Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the brave men and women who, during the past 75 years, have dedicated their lives to the service of others as members of the Ventura County Fire Department. The Ventura County Fire Department has changed dramatically since May 11, 1928, when 277 voters went to the polls and 230 voted to form the department. Ventura County then was mostly rural and populated by ranchers and farmers. Wildfires were the primary concern. In 1928 the county experienced six house fires, but 2,820 acres of wildlands burned. The Fire Department's budget was $20,000. Its first equipment was a Ford truck equipped with a portable pump and 1,000 feet of hose. The county has been blessed through the years by attracting visionary Fire Chiefs, from Walter Emerick in 1928 to Bob Roper today. Together they built a fire department worthy of envy. During its first decade, the Fire Department built 10 new fire stations situated throughout the county. In the years following World War II the department instituted a building program to modernize some stations, adopted the County Civil Service Retirement Plan and appointed the first battalion chiefs. In the 1950s and 1960s, firefighting methods were updated, and the latest protective equipment, tools and fire engines were obtained. In the 1970s, a central Dispatch Communications Center was established and the Ventura County Public Safety Aviation Unit was formed. A hazmat trailer and suburban command modules for battalion chiefs were added in the 1980s. The 1990s were a buzz of activity: The Department's computerized Incident Reporting System was developed and implemented, the communication center was designed and centralized, and a state-of-the- art Training Center and new fire stations were built. But the best equipment is useless without highly trained and qualified fire fighters who put their lives on the line time and again to protect the residents of Ventura County. The Ventura County Fire Department currently employs 549 professional and dedicated men and women, 417 of whom are in uniform. Together, they protect 865 square miles and more than 450,000 people in Ventura County. But their dedication does not stop at Ventura County's borders. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a number of Ventura County firefighters volunteered to go to New York City to help with recovery efforts. They have joined their colleagues from other jurisdictions to battle wildfires across the United States again and again. Mr. Speaker, I know many of Ventura County's firefighters and I can personally attest to their bravery, their professionalism, and their dedication to protecting the lives and property of their neighbors. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Ventura County Fire Department on its 75th anniversary and in thanking its brave men and women for a job well done.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Moorpark High School Academic Decathlon Team as the United States Academic Decathlon Champions. This is the second time in five years that Moorpark High School's team has won this premiere scholastic contest. Prior to its win in 1999, no team from Ventura County, California, had even competed in the nationals. Team members Lindsay Hebert, Nathaniel Jones, Adam Abed, Paul Ideal, Kevin Randolf, Ashlee Scott, Grant Volk, Tracy Yagi and Max Geiger are now recognized as the best and the brightest in the country. They are the pride of their school, their community and their country. These youngsters won by literally dedicating their lives to the challenge. For nine months they put in up to 40 hours a week beyond their school days to study and hone their skills. They gave up weekends, vacations, part-time jobs and time with their families. Their hard work paid off. Last weekend, Moorpark scored 51,423 points out of a possible 60,000 points to win the national title against 37 other teams from throughout the country. They brought home 15 gold, nine silver and seven bronze medals. Their coach, Larry Jones, worked as hard, if not harder, than his students and is as deserving of high praise. Coach Jones has said he will retire from the team after 12 years of leading dozens of students to victory at the county, state and national level. He said the same thing after winning the 1999 championship, but this time he says he means it. At a minimum, he has earned some relaxation in the glow of a job well done--again. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him the best in whatever his future brings. Mr. Speaker, I also know my colleagues will join me in applauding nine outstanding students who achieved a very prestigious goal--Lindsay Hebert, Nathaniel Jones, Adam Abed, Paul Ideal, Kevin Randolf, Ashlee Scott, Grant Volk, Tracy Yagi and Max Geiger--the U.S. champion Moorpark High School Academic Decathlon Team.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 2003, I was unable to vote on H.R. 1055, the ``Dr. Roswell N. Beck Post Office Building'' Designation Act (rollcall vote 109), H. Res. 127, Expressing the sense of the House that a month should be designated as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month'' (rollcall 110), and H.R. 1368, ``Norman Shumway Post Office Building'' Designation Act (rollcall vote 111). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three measures.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 2003, I was unable to vote on H.R. 1463 (rollcall vote 92), H. Con. Res. 58 (rollcall 93), and H.R. 1166 (rollcall vote 94). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three measures.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of Cecilia Eleanor Hadley, a warmhearted and generous woman who dedicated her life to others. I have known Cecilia Hadley since I was a boy and her husband, Al ``Skipper'' Hadley, served as my Sea Scout, BSA, Scoutmaster. Cecilia died last month at age 96. Skipper died in 2000, also at age 96. Cecilia Hadley was born in Milwaukee and moved to California as a child. She graduated from the Los Angeles Conservatory of Music and Arts and, after 6 years of courtship, married Al Hadley in 1935. Cecilia Hadley remained active long after retirement. She volunteered as a third-grade teacher's aide for nearly a decade, tutored students in reading and math after school, and taught countless children to play the piano. She belonged to many women's clubs and was a member of St. Peter's Catholic Community for more than 20 years. She volunteered for the Fallbrook Hospital Auxiliary, working in the gift shop and hand- crocheting baby blankets for newborns. She also made baby blankets for Birth Choice, a crisis pregnancy center she actively supported. Mr. Speaker, Cecilia Hadley is survived her sons, Pete and David; five grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. I know my colleagues will join me in sending condolences to Cecilia's family, and in thanking her for making her community and our country a better place through her passion and compassion.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 2003, I was unable to vote on H.R. 441 (rollcall vote 50), H. Con. Res. 77 (rollcall 51), and H. Res. 19 (rollcall vote 52). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three measures.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 2003, I was unable to vote on the Greenwood Substitute to H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Act of 2003 (rollcall 37). Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' Similarly, I was not present to vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 534 (rollcall 38) but I would have voted ``no.'' On final passage of H.R. 534, I was not present, but would have voted ``yea'' (rollcall vote 39).

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on H. Res. 46, honoring the life of Al Hirschfeld and his legacy, and H. Con. Res. 40, permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both measures.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2003, 1 was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on H. Res. 61. However, I would have voted yes. As you know, I have always been a strong supporter of Israel. As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a beacon of liberty and a model for her neighbors. As a country under siege and in an almost constant state of war against terrorists, Israel also serves as an inspiration for the United States as we continue our war against terrorists.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the seven men and women of space shuttle Columbia. All seven astronauts were talented and dedicated. Columbia was commanded by Commander Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas. Pilot William McCool, 41, was a Navy commander from Lubbock, Texas. Payload commander Michael Anderson, 43, was an Air Force lieutenant colonel. Mission specialist David M. Brown, 46, was a Navy captain, pilot and doctor. Mission specialist Laurel Blair Salton Clark, 41, was a Navy diving medical officer aboard submarines, then a flight surgeon who became an astronaut in 1996. Payload specialist Ilan Ramon, 48, a colonel in Israel's air force whose mother and grandmother survived the Auschwitz death camp, market the first Israeli citizen in space. Kalpana Chawla, 41, emigrated to the United States from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994. It was her second flight. Many of the lost astronauts have children. All were loved. They are heroes and they will be missed. May God care for our fallen heroes and their families and friends.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on H. Res. 51. However, had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I was pushing the button when time went off. I understand it, but had I been present, I would like to have been recorded as voting ``yea.''

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, it gives us great pleasure to pay tribute to retired Colonel Grover F. Heiman, Jr., retired Lieutenant Colonel Roy E. Kaden, retired Major Earl L. Schureman, and retired Senior Master Sergeant John D. Goolsbee for their brave dedication to their country. On September 17, 1952, these four American heroes and the rest of their RB-50 crew, took off from an airbase in Greenland on a Top Secret reconnaissance mission over the ``Ice Islands'' of the Soviet Franz Josef Land Archipelago. This crew was personally selected and highly trained to fly this mission. They were told if they were shot down or captured, there would be no rescue operation. Despite this, the crew risked their own lives to gather information on a possible new Soviet air base being built in Franz Joseph archipelago. If there was a base being built, Soviet TU-4 bombers would be capable of attacking the East Coast of the United States with nuclear weapons. The crew departed in the early morning for their 15-hour mission. The fog on the field was so thick that they had to follow a vehicle to the runway. After doing a thorough check of all aircraft systems, the RB-50 lifted off for the Soviet Union. Since this mission was Top Secret, there was complete radio silence for the entire 15-hour flight; the crew did not talk to anyone on the radios. This mission was at such a northern latitude that the crew had to navigate using a system known as ``Grid Navigation.'' This system is used to solve problems with direction posed by flying so close to the North Pole. To simplify the navigation problems, the crew took two navigators. One navigator maintained a dead reckoning plot of position, computing air speed, wind direction, velocity and ground speed; the other navigator provided frequent astro compass readings of the azimuth of the sun. Once the flight entered the area they were to reconnaissance, they planned to fly at 20,000 feet and use the onboard photography systems to survey the area. Unfortunately, at 20,000 feet, the RB-50 was above a solid cloud layer, rendering the onboard photography system useless. The aircraft descended to 12,000 feet hoping to get below the weather, but there was still another layer of clouds below them. In an attempt to salvage what they could from this mission, the crew descended through several cloud layers until leveling off below the clouds, 2,500 feet above the ground. The aircraft passed over numerous small, ice covered, barren islands looking for any signs of a Soviet military presence. Due to the altitude they were flying at, the aircraft used the onboard tri-met and oblique cameras as well as visual observation to search for any Soviet airbases. After flying in that area for a considerable amount of time, the crew saw no sign of any Soviet military presence and departed. The crew maintained radio silence for the entire flight back until they were directly over their base in Greenland. Once over the airbase, they broke radio silence, and since the weather had gotten slightly better, they were able to land and complete their mission. They spent several days after this flight debriefing United States Intelligence members on what they saw. The selfless sacrifice of these American heroes has made our nation a safer place.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.J. Res. 114. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and House leadership for working in a bipartisan manner with the White House to develop what I believe is a very strong, but balanced, resolution. Last week by a strong vote the Committee on International Relations passed this resolution. As part of its responsibility to carry out its role in helping shape United States foreign policy toward Iraq, our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), deserve a great deal of credit for their efforts in guiding this effort through the committee process. September 11 has tragically taught us the price of not acting when faced with a clear and present danger, and there should be no doubt today we face a clear and present danger in the form of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of Saddam Hussein. We know after the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, Iraq unequivocally agreed to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and agreed to allow international weapons inspectors to ensure that be accomplished. But as we all know, Iraq has willfully and in direct violation of its own agreement and those of the United Nations Security Council thwarted over and over again the efforts of the inspectors to find and destroy those weapons. This can only mean one thing, Mr. Speaker. Saddam intends to hold on to these weapons and use them at the appropriate time and in the manner he deems necessary. As early as 1998, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in a letter to the Security Council stated, ``No one can doubt or dispute that Iraq's refusal to honor its commitments under Security Council resolutions regarding its weapons of mass destruction constituted a threat.'' These words remain even more true today in light of the scourge of global terrorism. Today the threat to the national security of the United States and to international peace and security continues to grow. It is especially serious because we know that Saddam Hussein supports terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and could very well be working with these agents at this very moment providing them with the expertise to use chemical and biological weapons against the United States and others. In 1991 in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, I led a group of our colleagues in the House in introducing a resolution authorizing then-President Bush the use of all necessary means to force Iraq from Kuwait. There were dissenters who felt we should not go to war, but in the end there is no question we were proven right. In 1998 I strongly supported the House resolution which declared Iraq to be in breach of its international obligations, and we urged the President to take appropriate actions to bring Iraq into compliance. However, at that time significant penalties for noncompliance were not invoked, and so here we are again today, confronting the same issue without an inch of change in Saddam's attitude or actions. Today we are faced with the same proposition and very similar arguments on both sides; but with the passage of this resolution, we will again provide the President the authority he may need to take the appropriate actions necessary to protect the national security of this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, this time around we must have an absolute commitment to not allow Saddam Hussein to have chemical or biological weapons anymore. But the enforcement of Security Council resolutions this time must include significant penalty for noncompliance which are immediate and automatic. The resolution we are debating today is forceful in that it again gives the President the authority to use whatever means, including force, to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. But this resolution is balanced in that it encourages the President to pursue diplomatic avenues to achieve international support of enforcing U.N. mandates and provide for an important role in the Congress. I believe the gravity of this issue mandates that we act now to give the President the tools he should have to deal with this significant threat. The potential terror of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a madman to the world must be addressed, and it must be addressed decisively and now. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time. At this point I would urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 253 was introduced by our previous speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and endorses the candidacy of Slovakia for NATO membership. In light of the action about to be taken by the House, I believe this resolution is complimentary to H. Res. 468 and elaborates the reasons why Slovakia should be included in NATO. Five years ago, Slovakia was seriously under consideration for NATO membership, but was denied due to the government in power at the time. That government was subsequently replaced, but it threatened to return to power this year, again calling into question Slovakia's candidacy. However, Slovakia just recently held a very important national election and the current government has been returned to office. The outcome of the elections were one of the keys to the status of Slovakia's application to NATO. The election results did come out to everyone's satisfaction, and that has lessened the apprehensions about Slovakia's commitment to NATO. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the people of Slovakia for their strong showing in the election. Over 70 percent of the voting population actually voted. I also want to commend the work of our ambassador, Ron Weiser, and his entire embassy staff for their efforts to encourage a strong voter turnout. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 253.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 253) recommending the integration of the Republic of Slovakia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as amended.

Mr. GALLEGLY

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 116, which was introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). In light of the action taken by the Subcommittee on Europe and just now by the House, which endorsed the Baltic States for membership in NATO, I believe this resolution is complimentary to H. Res. 468 and should be adopted. The resolution endorses the candidacies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for NATO membership and discusses in detail why the three Baltic nations deserve to be invited into the alliance. Mr. Speaker, last year, the Baltic nations celebrated the 10th anniversary of the resumption of their independence after a long period of Soviet dominance. The changes which have taken place in those countries has been amazing in every aspect. The total political, economic and social transformation they have gone through in preparation for NATO and EU membership has been impressive, and they deserve to be recognized or their accomplishments by being invited to join the alliance. The author of this legislation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), has long been a supporter and spokesman for the Baltics, serving as the chairman of the Baltic Caucus in the House. He has given tireless devotion to promoting these countries and their accomplishments. Passage of this resolution is as much about his dedication as it is about theirs. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there could be any better additions to the NATO alliance than these three nations, and I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 116) recommending the integration of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on November 21 and 22, the heads of state and government of the 19 members of the NATO alliance will gather in Prague in what will arguably be the most important meeting of the alliance in a decade. At Prague, the future of the alliance will thoroughly be debated. That debate will include the critical issue of whether the alliance can agree on what threats the alliance is likely to face in the future and whether the alliance members will make a serious and credible commitment to the development of the military capabilities necessary to meet those threats. In addition, the summit will affirm the new relationship with Russia and will make history by likely issuing invitations to the largest number of new members ever in the history of the alliance. Last November, when the House voted on the Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act, we were entering the beginning of a debate within the Congress, the Bush administration, the media, and among our NATO partners over the future of the alliance and what kind of alliance we would be inviting new members to join. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe of the Committee on International Relations, I felt it would take some time to address several of the questions being asked regarding the alliance. Some of those questions included: Was NATO still relevant to Euro-Atlantic security? Were the alliance's roles and missions in need of new definition? What was the ability of the alliance to carry out those missions? What was the rationale for adding new members, and what could those new members provide the alliance? Finally, what would the impact of an enlarged NATO on a West-leaning but still somewhat skeptical Russia be? To attempt to find those answers, I laid out a comprehensive plan to gather the necessary information to make an informed judgment to present to the House. The subcommittee held several hearings on the future of NATO and enlargement. I met with numerous foreign visitors, both alliance members and candidates alike. I traveled to three of the candidate states to review the commitments they are making to becoming responsible members of the alliance. Subcommittee staff attended countless meetings, analyzed much of the information available on the alliance and the candidate countries, and twice traveled to NATO headquarters in Brussels. All this was designed to ensure that the subcommittee, and subsequently the whole House, would feel comfortable supporting the NATO alliance and endorsing new countries wishing to join the alliance. H. Res. 468 is the work product of the Subcommittee on Europe's efforts to address the importance of the events which will take place in Prague. H. Res. 468 reaffirms the need for our commitment to the NATO alliance. This is also the view held by President Bush and Secretary Powell. H. Res. 468 addresses the urgent need for upgrading NATO's military capabilities in order to meet today's changing threat environment. It agrees with the need for a strong NATO-Russia cooperative partnership. Finally, it affirms that the further enlargement of the alliance will further the stability of Europe, add to the security of the alliance, and is appropriate and welcomed. During consideration of H. Res. 468 in the subcommittee, I offered an amendment regarding enlargement which was unanimously adopted. That amendment endorsed the candidates of seven countries, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This endorsement was determined after reviewing an extensive report prepared by our staff. The report addressed the progress the candidates had made in accordance with NATO's member action plan or MAP. The analysis focused on political, economic, and social development with each candidate. It looked at their ability to develop a military structure capable of providing for the overall security of the alliance, and it reviewed the commitment to provide the resources necessary to ensure that the reforms continued and that required military capability would be achieved. The analysis was by no means exhaustive, but it was intended to provide the Members an overview of what issues are important to NATO in making an informed assessment of each candidate. Overall, all 10 candidates should be congratulated for the efforts they have made thus far to meet the criteria for becoming a member of NATO. Progress in the candidate countries, ranging from political and military reform, resources commitment, to ensuring the support of the population, has been very impressive. Each has displayed a level of enthusiasm and commitment to the alliance as we saw demonstrated when the ambassadors of all 10 of the candidate countries testified before our subcommittee. Each has already displayed their willingness to be a fully participating member of the alliance through their actions and contributions in the Balkans and with respect to the campaign against terrorism. Each candidate brings with it its own individual strengths. Each is a viable democracy which shares a pro Euro-Atlantic view. Each is committed to market economies, all have embraced military reform, and each provides a unique geopolitical perspective or geostrategic location. These attributes make them all desirable members, either now or in the near future. On the other hand, each candidate has its weaknesses. Not all have mature political systems or strong institutions. Some have weak economies with structural deficiencies needing attention. Not all have sufficiently addressed corruption. Some need further reform of their militaries and more modern equipment. Of course, all need to spend more money. Nevertheless, it is our judgment that each of the seven countries listed in the amendment thus far meet the MAP criteria in a satisfactory way. And each has been judged to be a potential net contributor to the alliance security. Does this mean they have nothing left to do? Far from it, Mr. Speaker. Each has plenty more to be done, and that work must continue until Prague and beyond Prague, whether they receive an invitation to join or they do not. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, given the continued importance of NATO to the United States and the importance of the upcoming Prague summit, I believe the House of Representatives should play an active role in expressing our views on NATO and its future. I believe we should also provide our input on which countries should be admitted to the alliance as guidance for the administration, which will play a key role in determining who ultimately will be invited; and we offer our advice to our colleagues in the other body who, as stipulated in the Constitution, will be called on to ratify those selections. I believe H. Res. 468 provides a mechanism for such expression of the will of the House, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.