Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for the conference report on H.R. 2559, the Military Construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This Member would like to offer particular thanks to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and the Ranking Minority Member on the Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for their work on this important bill. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the very distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), for their critical work in authorizing this appropriation.

Furthermore, this Member is very appreciative that the Committee has approved the appropriations of $3 million for the frontage levee segment protecting the Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, the Nebraska National Guard Camp Frontage Levee Segment is a central element of the Clear Creek portion of the Western Sarpy Levee project. Completion of the Guard camp segment must coincide with the other elements of the Western Sarpy project to assure mutual protection and support from the beginning of the project to its completion. Indeed, without building this section of the levee along the Platte River, the entire levee system will not work; there would be a gap in the levee that would only accentuate the flooding risks and flood volume that would affect the Nebraska National Guard Camp unless this project moves forward with the rest of the levee construction project.

Previously, the Clear Creek Project was authorized at $15.6 million in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) to provide protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, I-80, and U.S. 6, BNSF RR (Amtrak Line), telecommunication lines and other public facilities. In the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress included $500,000 for construction start-up costs.

The Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska, provides training for Nebraska and other States' Army guard units to maintain mission readiness. The Guard camp levee is an essential element of the Clear Creek structure on the western side of the Platte River since it also is that part of Clear Creek nearest to the Lincoln wellfield. Planning and design funds for the Guard's segment have been previously provided by the Congress to the Department of Defense through the Military Construction appropriations bill. Planning has resulted in development of a more cost-effective frontage levee to replace a previous ring-levee approach.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in support of the conference report for H.R. 2559.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 390) recognizing the continued importance of the transatlantic relationship and promoting stronger relations with Europe by reaffirming the need for a continued and meaningful dialogue between the United States and Europe, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this resolution in that it recognizes the continued importance of transatlantic relations and the need for a continued and meaningful dialogue between the United States and Europe.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the difficult debate over Iraq, the Subcommittee on Europe held two hearings in June on the future of transatlantic relations. At these hearings, experts from both Europe and the United States presented their views on what went wrong. More important, however, was the consensus view of all of the witnesses who testified at these hearings that the time was right to put the debate over the Iraq war behind us and to begin to energetically consider how to reenergize the transatlantic relationship in a positive manner which is forward looking and which focuses on developing common strategies to address common challenges.

H. Res. 390 urges a renewed effort to develop stronger relations with our friends and allies in Europe through enhanced dialogue and communications between this Nation and Europe, especially through such mechanisms as the various formal and informal interparliamentary organizations which we have here in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, as the Iraq debate has shown, both sides need to communicate more. It is neither in the interest of the United States to ignore Europe nor to try to work with a weak or divided Europe. Europeans, on the other hand, need to attempt to better understand U.S. policies and objectives and its responsibilities as a global power.

The good news is there is dialogue, but that dialogue must be enhanced, and it must be predicated on the conviction that the United States and Europe cannot meet the global challenges which confront us both unless we strengthen our partnership and address these challenges together.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two editorials on North Korea.

First, this Member hopes his colleagues will review the October 20, 2003, editorial from the New York Times in which the newspaper finally is willing to call the acts in which North Korea has been engaged ``blackmail.'' Indeed, for many years, this term has accurately described the conduct of the previous Kim II Sung regime and now the Kim Jong II regime.

An agreement by the United States, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan that there would be no attack on North Korea ``in exchange for its commitment to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs'' is a sufficient quid pro quo as long as North Korea's acceptance of this proposed agreement is not tied to economic aid. This Member feels very strongly that the United States cannot fall into a cycle of extortion again.

Second, this Member commends the editorial which was published in the October 21, 2003, Los Angeles Times. As the editorial correctly notes, North Korea poses a regional threat and therefore its neighbors--China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan--must be included in all efforts to craft and verify agreements whereby North Korea will dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 21, 2003]

Trying Diplomacy on North Korea

President Bush is now taking a wiser and more sophisticated

approach to the crisis caused by North Korea's reckless

pursuit of nuclear weapons. In a proposal whose details are

still being refined, Washington and four other nations would

guarantee not to attack the North in exchange for its

commitment to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

This proposal makes an eventual peaceful, diplomatic

solution to this extremely dangerous problem somewhat more

likely. Just how likely is impossible to tell because there

is no assurance that North Korea's highly unpredictable

leaders will agree to disarm. If the North does spurn this

reasonable offer, Washington will find it easier to persuade

Asian nations to support more coercive steps, like

international economic sanctions.

North Korea's nuclear programs are particularly alarming

because the nation has a long history of selling advanced

weapons to all who will pay for them, including other rogue

states and perhaps terrorists. Yet in the past year, as the

North has raced ahead with reprocessing plutonium into bomb

fuel, Washington has handicapped its own efforts to achieve a

diplomatic solution by refusing to specify what America would

be willing to do if the North firmly committed to giving up

its nuclear weapons ambitions in ways outsiders could

reliably verify.

The White House had insisted that specifying any such quid

pro quo would be giving in to North Korean nuclear blackmail.

Blackmail is a fair description of North Korea's behavior.

But in a situation in which everyone agrees that military

action against the North would have catastrophic consequences

for hundreds of thousands of innocent South Koreans and

Japanese, Washington's principled stand poorly served

American interests.

With this proposal, Mr. Bush is now making a serious effort

to revive negotiations and is personally seeking the support

of his fellow leaders at the Asia-Pacific summit meeting in

Bangkok. All four of the nations that would join Washington

in the proposed security guarantee--China, Japan, Russia and

South Korea--are represented there. Washington's new approach

deserves strong support from each of them.

In offering security guarantees to the North, Mr. Bush

wisely overruled hawkish administration officials who

preferred moving directly toward coercive economic and

military steps. This initiative comes less than a week after

the administration's skilled diplomacy won unanimous backing

for a United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq that

broadly endorsed Washington's policies there. Diplomacy is an

important tool for advancing America's national security. It

is good to see it.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 21, 2003]

Correct Nuclear Strategy

President Bush's announced willingness to take part in a

joint guarantee not to attack North Korea is an important

maneuver in getting Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons

program. Even if Kim Jong Il's regime refuses to accept

anything short of a full-fledged treaty, Bush's more

conciliatory approach should win needed diplomatic support

from China and South Korea.

Bush took advantage of the Asia Pacific Economic

Cooperation summit in Bangkok to discuss North Korea's

nuclear ambitions with Presidents Hu Jintao of China and Roh

Moo Hyun of South Korea. In August, both countries joined the

U.S., Japan and Russia to present a united front, urging

North Korea to end its atomic weapons development. The U.S.

is correct to enlist the assistance of North Korea's

neighbors; nuclear proliferation is a regional threat, not an

issue of concern only to Pyongyang and Washington.

When North Korea resisted further talks, China and South

Korea urged Washington to try to woo the North back to the

table by providing written, not just oral, assurance that it

would not attack. Bush offered to take that extra step,

although he correctly ruled out a formal treaty. Pyongyang's

refusal to abide by its 1994 agreement with the U.S. to

freeze its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy

supplies and economic aid raises doubts it would live up to a

treaty. North Korea first should be required to show

international inspectors that it is not reprocessing

plutonium and enriching uranium.

One administration official said the U.S. was willing to

sign an agreement saying it had no ``hostile intent'' if

North Korea demonstrated that it was making ``verifiable

progress'' in dismantling its weapons program. That's an

important change from administration insistence that

Pyongyang end the program before getting any economic help.

The North considered such an ultimatum unacceptable, but it

might end the program in stages if it saw rewards at each

step.

North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation

Treaty last year and keeps saying it is reprocessing

plutonium from 8,000 fuel rods. That may be bluff and

bluster, but if true it would produce enough fuel for perhaps

20 nuclear weapons. Monday, it fired a conventional missile

into the Sea of Japan in a test timed to coincide with the

Bangkok summit, though not with Bush's initiative. Pyongyang

has sold missiles to other nations; because it is desperately

poor and periodically racked by famine, there is no reason to

believe it would refrain from selling weapons-grade nuclear

material.

China provides most of North Korea's food and oil supplies

and has been instrumental in arranging six-nation talks. It

should point to Washington's flexibility as it pressures

North Korea to resume talks and give up nuclear weapons in

exchange for security and aid.

Mr. Speaker, the following editorial from the October 19, 2003, edition of the Omaha World-Herald expresses support for greater efforts to reach trade agreements that reduce tariffs and non- tariff barriers imposed against American exports. The phrase ``fair trade'' is often inaccurately counterposed against the phrase ``free- trade.'' So-call free trade agreements should always be constructed to be fair to American business and farm enterprises and to exporters.

Adapting to Change

A demonstration in Lincoln last weekend expressed strong

opposition to free trade. The rally was part of a national

``fair trade'' campaign critical of the North American Free

Trade Agreement and of a planned Free Trade Area of the

Americas.

The fact remains, though, that a free-enterprise economy

such as the United States' functions best when it is shorn,

for the most part, of artificial constraints such as tariffs

and quotas. Opening up a country to trade promotes

efficiency, reduces inflationary pressures and generates new

opportunities in multiple directions.

A protectionist system stifles those crucial goals. Studies

by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have

long pointed out that the countries that have experienced the

greatest economic growth have been those that have embraced

open markets and eschewed protectionism.

The anti-free-trade claims also offer illusory promises

involving job security. Protectionism tidily promises to lock

in the economic status quo. Ultimately, however, it lacks the

power to ward off economic disruption. (The same holds true

for any trading system; change is unavoidable.)

No wonder the loss of jobs at an automotive rubber-hose

plant in Lincoln (as Goodyear shifts some of its production

to Mexico) spurs an outcry among some residents. It's

unrealistic, though, to imagine that the ``fair trade''

agenda provides a solution.

The fair-trade movement stresses, for example, that it is

necessary to sharply ratchet up wages in developing countries

so that the differential with U.S. pay rates can be greatly

narrowed. Short of waving a magic wand, though, it's hard to

see how that can be accomplished.

U.S. employment in traditional industry, such as steel or

textiles, has declined for decades not as the result of any

malevolent free-trade conspiracy but because of productivity

gains and fundamental market forces--the signals sent by the

decisions of autonomous companies and consumers, as well as a

serious overcapacity in supply and, in the case of steel,

extraordinary pension costs.

The prescriptions of anti-free-trade organizers cannot

erase those basic economic realities.

The demonstrators in Lincoln took particular aim at the

North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico, however, is

establishing ever-greater economic links to Nebraska. Mexico

is now the state's No. 2 foreign export market, exceeded only

by Canada.

In recent years, Nebraska's exports to Mexico have

increased far more than the state's exports to any other

nation. In 2000, the state's exports to Mexico totaled $266

million. In 2002, they totaled $465 million.

Free trade does not promise an economic utopia. In fact, a

free market by definition means that a society will face a

certain degree of economic change--job losses, but also new

opportunities. The proponents of ``fair trade,'' in contrast,

exaggerate the ability of their ideas to cocoon the U.S.

economy from the marketplace.

Change is inevitable. A free-market system, bolstered by

open trade, best encourages the dynamism and flexibility that

enable a national economy to prosper.

Mr. Speaker, the editorial entitled ``Support for America's Iraq effort is evident'' from the October 10, 2003, Norfolk Daily News highlights a recent Gallup Poll in which nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents who were polled still support the removal of Saddam Hussein despite the personal hardships the war has created for them.

Furthermore, the editorial notes that the United States and Great Britain are by no means alone in implementing peacekeeping missions in Iraq and then correctly commends the efforts of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Kazakhstan--countries which, like Iraq, were only fairly recently released from the bonds of tyranny.

Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to read this editorial for these stories are receiving far too little attention elsewhere in the American, and indeed, the world media.

[From the Norfolk Daily News, Oct. 10, 2003]

our view

Contrary to indications left by brief news reports, the

effort to bring order and self-determination to Iraq has been

joined by a variety of nations. They have committed forces,

and are united in the fight against tyranny. And a majority

of Baghdad's residents regard Saddam's removal as worth their

hardships.

Support for America's Iraqi Effort Is Evident

Two false impressions left by daily reports from Iraq are

that the effort to depose Saddam Hussein had little support

from the people of that nation and that America is going it

alone, though with some help from its major ally, Great

Britain.

Contrary information gets too little attention, for random

acts of violence and controversy about the United Nations

role--or lack of it--grab the headlines.

America's openness to political debate and its free press

help to feed such impressions. Reading more than the

headlines or listening to more than sound bites provides a

more balanced view.

Of special importance was the recent Gallup Poll taken five

months after occupation of Baghdad: Two-thirds of the

residents of that city, home of many Saddam loyalists and

hard hit despite unusually precise military targeting,

indicated to the pollsters that the dictator's removal was

worth the hardships forced on them.

Considering the looting that occurred before occupation

forces could be effectively assembled and the inconvenience

resulting from the water and power disruption, that is a

remarkable result. It might even indicate that more Iraqis

than Germans and French understand the evil represented by

Saddam and his Baath Party.

As for the contribution to this peacekeeping effort in

Iraq, the fine print in recent reports shows that while

America's 140,000 force is dominant, other countries are

responding in important ways. Britain has 7,400 on the scene;

Italy, 3,000; Poland, 2,400; Ukraine, 1,640; The Netherlands,

1,106. Countries in between Romania's 600 troops and Latvia's

106 include Bulgaria, Denmark, Thailand, El Salvador,

Honduras, Czech Republic, Hungary, Dominican Republic, the

Philippines, Mongolia, Norway, Portugal and Nicaragua. Those

with less than 100 include Lithuania, Slovakia, Albania, New

Zealand and Kazakhstan.

So this vital campaign against tyranny finds many and

diverse nations united in a vital cause, even if the United

Nations has turned passive, and not as helpful as it should

be if terrorists and tyrants are to be defeated.

Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for H.J. Res. 63, the Compacts of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. Additionally, this Member would like to extend thanks to the very distinguished gentleman from Iowa, the Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, (Mr. Leach) for his efforts to conduct oversight of the Compact negotiations and ultimately to bring this measure

to the Floor today. Both the gentleman and his staff on the Subcommittee are to be commended for their vigilance. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the Chairman of the Resources Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the Compacts of Free Association for his efforts in guiding this resolution through the legislative process.

When this Member served as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, he requested a Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into the use of Compact of Free Association funds. Indeed, this Member traveled to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) many years ago and was disturbed by the conditions of schools, roads, and public buildings despite the infusion of U.S. aid. Unfortunately, the GAO reports certainly corroborated this Member's grave concerns about pervasive fraud, corruption, and waste of funds by the RMI Government and the poor planning and construction of infrastructure in both the RMI and the FSM.

This resolution would approve the amended Compact of Free Association, the agreement through which the United States provides assistance to the people of the RMI and the FSM. Overall, the revised Compact addresses many of the concerns which this Member has expressed for many years about this assistance and development programs for these two island groups which are two of the four Trust Territories for which the United States assumed responsibility after World War II. Of course, Congress must continue its oversight role to ensure that the people of RMI and FSM get the aid and services which they deserve and that the funds are not diverted for misuse by government officials in those countries.

In closing, Madam Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H.J. Res. 63.

Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. This Member, who is a co-sponsor of the measure, would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for introducing the measure and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts in bringing H.R. 2359 to the Floor.

Under H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Program, which is an employment verification program, would be extended through 2008 and, indeed, would expand access to the program for the entire U.S.

Madam Speaker, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 correctly prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens or people with non-immigrant visas. Unfortunately, at that time, Congress did not give employers the corresponding tools with which to comply with this Act.

For example, due to concerns regarding discrimination, employers are limited in the questions they may ask of potential employees to verify if those individuals are authorized to work in the U.S. If the employment verification documents that potential employees produce appear to be legitimate, then employers must accept the documents as legitimate without further inquiry of the potential employee.

During Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforcement raids, certain employers were found to have hired large numbers of illegal aliens, either knowingly or unintentionally, and subsequently they were subject to penalties. As technology has progressed to allow for the cheap and quick production of legitimate-looking fraudulent documents, the inability of employers to distinguish between valid documents and fraudulent documents has significantly increased. It became clear that businesses dedicated to complying with the IRCA needed new tools to assist with the endeavor.

When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 was enacted, it authorized the creation of three employment verification tools, including the Basic Pilot Program. Initially, employers in California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York, and Iowa could voluntarily use the Basic Pilot Program to compare the information received from potential employees with Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) databases to determine if potential employees could be employed legally in the U.S.

Madam Speaker, throughout the 1990's, many legal immigrants and illegal aliens moved to Nebraska seeking jobs in the meatpacking industry. Subsequently, this Member began to receive contacts from businesses in his district concerned about their capacity to comply with the IRCA. Therefore, on November 30, 1999, this Member joined his House and Senate colleagues in the Nebraska Congressional Delegation in a letter to then-INS Commissioner Doris Meissner requesting the extension of the Basic Pilot Program to Nebraska. This Member continues to firmly believe that providing Nebraska businesses with the tools to hire a legal workforce is an important component in maintaining a stable economy in the state and in meeting needs to effectively enforce immigration laws in this country's interior. On March 19, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice granted Nebraska businesses access to the Basic Pilot Program. Currently, about eight Nebraska businesses actively utilize the program.

Madam Speaker, for Congress to allow the Basic Pilot Program to lapse following the horrific and unspeakable terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, would demonstrate true negligence. More than ever, the U.S. must fully enforce its immigration laws to protect its citizens from future attacks. In its capacity to identify document fraud and illegal aliens, the Basic Pilot Program can indeed play a role in the fight against terrorism.

In conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H.R. 2359.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the October 4, 2003, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News, which is entitled ``More of a problem than a solution.'' Although this Member certainly is pleased that the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council unanimously approved a resolution which establishes a U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, he continues to hold many of the concerns outlined in the editorial with regard to the failure of the U.N. to adapt to current realities.

Recently, this Member became a co-sponsor of the National Commission on the Modernization of the United Nations Act of 2003 (H.R. 3079). Through this measure, which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), Congress would create an independent commission to explore how the U.S. could encourage structural changes in the U.N. Indeed, for the U.N. to remain relevant, the institution must be open and willing to reassess its structure, and the United States should lead the campaign for changes.

[From the Norfolk Daily News, Oct. 4, 2003.]

More of a Problem Than a Solution

President Bush has asked the United Nations for help in

rebuilding Iraq. But instead of responding with a loud

``yes'' and saying they will finally do the right thing for

people in need, many members harrumphed and growled and once

more demonstrated that the world organization may be on the

road to irrelevance.

Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general, reminded anyone who

would listen how the world body had ``imperfectly'' kept the

planet peaceful for 58 years and that the current U.S. policy

of pre-emptive action puts all of that at risk.

Someone should bring it to his attention that the

imperfections have included round after round of genocide and

incessant war in Africa.

A policy of pre-emption in the absence of clear, immediate

danger is, in fact, a policy that could be pronounced unwise

at one point in human history. That point was prior to the

advert of weapons of mass destruction and multiple acts of

catastrophic terrorism.

The Bush administration was awakened by the Sept. 11

terrorism to new realities that make some previous policies

as outdated as would be the manufacturing of carriages

instead of cars in Detroit. It is naive to suppose, as Mr.

Annan does, that the U.S. example may lead other nations to

protect themselves through aggressive action they would not

otherwise have employed.

The United Nations demonstrated that it is more problem

than solution when it failed to follow through on the last in

a series of resolutions that Iraq must account for weapons of

mass destruction, and it will not somehow absolve itself of

irresponsibility through negligence and antagonistic rhetoric

now.

If the United Nations does not come through, the United

States must ponder whether it can instigate a positive

restructuring or become increasingly less supportive of the

organization.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the October 5, 2003, an editorial from the Omaha World Herald, which is entitled ``Half-empty, half-full.'' As the editorial correctly notes, Iraq remains a country ``full of positive potential but also fraught with danger.''

[From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 5, 2003]

Half-empty, Half-full

Gene Taylor, a Democratic U.S. representative from

Mississippi, recently returned from a trip to Baghdad. He

struck the right note when he said the situation in Iraq ``is

neither going as well as the administration says it's going

nor as badly as the media say it is going.''

Indeed, the situation is decidedly mixed. That hasn't

stopped diehard partisans on either side from trying their

best to highlight only one facet of the matter, however.

The catalog of challenges is well known. Saddam Hussein

loyalists and outside terrorists have succeeded, for the time

being, in rattling people's nerves about security. Enemies of

the U.S. campaign have assassinated one member of Iraq's

Governing Council and murdered a Shiite cleric who advocated

tolerance for the American presence. They have used pinprick

attacks to kill and would U.S. soldiers at a slow but

relatively steady rate that has diminished support for the

Iraq operations among many Americans.

Meanwhile, saboteurs continue to hobble the electrical grid

and oil-pipe network. Large numbers of Iraqis remain without

jobs. Mafia-style gangs have become a serious concern in

Baghdad. Ethnic tensions simmer among Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites

and Kurds, sometimes erupting violence.

The United States has come up short, so far, in gaining

financial assistance from foreign governments. And a variety

of uncertainties beset the ambitious endeavor to move Iraq's

political system toward a constitutional republic.

And yet, much is going right. A vivid description of the

progress came in an opinion essay written by Julie Flint, a

veteran Middle East journalist, for a Lebanese newspaper.

Media depictions of Iraq as trapped in bottomless turmoil are

wrong, she argued:

``Outside Baghdad, in the Shiite south, the mood was

overwhelmingly upbeat. In Basra, ordinary people gave the

thumbs-up at the mere sight of a Briton. . . . In Amara,

streets were buzzing well after midnight. . . . Shops are

overflowing with imported goods; food prices are lower than

they were during Saddam's last years. Approximately 85

percent of primary and secondary schools have reopened. . . .

All Iraqi cities and 85 percent of its smaller towns have

fully functioning municipalities.''

Similarly, Pamela Harris, a United Press International

writer praised for her wartime reporting, noted in a recent

good news/bad news analysis how she had seen ``happy children

running out to greet Marines when they walk through downtown

Hillah without body armor or rifles because they have worked

long and hard to win the trust of the townspeople, and they

have succeeded.''

USA Today recently noted that, thanks to U.S. policy that

as tapped $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen during the Gulf

War of 1991, government workers in Iraq have received major

pay increases. The article described a police officer whose

monthly pay has gone from $25 before the war to $275 now.

This leap in the purchasing power of many Iraqis, combined

with a tariff-free influx of imported products, has spurred a

dramatic flurry of consumer spending, not least on major

items such as refrigerators and ovens. (The average price for

home appliances has fallen by 41 percent from prewar levels)

Iraq, in short, is in the middle of a momentous time of

transition--full of positive potential but also fraught with

danger.

As the debate rages over whether the glass is half-empty or

half-full, one thing is certain: The United States cannot cut

and run. Together with the Iraqi people and whatever support

can be mustered from the international community, we will

have to see this through--without minimizing how difficult

the task will be.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to commend the Turkish Grand National Assembly for its decision to approve the deployment of Turkish troops to Iraq to help restore security and stability there.

Last week, the Turkish parliament voted by a nearly 3 to 1 ratio to authorize the government to send troops to Iraq. This was an important and politically courageous step by our fellow parliamentarians in Ankara, one that could help stabilize Iraq, while at the same time helping to repair Turkish-American relations, a strong and positive signal that the Turkish parliament values the Turkish-American alliance and that the vote last winter was an unintended anomaly in our relationship.

This Member is optimistic that this vote marks a return to a normal pattern of cooperation that has marked Turkish-American relations. At the same time, we should recognize it was a courageous vote because many Turkish voters harbor an understandable concern about sending their soldiers on an operation abroad, especially to their neighbor. Yet our Turkish colleagues recognized that international security depends on the stabilization of Iraq, and they have agreed that Turkey should play a role in helping to rebuild its neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, despite the concerns of some Iraqis, the Turkish parliament's decision yesterday is a positive step and I commend them for it.

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following column written by Sonja Hillgren, editor of the Farm Journal, which appeared in the Summer 2003 issue of the publication.

This column highlights the improper hurdles that the European Union (EU) has put in place to block the importation of American agricultural products. The current EU restrictions on the importation of food with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have cost agricultural producers billions of dollars in recent years. As the column indicates, some of the products the EU uses and exports have long been GMO-based.

The intransigence by the EU is having a very detrimental effect on American farmers. Also troubling are the indications that the EU is planning to move forward with labeling and traceability requirements that will continue to act as a mechanism to block U.S. agricultural products. This clearly runs counter to the WTO principle that rules should be based on scientific evidence.

The EU's GMO standards are transparently devoid of any relationship to sound science and are either based strictly on emotion or are designed quite simply as trade barriers--or both. The U.S. must take strong action to bring reason back to this issue.

Biotech and Fortress Europe

[From Farm Journal, Summer 2003]

(By Sonja Hillgren, Farm Journal Editor)

Those wily Europeans have devised a scheme that could

freeze out imports of U.S. crops and food products. Their

vehicle is labeling and traceability for genetically modified

(GM) food and feed. Approved last month by the European

Parliament, the plan is on a path for implementation next

year.

``It is clearly about restricting trade,'' says Criss

Davis, a Shullsburg, Wis., farmer who chairs the

international marketing committee of the United Soybean

Board.

I don't want to contemplate the consequences for the U.S.

farm economy if we fail to respond aggressively at the same

time as we continue a respectful dialogue with consumers,

processors and retail grocers in the European Union (EU).

That is how U.S. soybean growers have kept open the market

for the past seven years.

Under the new EU rules, any food or feed with more than

0.9% of an EU-approved GM product must be labeled as biotech.

Food with more than 0.5% of a GM product not approved by the

EU would be barred from the European market.

Tough to implement. Especially onerous is the requirement

for labels and traceability for processed products like

soybean oil, even though tests cannot detect whether or not

processed products have been genetically altered. An

invitation for fraud, it is a big change from current rules

that require labels only if a modified gene can be detected.

``They are going to have a terrible time implementing it,''

warns Davis.

Soybean meal, corn gluten feed and other livestock feed

also will have to be labeled for the first time.

The rules do not require labels on meat, milk and eggs from

animals fed GM feed or on yogurt, beer or other products

produced from GM yeast or enzymes--all of which are

abundantly produced in Europe.

Europeans say these new rules are a necessary prelude to

lifting a nearly five-year ad hoc moratorium on their

approvals of a pipeline of biotech crops. The Bush

administration recently challenged that ban before the World

Trade Organization (WTO). And the EU began suing its member

nations to lift individual country bans on biotech.

Europeans also say they are doing the U.S. a favor because

traceability will be necessary for the next generation of

biotech products.

Those are valid points. But Americans counter that there is

no scientific reason for tracking current biotech crops that

are no different from non-GM products. As soon as the new

rules are in place, the administration should file another

WTO case.

Let's examine the deeper problem by focusing on more than

$1 billion in yearly soybean exports to Europe, the single

largest customer of U.S. soybeans. The vast majority of our

soybeans are biotech, and European consumers and retail

stores have indicated that

they will reject any foods with biotech labels.

Thus Europeans can import evenmore soybeans from Brazil,

where suppliers pretend not to grow biotech beans even while

smuggling some from Argentina.

While the GM conflict is being argued before the WTO, the

Europeans can expand non-biotech oilseeds (grain and

livestock, too) in the 10 nations that will join the 15

nations of the EU next year. Their goal could be to make the

expanded 25-nation EU nearly self-sufficient in grain and

livestock agriculture.

Trade deal. More than 40 years ago, when Europeans were

bigger food importers, U.S. trade negotiators convinced them

to import U.S. soybeans duty-free. A bone of contention for

the past 20 years, the principle was reaffirmed in a 1992

Blair House trade agreement. A cynic could view the biotech

rules as another European attempt to undo a 40-year-old

oilseed agreement.

For those who want to fight the Europeans head-on, it is

wise to remember that the U.S. doesn't hold the best hand of

cards.

The EU has won two WTO cases against the US.--for a tax

break on exports via offshore subsidiaries and for steel

tariffs.

The EU has held off on imposing $6.2 billion in retaliatory

duties, including on U.S. fruits and rice.

As a US. strategy, we can encourage other nations,

including the Europeans, to remain open to biotech. Brazil

says biotech will become illegal on farms next spring, but

many Brazilian farmers want GM crops, so that conflict is

coming to a head.

Both U.S. farmers and USDA can underline the impracticality

of the new EU rules and monitor cheating by competitors. At

the same time, we can begin to look at a viable system to

track GM crops to deal with the next generation of biotech.

Says Davis, ``I think we have the ability to capitalize on

those things better than our competition.''

Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two editorials.

First, this Member hopes his colleagues will consider the October 8, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, which describes the drawbacks of ``Buy America'' provisions with respect to peacekeeping and reconstruction projects in Iraq. Obviously, given the size of the supplemental request for these activities, ``Buy America'' provisions have strong appeal on the surface. As a representative who has specific responsibilities for trans-Atlantic relations, this Member urges his colleagues to think twice before supporting ``Buy America'' provisions and consider the contents of this brief editorial.

Second, this Member commends the October 8, 2003, Omaha World-Herald editorial entitled ``An ill-advised raid.'' Indeed, this editorial discusses the short-term and long-term consequences of the recent Israeli attack upon camps that may well have been used for training and harboring terrorists. Israel's grief over its continued casualties from suicide bombings is absolutely understandable, and the U.S. shares its disgust of these tactics. Nevertheless, recent Israeli military air attack in Syria even without prior notice to the U.S. Government may create even further difficulties for the U.S. in Iraq and the Middle East. That is the view of the Omaha World-Herald--a view which should be taken quite seriously by all of us in Congress.

Furthermore . . . British soldiers showed admirable

determination last spring in carrying some of the harshest

fighting, in Iraq. But some in Congress are now trying to

kick the British (and other U.S. allies) in the teeth by

insisting on a rigid ``buy American'' requirement for U.S.

military purchases. That is a recipe for tripping up efforts

at

international contributions to the rebuilding in Iraq. Such a

step would also disrupt long-standing and constructive

trading relationships. Dump this loser of an idea.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 355) commemorating the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria.

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

Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of H. Res. 355, a resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for introducing this resolution. The gentleman's efforts have been crucial in recognizing and promoting the important relationship between Bulgaria and the United States. Indeed, his involvement and knowledge about Bulgaria go back more than a decade.

The United States established diplomatic relations with Bulgaria on September 19, 1903. Two weeks ago, a celebration was held in Sofia marking this occasion. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Bulgarian people have made historic and courageous decisions and sacrifices in support of their desire to be a strong, diplomatic, and democratic member of Europe and a faithful ally and good friend of the United States.

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently stated that relations between Bulgaria and the United States are the best they have ever been in all of the past 100 years.

Indeed, Bulgaria is becoming an increasingly important strategic partner. Bulgaria has promoted stability and peace in Southeast Europe by supporting the NATO-led operations Allied Force and Joint Guardian in the Balkans. Bulgaria has also provided peacekeeping forces to SFOR in Bosnia and KFOR in Kosovo.

After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Bulgaria was among the very first countries to denounce terrorism and pledge active support to the United States in the fight against terrorism by supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan.

Bulgaria has supported Coalition operations in Iraq and is presently providing 500 infantry soldiers to the Iraq stabilization force. Furthermore, in a truly historic achievement, Bulgaria was invited to join NATO at the Prague Summit in November of last year. And Bulgaria has stood firmly with the United States in the cause of advancing freedom worldwide during its present term as a nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

President Bush recently stated, ``Americans have always considered the Bulgarian people to be our friends, and we will be proud to call you,'' meaning the Bulgarian people, ``our allies.''

Madam Speaker, this Member wholeheartedly agrees with President Bush: Bulgaria has proven to be an active and contributing partner and a de facto ally. And this resolution affirms this important relationship on occasion of the 100th anniversary of U.S.-Bulgarian diplomatic relations.

Madam Speaker, in closing, this Member urges my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his excellent statement.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the author of the resolution.

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

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 the resolution just considered.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 372), expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh.

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 the resolution under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this Member rises in support of H. Res. 372 expressing the condolences of the House in response to the death of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. As my colleagues will recall, Foreign Minister Lindh was senselessly attacked and murdered on September 10, 2003.

This Member commends the author of this resolution, his good friend and the ranking Democrat of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for introducing this expression of our heartfelt sympathy to the people of Sweden on the loss of their foreign minister.

Although this Member did not have the pleasure and honor of meeting Foreign Minister Lindh, it is widely recognized that she represented the very best of Sweden. She was a strong advocate for her country as its leading diplomat.

Ms. Lindh possessed a passion for human rights and justice and was committed to world peace.

Throughout her tragically-shortened political career, Anna Lindh served as the head of the Social democrats youth movement, entered Parliament in 1982, became environment minister in 1994, and began serving as Foreign Minister in 1998. Many knowledgeable persons speculate that she would have been eventually serving as Sweden's Prime Minister.

As Foreign Minister, she worked tirelessly to promote a more active Sweden in international affairs and within the European Union. Over the past year, she became one of Sweden's strongest advocates for joining Europe's single currency.

Anna Lindh worked to have Sweden and NATO cooperate on defense matters, and she actively supported the admission of the Baltic states into both NATO and the European Union. And, of course, under her leadership, Sweden enjoyed friendly relations with the United States.

Madam Speaker, by her death, the people of Sweden, and of the world, have suffered the loss of a respected national leader.

In closing, the Member strongly urges passage of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.