Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me

this time. I rise in strong support of the legislation.

This Member would like to commend the exemplary bipartisan efforts of the chairman and the distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). Often when people in Washington talk about the need for bipartisanship, what they really mean is that the other side should agree with them. In the case of the Committee on Intelligence, however, there has been true bipartisanship and genuine cooperation towards the goal of serving the Nation's interest. Although this bipartisanship is a tradition on the Committee on Intelligence, it is commendably reinforced by the leadership style and the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Under the chairman's leadership, and in this bill, the legislative branch will be moving rapidly to address a number of long-standing concerns in our collection and analysis of intelligence. This Member would mention just a few.

First, it should be recognized that in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of September 11, President Bush declared war on terrorist financing. There is, however, no single office in the Federal government that is responsible for ensuring that all elements of law enforcement and intelligence share terrorist information in a timely fashion. As a result, our counterterrorist financing efforts to date have not been as effective as they could be. The committee concluded that the Department of the Treasury needs to be more effective in implementing its counterterrorist financing mission from an intelligence sharing perspective. By elevating the intelligence function within the Treasury Department, this bill ensures that the coordination and information sharing between the Treasury and the rest of the Intelligence Community can be more effective.

This Member recognizes that the assistance and the cooperation of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), will be required to achieve this important policy change. The Select Committee on Intelligence will continue to work with him and his committee, on which this Member also serves, to ensure that we get this correct.

Mr. Chairman, secondly, it should be noted that Americans have become painfully aware of the threats to the homeland and the risk that terrorist cells and their support networks may be operating in the United States. Several suspected cells already have been cracked. Indeed, an individual has just been convicted last week of conducting surveillance operations for possible al Qaeda attacks. The presence of this new and very real threat has compelled the FBI to transform the way it conducts investigations.

No longer does the FBI solely pursue investigations in order to build criminal cases. Now they are also actively at work to disrupt and destroy terrorist cells before they launch attacks. This is nothing less than revolutionary in the way that the FBI does its business. It is a very necessary transformation that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is following closely through careful oversight. We in the legislative branch are attempting to ensure that the information flow between the FBI and the intelligence community is done effectively, but also within the confines of the law.

The committee intends to continue aggressive oversight. I want to assure our colleagues of this evolving relationship between this intelligence and law enforcement.

Third, and finally, this Member would remind his colleagues of the enormity of the challenge now faced by the intelligence community. The war on terrorism has required an unprecedented commitment requiring timely, actionable intelligence on a truly global scale.

In addition, our intelligence services are devoting significant resources to the effort to Iraq, not only to identify and to apprehend the remaining elements of Saddam Hussein's regime but also to locate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. More on that subject later.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment.

The gentleman from Ohio has woven an interesting story and made a number of bald and bold assertions, but I think it is important to look at what the amendment says.

The amendment calls for the Inspector General of the CIA to conduct an audit of all telephone electronic communications between the CIA and the Office of the Vice President relating to Iraq and WMD. The amendment is unusual and frankly a bit confusing. It purports to address what is allegedly a very serious issue, the altering or shading of intelligence for political, perhaps for strategic, purposes, but then it focuses only on the Vice President and only on his phone and e- mail communications.

If there was a real problem, one would expect a comprehensive review, but the amendment targets only one individual, the Vice President, and this is an individual who has the right, indeed he has the obligation, to receive information related to, for example, Iraq WMD and a run-up to a war.

However, the Vice President's telephone conversations are not recorded. Thus, the information that is sought in this amendment does not exist when it comes to telephone calls. Perhaps a record of the number of telephone conversations between the Vice President and the CIA could be compiled, but this would tell us only how many calls were made and when they occurred. Frankly, this is not useful information.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Vice President was in contact with the Intelligence Community should not be surprising. Frankly, it would be very upsetting if there was insufficient contact. These are sensitive communications, of course, on important matters. We should all expect the Vice President's office to talk regularly with the CIA, to visit the CIA for that matter, and the rest of the Intelligence Community. So should not the Vice President and the President be avid consumers of intelligence in order to be well-informed in the decisions that they make?

Remember what the amendment says. It is targeting the telephone calls between the Vice President, only the Vice President, and the CIA, only that component of the Intelligence Community, and the electronic communications that took place between that individual and that agency.

So it seems very clear to me that it is not a comprehensive review. It is targeted at the Vice President, and one simply has to realize that it is going to be unsuccessful in really revealing any information that it purports to have as an interest of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment should be defeated.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the Lee amendment. It calls, of course, for the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study and determine the extent of intelligence sharing within the Intelligence Community, DOD and the U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

I would like to make two general points first. As a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's review of the Intelligence Community regarding prewar intelligence on Iraq, the committee has already begun to examine this issue and will assess the effectiveness and procedures governing the sharing of intelligence to international and foreign bodies.

Secondly, the committee acknowledges that the Comptroller has some capabilities for investigation. But I would note that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has a long and distinguished record of conducting bipartisan and thorough reviews of intelligence matters. Therefore, before outside help is requested, it seems only appropriate that the committee should have an opportunity to fulfill its mandate for the House and for the Congress to conduct rigorous oversight of the Intelligence Community. This subject area of the amendment is not going to be neglected.

Now a few details. In the run-up to renewed weapons inspections in Iraq late last year, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the press that although his team could use U.S. intelligence, the team was not supposed to trust anyone, and that it was the team's decision, not a particular government's, as to what facilities and where the inspections were to be carried out.

The earlier U.N. mission to Iraq was accused of spying for the United States. Therefore, Hans Blix indicated that he had to make the distinction between his possible use of intelligence and his team's ability to conduct an independent and neutral investigation of Iraq's WMD facilities. Blix admitted using CIA reports in a November 28 interview with CNN but cautioned that he would not allow his team to be dictated to by a foreign government.

Some have suggested that the U.S. failed to provide the arms inspectors with useful information. At this point, this Member believes that this is simply not true, not true at all. We are going to find out about that, however, when we complete our investigation. Hans Blix actually received, I think, unprecedented access to intelligence.

The U.S. provided the U.N. weapons inspectors with the ability to task and assign U.S. U-2 surveillance aircraft operating over Iraq. He told the U-2s where to go and what to target. This is virtually unheard of, U.N. civilians ordering U.S. pilots on hazardous missions. Why did we do this? Why did we give a U.N. official this extraordinary opportunity and authority? In the words of Hans Blix, ``The U-2 data will improve our ability to carry out our inspections.''

If there was a problem in timely response to intelligence, the problem was in the U.N.'s ability to act on information after they had received it from the United States or from other sources. This is not really too surprising since there were literally hundreds of Iraqi agents or personnel whose job it was to slow down the inspectors, to send them in the wrong direction, or to make sure they would end up in the wrong place, or to report on their progress so that deception and deceit and cover-up could take place before they arrived. This is not a failing of the United States but, rather, the inability of UNMOVIC to overcome Iraqi denial and deception techniques.

The gentlewoman, I hope, would understand that if there were problems in communication of intelligence, much of the problem was the U.N. reluctance to rely on U.S. sources. This is addressed in an article in USA Today and I do not cite it except that they are quoting Blix. They were reluctant, they said, to rely on U.S. intelligence for fear that Iraq would accuse them of spying for the United States, an accusation that Iraq made, of course, the first time we had inspectors in. Here is a quote:

``Still smarting from their admission that U.S. intelligence gave inspectors secret missions during the last round of inspections in 1998, U.N. officials have deliberately curbed access to the CIA and allied intelligence agencies.''

The ground rules established by the U.N. stipulated that the CIA would not equip the inspectors, unofficial discussions between the CIA and the inspectors were prohibited, and only the U.N. would be allowed to analyze the data that was collected.

We have got a lot to look at. Members will have access to some of this very information across the board in an unprecedented fashion. This is a responsibility of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We have the capabilities. We have the intent. I would say we ought to be given the opportunity. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I hope it will be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to note the establishment of Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia, on June 19, and to congratulate Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, on his appointment as the first Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.

The establishment of the first functional strategic command for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an important step for the Alliance as it reforms its command structure to better carry out the missions needed to defend its member countries against today's threats. Allied Command Transformation replaces the old Allied Command Atlantic, which had been responsible for keeping open sea lanes between North America and Europe during the Cold War. Today, NATO faces a more pressing task: transforming allied forces from static formations designed for territorial defense to expeditionary forces able to deploy wherever needed to combat security threats. By locating Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, home to U.S. Joint Forces Command, the transformation lessons being learned by the U.S. military can be shared with our NATO allies.

The establishment of Allied Command Transformation is an important part of the new NATO command structure, which reduces the number of NATO headquarters from 20 to 11 and eliminates geographic responsibilities. This leaner, deployable command structure will allow the Alliance to command missions wherever the member countries decide that NATO is needed.

This Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the attached speech by Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, at the ceremony to commission Allied Command Transformation on June 19, 2003.

Remarks by the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, at the

Ceremony to the Commission of the New Allied Command Transformation

Admirals, Generals, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a unique

ceremony, because we are not only welcoming a new commander--

we are also changing fundamentally the very nature and

purpose of this strategic headquarters. Indeed, we are

creating a new organisation all together. That, in the

history of this great Alliance, makes this a very special

day.

Our first task is to thank the man who has led Allied

Commander Atlantic since last October--Admiral Sir Ian

Forbes. Admiral Forbes, your predecessor, General Kernan,

once described Allied Command Atlantic as NATO's bridge to

the future. When you took command of this headquarters, you

vowed to continue that mission. You have done so and with

true distinction. Your staff here at Norfolk has nothing but

the highest praise for the work you have done here. That is

an most important testimonial.

Let me add my own thanks, and congratulations, for the

important work you have done here since January 2002, first

as Deputy and then as Acting Supreme Allied Commander

Atlantic. You have provided sound leadership in Norfolk

through a critical period of concluding SACLANT's successful

mission and defining the role--and I might add, daring role--

this new command will play in the Alliance. We will continue

to value your leadership as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander,

Transformation.

Admiral Giambastiani--or Admiral ``G'', as you are already

known here--this is your first day on the job. But you have

already made history, as the first commander of the new

Allied Command Transformation. This is an honour that is well

deserved. I would like to congratulate you, as well, on this

appointment.

In the coming years, Admiral, you will have a key role to

play in shaping NATO's transformation. It is a transformation

that has already begun, and the establishment of this

Command--ACT--is proof positive.

ACT will shape the future of combined and joint operations.

It will identify new concepts, and bring them to maturity. It

will then turn these transformational concepts into reality;

a reality shared by the entire NATO Alliance. And it will do

so in close cooperation with the U.S. Joint Forces Command

co-located here, to ensure that NATO's transformation stays

in lock step with the changes taking place in the United

States.

Indeed, the creation of a new permanent command here in

Norfolk--one dedicated solely to transformation--demonstrates

the investment NATO is making in preparing itself for 21st

century operations.

This Command underscores NATO nations' commitment to a

continuous, permanent process of transforming and modernising

our armed forces.

ACT is, in a very real sense, both the symbol of the new

NATO, and the architect that will shape its future. It will

play an invaluable role in ensuring that the Atlantic

Alliance can continue to defend the security and interests of

its members against threats and challenges which we cannot

even imagine today.

ACT is a symbol of this Alliance's confidant embrace of the

future and its challenges.

Admiral Giambastiani, as I said last week to NATO Defence

Ministers in Brussels, your new title, Supreme Allied

Commander Transformation, means that you more than

anyone else will personify the critical importance this

Alliance places on transforming its capabilities for the 21st

century. An awesome responsibility. But welcome nevertheless

to the NATO family.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the June 23, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial emphasizes the need to take a science-based approach regarding the issue of biotech crops and highlights a positive example in India. On the other hand, the European Union's continued moratorium on approving new agriculture biotech lacks a scientific basis. This discriminatory and protectionist stance harms U.S. farmers, consumers worldwide, and developing countries. The U.S. is correctly challenging the EU's position, which is transparently devoid of any relationship to sound science.

A Tale of Two Mind-Sets

Recent days have shown a big contrast in how some

governments abroad approach the issue of genetically modified

foods.

One development, from India, reflects a commendable,

science-based approach to biotech crops. The other, from the

European Union, indicates the E.U.'s continuing insistence on

using bogus claims about biotech crops as an excuse to shut

out U.S. food exports.

In India, the government says it is nearing regulatory

approval of a genetically modified potato that has one-third

more protein than normal. The new potato is to be distributed

to school children as part of their mid-day meal.

The head of India's biotechnology department voiced strong

support for the new product, calling it part of ``a

technology for the future.'' Many of India's more than 1

billion people are plagued by dietary deficiencies in protein

and vitamin A, she said, and biotech foods such as the new

potato can help address the need.

In another encouraging sign, a group of Indian scientists

stepped forward in April to rebut the claim by anti-biotech

activists that the new potato is the brainchild of profit-

seeking Western corporations: As reported

by The Associated Press, ``the Indian scientists made clear

they are on the front lines of such developments.''

Last week, representatives of India's biotech sector' spoke

out, saying that their industry' is in a state of ``near

paralysis'' due to opposition from critics of genetically

modified foods. One Indian biotech consultant lamented that

the ``protest industry'' has ``exploited a few--technical

violations and has made the entire system rigid.''

In Europe, anti-biotech activists enjoy particular clout,

and last week talks between U.S. and E.U. officials over

genetically modified foods broke down. The United States will

now turn,to the World Trade Organization to appoint a panel

to rule on the case. The United States is said to have a good

chance of gaining a ruling that would compel the E.U: to end

its ban on American biotech crops.

Don Lipton, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau

Federation, was right when he said that ``countries shouldn't

be able to erect barriers for nonscientific reasons.'' In

India, the government, to its credit, acknowledges that

point. Regrettably, European governments are content to

ignore it and continue their opportunistic stonewalling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for handling this concurrent resolution and for the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as well, on this very important resolution.

I want to begin by of course expressing my strong support for the resolution and thanking the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), one of our colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, for authoring the legislation and for working with the staff of the subcommittee and the full committee. He has long been a champion of Albania in the House, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution.

As mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), this is a pledge

also on the part of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia through what they did in Tirana for full continued support for moving towards NATO membership.

Under the Adriatic Charter, the United States and these three countries pledge to consult whenever the security of one of them is threatened. For their part, the aspirant countries promise to continue defense reforms and to undertake steps to enhance border security so that they can contribute to regional stability.

Some of the language in the Adriatic Charter might look familiar. Indeed, this document was based on the successful Baltic Charter, which was signed in 1998 between Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Five years ago few observers would have been so bold as to predict that those three countries occupied for 50 years by the Soviet Union and then Russia-to-be would be poised to join NATO and the EU next year. The Baltic Charter signifies an American commitment to help those three countries in their successful efforts to join NATO and the EU. Today, the Adriatic Charter holds the potential for helping Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to achieve the same goals.

This Member, of course, recognizes and commends the efforts of Secretary of State Powell and those of our diplomats working the European and Eurasian Bureau of the State Department for their initiative in crafting the Adriatic Charter.

As NATO prepares to admit seven new countries next year, it is important that these three remaining candidate countries are not forgotten. NATO's door remains open to all who are willing and able to assume the responsibilities of membership, and it is important that the Congress assert that it is the achievements of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia that will determine when their aspirations for accession will be realized. Each of them are working through membership action plans to meet NATO's standards, and each will be judged on their own accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, already, these three nations have acted like allies. All three countries have sent troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. In addition, Albania sent 75 special operations troops to take part in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Macedonia this month has sent 29 special forces troops to Iraq to take part in the stabilization operations there. We appreciate their contributions and look forward to the day when they are ready to take on the full responsibilities of NATO membership.

Mr. Speaker, the Adriatic Charter is also one more step towards President Bush's goal of a Europe whole and free from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This Member commends and congratulates the people of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia for their initiative and progress, and this Member urges the House to pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2465.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 2465, which extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches to January 1, 2004. Chapter 12 bankruptcy once again is set to expire on July 1, 2003. This legislation is very important to the nation's agriculture sector.

This Member would express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for introducing H.R. 2465. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his efforts in getting this measure to the House Floor for consideration.

This extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy is supported by this Member as it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. The use of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy provision has been an important and necessary option for family farmers throughout the nation. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer.

If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, it will be another very painful blow to an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have no viable option other than to end their operations, but it will also cause land values to likely plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will negatively affect the ability of family farmers to earn a living. In addition, the resulting decrease in farmland value will impact the manner in which banks conduct their agricultural lending activities. Furthermore, this Member has received many contacts from his constituents supporting the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--it is clear that the agricultural sector in hurting.

In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2465.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to announce that the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act, a bill that will address the significant differential in reimbursement levels to urban and rural skilled health care professionals, now has 72 bipartisan cosponsors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services defines ``physician work'' is the amount of time, skill and intensity a physician puts into patients' visits. Rural physicians put in as much or even more time, skill, and intensity into a patient visit as do physicians in urban areas. Yet, rural physicians are paid less for their work. This is not only unfair, it is discriminatory.

Nebraska physicians and other health professionals are currently being shortchanged by about $8.7 million annually in Medicare payments. If a Member represents a rural locality, their District's physicians and skilled health professionals are likely being short-changed as well. Physician work should be valued equally, irrespective of the geographic location of the physician.

Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act and asks for language to be included in any comprehensive Medicare reform bill that is considered on the House floor. The legislation would gradually phase-in a floor to adjust the reimbursement upward for rural physicians without lowering pay in other areas.

Madam Speaker, this Member wishes to add his strong support for the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 (H.R. 660) which would allow small business owners to band together across state lines through associations to purchase health insurance for families and employees.

This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this important resolution to the House Floor today; this issue is very timely as this week is Small Business Week. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Fletcher] for sponsoring H.R. 660.

Over the past several years, we have witnessed significant changes in our health care system. Congress, employers, and the American people are currently searching for ways to control the cost of health care. In doing so, it is important that we do not compromise access and quality. This Member believes that Congress must evaluate three key areas when considering heath care proposals: affordability so that people can purchase health care that best fits their needs; accountability, so patients are guaranteed the quality they were promised; and accessibility, so millions more Americans can receive high-quality health care coverage that best fits their personal and family needs.

Access to affordable health insurance is a major problem for many of the 26 million uninsured Americans who live in families supported by the self-employed or small business employees. Professional societies and trade associations have tried to fill that void by offering health insurance plans to their members. Unfortunately, the myriad of state regulations and mandatory coverage requirements make it very difficult, expensive, and often impossible to offer coverage in all 50 states. If health insurance is not affordable it's not accessible.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act is intended to enhance the purchasing power of small businesses so that they could purchase such insurance more cheaply, and thereby provide health insurance coverage to more people. The association health plans created by the measure would be exempt from health insurance regulations of the various states. Thus, under the bill, these association health plans could operate in different states but would not be subject to the different health insurance regulations of those states. Instead they would be subject to regulation by the Labor Department. Similar association health plan language has been included in patient protection bills that Congress has recently considered. This Member has always supported these proposals.

Madam Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 660.

Mr. Speaker, as stated on the record many times, this Member continues his strong opposition to the permanent, total elimination of the estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this Member's opposition to this perfectly terrible idea have been publicly explained on numerous occasions, including past statements in the Congressional Record.

It must also be noted, however, that this Member is strongly in favor of substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and that today he has re-introduced legislation to this effect. This same bill, H.R. 42 was introduced in the previous 107th Congress by this Member--the only change in the bill introduced today is that the highest individual income tax is now 35 percent.

This Member believes that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small business, farm and ranch families and individuals benefit from estate tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level, such as provided in this Member's newly re-introduced measure.

This Member's bill would provide immediate, essential Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate tax exclusion to $10 million effective upon enactment. With some estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, for tax year 2002, the estate tax exclusion was only $675,000. In addition, this Member's re-introduced bill would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation thereafter. The legislation also would decrease the highest Federal estate tax rate from 55 percent to the ``highest individual income tax rate'' that corresponds to that specific tax year--the highest individual income tax rate will be going down to 35 percent in stages.

Finally, this Member's re-introduced bill would continue to apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is provided in current law. In fact, this Member has said on many occasions that he would be willing to raise the estate tax exclusion level to $15 million.

Since this Member believes that his bill or similar legislation is the only responsible way to provide true estate tax reduction for our Nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member must use this opportunity to reiterate the following reasons for his opposition to the total elimination of the Federal estate tax.

First, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega- millionaires would be very much contrary to the national interest. It is not in America's interest that absolutely huge estates should be passed from generations to generations--getting ever larger. The establishment of a permanent privileged class, re-enforced every generation, is too much like the situation in many European countries from which immigrants fled from hopelessness from the total domination of a small feudal class.

Second, the elimination of the estate tax also would have a very negative impact upon the continuance of very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy institutions in our country.

Finally, and fortunately, this Member believes that actually the Federal estate tax will never be eliminated in the year 2010. Reason will ultimately prevail and this effort to totally eliminate the estate tax on the super-rich will be seen as the very counterproductive step that it would be.

At this point, this Member notes that under the previously enacted estate tax legislation (e.g., the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act), beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is eliminated, with two exceptions, such that the value of inherited assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, as noted previously by this Member, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act could result in unfortunate tax consequences for some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on any increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs--resulting in a higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under the current ``stepped-up'' basis law.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, while this Member is strongly supportive of legislation to substantially raise the estate tax exemption level and to reduce the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and as such today re-introduced his legislation to this effect, this Member cannot in good conscience support the permanent total elimination of the inheritance tax on the super-rich.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of S. 703, which designates the regional headquarters building for the National Park Service under construction in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Carl T. Curtis National Park Service Midwest Regional Headquarters Building.'' This legislation, which was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel, passed the Senate on April 11, 2003, and was approved by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 2, 2003.

Carl Curtis was born in 1905 near Minden, Nebraska. He served in the House from 1939 until 1955 and subsequently served in the Senate until his retirement from Congress in 1979. His 40 years of congressional service set a record for Nebraska, and he served with dedication and integrity. Carl Curtis passed away in 2000.

This Member recalls how as a thirteen year old on a family vacation he visited Senator Curtis's Washington, D.C. office. On this occasion, and always, he showed his deep Nebraska roots as he spoke glowingly and knowledgeably about Nebraska and our Seward County community.

Carl Curtis believed that elected public service was an honorable calling and he lived up to that conviction. This Member greatly appreciated and admired his commitment to public service and to representative democracy.

This Member urges his colleagues to support S. 703, which would provide a fitting tribute to this outstanding former legislator, since the new National Park Service regional office will be built on the banks of the Missouri River, a river which was the focus of important legislation on which Senator Carl Curtis showed crucial leadership on a number of occasions.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the June 11, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``The Right Thing.'' This editorial correctly notes that the atrocities committed by the horrific, repressive regime of Saddam Hussein were reason enough for liberating the people of Iraq.

[From the Omaha (NE) World-Herald, June 11, 2003]

The Right Thing

Amid all the talk about whether, or even if, substantial

numbers of weapons of mass destruction are going to be found

in Iraq, it is also important to ask how much it matters.

Our assessment is that, yes, it does matter--in the sense

that strongly couched reports of such weaponry were at the

heart of the Bush administration's argument for toppling

Saddam Hussein. Yet we also believe that the answer to the

question, while instructive, is not pivotal. Ousting Saddam

will turn out to be an overarching good deed. It stands on

its own merits.

At present, the purported weapons are not turning up. Does

this mean they just weren't there, or does it mean that

Saddam's regime and the Baath zealots that undergirded it

were exceptionally good at hiding them or destroying them or

spiriting them across international borders? Let's hope the

Pentagon's new weapons-hunting team, slated to take over the

search soon, will provide definitive answers.

Four months ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell made an

impassioned case before the U.N. Security Council that the

weapons existed, along with equipment for making more. We

said then that if one-half or even one-fourth of what Powell

was asserting were true, there would be a strong case that

the Iraqis weren't complying with U.N. mandates. At this

point, there has been no hard evidence that the existence of

even those fractions will be borne out. In addition (as we

said then), the evidence of a Saddam-al Qaida link was iffy.

Fair enough. But we also went on to say that Saddam

nonetheless should be ousted.

We stand by that. Saddam's behavior was that of some sort

of devil incarnate. He murdered tens of thousands of his own

citizens, starved others, tortured and maimed unknown numbers

more, snubbed agreed-upon arms inspections and other mandates

after the Gulf War of 1991 and attacked aircraft attempting

to enforce ``no-fly'' zones.

We also said earlier that there were three scenarios for

Saddam's departure. In descending order of desirability, they

were abdication, liberation of Iraq by a U.N. force or

liberation via a U.S. attack, aided only by allies.

The last of these three was what played out. That's

unfortunate, but this is an imperfect world. Now that world

wants to know: Did the U.S. administration, in company with

Britain's Tony Blair, (1) get the weapons allegations right

at the time when they were articulated; (2) err in assessing

the evidence; or (3) just plain confabulate in order to drum

up popular support?

If it turns out to be the last of those three, then the

U.S. and British administrations will take their lumps in the

marketplace of public opinion and perhaps at the polls as

well. We're not saying that's what happened; time will sort

such matters out. But it ought to go without saying that

Americans and Britons don't need to be ``spun'' (``conned,''

in older terminology) in order to do the right thing.

The right thing: Ousting Saddam was that. Exactly that. He

was a murderer and a brutal oppressor who helped destabilize

a whole region and robbed his people of a generation of

progress. On that basis, Americans and Britons--along with

others in the international community who will now seek to

help Iraqis back to their rightful place in the world--have

nothing to apologize for.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but H.R. 1308 is a new $82 billion tax cut package that simply is too large. The House-passed version of H.R. 1308 will add to the already unprecedented national debt that future generations will face. Apparently, the Senate last week initially considered a proposal similar to the House-passed version of H.R. 1380 during its negotiations on child tax credit legislation, but the Senate rejected this proposal out of hand because of the effect it would have in worsening the deficit.

Furthermore, while the focus of debate has been on the extension of the child tax credit, only a tiny fraction, about 4 percent, of the $82 billion tax cut amount--$3.5 billion--goes toward extending the child tax credit for the estimated 12 million children who were left out of the previously enacted tax cut legislation. It is also unfortunate that over two-thirds of the House-passed version for child tax credit benefits will go to many higher-income families through an increase in the income level from $110,000 to $150,000 at which the child tax credit begins to phase down for married families. This would make married families in the $110,000-150,000 income range, who now receive a partial child tax credit, eligible for a full credit. It also extends a partial tax credit to many families in the $150,000-$200,000 range or, in the case of families with more than two children, to some families with incomes exceeding $200,000. The extension of the credit to these higher-income families would cost $20.4 billion through 2010 under the House-passed bill. While the Senate-passed child tax credit bill has a similar provision, it costs only $4.8 billion because the Senate provision would not begin to phase in until 2008 and would not take full effect until 2010.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, what is at stake is more than a simple extension of the child tax credit, instead what is at stake is whether or not many of the major tax cuts already passed will be extended beyond their sunsets and whether new additional tax cuts will be passed to further add to our deficit without the costs being offset. This Member believes that if this happens then our nation's long-term fiscal status is destined to markedly decline. Furthermore, this Member has been an outspoken critic that the original tax cut proposal from the Administration was too large, and this Member continues to believe that unless we take a more fiscally responsible course of tax cuts, then we will simply be passing a greater mountain of debt of our nation's children and their children. This Member also believes that such fiscally irresponsible tax cuts will increase the pressure to make even more draconian cuts in our Federal programs--beyond what is considered to be the necessary cuts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in such programs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 252. I commend the gentleman from Missouri for introducing this important resolution.

It is clear that the U.S. must send a strong and unmistakable message to the European Union that its discriminatory and protectionist trade practices regarding biotechnology will not be tolerated. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, this Member asserts that this is an important issue in trans-Atlantic relations. This resolution puts the House on record as supporting the U.S. in its efforts within the World Trade Organization to end these practices.

The EU's current moratorium on approving new agricultural biotech products has no scientific basis.

It harms U.S. agricultural producers and it exacerbates food shortages in Africa. This Member has been strongly

urging the administration to take action on this issue by bringing a case against the EU to the WTO, and is very pleased the announcement has been made that we have done so.

The current EU restrictions on the importation of food with genetically modified organisms, GMOs, have cost agricultural producers billions of dollars in recent years. The U.S. must be aggressive in knocking down such non-tariff trade restrictions.

The EU's delay on lifting the moratorium on biotech crops is unacceptable and the WTO action is certainly appropriate. The intransigence by the EU is having a very detrimental effect on American farmers. It has been reported that since the early 1990s, U.S. corn exports to Europe have plummeted 95 percent, and this issue is one of the causes. Incredibly, too, they have used their emotional arguments against GMOs to coerce African countries facing famine not to accept donated American food and agricultural products. So in contrast to what the gentleman from Wisconsin said, this is strictly not a European issue, this is coercion on their part against African countries who are compelled to leave that food donated to deal with famine and malnutrition setting on the docks.

Also troubling are the indications that the EU is planning to move forward with labeling and traceability requirements that will continue to act as a mechanism to block U.S. agriculture products. This clearly runs counter to the WTO principle that rules should be based on scientific evidence.

I think it is interesting to note that David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, has been quoted as saying, ``The EU's position on genetically modified food is that it is as safe as conventional food.'' However, the moratorium remains in place and American farmers continue to lose valuable markets, not just in Europe, but third world countries. This matters because it is more important to the farmers today facing difficult times due to the ongoing drought and lower revenue.

When filing the WTO case, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick stated clearly why it is so important for the U.S. to take action. He said, ``The EU's moratorium violates WTO rules. People around the world have been eating biotech food for years. Biotech food helps nourish the world's hungry population, offers tremendous opportunities for better health and nutrition and protects the environment by reducing soil erosion and pesticide use.'' This Member believes that the EU's GMO standards are transparently devoid of any relationship to sound science, and are either based strictly on emotion or are designed quite simply as trade barriers, or both.

The U.S. is correct in taking strong action to bring this back to reason. I strongly support H.R. 252 and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 7, marks the 11th National Trails Day. This important event, held the first Saturday of every June, is coordinated nationally by the American Hiking Society and locally by trail clubs, parks, agencies and businesses.

National Trails Day provides an outstanding opportunity to enjoy trails and thank the countless volunteers who build, maintain and protect them.

As cochairman of the House Trails Caucus, this Member encourages his colleagues to show their support for trails on June 7 and throughout the year.

The theme for National Trails Day 2003 is ``Healthy Trails, Healthy People.'' It will emphasize the many health benefits associated with trail use.

The existing network of trails throughout the U.S. would not be possible without the assistance provided by grassroots trails groups and individuals who are determined to make a positive difference in their communities. The tireless efforts on behalf of trails by countless volunteers across the nation help to ensure that future generations will be able to discover the wonders of our country's rich diversity and history.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, trails play an important role in communities throughout the country and this Member urges his colleagues to join in the celebration of National Trails Day on Saturday, June 7th.

This effort fits well with President Bush's ``Healthier U.S. Initiative'' to encourage physical activity. In addition to promoting healthier and more active lifestyles, trails provide outstanding, family-oriented recreational opportunities to all Americans. They also offer important economic development benefits to nearby communities.

Mr. Speaker, this Member was in his congressional district on official business on Monday, June 2, 2003, and therefore missed three rollcall votes. If this Member had been present, he would have voted as follows:

Rollcall No. 227 (H. Res. 159, expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of Texas State Representative Irma Rangel)-- ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 228 (H. Res. 195, congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for hitting 500 major league home runs)--``aye''; and

Rollcall No. 229 (H.R. 1465, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4832 East Highway 27 in Iron Station, North Carolina, as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office'')-- ``aye''.