Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I was having difficulty hearing here. The chairman is indicating that 15 minutes would be reserved for the gentleman from Washington, 5 minutes for the gentleman from Florida, and 10 minutes for yours truly? Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Could I suggest that we cut it to 20?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we used to have a Member of this body by the name of Jimmy Burke, and Jimmy Burke said once to the freshman class incoming, he said, oh, I understand your problem; you think this place is on the level. Well, I want to tell you that does not matter what you do on this amendment. This amendment ain't on the level. This amendment is consumer fraud masquerading as legislation, and it ain't going to do nothing to nobody and let me tell you why. If you look at the language carefully, the language purports to send the message that what we are doing is, oh, oh, look at the muscles. We are telling those Frenchies and those German companies, you cannot participate; but if you look at the actual language, the language allows those companies to get around this limitation by doing the same thing that corporate expatriates have done in this country by simply setting up a mailing address in Bermuda or any other offshore place. So it is what I call a holy picture amendment. The politicians pause for holy pictures, boy, we really did something. But you have got language that does not do nothing to nobody. This language has absolutely no effect whatsoever except that it makes the job of the White House and the State Department more difficult, which is I assume why we have the letter from the State Department which says that such an amendment would jeopardize the type of support we are attempting to build within the United Nations, support which aims to unite the international community in a forward- looking effort to build a better future for the people of Iraq. Now, if we were wise, and I know that is beyond reasonable expectations often in a legislative body, but if we were wise, what we would, in fact, be doing is looking at tomorrow rather than yesterday. We are going to, whether we like it or not, need to rebuild the alliances which have been temporarily shaken by our divisions in this war. We are going to have to rebuild the United Nations and rebuild NATO so that we are more unified in dealing with postwar Iraq and the rest of the world; and we are going to have to overcome the fact that because of divisions we have right now, pro-U.S. responses in public opinion polls throughout Europe have dropped by about 20 percent. Now, to me, the way that we overcome that, the way we overcome the world's cynicism is by demonstrating traditional American magnanimity, which is what we did in the Marshall Plan and what we have done so many times in our country's history. So I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, who am I to stand in the way, if majority party members want to make life a little more difficult for a Republican administration? Now, I stand here, I hope as a patriot; and I believe that this amendment does cause the administration additional problems. I am so proud of the chairman of this committee because this committee produced legislation which guaranteed that the executive branch could not cross the line and trample on legislative prerogatives, and I congratulate and I honor the chairman for having the guts to do that. But we also, we also as legislators from time to time have to restrain ourselves and recognize that sometimes we do the Nation no good when we impinge upon executive branch prerogatives, as this amendment I believe does. So I am standing here as a Republican who has a minimum of, as the Democrat, as my friends know, I started out life as a Republican but then when I learned to read I switched parties. But let me simply say, I stand here, I hope, as a patriot, and I think that this is one place where George Bush needs some running room. If you do not have enough confidence in him to let him make the right choice, then by all means vote for this amendment; but you know, it does not do nothing to nobody except enable politicians to pose for political holy pictures. What is new around here?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, a good man has died after spending 20 years completely paralyzed because of mindless violence perpetrated by the Abu Nidal Middle East terrorist faction. Shlomo Argov, the former Israeli Ambassador to Britain, who died on February 23 in a Jerusalem hospital, was shot as he emerged from a meeting in a London hotel in 1982. For more than 20 years he was a living example of the tragedy that has befallen so many decent people because of mindless hatred that is used to justify terrorist acts. I first met him when he showed me around Jerusalem on my first visit to the Middle East after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. He was a political moderate who in his conversations with me spoke articulately of the need for Israelis and Palestinians to come to an understanding about their differences, and, yet, he was gunned down by forces of hatred who have always been anxious to make a political point regardless of the injury done to other human beings or to their own cause. Before he was so viciously assaulted, he had a distinguished career in Israeli's Minister of Foreign Affairs and served as Ambassador to Mexico, the Netherlands, and finally, Ambassador to Britain. His death is another demonstration of how close the Middle East is to running out of men of good will before it runs out of hatred. Mr. Argov paid a terrible price for trying to bring his talents to bear to advance the well being of the part of the world from which he came. His death should not go unnoticed. Neither should the distinguished service that he provided to Israel and the world before his life was so cruelly changed by mindless Palestinian militants. Thoughtful people in both Israeli and Palestinian circles should view his death as another reminder of the need to end the terror, cut through the hatred, and give innocent civilians in that region an opportunity for the kind of happy and decent life which was denied to Shlomo Argov. I'm sure the sympathies of all of us who knew him go out to his family. I am inserting a copy of Mr. Argov's obituary that appeared in the Washington Post. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2003] Israeli Diplomat Shlomo Argov Dies Jerusalem.--Shlomo Argov, 73, the former Israeli ambassador to Britain who was paralyzed during an assassination attempt by Palestinian militants that triggered Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, died Feb. 23. He has been in Jerusalem's Hadassah hospital since the shooting. Hospital officials said he died from complication from wounds that left him completely paralyzed and on life- support machines. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced at the start of Sunday's weekly Gabinet meeting that ``this morning, before dawn, Ambassador Shlomo Argov died.'' Gunmen from the Abu Nidal guerrilla faction, which has ties to Libya, Syria and Iraq, shot Mr. Argov after a diplomatic meeting outside London's Dorchester Hotel. Three Abu Nidal members were convicted in the shooting. The shooting was Israel's stated pretext for invading Lebanon four days later and laying siege to Beirut for three months until Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his fighter were forced out of the country. The invasion also marked the start of an 18-year Israeli military presence in south Lebanon, which ended with Israel's withdrawal in May 2000. Reuven Merhaz, a former colleague of Mr. Argov, said Sharon, who was defined minister at the time, had planned the Lebanon invasion, well before Argov was shot. ``The war plan was ready,'' Merhav told Israel Radio on Sunday. ``He [Sharon] made no secret of it. He had presented the plan to the Americans some months earlier.'' Mr. Argov, who was born in Jerusalem, studied in Washington and London and joined Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1959. He served as ambassador to Mexico and the Netherlands before assuming his position as ambassador to Britain in 1979. The Jerusalem Post described Mr. Argov as ``brilliant and suave'' and ranked him with orator and historian Abba Eban, Israel's first ambassador to the United Nations, who died in November. Victor Harel, a deputy director general at the Israeli Foreign Minister, said that at the time of the shooting. Mr. Argov was in his physical and intellectual prime, jogging every day and conversing in fluent English and Spanish in addition to his native Hebrew. While he remained lucid after the shooting, he was emotionally devastated by the awareness of his disability, Harel told the radio. ``He was fully conscious for the first two or three years.'' he said ``But he couldn't do anything on his own. The paralysis was total. He also got more and more medication, so visiting him became harder and harder.'' Mr. Argov's survivors include three children.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts made by Ms. Jaclyn Sobocienski who is leaving the House Appropriations Committee this week. Jaclyn is a native of New York. She is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Siena College, possessing a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and a Bachelor of Science degree in finance. That alone made her a natural for the Appropriations Committee. She served as an intern in the New York State Assembly, and also worked for the New York Mets during summers between school years. On those few occasions where we gave her some time off, Jaclyn was active in dance, Italian language study, and travel. She has been an administrative aide to the minority staff of the House Appropriations Committee since October 5, 2001. Just after she joined the Committee, the anthrax incident in the Longworth House Office Building occurred. Jaclyn not only was instrumental in getting our temporary alternate office up and running for the period that our Longworth office was closed, but also she reacted to the stress in a very professional and helpful manner that allowed the Members and the staff to get on with conducting the nation's business. Jaclyn put in many long evenings in behalf of the Members of the Appropriations Committee, with direct support to the Democratic professional staff of the Committee. She tirelessly served as the liaison between the Committee and all Democratic House offices, the press, and the public. She succeeded in every task she was given. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank her for her outstanding efforts to me and to the Committee, and to wish her well in her new career. We will miss her, and wish her nothing but success and happiness.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in the conduct of foreign affairs, every President deserves the benefit of the doubt. I am standing here today in an empty Chamber because these special orders are simply the time in the House's schedule when after legislative business is concluded Members can gather or take the time to get something off their chest, and so I am here today to get something off my chest about the coming war with Iraq. As I said, in the conduct of foreign affairs, I think every President deserves the benefit of the doubt, and on a number of occasions, I have worked with Presidents, regardless of party, on foreign policy issues. Sometimes I have honestly differed. Iraq, in my view, is a close call. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a pathological thug. We have lived with and contained other sociopaths before. Example, Joseph Stalin, whose 50-year anniversary of his death we just celebrated yesterday. It is hard to believe he has been gone 50 years, but we did not attack the Soviet Union, even though Stalin was probably one of the two greatest sociopaths of all time, the other being Hitler. We have also seen groups like the Khmer Rouge systematically butcher their own people, and certainly, the administration has not, in any way, demonstrated or tried to demonstrate that Saddam had anything to do with the attack of September 11. But it may very well be that we need to remove him at some point, and that point may be soon. My purpose today is not to talk about that. My purpose is to talk about what condition America will be in both at home and abroad if we take on that task, because if we do it, we have an obligation to go after Saddam in a way that does not weaken our ability to lead the world in dealing with future challenges that will certainly confront us. My concern is that this administration has demonstrated such shortsighted arrogance that they have made it more difficult for the United States to retain its leadership ability and to see that the U.S. has the support it needs in this coming endeavor. Now, it is obvious that President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz and a number of others in the administration have intended to attack Saddam since the moment they took office, but if that is so, you would think that the administration would have done anything that they could do in order to build allies for the coming effort, both at home and abroad. Instead, the administration has dealt with Congress and with the international community in a my way or else approach. At home, after September 11, the Congress in total bipartisanship fashioned an initial $40 billion package to deal with the immediate response needs of the administration, but then when Members of the House and Senate attempted to talk to the administration about the need to do more to build up our homeland security efforts in our ports, on our borders, in our local communities. We were told, in essence, if you allocate or if you appropriate one dime more than I have asked for, I will veto it. Again, in June, when Congress tried again to beef up our ability to protect communities and ports and other vulnerable areas from terrorist attack, the President vetoed more than a billion-and-a-half dollars in homeland security money that this House and the other body voted to provide by 90 percent margins of both political parties in both Chambers. Now, that action by the White House, in vetoing those funds, raised doubts in Congress. Were we really willing to do everything necessary to baton down the hatches at home, to guard against retaliatory action if we are going to take on Saddam? The answer from the White House, given by its action on the veto of home security funds, was only partly. Internationally, the signals were just as confusing. Now, I know the French do not need many excuses to go their own way in foreign affairs. They have demonstrated that from the time of Charles de Gaulle. But look at the administration's conduct the last 2 years on four fronts. First, in the past 2 years, the administration has unilaterally announced its intention to, or its desire to blow up three international treaties: the nuclear test ban treaty, the antiballistic missile treaty, and the global warming treaty. Then after those actions, the administration professes surprise when the French and the Germans feel free to engage in a little unilateralism of their own. By example, it seems to me that, by example, the administration made it easy for France and Germany and others to go their own way because that is what we announced our free right and intention to do on those other treaties. Second, the administration added to the unraveling of NATO and the weakening of the Security Council resolve by announcing twin doctrines of American unilateralism and preemption. Now, obviously, the United States and any other sovereign nation has the right to undertake a unilateral or preemptive act to defend its own people. Obviously. But to announce it and to trumpet it to the world as a new intellectual doctrine scared the bejabbers out of many countries and gave other countries an excuse to do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to Teddy Roosevelt's advice, ``Speak softly and carry a big stick''? And it did not help that the administration's chest-beating on preemption came at the same time that our own officials were worried pea green about a preemptive military action that might be taken by either India or Pakistan during their escalated confrontation. Third. The administration even let it be known that nuclear weapons were a possibility in Iraq under certain circumstances. That also added to the world's jitters. The net result of the administration's overblown rhetoric resulted in pro-American responses in public opinion polls in Europe declining by almost 20 percent. And all of that made it easier for the French and the German governments to question the Bush administration and its policy on Iraq. I think it would have been much harder for them to do so if the administration had not spent the last 2 years telling the rest of the world we were going to do everything our way or suffer the consequences. And even if we, in the end, obtain the acquiescence of countries like Germany and France to proceed on Iraq, our past rhetoric will make it more difficult for the U.S. to have their support in the years ahead when we will be neck deep in a post-war Iraqi-American regency of dubious wisdom. So, in my view, in short, the administration, by its rhetoric, has written a textbook on how not to rally support on a controversial question. Fourth. As a result of the unilateralist rhetoric, the administration has also raised the cost of this endeavor to U.S. taxpayers. President Bush's father was able to work the world by telephone, sort of in a dialing-for-dollars operation, in which he was able to convince other countries to pay their share for the cost of attacking Iraq in 1991. This President has brought a new wrinkle to diplomacy. He has offered to pay other countries for their share of the cost associated with this war. That really is an interesting wrinkle. Meanwhile, the administration has steadily hidden the potential range of costs and the duration of our occupation of Iraq from the American people. Now, I have no doubt that we are going to war; and when we do, I, like every other Member of this body, will rally around the troops in the field, because they are doing their duty under the Commander in Chief and we have no choice and no desire to do anything but to support them. I know my daughter-in-law's brother is one of those patchy helicopter pilots who will be stuck with heavy duty over there. But, please, Mr. Speaker, spare us the rhetoric about how this operation is going to transform Iraq into a beacon of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I have heard such overblown rhetoric about how this action will unleash the forces of sweetness and democracy in Iraq, but I fully expect that the next thing we are going to hear is that we ought to replace New Hampshire with Iraq on the Presidential primary cycle. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the die is cast, and I am not going to continue to chew the same old argument. This House has already voted. But before this operation moves ahead, I want to express my dismay at the shortsighted and thoughtless manner in which the administration, through its careless and arrogant unilateralist rhetoric, has mishandled relations with the same NATO allies that we will need in the Security Council. And I would ask some of the same questions I asked on this floor before we went to war against Iraq in 1991. And I would say parenthetically that I was privileged to chair that debate for a considerable period of the time in which it occurred back then. But I want to ask some of the same questions I asked then. Now, the administration clearly expects this war to go swiftly, and they expect it to go well. And they are probably right. I think they are, and I hope that they are. But my concern is what about afterwards. Do we really believe that we will not create thousands of new recruits for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the Arab world? Do we really intend to continue the policy of benign neglect and drift that has characterized our policy toward the moribund peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians? How long will U.S. military presence be in the Middle East after the war is over, and how do we intend to handle that presence that we do not become a hated occupying power in a radicalized region of the world? And I would ask this: While we are focusing on Iraq, is the administration, by default, going to acquiesce in North Korea's becoming a permanent member of the nuclear club? It appears from what we see in the papers that that is very likely on the part of the administration. And then I would ask, bringing the issue closer to home, what are we going to do to protect our own economy from the cost of both this war and its 10-year aftermath? So far the administration's answer is we are going to go to war and so we need to cut your taxes. Can you imagine President Teddy Roosevelt or President Woodrow Wilson or FDR or Harry Truman saying we are going to go to war and your country needs you to accept a tax cut? Should we really be saying, we are going to go to war and so you should have a tax cut and your kids should pay the bill, not just for the war but for the 10 years afterwards? We are already being asked to borrow money to pay for this war, and the scuttlebutt is that the minute the war begins we are going to get a bill from the administration, a request for about $100 billion. And Lord knows what it is going to cost in the next 10 years. And my simple and last question would be: Should we, at the same time that we are borrowing money to pay for this war, should we also be borrowing money to take millionaires off the tax role, as the White House tax and budget request in fact is asking us to do? I would hope that the political leadership of this country would be more mature than that and more fair than that. I cannot believe that we are going to put this war on the cuff; that we are then going to proceed with tax action that will take another more than $1 trillion out of the Federal Treasury in the next few years and then go to the American people with a straight face and say we have strengthened the economy for the long term. I think Americans expect to do their duty in a time of crisis, and I think Americans do not expect that while we are having several hundred thousand troops abroad prepare to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of what the President has concluded is in our national interest, I do not believe that at a time when those soldiers are doing that, that the best we can do back home is to say to everyone on the home front, folks, you are going to have to sacrifice by taking a tax cut, even though it is going to load billions and billions of dollars of debt on future taxpayers, including the kids that we say this war is being fought to help protect. So, Mr. Speaker, this country is going to war. It is obvious. But I would hope that the next time that we do so we have not ahead of time, as the administration has done, that we have not ahead of time looked for ways to antagonize the very allies that we are going to need in this case, like we need support in the Security Council today if we are to have unity in the world when we take on Saddam. I hope we learn from this experience that if you intend to ask the support of the world in a military endeavor of this nature that you do not spend the first 2 years saying, by the way, everything we are going to do in the world, we are going to do it our way or no way. I do not think that is an intelligent or a thoughtful way to run foreign policy. And I certainly do not think that adding over $1 trillion to our budget deficit and our national debt over the next few years is a way to run the economy at a time when we are contemplating going to war.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Now, under my reservation, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, perhaps it should be.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in a democratic institution, when we have nothing else, the only protections that remain for individual Members and for the constituents that we represent lie in the normal processes of the House. We have just passed a bill in which 90 percent of the dollars contained in that bill were dollars that were never debated on their merits on the House floor. For the last year, this House has engaged in a process of refusing to allow the democratic process that is fundamental to this Nation to manifest itself on the floor of this institution. And as a result, we have never had an opportunity to debate the wisdom of, for instance, cutting the first responders below the President's budget or doing a number of other outrageous things that happened in this bill tonight. Because I take my institutional responsibilities seriously, I, in the end, most reluctantly voted for the bill that just passed, despite the fact that I am outraged by the process that produced it; I am outraged by the rigidity with which the White House has dealt with these issues; I am outraged that the White House, especially the Office of Management and Budget, have seemed to have determined that it is their way or the highway on all occasions. I am used to give-and-take and I have had a cooperative relationship, not necessarily a loving relationship, but a cooperative relationship with virtually every President I have served under, including this President's father, and I want to have the same kind of relationship with the White House under these circumstances. But now we are being asked to provide for consideration of a motion tonight which, under the Rules of the House, ought to be brought up tomorrow; and we are being asked to pass a continuing resolution which gives the President more time to consider the very items that we were given no time whatsoever to consider on this floor today. I find that double standard both interesting and quaint and outrageous. And so I have great respect for the job the gentleman has tried to do, but there are two ways to handle massive legislation like this on the House floor. One is to try to work out differences; and in working out those differences, it is important that one keeps to his or her word. Secondly, the other way to deal with it is just to ram the other side. And in too many instances, including the conference that took place, the full conference that took place the night before last, issues were rammed rather than working out an honest give-and-take arrangement. So, in my view, if this body believes that the President needs more time to continue to study the document which we were not allowed to study before we voted on it, I am only the ranking Democrat on the committee and I have no idea of the impact of dozens of provisions in this bill; and I simply want to say that because of that, I think that the White House ought to have to exist under the same conditions that we have been forced to exist under. If we have to consider legislation without having an understanding of what is in it, and incidentally I know that Mr. Daniels, the OMB director, told his staff that he was going to be in charge of the conference. Now, if he has not told the President of the United States what is in this bill, it is a little late, because they have imposed this product on us. So with all due respect, if the House wants to consider a continuing resolution, then it ought to do so under the regular processes of the House by bringing it up tomorrow. Now, that is going to inconvenience me in a major way. I know it is going to inconvenience a number of my colleagues. But once in a while we have to put duty ahead of convenience, and I to intend to do so in this instance.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, whether it is within the rules of the House or not, I think this institution owes Mr. Dahlberg a round of applause for his service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Members of the House what the content of the recommittal motion will be. We will simply strike the antienvironmental riders exempting the Tongass National Forest plan from administrative and judicial review, expanding the Forest Service stewardship contracting demonstration program throughout the United States, turning over the forests of the country to the timber companies lock, stock and barrel if they choose. It would also reconsider language in the conference agreement which removes the restriction in the House-passed Interior bill which prohibited the use of fiscal 2003 BLM funding for activity related to oil drilling in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. It would add funding for critical conservation resource programs at not less than 2002 levels. That is consistent with an agreement that was made and should be abided by until the year 2006. And it also would add up to $500 million above the current conference levels to fund training, equipment and assistance for first responders; in other words, bringing it up to the presidential request. Mr. Speaker, I full well recognize that there are many good things in this bill. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There are many things that we have to provide. And so I am certainly not going to ask Members to vote against the bill, but I am going to ask them to vote for the recommittal motion if you care about our environmental stewardship and if you really care about providing the equipment and the support necessary to our first responders, our policemen and firemen. If indeed you want to send them the resources they need rather than duct tape, vote for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. At this stage, I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time, and so does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in order to express the House's appreciation to Greg Dahlberg, who has served this institution so ably and for so long. For over 20 years he served on the Committee on Appropriations on the Subcommittee on Transportation, on the full committee central staff, and on the Subcommittee on Defense. Since 1994, he was a senior Democratic staffer for defense appropriations which covers virtually all of the military operations in the government. He was appointed Under Secretary of the Army the last 6 months of the Clinton administration. He volunteered to help the new administration get started, and stayed a few extra months. He has been a personal adviser and great friend to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and myself. He has served over 200 Democratic members to help them understand defense issues and to deal with those issues in their districts. He has a deep concern for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deployed throughout the world. He loves this institution, and he has given help many times to both Democratic and Republican Members of this institution. In the defense world there are many opportunities for qualified staff to leave the Hill for more lucrative jobs. Greg has resisted that temptation for many years, and for that we are grateful. We certainly wish him well in his future endeavors. He has been the institutional memory of this House on the budget process and on defense intelligence. He is one of the finest, most dedicated public servants, and one of the most decent human beings I have ever had the privilege to work with.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)