Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to share with his colleagues the following editorial regarding cattle testing from the April 22, 2004, Omaha World-Herald.

USDA's Stubborn Stance

The absurdity of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mad

cow no-testing policy was highlighted recently when a small

Kansas meatpacker wanted to export its products to Japan.

Japan's government is edgy about the deadly disease, which

in rare instances appears to have been transmitted from

infected cattle to beef-eating people. When a cow with the

disease was found in Washington state in December, Japan and

more than 50 other nations banned American beef. Japan has

since said it will take beef from tested cows.

Then the USDA arbitrarily decided (after heavy lobbying by

the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and at least one

big U.S. packer) that it wouldn't allow anyone but its

laboratory to do the testing. And it would test only a

limited number of cows.

Creekstone Farms, the aforementioned Kansas packing plant,

is a small, upscale operation. It has spent more than

$500,000 on a lab and testers, and it wants to test all of

the 1,000 cows a day its slaughters. It says it can test for

$18 a head rather than the $325 a head the USDA claims it

would cost. The government says no. Because, the agriculture

agency rationalized, false positives might worry beef

consumers. And testing all cattle might ``confuse'' consumers

into thinking there was something wrong with beef. There is

no scientific justification for testing all cattle, the

government reasoned, so no one may do it.

Creekstone is in serious trouble. It could close. Its 800

employees would be put out of work. And its suppliers--it

buys premium cattle--would have to find other outlets.

All courtesy of the USDA. And all contrary to the most

basic of business rules: Give the customers what they want.

Creekstone is considering shipping the brain stems of the

cattle slaughtered to Japan for testing. It had better watch

out--the USDA will most likely come up with an objection to

that, too.

Meanwhile, Australia, which hasn't had a mad-cow case and

where no cattle are tested, moves in on the world beef market

once served by U.S. growers and packers. What's wrong with

this picture?

What's wrong with the USDA?

Mr. Speaker, 53 years ago, acting on a vision conceived by French businessman Jean Monnet and proposed by Robert Schuman, six nations of Europe agreed to create what we now know as the European Union. On Saturday, May 1, there will be yet another historic milestone toward achieving the dreams of Monnet and Schuman. Ten nations, eight of which just a few years ago were trapped behind the Iron Curtain, will become members of the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment of those 10 nations to shared values, to the pursuit of political and economic reforms and to solidarity with each other have helped facilitate these changes. The historic enlargement of the EU along with that of the recent NATO enlargement has resulted in a giant step towards a Europe that is whole and free, democratic and dynamic, and at peace.

Mr. Speaker, the newest members of the EU have done a remarkable job preparing for this day. On the eve of this historic enlargement of the European Union it is appropriate, as we did recently with the newest members of NATO, to congratulate Estonia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Mr. Speaker, this Member agrees with the sentiments expressed in an April 12, 2004, Lincoln Journal Star editorial entitled ``Credibility at Stake in Probe of Oil-for-Food.'' This Member commends the article to his colleagues.

[From the Lincoln Journal Star, Apr. 12, 2004]

Credibility at Stake in Probe of Oil-for-Food

If the United Nations is to retain credibility as an

effective force in international affairs, it cannot afford a

slipshod and superficial investigation into its handling of

the oil-for-food program.

Rumors of corruption in the program have been floating

around for years, but more specific charges have been leveled

recently.

The charges are especially troubling at a time when the

United Nations is being encouraged to take a larger role in

the stabilization of Iraq.

The oil-for-food program, established and operated by the

United Nations, was begun in 1996 to ease hardship imposed on

ordinary Iraqi citizens by economic sanctions. Under its

guidelines, Iraq was allowed to sell oil to buy goods that

had humanitarian purposes, such as food and medicine.

Iraq sold about $67 billion worth of oil before the program

ended, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office.

The program was set up to pay for itself. The United

Nations earned a 3 percent commission. Most of the money went

to cover the United Nation's costs, and the remainder was to

go to the weapons inspection program.

But GAO officials said recently that Saddam Hussein's

government pocketed more than $10 billion in proceeds from

oil sales. About $5.7 billion came from oil smuggled to its

neighbors. Another $4.4 billion came from illegal surcharges

and kickbacks on legitimate contracts.

Several months ago, an Iraqi newspaper said it had

documented proof that oil revenue was diverted to more than

200 businesses, organizations and individuals, including

French and Russian politicians and Benon Sevan, the U.N.

official who ran the oil-for-food program.

U.N. officials attempted and succeeded in blocking some of

the smuggling ventures, but the recent charges portray the

corruption as much more extensive than previously suspected.

One of the ticklish aspects of the corruption charges is that

U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, worked for one

of the companies that are implicated in the scandal.

Suggestions that Kojo Annan was involved in the corruption

seem dubious, however, since he left the company before it

became involved with the program.

Kofi Annan initially was slow to respond to the new

charges, but he won U.N. Security Council permission last

month to establish an independent investigation into the

charges. The approval was less than enthusiastic, however.

Russia agreed only to ``take note'' of the investigation.

The United Nations has filled an invaluable role over the

years in addressing humanitarian problems and helping to

resolve conflicts.

In order to retain the trust of the international

community, the United Nations must be willing to thoroughly

investigate these charges of corruption. If results warrant,

the international organization also must take decisive action

against any of its own officials who may have been involved.

Mr. Speaker, last summer this House overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on the citizens of Cyprus to accept a U.N.-sponsored plan designed to end 29 years of separation and to unite the island. During the floor debate, this Member expressed the sincere hope that in 2004 we would be celebrating the first anniversary of a united Cyprus, not the 30th anniversary of a divided one.

Regrettably, this hope may not be realized. Although the U.N. plan is scheduled to be voted on in a referendum on April 24, the recent very disappointing decision by the president of Cyprus to recommend a ``no'' vote to Cypriots may have doomed the best chance to reunify that country in a very long time.

Turkish Cypriots today appear to be strongly in favor of the referendum, and Ankara has played a most positive role in moving the process forward. Both should be commended for their actions and resolve.

It is unfortunate that, in a reversal of positions, it may now be the Greek Cypriots who will block unification.

In Athens it is believed that both the current government and the opposition remain supportive of the U.N. plan. A strong public statement of support from Athens would be very helpful in this critical time.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, this Member believes there is still a chance that Cyprus may enter the EU on May 1 as a united country. The U.S. has pledged $400 million to help implement the U.N. plan. To the Cypriots, I say do the right thing for their own sake.

Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues join in commending and congratulating a long-time employee in this Member's personal office, Ms. Robin Evans, who is retiring next week after almost 23 years of congressional service. This Member hired Robin on February 1, 1982, and she has worked for this Member continually since that time with the exception of a 9-month period when Robin tried working for the other body, but she saw the light and returned to the House and this Member's office as our Office Manager.

Robin is one of those exceptionally outstanding employees who does her work exceptionally well and in a very professional manner. She is one of the most organized, conscientious, and capable people that this Member has had the pleasure to work with in his many years of congressional service. Robin will be greatly missed not only by this Member and this Member's staff, but also by the many people on Capitol Hill and in my constituency in Nebraska who have worked with her throughout these many years.

Please join this Member in wishing Robin all the best as she returns to her home area on Maryland's Eastern Shore and embarks upon a new career with the Morgan Stanley office in Salisbury, MD.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

This Member would like to begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their extraordinary efforts in bringing this bill to the Floor. This Member would also like to express sincere appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their hard work on this important legislation, which is designed to enhance our nation's highways, bridges, and transit, while improving safety and creating jobs.

Clearly, a higher level than the nation currently spends on our highways and bridges is justified. Due to the dramatic deterioration of our nation's transportation infrastructure and the substantial growth of our population with attendant travel, our country must make a significant investment in our roads, bridges, and transit systems.

This Member believes that is important to recognize that transportation funding must be based on needs. It is clearly necessary to address the very real and pressing transportation requirements of this nation. Substandard roads contribute to increased congestion and greater danger for motorists. Better roads improve safety and efficiency.

It is important for the new surface transportation bill to not only maintain our current infrastructure of highways and bridges, but to improve it. Last year, the Federal Highway Administration released its 2002 version of the Conditions and Performance Report on the Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit. According to this document, the previous Highway Bill--TEA 21--has had a positive effect on improving road conditions generally. The report also noted that states and local governments have also increased their investment in transportation projects. Despite these improvements, the performance report stated, ``There is significant room for increases in highway capital investment that would result in positive net benefits to the American people, in terms of reductions in travel time, vehicle operating costs, crashes, emissions, and highway agency costs.''

Improving our transportation system is good for the economy and it benefits each American. In fact, accelerating the funding for transportation infrastructure is in itself one of the best economic stimulus actions.

This Member would like to take this opportunity to mention several issues of importance to Nebraska and the First Congressional District.

First, this Member is very pleased that TEA-LU authorizes funding to address the problem of railroad-highway crossings and the elimination of road hazards. This issue--which was the focus of the field hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska, last year--affects many states, but the problem is especially acute in Nebraska, which has 4,000 public and 2,700 private rail grade crossings.

Nebraska has the highest number of rail/highway grade crossings per mile in the U.S. and has the most heavily used rail corridor in the nation. Nebraska is taking action to ensure that the safety issues surrounding the rail crossings are addressed. However, the state clearly lacks the financial resources to finance the hugely expensive program to reduce the safety risk associated with the more important of these crossings.

Nebraska is served by both the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads. Combined, these railroads account for 70 to 140 trains per day using their two main lines across the whole west- east distance of Nebraska. The railroads continue to play an important economic role in the state, but additional, dramatically increased efforts must be made to improve the rail crossing issue.

According to Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, a state rail study found that public crossings are blocked by moving trains over 2,300 hours a day and that even in a low population state like Nebraska, its drivers spend an estimated 6,350 hours a day waiting for trains to pass. This problem will not go away on its own. In fact, the average coal train length has also grown from 110 cars to 135 cars, while the number of trains has doubled in the past 20 years.

Governor Johanns has further noted that the State of Nebraska currently receives about $4.7 million of Federal and $3.3 million of state rail safety funds per year. However, the needs are much greater. The state's total rail/highway safety funding needs are more than $420 million which would cover just 85 possible rail/highway grade separations from a much larger total.

This Member would also like to emphasize support for including in the final surface transportation bill the provisions from two bills he has introduced in the 108th Congress.

This Member believes that it is important that the final version of the surface transportation legislation ensures that agricultural transporters would continue to be exempt from hours of service requirements when operating within a 100 mile radius of their point of origin during planting and harvesting season. This is a matter of great importance to the transporters of agricultural commodities and supplies as well as to consumers. Although the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act included my proposal which led to a rule creating the exemption, this relief has been threatened by proposed hours or services rule changes. This provision, based on a bill this Member introduced last year--H.R. 871--is needed to safeguard this necessary exemption and provide a clearer definition of ``agriculture commodities.'' The bill has been endorsed by the Agricultural Retailers Association and the Agricultural Transporters Conference of the American Trucking Associations.

This Member also supports inclusion in the final version of the legislation a provision based on the ``Safer Roads Everywhere Act'' introduced by this Member last year. This proposal--H.R. 1226--is designed to enhance global traffic safety and would benefit Americans who are traveling or living abroad. The legislation also is designed to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the authority it needs to conduct activities to improve worldwide traffic safety. Furthermore, it would provide the Department of Transportation with opportunities to gain knowledge about international traffic safety practices and programs which could be incorporated in the U.S. The bill is supported by the Association for Safe International Road Travel, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. My staff has worked with NHTSA and the World Health Organization in developing the legislation.

This Member is also supportive of a provision which is designed to improve public safety through improved enhanced emergency response and increased security of intermodal containers. This provision would also authorize a pilot project to demonstrate emergency communications systems that provide wideband, two-way information transfer capabilities.

This Member is pleased that H.R. 3550 includes provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee designed to address the ethanol issue as it affects the Highway Trust Fund. Importantly, the Ways and Means Committee increased the funding available for transportation while protecting ethanol by shifting the cost of the Federal ethanol subsidy from the Highway Trust Fund to the general fund. The Committee did this by creating an equivalent tax credit in place of the ethanol tax exclusion of 5.2 cents per gallon. In addition, the Committee transfers an existing 2.5 cents per gallon ethanol tax from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund. These actions are important not only for transportation, but also for Nebraska's agricultural community.

This Member is also very pleased that H.R. 3550 includes funding for several projects which would provide significant benefits to the 1st Congressional District, Nebraska, the region, and the nation.

Nebraska Highway 35--$13,000,000

The intent of the Nebraska Highway 35 project is to develop the most efficient route from Norfolk to South Sioux City. Currently, this route is comprised of several short segments of highway winding its way to the northeast. This project has significant regional and national importance. The 68-mile project will provide a more direct regional connection and greatly facilitate travel, for example, between the Twin Cities of Minnesota and Denver as well as regional north-south traffic. It is also a project of great importance to the area's local communities.

The new corridor will provide significant safety, congestion mitigation, and economic development benefits and reduce travel time. The Nebraska Department of Roads classified the Highway 35 project as a ``planned expressway'' in 2001.

Lincoln South Beltway--$14,566,300

The South Beltway is a vital component of Lincoln, Nebraska's long- range transportation plans and will be an important solution to the highway traffic congestion in a wide swath of central Lincoln with the substantial truck traffic resulting from the newly completed State Highway 2 Expressway connection to Interstate I-29 in western Iowa.

The South Beltway is a vital component of the City's long-range transportation plans and will be an important solution to the traffic congestion that is beginning to affect this growing community. This Member has been personally interested in advancing this project, which will be beneficial to the entire region. Funding is needed to build upon past congressional support for the South Beltway.

Antelope Valley (Lincoln)--$4,000,000

The Antelope Valley project is a comprehensive plan to protect and enhance highways and flood control in downtown Lincoln that has emerged from a partnership between the City of Lincoln, the State of Nebraska, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UN-L), the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District and the Army Corps of Engineers. The project involves transportation, flood control, and community revitalization, many portions of which must be developed concurrently for maximum efficiency. For Phase I of the transportation component of the Antelope Valley Project, funding is needed for a new north-south roadway and a new east-west roadway within the redevelopment corridor. Between $7-8 million in Federal highway funding has already been devoted to this large-scale project.

Fremont Railroad Grade Separation--$1,807,300

Funding is needed to create a grade separation structure across a railroad corridor in the western part of the City of Fremont. This location is at the top of the Nebraska Department of Roads' list of grade separation needs across the state. The project will create significant safety and economic benefits.

Louisville Bypass--$1,626,400

This project, which has the support of the Louisville mayor and city council as well as the Cass County Commissioners, to implement a Nebraska Department of Roads study, would relieve severe truck/traffic problems on Nebraska Highway 66 in the community and thus provide significant safety and economic development benefits for the area. This state highway is becoming more frequently used as a short-cut between I-29 and I-80 and that trend will accelerate when the two new Missouri River bridges in Sarpy and Cass counties are put in place.

U.S. 34 Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridges--$12,000,000

The distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), whose districts are also part of the site for the two-bridge, bi-state project across the Missouri River in Cass and Sarpy counties for access to I-29 support its construction as does this Member. The total funding represents the separate but complementary requests of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and this Member. This important project is urgently needed to replace two obsolete and deteriorating bridges crossing the Missouri River. The construction of these replacement bridges will result in increased safety and improved economic development in the area.

The agreement leading to this request for funding was the result of intensive discussions and thus it continues to represent the consensus of city, county and state officials as well as the affected Members of Congress. We believe it is the best approach for Nebraska, Iowa and the entire region.

Pflug Road & I-80 Interchange--$3,000,000

A future interchange at Pflug Road would provide a major catalyst for the development of southern Sarpy County. The existing Pflug Road bridge over I-80 will be removed as a part of the I-80 widening project between Omaha and Lincoln. In order to accommodate the interchange, the new Pflug Road bridge will be constructed approximately \1/4\ mile to the south of the existing location. Currently, the nearest interchange south of Pflug Road is Nebraska Highway 66, which is about five miles southwest, while the closest interchange north of Pflug Road is Nebraska Highway 31, about two miles northeast. This Member is pleased to join the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) in supporting this project. The total funding represents the separate but complementary requests of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and this Member.

Cordova Road--$1,500,000

This project would involve paving 5.5 miles of road north of Cordova to I-80. Paving this road would provide an important long-missing transportation link in Seward County, Nebraska, (and for areas south of the county) which currently lacks the funds to complete the project. It would also provide economic development benefits in the area.

Nebraska Statewide Rural Transit Needs Assessment--$300,000

This project is needed to assess capital and operating financial needs of rural transportation in Nebraska.

This Member would also like to express strong support for designating the University of Nebraska--Lincoln as a participant in the University Transportation Center (UTC) program. The UTC provisions in H.R. 3550 currently provide for a competitive selection process among the universities. However, if this process is revised and universities are designated in the final version of the legislation, this Member strongly urges that the University of Nebraska--Lincoln be included.

UN-L is uniquely qualified to be included in the UTC program. UN-L has already developed a strong area of expertise in the area of transportation safety research; therefore, this Member believes that it would be an excellent addition to the UTC program.

In recent weeks it has come to this Member's attention that an important project--Antelope Valley in Lincoln--may require clarifying language to help ensure that work may continue in a timely manner. This Member urges the final version of the legislation to include the following provision or something similar:

(A) Antelope Valley Project.--The Secretary shall enter

into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers to allow for

the Federal flood control funds to be matched with Federal

surface transportation funds as the non-Federal match. The

Antelope Valley Project in Lincoln, NE, has successfully

demonstrated the cost savings that can be derived from a

coordinated effort between federal, state, and local agencies

to study, plan, and construct a major infrastructure project

that will mitigate flooding and transportation congestion

while revitalizing the heart of downtown.

This Member strongly supports H.R. 3550 and urges his colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. Few responsibilities of the Federal government touch the lives of American families like funding for our Nation's highways. Whether you are a business owner moving product or a parent getting the kids to school before going to work in the morning, we all recognize the importance of well-designed and maintained roadways.

And with almost 9 million Americans out of work and 47,500 jobs created for every billion dollars put toward federal highway and transit spending, we recognize that investing in our highways is an investment in our Nation's future, in our families and in our quality of life.

While all of our States have transportation needs, by no means are they equal. At the same time I-95 truck traffic is expected to double in 10 to 15 years, the Northeast has one of the oldest highway and transit infrastructure systems, as well as some of the oldest and most heavily used bridges in the United States. Last week's fuel tanker crash on 1-95 in Bridgeport only highlighted these shortcomings, pointing to Connecticut's dire need for a viable alternative to our congested highways.

I believe most members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would agree we should provide at least as much funding nationally as the other body has.

I remain concerned about ongoing attempts to raise the minimum guarantee rate in this bill to 95 percent. Raising the minimum guarantee not only destroys the concept of needs-based aid, it does so at a time when assistance is most urgently needed.

Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves to conference, it is critical that we remain committed to providing funding to the States that require improvements the most. That is how this body can serve the Nation best, and that is what this bill should aspire to.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the leadership of the committee for accepting the perfecting amendment. It does track the existing regulations.

This amendment, based upon H.R. 871, which this Member offered last year, would assure that agriculture transporters would continue, that is the important part, would continue to be exempt from hours of service requirements when operating within a 100-mile radius of their point of origin during the very busy and at times short, weather- restrained planting and harvesting seasons of the year.

This is a matter of great importance to the transporters of agriculture commodities and supplies as well as consumers. However, this amendment narrows the definition of commodities and farm supplies, and I think it is appropriate.

The business of farming is driven largely by the weather and the significant demands of spring planting and fall harvest, and farmer's yields and the qualities of their crops depend, to a major extent, on timing. Planting, fertilizing, application of crop protection products and harvest all must be done at the right time, fitted in and around the ups and downs of weather.

During the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act, this Member's initiative led to regulations creating the current exemption. This relief has been threatened by proposed changes to hours of service rules. The provisions to include this amendment are needed to safeguard the continuation of this necessary exemption and to provide a clearer definition and a more restricted definition of agriculture commodities and farm supplies.

It is for this reason that I offer the amendment today. The legislation is supported by 40 cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. The chairman and the ranking member of the committee have received letters from about 35 organizations supporting the amendment.

I ask for its approval.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the cosponsor of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support and appreciate the assistance of the staff on both sides of the aisle as we moved in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues join in congratulating Brad and Amy Williams of Cedar Bluffs, Nebraska, for being one of the four winners of the 48th Annual National Outstanding Young Farmers Awards presented by the U.S. Junior Chamber (Jaycees) and the John Deere Company. The 2004 awards event marked the 38th year that the John Deere Company sponsored the program, which is administered by The U.S. Junior Chamber (Jaycees), and supported by the Outstanding Farmers of America Fraternity and the National Association of County Agricultural Agents.

Brad and Amy Williams both stated that they didn't think they would win. But win, they did. An AP wire article on the Williamses stated, ``The Cedar Bluffs couple underestimated themselves and their farming operation. Before the ceremony was over, they were in the spotlight.'' And, it is a well-deserved spotlight as the couple won the award by farming 2,015 acres of corn, soybeans and hay along with working a 2,700 swine farrow-to-feeder pig operation.

In addition, the Williamses have increased their number of no-tilled acres during the past 16 years. In 2003, they used the no-till method on 65 percent of the 2,015 acres they farm thereby conserving soil moisture, reducing erosion and lessening soil compaction. In doing so, they also provided additional cover for wildlife including pheasants and quail.

But, farming for Brad and Amy Williams is not just about conservation, it is also about keeping up with rapidly changing technology and becoming more efficient. In all of these areas, Brad and Amy Williams' efforts have paid off--not only in receiving this award for being Outstanding Young Farmers, but also about in being successful stewards of the land.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 558) welcoming the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 558, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, this Member is extremely pleased to offer this resolution welcoming the accession to NATO membership of seven Central European democracies: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Yesterday, these seven nations became America's newest allies when their prime ministers presented Secretary of State Powell with their instruments of accession. Secretary Powell recalled their struggle for freedom and promised that ``by joining NATO's bond of collective security, Article 5 and all, you will remain free.''

Later, President Bush yesterday publicly welcomed their leaders to the alliance on the south lawn of the White House. In his remarks, the President noted, ``The countries we welcome today were friends before they were allies, and they were allies in action before becoming allies by treaty.''

The decision to admit former communist nations from Central and Eastern Europe, Madam Speaker, into the Atlantic Alliance, is one of the great successes of American and Alliance foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It is a bipartisan success promoted by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is also a success in which the House of Representatives has played an important role.

Since 1994, the House has repeatedly declared its support for NATO enlargement and the fundamental role of NATO in transatlantic security. We recognize that throughout its history NATO has succeeded not only in keeping its MEMBERS free, but in extending that freedom to new lands that have long yearned for freedom's blessings.

Already, the three nations that joined NATO in 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have been contributing to the Alliance and its operations in Bosnian and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Poland has been a major contributor to Operation Iraqi Freedom and currently commands a multinational force in south central Iraq.

The current round of enlargement, the fifth in NATO's history, will further erase the dividing lines across Europe that were drawn at Yalta and will further extend the zone of peace and security in the North Atlantic region.

Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are already contributing to the Alliance, with each of these new allies contributing to one or more of NATO's ongoing operations. In addition, six of them have forces on the ground in Iraq.

That is far from their only contribution. Last year as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, this Member traveled to all seven of these countries; and after those visits, this Member is confident that they and their membership will reinvigorate the Alliance. In fact, the new vigor is already being felt.

Because the citizens of these new MEMBER countries have recent memories of living under oppressive dictatorships, they are especially committed to NATO and its collective defense guarantee.

Having fought so long and hard to gain their freedom, they know how precious freedom is and how fundamentally important the defense of freedom remains. They have pledged that they are ready to defend their freedom and ours, and we are very fortunate to be able to call them our allies.

In addition to noting the accomplishments of the incoming NATO members and welcoming their accession to the Alliance, this resolution also reaffirms the support of the House for the process of NATO enlargement and for keeping NATO's doors open.

Finally, this resolution expresses our support for the remaining candidates for NATO membership, at this point, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia.

To ensure that the enlargement process continues after the accession of the seven new members, the resolution recommends that the leaders of the NATO nations at this summer's Istanbul Summit ``should agree to review the enlargement process, including the applications of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, at a summit meeting to be held no later than 2007.''

This language is consistent with the language of the relevant communique from the 1999 Washington Summit at which Alliance leaders welcomed Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO membership. That communique called for a summit meeting to review the enlargement process to be held ``no later than 2002,'' that is, 3 years after that summit.

Scheduling a 2007 enlargement summit would also establish a 5-year cycle for NATO enlargement. Three nations

received invitations in 1997 at Madrid, and seven nations were invited in 2002 in Prague. This Member believes that this is a reasonable timetable, one that gives NATO time to incorporate the seven new members, while absolutely ensuring that the three remaining candidates are not forgotten and that they have met the necessary requirements to be full-fledged partners in NATO.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for America's seven newest allies as they joined the most successful Alliance in history and thereby secured the freedom that they had fought so hard to gain. This Member urges his colleagues to vote for this resolution in order to welcome these countries to NATO and to ensure that NATO's door remains open to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, and probably to countries to follow.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a brief set of comments, and I want to thank the gentleman for his outstanding statement and for his generous remarks directed toward this Member.

I would say to the gentleman with respect to Iraq and with respect to Afghanistan, the two subjects that the gentleman addressed towards the remaining part of his time, I certainly am in absolute agreement. The gentleman will recall, of course, that the House and the Senate have both expressed their view that NATO should take a larger role in Iraq and that, in fact, we should call upon the resources of the United Nations where appropriate. I am sure the gentleman is concerned about the lack of resources from NATO countries being directed towards Afghanistan at this critical time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield time shortly to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and who had the experience of being an infantry officer in a combat unit stationed on the Czechoslovakian border before, in fact, the Wall came down and before we moved to now admit, some 3 or 4 years ago, the Czech Republic to NATO. The gentleman has taken an outstanding interest and involvement in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly as a rapporteur or co-rapporteur on a number of important reports for the Defense and Security committee and, I might also say, he has a special interest in our Baltic neighbors who are, by actions yesterday, joining NATO.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her kind

remarks and knowledgeable comments. I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) again for his continued interest and leadership in this subject area.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this resolution. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 254) to authorize the President of the United States to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 254, as amended by the Senate. This bill makes necessary changes to the charter agreement of the North American Development Bank, or NADBank. This bill, which this Member reintroduced on January 8, 2003, contains legislative changes requested by the administration. This legislation passed the House on February 26, 2003. Over a year later, the Senate did pass H.R. 254, with an amendment, on March 12 of this year.

First, this Member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House floor.

I would also like to thank the following four members of the House Committee on Financial Services who are original cosponsors of this legislation: two distinguished gentlemen from California (Mr. Ose) and (Mr. Royce) and two distinguished gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and (Mr. Hinojosa). All four of these Members, who provided valuable input into H.R. 254, have a distinct interest in this subject, as they come from a State, either California or Texas, where the NADBank is commissioned to work along the international U.S.-Mexican boundary.

In addition to these Members, the following Members are seven additional bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 254: the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla; the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva); the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). All of these Members, with the exception of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), represent a portion of the U.S.-Mexican border.

In this Member's opening statement on H.R. 254, he would like to briefly discuss the following three items: the background on the NADBank; the contents of H.R. 254; and the description of the Senate amendment to H.R. 254.

First, as to background, during the 1993 debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, environmental issues emerged. A particular concern was that NAFTA could result in the industrialization and population growth in the U.S.-Mexico border region, which could further exacerbate pollution problems in the area. In addition, during the NAFTA debate, some Members of Congress were concerned that the perceived lax enforcement of environmental laws by the Republic of Mexico would not be sufficient.

As a result of these factors, which were raised in the NAFTA debate, the

U.S. and Mexico agreed to create the NADBank which was charged with financing environmental infrastructure projects on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico international boundary. The NADBank currently assists communities within 100 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico border by financing environmental infrastructure projects that address the need for waste water treatment, drinking water, and disposal of municipal solid waste.

As the administration has testified, the NADBank's overall performance thus far has been inadequate and unsatisfactory. As of March 10, for example, of this year, the NADBank had approved only approximately $96.4 million in loans to projects and disbursed only $20.8 million in loans, despite having $450 million in scheduled paid- in capital and a total lending capacity of $3 billion.

In order to address the inadequacies of the NADBank, U.S. President Bush and Mexican President Fox came forth with a joint agreement which was announced in Monterrey, Mexico, in March of 2002. Two of the provisions in this joint agreement require U.S. congressional approval as they are amendments to the Border Environment Cooperation Agreement which established the NADBank.

Of the second thing, the legislation before us today includes the following changes agreed to by Presidents Bush and Fox. These provisions are as follows:

Number one, NADBank would be able to make grants and nonmarket rate loans out of its paid-in capital resources with the approval of the board of directors. Currently, NADBank can only finance market rate loans.

Two, the region that the NADBank serves will be expanded on only the Mexican side from 100 kilometers of the international boundary to within 300 kilometers of that boundary.

With respect to the first legislative change, the administration believes that NADBank's current financial framework is having a limited impact in regions with high poverty rates. Communities in the border regions in many instances have been unable to afford market rate financing for environmental infrastructure projects. An element of the financing which involves grants and nonmarket rate loans will make the NADBank more affordable for the eligible communities.

With respect to the second legislative change, the administration believes that the geographic expansion on the Mexican side of the international boundary will give the NADBank more opportunities to address a greater scope of environmental issues that affect communities along the U.S. and Mexican border. For example, with this change the NADBank will be better able to undertake projects that improve water use over a broader geographic area.

Furthermore, H.R. 254 would also enhance congressional oversight through an annual reporting requirement on the subject of the NADBank by the Secretary of the Treasury to both the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Currently, there is no such reporting requirement. In addition to this report, H.R. 254 also includes four different senses of the Congress resolutions which address either water pollution or water conservation.

Third and finally, the Senate amendment, which was authored by the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, would limit the amount of grants which can be given for any one project.

The rationale behind this argument was to help ensure that NADBank does not run out of money by using grants exclusively for just a few projects.

Specifically, the Senate amendment requires the U.S. representatives to the NADBank to oppose any proposal which would either: (1) Be for a project that is not being financed, in part, by loans from any source; or (2) for a NADBank grant to account for more than 50 percent of the financing for an individual project.

The Senate amendment also includes an exception to this above rule, however. The U.S. representative to the NADBank cannot oppose a proposal if the President determines there are exceptional economic circumstances for making a NADBank grant, which does not exceed $250,000, and the grant is made for a project for which finding a loan is impractical. If the President would make this determination, the President must consult with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Financial Services.

In conclusion, for the reasons stated and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 254, as amended by the Senate. We have been told that the President is eager to sign this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to pay tribute to Dr. Brian Aprill, Captain in the U.S. Navy, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Navy on May 1, 2004.

Dr. Aprill has accompanied the House of Representatives' delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings, on seven separate occasions, in his capacity as the delegation's physician. As Chairman of the House Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, this Member would like to thank Dr. Aprill for his truly outstanding performance in his professional competence, good nature and fine assistance to the delegation which is greatly appreciated by all Members of the delegation.

Dr. Aprill is a graduate of Whittier College and Washington University School of Medicine. Currently, he is the Staff Endocrinologist in the Endocrinology and Metabolism Division, Department of Internal Medicine at the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center. In addition, he is the Assistant Professor of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, and Program Director, Transitional Year Program. In 1991, Dr. Aprill received the Navy Achievement Medal and in 1996, the Navy Commendation Medal.

This Member, in behalf of himself and the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, commends Dr. Aprill on his outstanding career with the U.S. Navy and wishes him well in his new capacity as a Staff Endocrinologist with the Frist Clinic in Nashville, Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, this Member has been a strong supporter of regulatory burden relief for our financial institutions in the past. However, this Member will oppose the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2003 (H.R. 1375) because of the provisions which preempt the laws of over 30 states on either interstate bank branching, the bank acquisition ``age'' requirements or both. As a former State senator in the Nebraska Unicameral legislature, this Member believes Congress should continue to defer to State legislatures on these questions.

Under current Federal law, State and national chartered banks can branch de novo into a new State only if the State explicitly permits de novo interstate branching. This provision of Federal law was enacted in the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Furthermore, under Riegle-Neal, bank holding companies are permitted to acquire an existing bank in any State. However, under this law, a state can adopt ``age'' laws which provide that a bank holding company located out-of-State can only acquire a bank in the State if the bank has been in existence for a certain amount of time (up to 5 years) as determined by the State.

Section 401 of H.R. 1375 would preempt State laws as they relate to both interstate bank branching and the ``age'' requirement for the acquisition of existing banks. In the 107th Congress, this Member did offer an amendment on this subject during a Financial Services Committee Markup of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2002. This Member's amendment would have deleted the provision of this bill which preempted the laws of States on bank branching and bank acquisition. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 13 to 32.

In conclusion, this Member will oppose H.R. 1375 because of the provisions in Section 401 which preempted the laws of over 30 States. This Member strongly believes that these banking questions should be left to our State legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the March 3, 2004, Lincoln Journal Star. The editorial emphasizes the need to develop an animal identification system in an expeditious manner. Clearly, an effective system to track livestock would benefit producers as well as consumers. It is time for action.

[From the Lincoln Journal Star, Mar. 3, 2004]

Quick Action Needed on Livestock IDs

A continued sense of urgency is needed in the effort to

establish an animal identification system to improve food

safety.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been working to

develop a program for several years, but it's still far from

implementation.

Meanwhile, the ability of the livestock industry to track

sick animals is in woeful condition.

The USDA never did track down all the cattle in the herd in

Washington state where a cow with mad cow disease was

detected. Officials finally gave up and admitted they could

not find 11 cows.

With technology that's available today, that's inexcusable.

A good starting place would be the bill introduced by Sen.

Chuck Hagel, which would give U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

Ann Veneman authority to implement the system the department

has been working on for the past several years.

The program was designed to give inspectors the ability to

identify all the farms and other animals that had contact

with a diseased animal within 48 hours.

Compare that with the frustrating weeks that inspectors

spent on the recent case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Tests confirmed the result on Dec. 23 last year. The

investigation was not closed until Feb. 9.

The USDA is recommending the use of radio frequency

identification devices, but other approaches, such as

implantable microchips and retinal scanning, are also

possible.

The device is a tag that is stapled to the base of the

animal's ear. Each tag has a unique numerical code. The tag

would be scanned at each stage of the production chain for

tracking purposes. Information on the devices would be stored

in a national database.

The program deserves industry support for reasons that

should be obvious. The discovery of single case of mad cow

cost the industry an estimated $4 billion in lost sales,

according to agricultural economists.

It won't be cheap to establish the program. Officials

estimate the costs could run around $100 million a year.

Although a portion of the cost ultimately will be borne by

the industry and passed along to consumers, tax support would

be appropriate during the transition phase to the new system.

The good news is that some producers are already using the

radio frequency identification tags.

The USDA currently plans to phase in the program this

summer and begin issuing animal identification tags next

year. First priority would be given to tracking beef and

dairy cattle.

Progress on that timetable should not be allowed to slip.

The livestock industry needs prompt action to protect

consumer safety.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I do rise as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on International Relations, and I want to commend the authors of the resolution. I think it is straightforward and an accurate statement of the facts regarding Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address just a few aspects of the resolution, particularly those relating to the WMD. As H. Res. 557 notes, the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein not only trampled on the rights of the Iraqi people but he repeatedly defied the U.N. Security Council and ignored its obligations to the U.N. weapons inspectors. The resolution correctly notes that in November 2002, the Security Council unanimously agreed that Iraq ``remains in material breach of its obligations under the relevant resolutions.''

Let me repeat that, because it is important. The U.N. Security Council unanimously found that Iraq was unquestionably in material breach of its international obligations. The Iraqi regime had unquestionably interfered

with the IAEA inspectors and prevented the U.N. from effectively doing its job.

Contrary to our greatest fear, and fortunately for our forces, Iraq did not use weapons of mass destruction in the conflict with the U.S. and allied forces. Members of this body are acutely aware of the fact that no large WMD stockpiles have been found. This, of course, raises a number of questions. We certainly should examine the quality of our intelligence, and the appropriate oversight committees are doing just that. It is important, however, to remind the body of exactly what we have found that Saddam Hussein did possess.

We know, for example, that Saddam had, A, a concealed ballistic missile production line that dramatically breached U.N. range and payload restrictions; B, had covert programs to develop both new and more effective liquid and solid rocket fuels, which would further enhance the range and accuracy of Saddam's illegal missiles; C, had a secret pipeline to purchase advanced missile components and technology from North Korea; and had, D, two separate undeclared, unmanned aerial vehicle production lines that senior Iraqi officials now admit were to have been used for carrying biological weapons.

These items are critically important because missiles and UAVs are the means to deliver any weapons of mass destruction. That is why the U.N. prohibited Iraq from having these systems. There is no doubt that these missiles and UAV programs existed, in clear violation of Iraq's international obligations; and there is no doubt that they had WMD application.

What else do we know that Saddam Hussein had? One, the Iraqi Survey Group has found a network of labs and safe houses that contained everything needed for chemical/biological weapons production. These were undeclared facilities under the direct control of the Iraqi intelligence and security services.

Two, at an Iraqi prison they found evidence of an undeclared chemical/biological laboratory complex that seems to have been for human testing.

Three, we have learned that Iraq maintained a WMD scientific community and infrastructure that was organized in such a way that WMD production could be quickly resumed.

Four, we learned from David Kay, the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, that Saddam and his son Uday were demanding to know from their subordinates how long it would take Iraq to produce chemical weapons.

And, five, while the evidence on nuclear activity is less clear, David Kay has testified that ``the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons.'' He did.

Mr. Speaker, none of this should be in the least bit surprising. Throughout the 1990s, we knew Saddam Hussein was seeking to maintain an arsenal of prohibited weapons. Over the years, he became a master of deception, hiding many elements of his extensive WMD program. For example, after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we found that Iraq was much further along on a nuclear weapons development program than anyone had suspected, only months from a serious capability.

We do know in the 1990s Saddam himself admitted he possessed 30,000 liters of anthrax. Now, remember, just a teaspoon of anthrax paralyzed the other body, the Senate, for months.

Saddam acknowledged a stockpile of 5,000 gallons of botulinum toxin and 25 biologically filled Scud missiles. He admitted to these lethal weapons after years of denying he had such weapons because his son-in- law defected and provided incontrovertible evidence of their existence.

All intelligence services--U.S., British, French, Italian, German, and others, agreed that Iraq had WMD. The U.N. concluded Iraq possessed a hidden WMD arsenal. The IAEA warned that Saddam was not cooperating. The WMD threat in the late 1990s was considered so compelling that, in December 1998, President Clinton felt he had no choice but to launch retaliatory airstrikes. The case for action was compelling in 1998, and the case was every bit as compelling in 2003.

Certainly our intelligence could have been better; it should have been better. It will never be as good as the consumers--the policymakers--want it to be.

As we prepared for Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were gaps in our knowledge. There were things that we just did not know. It would seem that we just didn't have good access to Saddam Hussein's inner circle. There is a reason we didn't have that access and the intelligence information we would have wanted. Frankly, in the decade following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, we didn't invest adequately in human intelligence (HUMINT). The Intelligence Community sharply reduced the number of case officers, and the number of recruited intelligence assets is reported to have significantly declined.

This lack of HUMINT resources was compounded by self-imposed limits on whom our intelligence officers could recruit. In the 1990s the CIA established guidelines that made it extremely difficult to recruit the unsavory characters--individuals who are exactly the sort who could have provided useful intelligence. Any excuses aside, the ``Deutsch Guidelines'', as they were known, discouraged the recruitment of spies with criminal or human rights issues in their background. Yet these were precisely the sort of people who could get close to Saddam Hussein. In practical effect, our intelligence services were not allowed to recruit them.

With the active and tenacious involvement of the Intelligence Committee the Deutsch Guidelines were rescinded in the FY 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act, but there is little doubt that the damage to our human collection capability has been substantial. Under the guidance of the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the Chairman of the HPSCI, this body has been supporting the rebuilding of our HUMINT capability so that we aren't as likely to face future intelligence gaps. It is, however, a matter that will require continued priority, resources, and the close attention from the relevant oversight committees.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 557 is a good resolution that reflects the basic truth that the world is much better without Saddam Hussein governing Iraq. This Member commends the authors of the resolution and urges its support.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to fervently condemn the terrorist bombings in Madrid on March 11 and to express his strong and unwavering support for the Spanish people in their fight against terrorism.

As all of our colleagues surely know, last Thursday at the height of the morning rush hour, terrorists detonated 10 bombs on commuter trains in the Spanish capital of Madrid. These synchronized attacks blew up four different trains. Several of them were in station at the time, increasing the carnage. At last count 201 people were killed in these attacks and almost 1,500 people were injured. These attacks were the worst terrorist atrocity in Spanish history and maybe the most terrible on the European continent in modern history.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the French newspaper Le Monde, often a font of anti-American sentiment, declared that ``We Are All Americans.''

Now we are all Spaniards united in solidarity and resolve with our friends and our allies.

To compare terrorist atrocities is in some ways to minimize the importance of each human life that was so brutally and pointlessly extinguished by those who exalt in the murder and maiming of their fellow men, women, and, yes, children too. But I sense that most Americans saw the slaughter in Madrid on March 11 through the prism of our own experience on September 11. Even the dates mirrored each other with 3/11 coming exactly 2\1/2\ years after 9/11.

For those of us who evacuated our offices on 9/11, watched the smoke from the burning Pentagon, and heard the sirens of emergency vehicles, we could not help but identify with the scenes of killing and bloodshed that we all repeatedly saw on our television screens last week.

Sadly, last week's attacks marked not a new phenomenon in Spanish life, only a new magnitude of suffering.

For more than 30 years, Spaniards have endured a vicious terrorist campaign by the fringe, Basque-separatist ETA organization. Given this bloody history, it was no surprise when Spanish officials first blamed ETA for the March 11 train bombings.

Since then we learned that these reprehensible attacks are more likely the work of the Islamic terrorists linked to al Qaeda. A clear determination is not yet possible. We often speak of the global war on terrorism. Last week we were reminded just how global the threat of terrorism really is. Al Qaeda has already struck in Africa, Asia, and North America. Now nearly all relevant authorities are tentatively concluding that these terrorists have struck in Europe as well.

In conjunction with these attacks, Spanish authorities have arrested five suspects, three Moroccans and two Indians, who are believed to be al Qaeda loyals. Authorities are seeking other suspects in conjunction with the bombings. The bombings in Spain demonstrate that Europe is indeed a target of al Qaeda and the brand of Islamic extremism that it espouses. It is a terrible shock, but it comes as no surprise to European terrorism experts. Europol, which helps coordinate police activity among nations, warned in December that al Qaeda was still active in Europe and remained a threat there. However, if there was still any thought among Europeans that they were somehow immune from al Qaeda attacks, these bombings proved them wrong.

An additional concern in this case is the obvious, and apparently successful, effort by terrorists to influence a democratic election. Many analysts have attributed the unexpected victory of the Socialist Party in Sunday's national elections to voters' reactions to the terrorist attacks. Spain's participation in military action against Iraq was unpopular among the electorate. Some post-election reports indicate that a large number of Spanish voters

may have voted against the ruling popular party in the belief that its support for the Iraq war was responsible for Spain being targeted by al Qaeda.

If, indeed, as this Member believes, al Qaeda carried out these terrorist attacks just 3 days before a national election in order to affect the results of the election, it would be an extremely troubling development. We already know that al Qaeda aims to kill our people and cripple our economies. It is, furthermore, extraordinarily disturbing that this group seems to be targeting governments friendly to the United States in order to bring them down.

An editorial in the Omaha World-Herald yesterday declared that, ``The Spanish voters, in their sorrow and anger, have broadcast exactly the wrong signal: terrorism works.''

Mr. Speaker, if anyone in Europe believes that standing on the sidelines will somehow protect them from al Qaeda, they are wrong. Europe was a target of al Qaeda even before 9/11 and the Iraq war, and it remains a target of al Qaeda. The response to terrorism cannot be a quest for neutrality. It cannot be the pursuit of a nonaggression pact or a modus vivendi with al Qaeda. This is not possible.

The only response can be a reaffirmation of a commitment to strenuously work together within Europe and within the Atlantic Alliance to root out the terrorists in our midst and to destroy their ability to operate throughout the world.

Fortunately, we see indications from our European allies that this will be their response. Already officials in European countries and in the European Union are stepping up their efforts to improve cooperation against terrorist groups and strengthen legislation against terrorism.

However, that inclination, apparently, is not shared by Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, which is the executive bureaucracy of the EU. On Monday, Mr. Prodi said, ``It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists.''

This outrageous, wrong-headed comment is the worst thing an EU official could have said in response to the terrorist attacks in Spain.

Instead of vowing to redouble efforts to defeat al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan, the head of the European Commission advocates appeasement and surrender to those who orchestrated the massacre of innocents in Madrid.

If the terrorists were encouraged by their apparent success at influencing the Spanish elections, they must be ecstatic that high- ranking officials like Mr. Prodi want to pursue a separate, dishonorable accommodation with terrorists.

In an article in yesterday's Washington Post, Robert Kagan offered a withering critique of Mr. Prodi's comments.

Mr. Kagan wrote, ``Al Qaeda seeks to divide Europe and the United States not just in Iraq, but in the overall struggle. It seeks to convince Europeans that not only the use of force in Iraq was mistaken, but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and futile--just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.''

And Mr. Kagan recognizes that the policy of weakness advocated by Mr. Prodi will only encourage the terrorists. ``Responsible heads in Europe must understand that anything that smacks of retreat in the aftermath of this latest attack could raise the likelihood of further attacks,'' Mr. Kagan wrote.

Surprisingly, a more realistic European assessment of the motivations and goals of these terrorists came from the French newspaper Le Monde.

Never known for sharing a worldview with the Bush Administration, Le Monde on Monday noted that these terrorists ``attack democratic societies because of what they are: open, flexible, respectful of the rule of law,'' and for them ``the only measure of success is killing as many people as possible.''

Mr. Speaker, America must stand by our Spanish allies and all of our European allies in this struggle against terrorism. We extend our sympathy to the families of those killed in the Madrid bombings, to those injured, and to the Spanish people. And we reaffirm our commitment to work together to defeat the perpetrators of this terrible crime.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert into the Record the Omaha World-Herald article.

[From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 16, 2004]

Wrong Signal

Spain's change of leadership can be viewed as saying that

terrorism works.

The surprise is not that Spain's prime minister-elect

figures on pulling his nation's troops out of Iraq. He had

made that pledge during the campaign. The surprise is that he

was elected.

Spaniards have a long history of bravery verging on

stubbornness. So it is unsettling to see them give at least a

surface appearance of knuckling under to terrorism. Prior to

last week's death-dealing bombings aboard Spanish trains,

national polls had strongly suggested that Mariano Rajoy,

candidate of the incumbent Popular Party, would be elected

prime minister.

Then evidence increasingly pointed to the likelihood that

Islamic fundamentalists--quite possible al-Qaida--were

responsible for the bombings. After that, enough popular

votes shifted to swing the Socialist Party into the

parliamentary majority. That will make Jose Radriguez

Zapatero prime minister.

In campaigning, Zapatero vowed to make fighting terror his

``most immediate priority.'' He has a strange way of showing

it. The signal being sent here, intentionally or not, is that

radicals can gain advantage by murdering hundreds of innocent

people.

There may be some wiggle room in all this. What Zapatero

has specifically said is that he will pull out his nation's

troops on June 30 unless, by then, the United Nations has

taken charge in Iraq. That brings to the forefront what is

meant by ``take charge.''

The occupying forces intend to hand political control of

Iraq to an interim government on July 1, and there is ample

evidence that the United Nations will embrace that change.

Moreover, substantial U.N. involvement in peacekeeping would

be widely welcomed. But expecting the international body to

actually run the show is unrealistic. It isn't staffed to

handle the task.

Spain's withdrawal from Iraq would be symbolic, in that its

troops number less than 1 percent of international forces

there. But in such matters, symbolism is important. It's true

that about 90 percent of Spaniards opposed their nation's

involvement in Iraq. But that opposition appears to have

taken on added weight after the bombs went off.

The world weeps with Spain, which suffered a terrible blow.

But the Spanish voters, in their sorrow and anger, have

broadcast exactly the wrong signal: Terrorism works. It's

enough to make you wonder what nation might be next.