decline. On September 4, 2001, an environmental group petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list Atlantic white marlin under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. On December 19, 2001, NMFS found that the Atlantic white marlin petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that a listing of Atlantic white marlin may be warranted.

On September 4, 2002, NMFS determined that the species does not warrant being listed at this time. However, the most recent stock assessment indicates the total Atlantic stock population had declined to less than 12 percent of its maximum sustainable yield level; current fishing mortality was estimated to be at least seven times higher than the maximum sustainable level; over fishing had taken place for over three decades and the stock is less productive than previously estimated, with a maximum sustainable yield of less than 1300 metric tons. The bottom line--this species needs an immediate strong conservation measure or it may disappear forever.

I have for many years been very concerned about the dramatic drop in population of this species, and the fact that NMFS even considered listing it confirms my concerns have not been unfounded. I am therefore introducing this piece of legislation as it is critical we continue to make every possible effort to save this species from extinction, which is a distinct possibility should nothing be done to stop the tremendous amount of bycatch.

It is so important we work together to conserve all species, and the dramatic drop in population of white marlin sends a strong message that if we do nothing the potential for other species to be in equal jeopardy is almost guaranteed. Our oceans could well be void of many species we now enjoy and take for granted if we do not take aggressive steps to halt their disappearance now, before it's too late.

It is of the utmost importance that today, more than ever, we work diligently to ensure our world's fisheries populations are maintained at sustainable levels. If we fail to protect them, there are some species that may disappear forever, which would be tragic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Recreational Waters Protection Act.

I have been working on this issue for some time, and introduced this bill in the last session of Congress because its passage would reduce pollution from recreational boats by encouraging boaters to use and purchase new Type I marine sanitation devices (MSD) instead of discharging their waste into the water because pumpout stations are either unavailable, inoperative or inconvenient to use.

This legislation would harness new technology and establish new standards for Type I marine sanitation devices that are 100 times more stringent than current standards, which have not been revised in over twenty years.

This bill would grant an exemption allowing those who have such Coast Guard certified devices to use them in any state-declared no discharge zones that are designated after the enactment of this bill into law. It would not impact any existing state-declared no discharge zones.

The available evidence shows that the existing NDZ approach does not work to the benefit of the environment. It is highly unlikely that law enforcement efforts will ever be sufficient to make the NDZ approach work, even if sufficient pump-out stations were accessible and operational.

Giving boat owners the opportunity to improve the operation of their vessels and at the same time contribute to improving the aquatic environment through their voluntary installation and use of the new Type I MSDs is clearly preferable to today's situation.

When the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was signed into law, this type of technology did not exist and therefore simply prohibiting dumping via NDZs seemed like the best solution at the time. However, with the overall poor performance with pumpout stations and non- compliance with NDZs, I believe it is time to revisit this bill and these issues and recognize if there is a better, more environmentally conscious way to fight pollution, we ought to be using it, period.

I encourage other members to join me in support of this important piece of conservation legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Allan H. Meltzer upon receiving the first Irving Kristol Award at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) last night. Dr. Meltzer's insightful lecture on international economics and the role of the United States in world affairs immediately followed an historic address by President George W. Bush.

Dr. Meltzer was recognized for his important contributions to monetary economics, economic history, and political theory. He has recently written a well-received and definitive history of the first several decades of the Federal Reserve System.

Dr. Meltzer also served as chairman of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, which made a series of recommendations for reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and other development banks.

He also has testified before Congress many times, including before the Joint Economic Committee on several occasions. The members of the Joint Economic Committee have benefited from Dr. Meltzer's expertise over the years, and I also appreciate his serving as a consultant to our committee. This award from the American Enterprise Institute to this distinguished scholar is well deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gloria Strait for the fifty years of service, dedication, and loyalty she has given to the Capitol Hill Club.

Gloria moved from Syracuse, New York to Capitol Hill in 1952. She began her tenure at the Capitol Hill Club on February 5, 1953, when it was located at 214 First Street. Although she was hired as a cook, she worked as a dishwasher when business was slow. For close to twenty years, Gloria cooked breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the numerous Members of Congress and guests of the Club. During this time, the majority of which was spent in the Club's second home at 75 C Street, she also supervised the kitchen, managed menus, and handled orders. When the Club moved to its current location at 300 First Street in 1972, Gloria was promoted to Purchasing Manager and took on responsibility for handling inventory and vendor relations.

Since a child in New York, Gloria has had the opportunity to meet innumerable celebrities through her involvement in the restaurant industry. And in the fifty years of her employment at Capitol Hill Club, she has met six United States presidents, one dozen governors, countless Congressmen and women, and renown business leaders. She keeps a scrapbook to remember her many friends.

Gloria has helped countless Members of Congress who were far from home to feel at home by cooking favorite meals or baking birthday cakes. It is that type of personal attention and commitment to her job that makes Gloria a vital and welcomed part of the Capitol Hill Club family. For fifty years, Gloria has brightened the Club with her youthful vigor and soaring spirit. As a member of the Club, I thank her for being a part of our extended family and look forward to seeing her in the many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I thank him for taking this time to bring this very important issue before the House and, indirectly, before the American people.

We just returned from a break. I had plenty of time, ample time, back home to talk with my constituents, and in fact traveled around the country a bit to talk with others from other people's districts. The report that the gentleman makes reference to that is the Hans Blix report I think speaks volumes to the questions that I was asked as I made my way around my district and around other people's districts.

The basic question was: How do we know, or how does the administration know and how will the Congress help to determine what our policy should be toward Iraq when the inspectors cannot find any weapons, any weapons of mass destruction? This report speaks volumes to this.

However, before this report even came out, there were very strong indications here in the Congress in the hearings that the Committee on Armed Services held, both closed hearings and open hearings, where members of the administration, representatives of the Department of Defense, and representatives from our intelligence apparatus or institutions would come before us and would say, here is what we know.

Without going into the specifics of what we heard in those closed sessions, this report that the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) has gone to great lengths to describe, which we have heard about through the media all day, verifies much of the information that we learned during those sessions earlier this year, actually in the fall.

Also, I think it is very interesting to point out that yesterday the Secretary of State in a speech in Switzerland said something that I think is extremely important on this same question of how do we know if we cannot find the weapons. The Secretary of State said simply this: we have known for a long time that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. After all, he used them in the war against Iran. After all, he used them against his own people, that is, chemical weapons, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) referred to here just a short time ago.

Then the Secretary of State went on to say that the question is not and the job of the weapons inspectors is not to find the weapons; the job, as designated in Resolution 1441, is to seek the cooperation of the Iraqi Government in proving that they have destroyed their weapons. That is where the Iraqi Government has been lacking. The Iraqi Government has steadfastly denied having any weapons, but has failed to offer an iota of proof.

For example, if chemical weapons have been destroyed, why can we not talk to the people who destroyed them? If there are no biological weapons, if those biological substances have been destroyed, where were they destroyed? Show us. Let us talk to the people that destroyed them.

This seems to me to be just what Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, was talking about when he said that the question really is when, on the one hand, the Iraqi Government says there are no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons, why then on the other hand will they not show us evidence to prove that? And the answer seems to me, in light of the Blix report, quite simple: these weapons really exist, and therefore they cannot prove that they do not.

So I think that the answer to the question that my constituents and people that I talked to in other parts of the country over the break, the answer to the question is quite evident. The answer is that these weapons do exist, just as we have maintained for years, and in particular in the last month.

So both Secretary Powell and Hans Blix in different words came to the same conclusion. Hans Blix says on this subject, ``In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these weapons exist.'' We have assumed, based on evidence that was gathered by the Committee on Armed Services during the fall of this year, that they continue to exist.

Another question which I think is important, and I think this report bears on this question as well, my constituents and people around the country ask me: What do the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese know that we do not? They are part of the United Nations Security Council, as well. I say that the evidence that is pointed out in the Blix report should be taken very seriously and taken to heart by the French and the Germans and the Russians and Chinese, because they have as much at stake in this as we do.

This report, which speaks volumes, is an extremely important document. I think one of the statements in the report by Hans Blix, who has had an opportunity, obviously, to review the 12,000 pages which the Iraqi Government forwarded in terms of its supposed accuracy as an accurate report on the condition of their weapons of mass destruction program, Hans Blix says, we have seen this all before. It is essentially 12,000 pages copied from the transmissions that were given to previous teams of arms inspectors, so the Iraqis have offered us nothing new here. In fact, they have shown us once again that they are, as Hans Blix said publicly today, not prepared to endorse the concept of disarmament.

The Bush administration, the President himself, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, have all maintained in different ways for months that we have to do something to engage this problem. The Blix report from an independent United Nations-appointed inspection team has now verified the contentious situation that actually exists within the Iraqi Government today.

I am pleased and again I want to thank the gentleman from California for taking this time so that he and I together can share this information with our colleagues, and indirectly with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I just would like to add that earlier today in a news report I saw or heard that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, suggested that the inspectors need more time. Also, the Secretary of State today indicated that if there was going to be more time, it would not be much; but there is going to be more activity on the part of the inspectors.

I would say this: I suspect that the people who are listening to this are not in a position to answer these questions. But if Saddam Hussein or his foreign minister or somebody was listening, I would say to them that we know that they had thousands of artillery shells that were capable of carrying chemical substances that would kill people to their targets. They say they have destroyed them.

If you have destroyed them, show us where they were destroyed, show us where the remnants of them are, and let us talk to the people who did it. Let us talk to the people who destroyed them. If you do not have chemical weapons, show us how you destroyed them. Show us the people, let us talk to the people that destroyed your chemical weapons. That is how we verify. If you do not have biological weapons, show us the disposition of what you had and let us talk to the scientists, let us talk to the personnel that destroyed it, because we know you had it, and we believe you still have it today. And if you are serious about making statements that you do not have it, that these weapons do not exist, then show us how they were destroyed.

And with regard to their nuclear weapons program, we know that the Iraqis imported aluminum tubular material that is designed and built specifically for the production of nuclear material. If those no longer exist, show us how you destroyed them and let us talk to the scientists and let us talk to the personnel who destroyed them. We have not seen any of these things, and we have not talked to any of these people, or the inspectors have not, I should say.

I heard today another statement that this process is not about finding weapons, it is about developing trust. It is about developing trust between the Iraqi Government and the rest of the governments of the world. This is how we develop trust, by verifying your statements so that we can trust. And so I hope that this process will move forward.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I are sometimes asked by people why we favor going to war. We do not favor going to war. We favor dismantling the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqis have, and we have supported the process of inspections. We have supported the process of investigation. We have supported the process of questioning. We have supported the process of asking questions as to where these materials are, whether they have been destroyed. And it is only as a last resort that we would ever advocate using military force. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has a son in the Marine Corps. The last thing in the world the gentleman wants to do is to see our country in another military conflict.

Just last Friday I went to Paris Island where I proudly watched my nephew Curt graduate from basic training in the Marine Corps. The last thing I want to see is Curtis in Iraq or anyplace else fighting a war that can be averted by cooperation between people and cooperation between countries and the development of trust.

So once again I give the floor to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). I hope that the Iraqis will in the next very short period of time cooperate with the United Nations and the leadership of various countries around the world.