Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes.

I do rise in support of the gentlewoman from D.C.'s amendment and in opposition to what I perceive to be the latest Republican attack on our public schools.

We hear about all the money spent, but let me remind my colleagues that across this country, roughly, only 7 percent or less are Federal funds, and yet we see now we want to control 100 percent of what goes on in our schools. For people who believe in local control, I feel here that somebody is missing the boat or misrepresenting the facts.

Vouchers are a bad idea. They always have been because they drain resources away from the public schools in this country where 90-plus percent of our children, depending on the States, go to school. They are educated there. And my colleagues do that in favor of private schools, where there is no accountability for the taxpayers' money at a time when we are running huge deficits, the largest in the history of this country, and yet we do not want to fund the public schools.

We are eating our seed corn and ruining our future. Rather than siphoning funds from the public schools, we ought to be investing more initiatives in things like school construction. My colleagues have talked about it. I will not go into detail. Teacher training, if we really want to improve the quality of instruction in the classroom, put the resources out to improve teacher training. Reduce class sizes, provide tutorial help for those children who are behind. Those are proven methods that raise academic achievement.

I can tell my colleagues it has happened. It happened in North Carolina where I was State Superintendent, and it is still happening. It will not happen if we take the funds away and continue to erode public support.

Under the No Child Left Behind, our public schools are forced to do more than they have ever been required to do before, and this administration and this Congress refuses to fund No Child Left Behind because what has that done? That has created a massive, unfunded mandate on our States and our local school units at the very time when they are struggling to make budgets balance. The last thing we should be doing is use this Republican voucher scheme to take public dollars that should be going to strengthen our public schools and putting them in private tuition grants.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And if this amendment does not win, then we should defeat this bill because this will prove, over the long run, to be detrimental to public education in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 2427, the so-called Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

The high cost of prescription medicines is one of the most serious issues facing our seniors. Proponents of H.R. 2427 claim that if we would simply open our borders to medicines that are imported from other countries our problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the solution is not that easy.

I have consistently voted against unsafe importation measures because they subject consumers to medicines that may have been altered or are cheap imitations of medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The bill before us seriously threatens the safety of U.S. consumers; therefore, I will vote against it.

Safety is the ultimate issue in this debate. H.R. 2427 would allow for the importation of prescription medicines from other countries without any assurance that those medicines are safe. The 106th Congress enacted legislation that would allow importation but only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies those medicines are safe. But neither former Secretary Shalala nor Secretary Thompson has been able to do this. The Canadian government also recently stated that it cannot and will not assure the safety of the medicines exported to the U.S. Additionally, consumers will not be able to depend on their local pharmacies to screen their medicines. Importing medicines from foreign countries is the wrong prescription for America.

There are other ways to help lower the costs of medicines. Together Rx is an initiative developed by seven of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies to provide seniors and other eligible Medicare patients with access to savings on over 170 medicines using just one discount card. The card is free and requires patients to merely fill out an easy-to-understand registration form to qualify. Once approved for Together Rx, patients may fill their prescriptions at any pharmacy they choose and get a discount immediately at the register. This initiative, which is honored at almost every pharmacy in the U.S., has already saved nearly one million Medicare patients almost $100 million since its inception.

Instead of supporting risky plans like importation, we should encourage seniors to take

advantage of initiatives, like Together Rx, that are safe, effective, and proven to provide Medicare patients with medicines at lower cost.

But Mr. Speaker, if the House really wants to address the issue of high drug costs, it would pass a real prescription medicine benefit for our seniors. The Congress needs to enact a prescription medicine plan that is simple, comprehensive, and a part of Medicare. I am hopeful that in conference we are able to come together in a bipartisan manner and pass a real prescription medicine benefit. That is part of the solution to this problem.

The bill before us is a threat to the safety of America's drug supply and its consumers. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2427 and the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for H.R. 2738, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with the nation of Chile.

Chile has consistently been a partner with the United States in pushing for more open and freer trade throughout the world. Since the 1970s, Chile has pursued a policy of unilateral trade opening through the systematic and sustained lowering of import tariffs and the near total elimination of non-tariff barriers. It is therefore only fitting that one of America's first free trade agreements of the 21st Century will be with this nation.

Chile currently has signed more free trade and economic agreements with other nations than has the United States. By passing this agreement, U.S. exports to Chile will now be on an equal footing with exports from Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and many other Latin American nations.

I am particularly pleased about the benefits this agreement provides with respect to agriculture. For example, all tariffs on pork and pork products will be eliminated immediately upon implementation. Due to the hard work of the folks at USTR, Chile has agreed to recognize the U.S. meat-inspection system.

Several other commodities important to North Carolina also will receive immediate duty-free access to Chile, including cotton and tobacco. While North Carolina poultry does not get immediate access, tariffs will be reduced over the next 10 years.

This is an acceptable agreement for a nation as economically advanced and sophisticated as Chile. However, I want to make it perfectly clear to the Administration that the Chile Free Trade Agreement and the Singapore Agreement are not sufficient models for future trade agreements.

Currently, the Administration is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and several other FTAs with a variety of nations. As the Administration's first attempts to negotiate a free trade agreement, I believe Singapore and Chile deserve support. However, future agreements will prove to be much more difficult tests of the Administration.

I support fair trade. However, on future FTAs, the Administration will need to do a better job with regard to market access, sanitary and phytosanitary issues, labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property protection. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress on all of these important issues.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my support for H.R. 2739, legislation implementing a free trade agreement with Singapore.

This agreement represents a historic first for the United States as it will be the first FTA we sign with an Asian nation. The Asian- Pacific region represents approximately 50 percent of the world's population, and we must work aggressively to open up new markets in this region to remain competitive in the world marketplace. The Singapore FTA is an important first step in that regard.

Our high-tech industry stands to gain new opportunities with this agreement. Last year the U.S. exported nearly six billion dollar's worth of high-tech goods to Singapore. The high-tech sector is the largest merchandise exporter in the United States, and this agreement will help build on that success.

Unlike other trade agreements, this Agreement guarantees zero tariffs on all U.S. products imported by Singapore immediately upon ratification. This means companies do not have to wait years to realize the benefits of trade with Singapore.

As America's twelfth largest trading partner and export market, Singapore possesses a world-class infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, and growing middle-class. This Agreement will allow the United States to compete effectively in this vibrant market and demonstrate to the rest of Asia the benefits of fair free trade.

While this is an acceptable agreement for a nation as economically advanced and sophisticated as Singapore, I want to make it perfectly clear to the Administration that the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and the Chile Agreement, are not sufficient models for future trade agreements.

Currently, the Administration is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and several other FTAs with a variety of nations. As the Administration's first attempts to negotiate a free trade agreement, I believe Singapore and Chile deserve support. However, future agreements will prove to be much more difficult tests of the Administration.

I support fair trade. However, on future FTAs, the Administration will need to do a better job with regard to market access, sanitary and phystosanitary issues, labor and environmental standards, and intellectual property protection. I look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress on all of these important issues.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman who just spoke, my friend from California. She knows what she is talking about. Head Start is working. And I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2210, the Republican Head Start bill. It is not what it says it is.

Someone said earlier today, if it is not broken, do not fix it, improve it. Currently, Head Start funds are targeted directly to the specific local initiatives of children who need it. But under H.R. 2210, the responsibility for operating Head Start would shift to the State through a series of block grants. And I can tell you when you go to block grants, the next thing you are going to see is they are going to be cut and they will not go to the children who have the needs. I know. I have been there. I have been involved.

Governors have enough to do rather than trying to put their fingers in this. They can help improve it, but not run it. This change would require the establishment of a new State bureaucracy, placing yet another burden on our already cash-strapped States. Most importantly, there is no guaranty that under these block grants Federal funds would ever find their way to Head Start. Oh, sure, some of them will; but eventually we will see it slip.

Additionally, these block grants eliminate accountability and exempt States from quality standards and oversight. The bill is not a reauthorization. It is a demolition of a program that has worked so well for so many children and so many families.

We have learned that under H.R. 2210 States would be allowed to increase class size and child teacher ratios, reduce the number of hours children have to spend in Head Start, eliminate health services and supplement Federal dollars. That alone is enough to tell us not to do it. We should not allow States to supplant the dollars. Instead of recklessly dismantling Head Start, we should invest in it and improve, as we have already heard.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Miller substitute to this bill which will strengthen school readiness, enhance quality and accountability, expand the initiative to more children and families, all while maintaining local control and high performance standards. That is what we ought to be about in this House, making it better, not dismantling it.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 flies in the face of reason. It will ruin Head Start and needlessly jeopardize the future of thousands of children. This bill is a part of the disturbing trend in this House of trampling on low-income families and children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand that the Congress and

the President stop passing the buck on education reform to our States and local communities.

Last week the House Committee on Rules held a hearing to consider the issue of unfunded mandates. As I have noted on several occasions on the House floor, the Bush administration's $20 billion cut to the No Child Left Behind Act has created a massive unfunded Federal mandate. As the former superintendent of my State's public schools, I know firsthand that unfunded mandates will cause real pain at the local level.

I believe the Federal Government must live up to its obligation to fund education reform. It is simply wrong to pass a piece of legislation that says we are going to give you all that money to Leave No Child Left Behind and then leave the money behind, while still forcing schools to achieve new standards.

I have introduced legislation that requires full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in stopping the Federal practice of passing the buck to States and local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a former member of my staff,

Mr. Robert Gibbs, and his wife Mary Catherine on the birth of their first son, Ethan Lane Gibbs. Ethan was born on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, and he weighed 10 pounds and 5 ounces. As Robert has noted, Ethan is a big boy, a trait gained from his father, and a beautiful baby, a trait passed down by his mother. My wife Faye joins me in wishing Robert and Mary Catherine great happiness during this very special time in their lives.

As a father of three, I know the immeasurable pride and rewarding challenge that children bring into your life. The birth of a child changes your perspective on life and opens the world to you in a fresh, new way. Their innocence keeps you young-at-heart. A little miracle, a new baby holds all the potential of what human beings can achieve.

With great pleasure, I welcome young Ethan into the world and wish Robert and Mary Catherine all the best as they raise him.

Mr. Speaker, today this House will consider the appropriations bill for education. As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I think I know better than anyone the impact education cuts can have on teachers, our students, our schools, and the future of this great country. This bill contains Draconian education cuts.

Last Congress I voted to pass the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act for education reform. I supported it because the President and the Republican leadership promised to provide the funding needed to make this reform work. But today's bill shatters that promise by cutting $8 billion below the authorization level of this new law. Educational cuts of this magnitude will devastate morale in our schools and doom our children to an educational system that is designed to fail. Our children and our schools deserve better.

I have introduced legislation to require full funding of the No Child Left Behind bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and vote against this appropriation bill.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Let me thank the chairman. I will say to him, I served as chairman of the committee on appropriations at the State level for 4 years, so I recognize the challenge he faces.

Budgets are about priorities, and I have strong oppositions to this bill because of the priorities that it sets out. I will vote against it. I do not like voting against appropriations bills, and I will urge my colleagues to do the same because of the draconian cuts that I see it places on education at the very time when we ought to be investing not less, but more in the future of this country and in our children and in our ability to compete in an international economy.

Last Congress, strong bipartisan majorities in this House and in the Senate voted to pass the President's No Child Left Behind legislation, and I joined in with that vote, but we promised to fund to the level of the authorization the moneys for the schools to meet their needs, and this bill is $8 billion short in that requirement.

As my ranking member has said, I am the only former chief serving in this Congress. I know what budget priorities are about, but I also know what happens in the schools when these cuts come. At a time when we are asking our schools to do more than ever, these educational cuts will destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and students. These educational cuts will make meeting the requirements we have almost impossible because we have set high standards for accountability. I think we should. Without the needed funding, though, No Child Left Behind is a massive unfunded mandate on our local communities and our State budgets at a time when States are struggling just to meet the funding needs.

In every State in this Nation, schools are currently working to determine how they will measure up to the Federal Education Department's definition of adequate yearly progress. Over the next several weeks and months, we are going to find out about that because they are going to be reporting in. Early estimates are there may be as many as 80 percent in some States that cannot meet AYP.

Plain and simple, these schools need that $8 billion to comply with these tough new educational reforms. The education cuts in this bill will make No Child Left Behind a cruel hoax on our schools and on our children.

This bill also fails to provide adequate funding for Impact Aid. Let me remind my colleagues, Impact Aid is the money we provide for those communities that have military bases that have men and women who are deployed or protecting our interests around the world. It is critical for those children in the military personnel. In my district alone, the communities that surround Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, truly one of the important bases in this country, with many, many women deployed right now, the tax base is not there to meet the needs due to the Federal presence. These funds

provide flexible operating resources and finance teachers, books, computers and others.

Under this bill, North Carolina loses $16.8 million. We can do better. We must be better as our men are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Under this bill, North Carolina will lose $16.8 million in Impact Aid below the level authorized. At the very time that states are under stress, we are cutting funding in some states.

As we continue to deploy our troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia and other hot spots throughout the world, we ought not to neglect the schools their children attend back here in the states.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to oppose H.R. 1, the Republican Medicare bill.

Tonight we have an opportunity to provide seniors with a Medicare prescription medicine benefit. But the Republican Majority has thrown aside bipartisanship and crafted a bill that will confuse and short- change seniors while slowly eroding the time-honored guarantee of Medicare. I cannot vote for this seriously flawed bill.

Seniors in North Carolina's Second District, like those across the country, deserve a real Medicare prescription medicine benefit. They want a plan that is simple, comprehensive, and a part of Medicare. I have consistently voted for such a plan throughout my career in Congress.

But H.R. 1 subjects seniors to a complex plan that features fluctuating premiums, a huge gap in coverage, uncertainty about who's going to provide them with medicines, and it will end Medicare as we know it.

First, nothing in this legislation requires the drug-only insurance groups that will administer this plan to fix premiums at $35 a month. That number is merely a suggestion. Our seniors do not want suggestions Mr. Speaker, they want certainty.

Second, the $400 billion the Majority set aside for Medicare related spending in their Fiscal Year 2004 is woefully inadequate. This plan will only cover a fifth of what seniors will spend over the next 10 years on prescription medicines. To fit inside their budget, the authors of this bill have developed a huge gap, or doughnut hole, that forces seniors who spend between $2,001 and $3,500 on medicines to pay all of their costs. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

Third, this plan relies on an untested mechanism to deliver medicines to seniors. H.R. 1 creates a drug-only insurance market that will not work, especially in rural areas. But what makes this bill worse is that it makes no effort to provide a fallback for rural seniors should private drug-only plans decide to stop offering them coverage.

Finally, in this plan we see the Republican Majority's true colors. H.R. 1 is simply a shell-game that will privatize Medicare. Under this legislation, in 2010 private plans will be allowed to compete against Medicare to cover hospital and physician benefits. As private plans seek to siphon off healthy seniors, the cost of remaining in traditional Medicare will rise and seniors will be forced to join an HMO, along with all of its restrictions, to get coverage.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law over 38 years ago, Medicare was designed to be a guarantee that our seniors would be able to get affordable health care services regardless of their age, ability to pay, or degree of sickness. In the spirit of that landmark law, I will vote for an alternative amendment to H.R. 1 that creates a simple, comprehensive, prescription medicine plan under Medicare. This plan also includes superior rural provider provisions in comparison to those contained in H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, for the third Congress in a row we have another Medicare bill pending before us. And once again, the bill is a sham. It provides no guaranteed benefit, contains a huge gap in coverage, and it will privatize Medicare.

America's seniors want bipartisan cooperation in this body. They want us to come together to strengthen Medicare, not dismantle it. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1 tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on Congress to support accountability in education reform. Last year, Congress passed President Bush's ``no child left behind'' education reform bill. The legislation authorized billions of dollars in new funding to support administration's reform effort that seeks to ensure accountability from our schools, but who will hold the administration accountable?

The fact is that this administration is shortchanging our schools nearly $20 billion under the No Child Left Behind. While our schools' struggle to meet tough new standards and local budgets is stretched to the limit in this bad economy, the administration has failed its responsibility to provide leadership and resources for our schools. Congress must hold the administration accountable. I have introduced legislation to do just that. H.R. 2366 requires full funding of the No Child Left Behind act or suspends its punitive measures. Without full funding, No Child Left Behind will become a massive unfunded mandate that will require cuts in vital services and increased property taxes or both. Similar legislation has been introduced in the other body, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to hold the administration accountable to our children, to our schools, and to our taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain the effects on our States of the administration's cut of the No Child Left Behind Act. The $20 billion in education cuts could not come at a worse time as States scramble to close budget gaps and schools struggle to comply with the rigorous new law.

Across America, desperate measures are being taken. In Alabama, schools are being forced to raise class sizes. In Florida, two-thirds of the pre-kindergarten programs are being terminated. In Idaho, parents must raise money for teacher salaries through bake sales and auctions. In Illinois, they have laid off thousands of teachers and staff to increase class sizes and, in some schools, to nearly 40 students. Detroit plans to close 16 schools this month. In South Carolina, 2,000 teachers have been let go, and class sizes are up to 35 students.

This is just a sample of the consequences of the failure of the Federal Government to make good on its promises.

That is why I intend to introduce H.R. 2366, the Fully Fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Before we ask our schools to hold bake sales and our States to live with budget cuts, we should live up to our own budget cuts.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should honor its commitment to our students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of my hometown, Lillington, North Carolina, the seat of Harnett County. For 100 years, Lillington has been home to many enterprising, patriotic and public-spirited citizens. Today as the town prepares to mark this occasion, I want to recognize the history, success and integrity of this remarkable community. When we talk of famous places, we often talk about buildings and landmarks, like the Capitol here in Washington, D.C., or the Empire State Building in New York.

While Lillington does not have any skyscrapers, it does have people of great character. It is that character which has made Lillington one of America's great communities. Named for General Alexander Lillington, a hero of the American Revolutionary War who is known for his heroic efforts at the battle of Moore's Creek Bridge in 1776, Lillington is one of those special places that welcomes with open arms strangers and family alike. Its citizens sincerely care about the well-being of their neighbors, as evidenced by their dedication to numerous civic organizations, schools, and churches in the area.

On July 4 and 5, and throughout this year, Lillington will celebrate its honored past and the centennial of its formal incorporation. The Greater Lillington Centennial Celebration will be marked by numerous events, including the dedication of roadside historic markers honoring General Lillington and Cornelius Harnett, for whom Harnett County is named; a lecture series honoring notable people who have lived and worked in the community; the installation and dedication of a town clock in front of town hall; the publishing of a history of the community entitled Lillington--A Sketchbook; and many other celebrations and reunions.

After my discharge from the Army in 1968, I moved to Lillington and immediately discovered what a unique place it is. In Lillington, Faye and I have raised our three children, Bryan, Catherine and David. It is truly a great place to live, work and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, Lillington and other towns like it are the backbone of America. They may be hard to find on a map, but it is easy to understand their importance to this great Nation. It is in these tight- knitted communities that our Nation's values are shaped and future hopes reside. As Lillington moves into its second century, it has a bright future ahead of it, and I know that if we are willing to dream big and work hard, Lillington's next 100 years will be even more prosperous and purposeful than its first. I ask my colleagues to join Faye and me today in celebrating Lillington's 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the President held a Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate the No Child Left Behind Act. I voted for that legislation and I wish I could have joined in the celebration, but unfortunately because the administration refuses to fund the new law, I spent my afternoon answering questions from unhappy local leaders in my district who wanted to know where the money is going to come from to pay for the President's education reforms. Despite yesterday's White House photo op, the fact remains that the administration is cutting $20 billion from No Child Left Behind. Local leaders know that they will get stuck with the bill for these educational cuts.

Make no mistake, the Bush educational cuts will result in worse schools, cuts in local services like law enforcement and fire and rescue or higher property taxes, or all of the above. There has got to be a better way.

Last week I introduced H.R. 2366, the Fully Fund the No Child Left Behind Act. My bill simply requires the Federal Government to fund No Child Left Behind. Mr. Speaker, it is only fair. I urge my colleagues to join us in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and to state my support and urge House support for the administration and its decision to take on the European Union and its discriminatory practices against biotech projects.

Agriculture has changed greatly in recent years. When I was growing up on a farm in Johnston County, the most advanced technology we had was an old tractor. It was a big improvement, though, over the mule and plow that we had had previously.

These days, biotechnology has moved farming to the cutting edge of technology. I have always been and still remain a strong supporter of using biotechnology to benefit American agriculture and our society as a whole. In fact, when I was appropriations chairman in North Carolina's general assembly, I helped fund the establishment of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, because I could see biotechnology was the science of the future. Consequently, North Carolina has become a leader in the field of biotechnology.

The gains that biotechnology brings to agriculture, efficiency, reduced use

of pesticides, higher crop yields, and healthier products, are well documented. That is why I find it ironic that the continent that gave birth to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is turning its back on a proven science, despite the increasing amount of evidence as to the safety and effectiveness of this technology.

What is really a shame is that the Europeans' fear of biotechnology is having tragic consequences. The European Union is actually discouraging nations facing food shortages and famine from accepting food aid that may contain biotech products.

The Europeans' actions and attitude regarding biotechnology are, at best, indefensible, and maybe immoral regarding the European Union's rule. I strongly applaud Ambassador Zoellick's work in this area, and I urge the passage of this resolution.

I rise today in support of this resolution to state the House's support for the Administration in its decision to take on the European Union and its discriminatory practices against U.S. biotechnology products.

Agriculture has changed greatly in recent years. When I was growing up on a farm in Johnston County, NC, the most advanced technology we had was a tractor, a big improvement over a plow, a mule. These days, biotechnology has moved farming to the cutting edge of technology.

I have always been and still remain a strong supporter of using biotechnology to benefit American agriculture and our society as a whole.

In fact, when I was appropriations chairman in the North Carolina General Assembly, I helped fund the establishment of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center because I could see biotech was a science of the future. Consequently, my State of North Carolina has prospered as a leader in the field.

The gains that biotechnology brings to agriculture in efficiency, reduced use of pesticides, higher crop yields, and healthier products are well documented.

That's why I find it ironic that the continent that gave birth to The Renaissance and The Enlightenment is turning its back on a proven science, despite the increasing amount of evidence as to the safety and effectiveness of this technology.

And what's really a shame is that the Europeans' fear of biotechnology is having tragic consequences. The European Union is actually discouraging nations facing food shortages and famine from accepting U.S. food aid that may contain biotechnology products.

The Europeans' actions and attitudes regarding biotechnology are indefensible, and according to WTO rules, illegal.

I strongly applaud USTR Ambassador Zoellick for pressing forward with this case against the European Union in the WTO.

We must continue to show the world that biotechnology offers a new Renaissance in agriculture for those willing to reject fear.

I urge the House to pass this resolution, and show our support for a science that offers profound benefits for all of humanity.