Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues this March 27, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald. The editorial rightly praises the other body for its vote to reduce the President's proposed tax cut in the budget resolution in the face of the cost of the war in Iraq.

[From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 27, 2003]

Fiscal Winds of War

Cutting taxes in an effort to reinvigorate a sputtery

economy is an idea that has merit, and the Bush

administration can be praised for pursuing the effort. But

the U.S. Senate, in its surprise vote on Tuesday, got it

right: $726 billion was simply too much in the face of an

open-ended and obviously costly war with Iraq.

The Senate, in a stance it reconfirmed yesterday, voted to

reduce the tax cut (as part of a $2.2 trillion budget) to

$350 billion, still a substantial tax reduction. Next comes

the haggling between House and Senate, since the House-

approved version would give President Bush the full $726

billion cut he sought.

By the best available evidence, the administration lost

track of its vote tally in the Senate. It asked for an

initial $75 billion for the war in Iraq, evidently confident

that it would win both that and the full tax reduction. But

the Senate, by a narrow margin, opted for prudence. The

majority rightly saw the $75 billion as a down payment--

enough to sustain the effort for six months, with more bills

to come later and yet more after that as the effort gets

under way to reconstruct Iraq.

Bush's reluctance until this week to put even a tentative

price tag on the Iraq war and aftermath has raised a question

in our minds: Is the administration concerned that domestic

support for the war will fade if the average American is

asked to sacrifice something?

If so, we would hope to disabuse the White House of such a

notion. Several recent polls suggest that 70 to 75 percent of

Americans support this effort to dislodge the evils of Saddam

Hussein. We believe that if it takes giving up (at least for

now) part of a proposed tax cut to undergird the fight

financially, most Americans are ready to do that.

We are reminded of World War II, when Americans willingly

observed meatless days, endured gasoline rationing, drove on

bald tires and so on to bolster the war effort. We have no

reason to believe that today's citizens are made of less

stern stuff.

Congress should unhesitatingly give the president the war

funding he is asking for. His tax-cut plan can be revisited

later. Meanwhile, as a people we're in this fight and had

better pay for it. (Don't forget the hyperinflation that

resulted from President Lyndon Johnson's insistence on

conducting the Vietnam war on the cuff.)

Congress has a duty here, too. Whatever tax-cut figure it

ends up with, it should make good on its word: Spend the

difference on the war, and if there's any left, shore up the

Social Security system. Any other use of the funds

constitutes a breach of promise.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 118) concerning the treatment of members of the Armed Forces held as prisoner of war by Iraqi authorities, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to speak on behalf of those brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have been taken prisoner of war by the Iraqi regime, and for those who are missing in action.

All Members were appalled by the reports and images of the barbaric treatment of our soldiers by the Iraqi regime captors. This resolution will send a clear message of resolve that this Congress will stand by and insist on the rights of its military sons and daughters in their time of peril. We will spare no effort to bring them home alive and in good health, and to hold to account anybody who would dare mistreat them.

All of us join families, comrades in arms and friends in prayer for their safe return, the safe return of all members of our armed services. I note with pride that the American military is already carrying out its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. We have invited the Red Cross or Red Crescent to visit our prisoners, and we demand the same access for the Red Cross to coalition prisoners held by Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of our colleagues for their insightful and heartfelt comments. I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the author of the resolution, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, last November U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed a comprehensive framework for a just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. He then asked the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to accept the plan by February 28. Because of the forthcoming EU membership for at least the Greek portion of Cyprus and other factors of leverage, this was the best opportunity in decades for a solution to the Cyprus problem.

When neither side could resolve their problems by the end of February, the Secretary General asked the two leaders to meet in The Hague on March 10 to sign an agreement to put the framework to simultaneous referenda on the island.

Two weeks ago, we learned with great disappointment that the Secretary General was told by Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash that he could not accept the settlement plan and would not agree to the referenda despite the fact that informal polling indicated that the majority of the Turkish Cypriots were prepared to support the plan.

Madam Speaker, this Member urges the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to quickly resume negotiations to resolve this problem, to seize this rare opportunity for a peaceful settlement and urge the United Nations and the Bush administration to redouble their efforts to get the talks going once again, and to seek a Cyprus solution which at long last seems to be within our grasp.

Madam Speaker, it was highly regrettable, to this Member, that Mr. Denktash refused to let the Turkish Cypriot people have the opportunity to determine their own future on an agreement which would have reunited the island and which would have served the best interests of the Turkish Cypriot community. This Member was also disappointed with the government of Turkey for their apparent unwillingness to exert influence on Mr. Denktash to agree to the plan at such a critical time.

Attached is a recent editorial from The Economist on this subject.

[From the Economist, Mar. 13, 2003]

Settling Cyprus--What a Waste

the collapse of talks to reunite the island marks a stupidly missed

opportunity

Over the years it has been hard to apportion blame for the

failure of the divided island's Greek and Turkish leaders to

strike a deal to give their people security and prosperity in

a loosely federal but reunited Cyprus. Recently, under the

blandishments of

the United Nations and the European Union, they had come

within finger-touching distance of a settlement. All the

sadder, then, that this week the Turkish-Cypriots' truculent

leader, Rauf Denktash, rejected the UN's sensible proposals

for a deal. The government in mainland Turkey must also share

blame by failing to bludgeon Mr. Denktash into accepting the

plan. A further gloomy outcome is that, while the island's

Greek-run part will almost certainly join the EU on its own

next year and the Turkish part will fester in isolation and

poverty, mainland Turkey's own hopes of starting negotiations

to join the Union have been dented too.

Both of the island's communities had a lot to gain. The

Turks would have given back control of around 8% of the

island's territory to the Greeks--a substantial chunk of the

land taken in 1974 when the Turkish army intervened after a

short-lived Greek-Cypriot coup on the island. The Turks, 18%

of the population before the invasion, have since held 37% of

the land. The Greek-Cypriots' new president, Tassos

Papadopoulos, at first complained that the latest UN

compromise did not adequately address his people's

grievances. But he wisely accepted it. This time it is

overwhelmingly Mr. Denktash's fault that a settlement has

been blocked.

Indeed, the Turks had even more to gain than the Greeks.

They would have kept a vast amount of autonomy in their still

disproportionately large zone. They would have enjoyed an

influx of EU cash had the whole island been joining the Union

next year, not to mention the rapid lifting of sanctions long

imposed by the EU against their breakaway statelet.

The Turkish government may have been too preoccupied by the

political wrangling and tortuous diplomacy over Iraq (see

article). Many of Turkey's still-too-influential generals see

the Turkish-run bit of Cyprus as a strategic asset, while

some Turkish politicians regard the island as a bargaining

chip in Turkey's quest to join the EU. They are wrong.

Turkey's failure to persuade Mr. Denktash to say yes to

compromise will make it much harder for the EU to smile on

its application, due for consideration at the end of next

year, to start negotiations to join. Many governments are

already queasy about the idea of Turkey as a fellow Euro-club

member.

what next?

The UN's secretary-general, Kofi Annan, had suggested a

ruse to force Mr. Denktash's hand and to strengthen that of

the Greek-Cypriots' leader by holding a referendum on the

proposals next month--on both sides of the island. Both

communities would probably have said yes. But Mr. Denktash

wrecked that idea too. If stalemate prevails, as seems

likely, Mr. Annan says he will abandon all further efforts to

settle Cyprus during his time as UN boss. It would then be up

to the EU to reopen proceedings. By the end of this year the

Turkish-Cypriots are due for a general election. Mr.

Denktash's opponents on his own side of the island, who

approved of Mr. Annan's plan, may well take power in

parliament but the presidential term has a few years yet to

run. One day, perhaps mercifully soon, the ailing Mr.

Denktash will go. Then, maybe, a fair deal can at last be

done. But a golden chance has been stupidly wasted.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his reluctant and temporary support for H. Con. Res. 95, the House Budget Resolution.

Mr. Chairman, our country is facing a difficult fiscal situation and this budget resolution sets a framework for this Congress to carefully proceed over the next ten years. While the budget resolution reserves revenue to finance the full range of the tax cuts proposed by the President, this Member adamantly believes the proposed tax cut is too large and, in fact, this Member will not vote for such a large tax cut when the House separately votes on that issue.

There are three reasons this Member is opposed to this large tax cut. First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Second, in the economic sense, eliminating the tax on dividends is not the best

way to quickly and effectively stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for middle-income Americans and small businesses is far more effective, and eliminating the tax on dividends may in fact drain money from capital goods to dividends for the corporate leaders' pocketbooks through their large stock holdings in their company. And third, the elimination of the tax on dividends as a major part of this tax cut package is not equitable, because a very high percentage of tax relief would go to a small percentage of taxpayers.

The elimination or substantial reduction of the tax on dividends, which results in an estimated reduction in tax revenue of more than an estimated $100 billion per year, is simply not sound fiscal policy-- especially given the estimated size of the deficit, the unknown costs of the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the costs of homeland security measures.

If the budget protects Medicare from huge cuts, as it must, and increases even more the revenues for veterans programs, it would cause impossibly large cuts in the rest of the discretionary budget. This cut in the remainder of the domestic programs required by this budget proposal is too severe even when the savings from the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse is taken into account.

Mr. Chairman, it is time to do what the other body is considering-- responsibly cut back the size of the huge tax cut. It is this Member's hope that the conference agreement on the budget will follow the Senate's lead and decrease the funds held in reserve to finance a tax cut. If the conference report comes back to the House with the same fiscally unsound level of tax cuts and substantially the same level of tax cuts related to eliminating the tax on dividends, this Member will vote ``no'' on the conference report. It is fiscally irresponsible and inequitable to middle-income taxpayers, and the proposal to eliminate taxes on dividends will not give us the immediate economic stimulation our country needs.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member votes ``aye'' on this budget proposal in order to move the process along. As we learned from last year's inaction on the budget by the other body, the passage of a budget resolution is critically important as the first step in the annual appropriations process that funds the U.S. Government and provides invaluable services to our constituents. As a result, this Member cannot in good conscience vote to stop or stall the process at this early stage. However, be assured that this Member will follow-up on his commitment to vote ``no'' on the conference report if the level of tax cuts is not decreased and the huge amount dedicated to eliminating the tax on dividends is not dropped or very substantially reduced.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, as it relates to the members of our armed services--active duty, reserve components, and National Guard personnel serving on active duty. Indeed, this Member would like to commend the Ways and Means Committee Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for his efforts to craft this very timely legislation which will assist our military personnel.

Across the U.S., men and women serving in active, Reserve, and National Guard units are mobilizing and deploying. Whether for missions at the Nebraska Air National Guard base in Lincoln, in Bosnia, in the Middle East, or elsewhere, these mobilizations and deployments have an immediate impact on families, employers, and communities. Indeed, deployments separate families which have young children. Moms and dads spend their children's birthdays overseas. Husbands and wives miss spending anniversaries together. Men and women leave their places of employment and also their paychecks as they mobilize. In this Member's home state of Nebraska, already 35 percent of the National Guard personnel have been mobilized for active duty.

Today, this body has the opportunity to send these men and women a very much deserved ``thank you'' for their personal and financial sacrifices by adjusting the tax code to reflect the realities which military personnel and their families face, such as frequent moves and increased child care costs associated with deployments.

The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 is a diverse bill; first and foremost it would provide assistance to men and women serving on military frontlines. For example, H.R. 1307 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow military personnel, who are transferred, to utilize the capital gains tax relief on the sale of their home by suspending the running of the present law 5-year rule for a total of 5 years during the time they are assigned away from home. The 5-year rule provides that an individual is not subject to the capital gains taxes for the first $250,000, or for a couple, the first $500,000 on a joint return on the sale of a home if it has been the principal residence for 2 out of the last 5 years. Because military personnel move frequently, they often do not meet the residence requirement. This legislation would suspend the residence requirement when the military personnel are stationed 250 miles from their primary house.

Additionally, H.R. 1307 would allow National Guard members to take an above-the-line deduction of overnight travel expenses associated with their service. This is particularly important for, as an example, Nebraska's National Guard members frequently must travel extensive distances to participate in Guard training and drills.

Other provisions within the legislation would clarify how certain child care expenses shall be treated and would exempt military death gratuity payments from taxes. (Currently, survivors of military personnel receive $6,000 of which $3,000 is taxable.)

Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to vote for H.R. 1307 for at least

the tax changes aforementioned are quite appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1308, the Tax Reform, Simplification and Equity Act, and in particular the provisions which will assist our nation's farmers and ranchers who are suffering from a devastating drought.

Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that H.R. 1308 includes an important provision originally introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) which is designed to assist farmers and ranchers suffering from the drought. This Member is a strong supporter and cosponsor of the Ranchers HELP Act, which is included in H.R. 1308. This provision would provide ``involuntary conversion'' tax relief for producers forced to sell livestock under certain circumstances, such as weather-related conditions. Specifically, the bill would allow producers four years (rather than the current two year limit) after a forced sale to reinvest in livestock without facing capital gains taxes. The Ranchers HELP legislation also would allow the Federal Government the flexibility to extend the amount of time a farmer or rancher can take to restore a herd in certain regions experiencing a drought which lasts more than three years.

It is important for the Federal Government to take actions, where appropriate to help relieve the hardships caused by the severe drought affecting Nebraska and the Great Plains region. The provisions included in this bill are an important step in that direction.

There are two other provisions that should help farmers. Under current law, farmers are allowed to average their income over three years for tax purposes since farm income often fluctuates from year to year. However, farmers who choose this option often fall into the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The provision in H.R. 1308 ensures that farmers are not harmed by the AMT if they elect income averaging. In 1999 and 2000, this provision was included in a tax relief bill passed by the House and the Senate that subsequently was vetoed by then- President Clinton twice.

Another provision will help cooperatives that now face up to three levels of tax penalties. This legislation includes a reduction of one of these levels by providing that patronage dividends of cooperatives will not be reduced by stock dividends to the extent the stock dividends are in addition to amounts otherwise payable.

Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1308, the Tax Reform, Simplification and Equity Act.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 975). On February 27, 2003, this Member agreed to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. This bill (H.R. 975) is the same, with one major exception, as the bankruptcy reform conference report which was agreed upon by the conferees in the 107th Congress. Specifically, the provision that addressed the nondischargeability of debts for abortion protesters was not included in H.R. 975. The controversy surrounding this provision resulted in the failure of the rule under which the bankruptcy reform conference report was to be considered by the House in the 107th Congress.

A variation of this conference report language on abortion was included in the original Senate-passed bankruptcy bill in the 107th Congress at the initiative of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer). It absolutely amazed and discouraged this Member that a supposed nexus between the subject of abortion and bankruptcy was found by this gentleman from New York which effectively doomed bankruptcy reform legislation in the 107th Congress.

It is important to note that bankruptcy reform bills passed both the House and the Senate in the 105th and 106th Congresses. In the 105th Congress, the House passed a bankruptcy reform conference report, while the Senate failed to pass the conference report. In the 106th Congress, former President Bill Clinton pocket vetoed a bankruptcy reform conference report.

First, this Member would thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for both introducing this bankruptcy legislation and for his efforts in bringing H.R. 975 to the House Floor for consideration.

This Member supports H.R. 975 for numerous reasons; however, the most important reasons include the following:

First, this Member supports the provision in H.R. 975 which provides for a means testing (needs-based) formula when determining whether an individual should file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy allows a debtor to be discharged of his or hers personal liability for many unsecured debts. In addition, there is no requirement that a Chapter 7 filer repay many of his or her debts. However, Chapter 13 bankruptcy filers commit to repay some portion of his or her debts under a repayment plan.

Some Chapter 7 filers actually have the capacity to repay some of what they owe, but they choose Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are able to walk away from these debts. For example, the stories in which an individual filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and then proceeds to take a nice vacation and/or buys a new car are too common. Moreover, the status quo is costing the average American individual and family increased costs for consumer goods and credit because of the amount of debt which is never repaid to creditors.

As a response to these concerns, the needs-based test of H.R. 975 will help ensure that high income filers, who could repay some of what they owe, are required to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy as compared to Chapter 7. This needs-based system takes a debtor's income, expenses, obligations and any special circumstances into account to determine whether he or she has the capacity to repay a portion of their debts.

Second, this Member supports the additional monthly expense items that are exempted from consideration under the needs-based test which determines, under H.R. 975, whether a person can file either a Chapter 7 or 13 version of bankruptcy. These expenses include the following: reasonable expenses incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and debtor's family from domestic violence; an additional food and clothing allowance if demonstrated to be reasonable and necessary; and actual expenses for the care and support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled member of the debtor's household or immediate family.

Third, this Member supports the permanent extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy in H.R. 975 since it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. Using 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 permanently extended for family farmers, its expiration on June 30, 2003, would 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 but to end their operations, it likely will also cause land values to plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will affect the ability of family farmers to obtain adequate credit to maintain a viable farm operational. It 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 nations farm families. It is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting and by a permanent extension of the Chapter 12 authorization, Congress can avoid one more negative possibility.

Lastly, this Member supports the provision in H.R. 975 which requires that people convicted of a felony or who owe a debt from a securities fraud violation in the five years before filing for bankruptcy cannot claim an unlimited homestead exemption. As of last year, there were only six states, including Texas and Florida, which provided unlimited bankruptcy protection for a person's home. (Nebraska is not one of those six states as it has a maximum homestead exemption of $12,500.) This Member believes that this provision in H.R. 975 is imperative in light of the corporate scandals at Enron and WorldCom in year 2002. For example, this provision would apply to the $7 million penthouse in Houston of Kenneth Lay, the former chairman of Enron, if he both files for personal bankruptcy in the future and owes a debt due to any conviction of securities fraud. In addition, this provision may also be relevant to Scott D. Sullivan, the former chief financial officer of WorldCom, who, as of last year, was building a $15 million mansion in Boca Raton, Florida.

In closing, for these aforementioned reasons and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 975.

Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 77, a resolution recognizing and commending the Bulgarian people for a little-known, but extraordinary, historical fact. The resolution was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), and this Member is pleased to be an original cosponsor.

This resolution seeks to commemorate the 60th anniversary of a historic act of courage

and heroism: the rescue of the Bulgarian Jews from the Nazi Holocaust in 1943. In that critical moment of history, the Bulgarian people, from every walk of life, through a series of resolute actions, successfully stopped the deportation of Bulgaria's Jewish population to Nazi death camps.

Bulgaria was officially allied with Hitler Germany from March 1941 until September 1944, but anti-Semitism was never morally accepted by Bulgarian society. It is said that King Boris III and the majority of the Members of Parliament only reluctantly followed Hitler's official policies, resisting the implementation of anti-Jewish legislation and other restrictions in their entirety.

In February 1943, as a result of Nazi pressure, a secret agreement on the deportation of Bulgarian Jews to Germany was signed between Hitler's special envoy Dannecker and the Bulgarian Commissar on Jewish Affair Belev. The plan was to start the secret deportation of Jews by cargo trains in the first days of March 1943.

Due to immediate public reaction and the resolute intervention of a group of active citizens, church leaders and politicians, led by the Deputy Speaker of the Bulgarian National Assembly Dimitar Peshev, the Minister of Interior Nikola Gabrovski was forced on March 9, 1943 to cancel deportation orders for Jews from several Bulgarian cities. The trains, which had been waiting to be loaded and sent to concentration camps in Poland, did not depart.

Unfortunately, about 12,000 Jews from Aegean Thrace and Macedonia, who did not at that time have Bulgarian citizenship and who had already been driven out of their homes by the special forces of the Jewish Commissariat, were deported through Bulgarian territory to Germany. The horrible sight of trains carrying Jews from Thrace and Macedonia crossing Bulgaria and strengthened even more the popular resistance against deportation.

Later in march 1943, 43 members of the Bulgarian Parliament from the ruling majority, led by the Deputy Speaker Dimitar Peshev, addressed a bold and decisive letter to the then-Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, in which they called a possible deportation of the Jews an ``inadmissible act'' which ``grave moral and political consequences'' for the country.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church played a crucial part in mobilizing public support against the deportation and exerting its influence on the government. Metropolitans Sefan in Sofia and Kiril in Plovdiv actively contributed to this effort.

The broad popular and civil movement in defense of the Bulgarian Jews culminated in May 1943 when the plan of deportation was finally aborted. King Boris III played a decisive role in this decision by not ceding to Hitler's increasing pressure and by not allowing the deportation to happen. Many other political and professional organizations and groups of intellectuals actively participated in this national movement.

The credit as a whole belongs to the Bulgarian people who showed courage and strength in defending their fellow countrymen. Bulgarians today rightly feel proud of the actions of their predecessors to save from deportation and death nearly 50,000 Bulgarian Jews.

Bulgaria should be proud of this historical event, and its tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance. Bulgaria's history should be recognized, and its people should be commended. Bulgaria should be an example to a region that has been torn apart by so much hatred and violence over the past decade. Let Bulgaria's history be an example to the Balkins and Southeastern Europe. Let Bulgaria's history be an example to all of Europe today, East and West, North and South, Old and New.

Madam Speaker, on this occasion, this Member urges strong support for this resolution and would also particularly like to thank Bulgaria, and the Bulgarian people, for Bulgaria's exceptionally strong support and cooperation with America in the international war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the resolution, this Member wishes to add his strong support for the Museums and Library Services Act (H.R. 13), as museums and libraries certainly are a vital part of our society.

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 Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education, for sponsoring H.R. 13.

Attendance at American museums is now at more than 865 million visits per year. Today's 21st Century library is not just a provider of books, as the typical American library coordinates a complete and comprehensive approach to community development and services.

The Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 authorizes Federal assistance to museums and libraries through fiscal year 2009. The legislation maintains the modest but essential Federal support for museums and libraries across the country; authorizes funds for the one Federal agency--the Institute of Museum and Library Services--devoted exclusively to museums and libraries, which are natural partners with our nation's schools; and encourages model cooperation between museums and libraries.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the leadership of the committee for bringing this resolution to the floor in such a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of a Lutheran Elementary School myself, St. Paul's Lutheran School of Utica, Nebraska, and an individual well acquainted with the many first-rate Lutheran educational institutions in his congressional district, this Member rises today to congratulate Lutheran schools, students, parents, teachers, administrators and congregations across the Nation for their ongoing contributions to education.

Lutherans have long been active in providing education for children. As mentioned by the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the first Lutheran school was established in the colonies in 1640 by Swedish Lutherans, and it was located in the State of Delaware. There is evidence that Lutherans from Salzburg, Austria, started schools in what is now the southern part of the United States in the 1730s.

Pastor Henry Muhlenberg, known as the patriarch of the Lutheran Church and father of two members of the 1st

Congress, one the first Speaker of the House, established a significant number of Lutheran churches and schools in Pennsylvania.

By 1800, some 400 Lutheran schools dotted the east coast from New York to Georgia.

Today, our Nation has a total of 4,842 Lutheran schools, which are served by 40,076 teachers. This Member is proud of the 122 Lutheran early-education centers, elementary schools, and secondary schools in Nebraska, as well as the three Lutheran colleges and universities in this Member's district, and those Lutheran schools located throughout the Nation which deliver high-quality education opportunities and challenges students to reach their full academic and spiritual potential.

Not only are Lutheran schools known for their academic quality but for their ability to aid in their students' moral development. These institutions provide spiritual guidance to students, instilling fundamental values that are crucial to personal development. Through their education, Lutheran schoolchildren gain an appreciation of the importance in their lives of family values, community service, and in their religious faith. This in turn has helped shape students of Lutheran schools into good civic and educational leaders for America, past, present and future.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support the resolution honoring the contributions of Lutheran schools in American education; and I thank the cosponsors of the resolution, which are numerous.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) has explained very well why this legislation is before us. In fact, we passed it last October in the previous Congress in the same form. He mentioned the cosponsorship of practically everybody whose district is along the border, and I appreciate very much the support of my colleagues on the committee.

Actually, the comments of the gentlewoman from Ohio about NAFTA are not a surprise to us, but practically nothing related to NAFTA is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, now the Committee on Financial Services. The only thing really that is, is the NADBank, and it was created to take into account some of the concerns with the passage of NAFTA.

During that debate, some Members were concerned about perceived lax enforcement of environmental laws by Mexico that could create a competitive advantage and give U.S. businesses incentive to relocate to Mexico. In fact, the support of some Members of Congress for NAFTA was partially contingent upon identification of a structure to finance border projects.

Now, in order to address the inadequacies of the NADBank, which the other gentleman from Texas has alluded to and given some details on, Presidents Bush and Fox formed a binational working group that held a series of discussions with States, communities, and other stakeholders in the border region with the purpose of generating plans to reform and strengthen the performance of the NADBank and the BECC. As a result of that working group, Presidents Bush and Fox came forth with a joint agreement announced in Monterrey, Mexico, in March of 2002. The recommendations and requirements of agreement are in this legislation.

With respect to the first legislative change, the administrations's rationale about the bank's current financial framework is having a limited impact in regions with high poverty rates, so adjustments were made in that respect. The change in jurisdiction was at the request of the Mexican President, but agreed to as appropriate by President Bush. So what we are doing here is to try to take the reforms that everyone in the region seems to agree are necessary for the NADBank to adequately address the infrastructure problems, particularly environmental infrastructure problems that are created by increased industrialization and population growth in the region.

So, my colleagues, I think, can feel very comfortable in supporting this legislation. It makes the changes the two Presidents requested. It does nothing to disadvantage American firms. In fact, it addresses some of the concerns

that the opponents of NAFTA had in the first place.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio briefly.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentlewoman's understanding is incorrect as with respect to this legislation. This legislation makes no reductions in that area. If there are reductions, it would be by executive budget, and I am not familiar if that is the case or not.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we have passed this legislation before. It is appropriate. It puts in place the agreements of the two Presidents. It has the support of all the border region persons in this room, with the exception of two, and I do not know how they stand, but I have heard no opposition from them to this point. So I urge support and approval of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to assure the gentlewoman from Ohio, there is nothing that deauthorizes a program in our legislation and nothing that specifically authorizes additional funds. And to the gentleman from California, this legislation does not merge the two entities that concerns him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation. I

am a co-chairman of the Lewis and Clark Caucus here in Congress. There is an equivalent effort in the Senate. We have been functioning for several years. The Members that have just spoken, from Virginia and Washington State, are certainly members of that. I think it is an outstanding item of legislation we have before us.

Just this January the celebration of the Corps of Exploration, which will continue through 2006, began at Monticello. I know the gentleman undoubtedly was very proud of that event, and now I think we will have many celebrations and commemorations for the next several years to celebrate the bicentennial of the Corps of Exploration. This gives additional attention to this dramatic involvement of American history, and I rise in support and ask the Members of the body to support it.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of a Lutheran elementary school and an individual well-acquainted with the many first-rate Lutheran educational institutions in his congressional district, today this Member introduced a resolution congratulating Lutheran schools, students, parents, teachers, administrators, and congregations across the nation for their ongoing contributions to education.

This Member is proud of the Lutheran schools in the First Congressional District of Nebraska and those throughout the nation which deliver high-quality educational opportunities and challenge students to reach their full academic and spiritual potential.

Not only are Lutheran schools known for their academic quality, but for their ability to aid moral development. These institutions provide spiritual guidance to students, instilling fundamental values that are crucial to personal development. Through their education,

Lutheran school children gain an appreciation of the importance of family values, community service, and faith in their lives. This, in turn, has helped shape students of Lutheran schools into good leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this resolution, honoring the contributions of Lutheran schools in American education.

Mr. Speaker, in Brussels today, the North Atlantic Council of the NATO Alliance continues to deliberate on a matter that has potentially grave consequences for the alliance. France, Germany, and Belgium have blocked the consultation and planning for the defense of Turkey, which that country has requested by the unprecedented invocation of article IV of the NATO Treaty.

At best, it would inexcusably delay planning for the defense of an ally, possibly leading to an avoidable loss of life should Turkey come under attack. At worst, it means the very end of the alliance, as its core mutual defense guarantee would be exposed as nothing more than empty words from the French, German, and Belgian governments.

No longer is this a question of whether authorizing NATO planning somehow signals a decision to use military force against Iraq. This was the argument used by the three allies on Monday when they blocked a response to Turkey's article IV request.

Should France, Germany, and Belgium continue to object to prudent contingency planning to deter or to defend against a possible threat to Turkey, the core collective-defense commitment of the alliance will be called into doubt.

This Member hopes that President Chirac, Chancellor Schroder, and Prime Minister Verhofstadt recognize that this is no longer an Iraq question. This is no longer a U.N. question. This is now a question about whether the 19 NATO allies will fulfill their solemn treaty commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 22) honoring Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 22, the resolution under consideration.

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

This Member rises today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 22, a resolution honoring Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel. The resolution was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and this Member is pleased to be an original cosponsor. This resolution seeks to recognize, congratulate, and honor President Havel for a combination of 13 years of extraordinary service, first as President of Czechoslovakia and second, since 1993, as President of the Czech Republic. The Constitution of the Czech Republic allows a president to serve only two consecutive 5-year terms, and the United States House of Representatives would like, therefore, to honor President Havel upon the occasion of the end of his term of service on February 2 of this year.

Nearly 13 years ago, on February 21, 1990, President Vaclav Havel addressed a joint session of the United States Congress in this very room. This occasion was less than 4 months after his last arrest by what he characterized as ``the most conservative Communist government in Europe,'' and less than 2 months after Vaclav Havel had been elected President of Czechoslovakia, in December 1989, by a parliament still dominated by members of the Communist party.

During his inspirational speech to the joint session of Congress, President Havel said many things that made many Members of Congress realize they were not listening to just another political leader of a foreign country. President Havel, in his speech, was discussing what his country, and all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that had suffered throughout the Cold War, could learn from the United States. He also suggested that perhaps his country could offer something to the United States. In his speech, he stated ``We too can offer something to you: our experience and the knowledge that has come from it. This is a subject for books, many of which have already been written and many of which have yet to be written. I shall therefore limit myself to a single idea. The experience I'm talking about has given me one great certainty: Consciousness precedes being, and not the other way around, as Marxists claim.''

In explaining that axiom, Havel went on in his speech to explain that: ``The only genuine backbone of all of our actions, if they are to be moral, is responsibility. Responsibility is something higher than our family, my country, my company, my success. Responsibility to the order of being where all of our actions are indelibly recorded and only where they will be improperly judged. The interpreter or mediator between us and this higher authority is what is traditionally referred to as human conscience. If I subordinate my political behavior to this imperative mediated to me by my conscience, I can't go far wrong.''

He went on to say that it is this responsibility dictated by his conscience which caused him to ultimately decide, after resisting for a long time, to accept the burden of political responsibility. In other words, he saw it as a responsibility to accept the presidency of Czechoslovakia. In a related noteworthy admonition to intellectuals in every country he reminded that ``If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals can't go on forever avoiding their share of the responsibility for the world and hiding their distaste for politics under an alleged need for independence.''

As a playwright and essayist, Vaclav Havel was a leading figure of the dissident movement against the totalitarian system of the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia. He was a founder of Charter 77, the underground movement seeking freedom of expression and association, and the basic protection of civic and human rights. He wrote the essay, ``The Power of the Powerless,'' in which he called upon ordinary citizens to live in truth against a totalitarian regime. For his various civic reform efforts, he received multiple prison sentences and served a total of almost 5 years imprisoned by the Communist regime.

During the events of November-December 1989, which have come to be known as the Velvet Revolution, Vaclav Havel helped form the Civic Forum, a broad coalition of dissident groups, which was the first legal opposition movement in Communist Czechoslovakia. By the end of that year, through a ``bloodless revolution,'' 41 years of Communist dictatorship peacefully came to an end when Vaclav Havel was elected President.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I count it a great personal privilege and honor to represent perhaps more Czech-Americans than any Member of Congress. Most of them came to the rolling prairies of Nebraska and the prairie States in the 1870s and 1880s to own their own land and to farm the soil. Other Czechs and Slovaks came to the larger cities of the Midwest, places like Omaha, during the first two decades of the 20th century.

While their Americanization had occurred several generations ago, these Czech-Americans continued to follow closely, and I would say with great anguish, the totalitarian conditions of people in their old homelands of the past. It was, therefore, a particular pleasure for me to watch these Czech-Americans gather in the public meeting places, the restaurants, the bars, and in their homes to watch with amazement and great pride on television the rapid and peaceful Velvet Revolution, which finally ended the Communist stranglehold, to reclaim the democracy that Czechoslovakia had enjoyed only for the brief period between two World Wars.

Vaclav Havel epitomized this return to Czech democracy for both his countrymen and the Americans who watched and marveled at the success of the Velvet Revolution and Havel's leadership, which demonstrated the very best in intellectual and humane leadership.

Since then, President Havel has been an extraordinary politician, leading his country and the countries of Eastern Europe into a future of freedom, democracy, and security. He was probably the foremost proponent in Europe of allowing the former countries of the Warsaw Pact to join NATO. On March 12, 1999, his vision was made a reality when the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary became members of the Alliance. And just last November, his country was honored by hosting the first NATO Summit held behind the former Iron Curtain in Prague, where seven additional countries of Eastern Europe were invited to join the Alliance.

Because parliamentarians from the 19 NATO countries have honored me with the leadership in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I was privileged to be present at the NATO Prague Summit in November of last year. I think it was noteworthy that President Havel, in his host capacity as the dean of all the

NATO heads of state and heads of government in length of service, was accorded an auspicious degree of affection and respect by his peers and other leaders of the Free World. That acclaim reflected not just his leadership for the Czech Republic but also recognized the moral leadership he has provided for all of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe that emerged from communism and, indeed, for the NATO Alliance as a whole.

On January 30 of this year, just 2 days before he was to step down after 13 years as President, he was one of eight European heads of state or government from NATO countries to sign a letter expressing continued solidarity and support with and to the United States in the international fight against terrorism and for possible action against Iraq. The importance of that letter really cannot be overestimated, since it stood in mark contrast to the dissenting positions of four countries, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Two sentences sum up the essence of that letter and what is most essential in the transatlantic relationship. The statement said: ``The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Today, more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.''

Vaclav Havel has been called an artist, an intellectual, the poet of democracy, and an international icon of integrity, wisdom and moral seriousness, and even ``the most extraordinary statesman who emerged from the struggle to overthrow communism in Eastern Europe.'' President Havel likes to say that in November 1989 when he was first told that he had been nominated as a candidate for the office of President of Czechoslovakia, he thought it was a joke. He thought who was he to be President of this new democracy.

This Member is here today to thank President Havel for saying yes and accepting the office of President, including the challenge of politics and public service. By simply choosing to continue to fight for the ideals he fought for during the Cold War, democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law, by working tirelessly to include the new central and eastern European democracies into Europe and the alliance, and through his efforts directed toward reconciliation with the old enemies, he has elevated politics and public service, for his country, for Europe, for the trans-Atlantic alliance, and for the world.

Mr. Speaker, this Member will quote from President Havel's first New Year's address to his nation, the newly free Czechoslovakia, on January 1, 1990. President Havel spoke to his fellow citizens about the legacy of over 40 years of the Communist totalitarian system. He said, ``It would be quite unreasonable to understand the sad legacy of the last 40 years as something alien, something bequeathed to us by some distant relative. On the contrary, we must accept this legacy as a sin we committed against ourselves. If we accept it as such, we will understand that it is up to us all, and up to us alone, to do something about it. We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue but also because it could blunt the duty each of us faces today, that is, the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably, and quickly. Let us make no mistake: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president in the world cannot achieve much on their own. And it would also be wrong to expect a general remedy to come from them alone. Freedom and democracy require participation and therefore responsible action from us all.''

Mr. Speaker, this Member joins his colleagues in paying tribute to Vaclav Havel for the vital, moral leadership and idealism he has brought to his service for the Czech Republic and to the community of Western democracies. For his countrymen and all of us in democratic nations, this leadership and focus on participatory democracy is in the best traditions of those heroes of the American democracy that we honor in this great capital city, Jefferson, Madison and others among our Founding Fathers. I urge support for the resolution.

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

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

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

I want to join in commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for his articulate statement and his initiative. This matter would have been taken up last week if it had not been for the schedule change because of the Columbia disaster.

I urge strong support by all the Members for this resolution.

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