Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that as a farmer, the value of farmland has increased dramatically. That means an average 500-acre farm in many of the Midwest areas is now worth more than the $3 million allowed in this substitute. That means that a farm family has to sell off part of the farm to pay off the death tax debt to the Federal Government. $3 million is too low and means losing the farm for many farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise a community working together to accomplish an important goal. In an unprecedented effort, the members of the AUC, Michigan's heavy construction association, came together to renovate a unique historic site that we have in the State of Michigan, the Henry Ford. The Henry Ford museum and historical site includes Greenfield Village, the Henry Ford Museum and IMAX theater and the Benson Ford Research Center.

In 1929, Henry Ford started a living museum about American life. He wanted to collect and preserve objects that were used in everyday life. From the cider mill to the newly acquired electric car, over 83 historic structures on 90 acres celebrate the innovation and imagination of inventors whose ideas have changed our everyday life.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, in anticipation of the 100th anniversary of the Ford Motor Company, Henry Ford began a much-needed renovation. It faced all the problems of a modern town such as power outages, sewer failures, storm water flooding, decaying roads and treacherous sidewalks, as well as the equally challenging task of preserving a historic landmark.

Members of the AUC, Michigan's heavy construction association, donated their time, effort, equipment, materials, and innovative methods to solve these problems. More than 20 normally competitive contractors united to preserve 25,000 trees, replace nearly 35 miles of underground systems, and rebuild almost 11 miles of roads and sidewalks. They replaced sanitary sewers, water mains, storm sewers, irrigation piping, natural gas piping, and rewired electric and communication lines. Their expertise is estimated to have reduced the cost of renovation by nearly $10 million and completed it in less than a year. This was done by working together, management and labor, volunteers and professionals; and I just want today, Mr. Speaker, to commend the efforts of this community in their effort to save and revitalize Henry Ford.

Henry Ford himself once said, ``Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.'' We had a success. The members of the AUC and many others came together, stayed together, and worked together to successfully honor the legacy of a great man and preserve part of history for our children. For that, the members of AUC and all those who helped in this fine effort are to be commended.

Mr. Speaker, education is the key for our Nation's future prosperity and security. The formidable responsibility of molding and inspiring young minds to the avenues of hope, opportunity and achievement rests partly in the hands of our teachers. Today I would like to recognize a teacher from Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Mrs. Juliana Bellinger teaches Theatre Arts and Literature at Forest Hills Northern and Central High Schools. She is credited for building ensembles and unity within classrooms and within casts. She is one of the most loved teachers on staff as evidenced by senior classes choosing her as their main speaker at Baccalaureate. Student enrollment in her classes increased every year in every school where she taught, further evidence of her skill and knowledge of her subjects.

Her commitment to professionalism is well-known by students and faculty alike. She is described as loving, committed, dynamic, exceptional, inspiring, insightful, and extraordinary. One colleague writes, ``To watch her present and teach is truly a wonderful experience.'' In over twenty years of teaching she has directed numerous plays, coached young actors, and educated others on new technologies for the drama classroom. As a well-respected educator she has been invited to teach teachers at seminars and conferences on techniques and skills to increase student interest and performance in literature.

Mrs. Bellinger's excellence in teaching both challenges and inspires students to move beyond the teen-age tendency toward surface study and encourage deeper thought and connections to the real world. No profession is more important in its influence and daily interaction with the future leaders of our community and our country, and Juliana Bellinger's impact on her students is certainly deserving of recognition.

On behalf of the Congress of the United States of America, I am proud to extend our highest praise to Mrs. Juliana Bellinger as a master teacher. We thank her for her continuing dedication to teaching and her willingness and ability to challenge and inspire students.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor Richard Fauble of Tecumseh, Michigan for his distinguished service to the community, most recently as the Superintendent of Tecumseh Public Schools.

As the Superintendent of the second largest district in Lenawee County, Richard Fauble oversaw the building of a new high school and extensive renovations to the middle school and four elementary schools. Both projects were successfully completed under budget.

Mr. Fauble distinguished himself both personally and professionally through his commitment to education. He earned his B.A. Degree from Central Michigan University and his Masters Degree in educational administration from the University of Michigan. He has also completed extensive coursework throughout the country.

Richard Fauble has made the most of his extensive education and training, serving in a variety of teaching and administrative positions. In the last 30 years, he has taught high school social studies, served as principals and superintendents in Wyoming, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan. In each post, he offered his experience and expertise to improving the learning environment for students.

Education is the key for our Nation's future prosperity and security. The formidable responsibility of molding and inspiring young minds to the avenues of hope, opportunity and achievement rests in good part with our schools. Richard Fauble's impact on the future leaders of our community and our country is certainly deserving of recognition.

On behalf of the Congress of the United States of America, I am proud to honor Mr. Richard Fauble for his commitment and dedication to improving education. We thank him for his contributions to helping our young people become good citizens, and fit for the technology-based world of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the weakening dollar. A weak dollar that is too weak has certain dangers but a weak dollar sounds worse than it is. The dollar is strong when the dollar purchases more foreign currency than it had previously, but as there are many other currencies, it is quite possible for the dollar to be getting stronger against some currencies and weaker against others.

For example, looking at the Canadian dollar, the Japanese yen and the European euro over the last 2\1/2\ years, it is clear that the dollar has weakened against two of these currencies and strengthened against the other. At the beginning of 2001, the U.S. dollar bought 1.05 euros, 1.49 Canadians dollars and 14.75 Japanese yen. On June 11 of this year, the U.S. dollar bought. 849 euros, down 19 percent; 1.35 Canadian dollars, down 10.4 percent; and 117.68 Japanese yen, up about 2.5 percent.

I present these facts on the dollar simply to say that in some cases, depending on the other foreign countries, the dollar goes up in value and sometimes it goes down.

The dollar becomes strong when the demand for the dollar increases relative to the supply of dollars, a supply-and-demand situation. There are several ways for this to happen. For example, and it looks like it has happened, if Japan wished to make its exports cheaper, its Central Bank could buy U.S. dollars, strengthening the dollar against the yen, or if the Federal Reserve increases the U.S. money supply, there will be more dollars relative to other currencies, and the value of the dollar is going to decline. Also, the lowering of interest rates by the Feds tends to push down the value of the dollar.

What happens when all of this occurs, because the question is whether a strong dollar is good or bad for the U.S. economy?

In reality, it is that a strong dollar is good for some Americans and bad for others. I think it is important that we learn about what is happening to the value of the dollar because it affects our lives. Suppose that one is an auto maker in Michigan. Their company sells cars in the U.S. and exports to Europe and Japan. Japanese companies and European companies also sell cars to the U.S. and Japan and Europe. If the U.S. dollar weakens against the yen and the euro, then the U.S. cars will be less expensive for Japanese and European consumers, and the Japanese and European cars will be more expensive for U.S. customers. This will result in more profit and higher employment in the U.S. auto industry.

In other words, as the dollar weakens, it is easier to export our products because in relative terms, to other countries' currencies, those products become less expensive.

On the other hand, if one buys foreign made products, the weaker dollar means that they have to pay more or suppose that they work for a company that uses German and Japanese steel to produce, let us say, washing machines. A weaker dollar will make foreign steel more costly, thus making their company's product more expensive, and this is going to result in fewer jobs and probably less employment.

In the last 2 years, we have seen an increase in the U.S. money supply, a lowering of U.S. interest rates in a U.S. economy that is now outperforming the European Canadian Japanese economies. However, inflation is a risk with an increasing money supply, and foreign investors have less interest in leaving their money in U.S. stocks, and all of these things are consistent with a weaker dollar.

So we are not totally on safe ground as it becomes easier to export.

Economists have long been divided over how much the money supply could be increased which would influence the strength of the U.S. dollar.

In conclusion, in practice, the dollar is likely to gain strength against some currencies and lose strength against others. The effect on the U.S. economy will depend on which countries we are importing from and which countries we are exporting to and a myriad of other factors, including the strength of the foreign economies relative to ours. The current weaker U.S. dollar means that consumers will tend to pay a little more, but it will be good for producers and, therefore, better for job growth than otherwise.

The danger is in concerning our balance of trade. If we are importing so much more than we export, that means other countries will have extra dollars to spend, and they are going to continue to use those dollars to buy our equities.

Mr. Speaker, Education is the key for our Nation's future prosperity and security. The formidable responsibility of molding and inspiring young minds to the avenues of hope, opportunity and achievement rests partly in the hands of our teachers. Today I would like to recognize a teacher from Battle Creek, Michigan that most influenced and motivated exceptional students in academics and leadership that were winners of the LeGrand Smith scholarship.

Mr. Dana Johnson teaches mathematics at the Battle Creek Area Mathematics & Science Center. He is credited for instilling in students an enthusiasm for mathematics. In one student's own words, ``Mr. Johnson made math come alive, and he always gave real-world examples of even the most abstract topics.'' -The respect and gratitude of his students speaks well of Mr. Johnson's ability to challenge young minds to stretch the mental muscles and strive to achieve the best that is in them.

Mr. Johnson's excellence in teaching challenges and inspires students to move beyond the teen-age tendency toward surface study and encourage deeper thought and connections to the real world. No profession is more important in its influence and daily interaction with the future leaders of our community and our country, and Dana Johnson's impact on his students is certainly deserving of recognition.

On behalf of the Congress of the United States of America, I am proud to extend our highest praise to Mr. Dana Johnson as a master teacher. We thank him for his continuing dedication to teaching and his willingness and ability to challenge and inspire students for leadership and success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about the danger of losing good-paying jobs and our strong economy here in the United States.

Manufacturing has been America's economic strength. For 3 decades now, manufacturing productivity has increased more than any other sector of

our economy. The average manufacturing worker produces four times as much per hour as the average worker did 50 years ago. As a result, manufacturing has been one of the most important parts of the economy and has produced higher living standards for Americans as those products from American manufacturing have become cheaper and better and wages in manufacturing have risen. But now we are losing our manufacturing base as we tend to move towards a service economy.

With manufacturing suffering in recent years, other industries such as the service sector have offered alternative employment. The trouble is that manufacturing cannot be simply replaced by insurance companies or the legal profession or retail trades. There are only four economic sectors that generate material wealth. Only four. And they are agriculture, where they produce things; mining, where they produce things; manufacturing, where they produce things; or construction. And those are the four. Of those, only manufacturing is not limited by natural resources and is capable of export.

We need innovation to produce better products at competitive prices to regain our manufacturing leadership. We cannot pay American-level wages unless we can still be competitive. That means innovation for quality products and increased productivity. Innovation starts with basic research, followed by application and commercialization.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Research under the Committee on Science, I am familiar with the government's efforts to find and promote basic research, mostly through the National Science Foundation. NSF has seen substantial increases in recent years, and we need to ensure that this money is spent in ways that research discoveries can have the greatest impact in terms of promoting innovation and practical application for United States businesses. The development of basic research for industrial use has generally been the province of businesses which undertake these efforts to create new products. Unfortunately, according to witnesses at a recent Committee on Science hearing, application is the hardest part. Companies facing intense competitive pressure find it difficult to set aside sufficient resources, money, to develop new products, especially if the results cannot be anticipated before 5 or 6 years. So we are having a gap. Government is now the substantial payer of basic research; and having that research with tech transfer and to apply that research for better and more products and efficient ways of manufacturing is what we are lacking.

Development also suffers from low prestige. The academic community and Federal grants generally reward those who seek knowledge for knowledge's sake rather than those who do the necessary development work. Some foreign countries spend their research dollars monitoring our government funding basic research and then spend the rest of their government money to apply that research for commercial products ahead of our getting that application in the United States.

Another problem we face is the shortage of math and engineering talent. The United States has long lagged far behind other nations when it comes to producing top-notch engineering and research talent. Let me just give an example of China. China produces 10 times as many engineers as we do in the United States. This cannot continue if we expect to continue a strong economy in the United States. It cannot continue to go on without erosion of our international competitiveness. That is why I have pushed NSF to do a better job of promoting math and science careers to students. We need more capable math and science students for research and business and for our future.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the decline in manufacturing employment is something that we ignore at our peril. Over the long term, we cannot hope to have a healthy and growing economy unless we make lots of tangible goods that people want to buy both in the U.S. and overseas markets. Government needs to support not only basic research but to provide incentives for American business to develop applications to ensure continued economic health.

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

This an important discussion. Maybe it would be reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to start out trying to explain what is biotechnology?

Gregor Mendel discovered dominant and recessive traits in plants in the mid 19th century. He started taking two quality plants and crossing them to see if you could come out with an improved variety. So we have had cross-breeding, we have had hybrid breeding ever since. Now we have finished gene cataloguing of an agricultural plant called the Arabidopsis, a mustard plant.

But with 25,000 genes, you just took your chances when mixing two plants together. Sometimes the product turned out poisonous or allergenic. Sometimes it was very undesirable for a raft of other reasons.

Now we have the scientific technology to pick out one single gene and decide what characteristics are going to evolve from that gene, and instead of taking your chances by mixing 25,000 or 30,000 genes of two plants, you pick out one gene because you want a certain characteristic. You put it into that other plant and predetermine what is going to happen as a result.

Now, there is a lot of scare of what might happen generations from now. In the discussion of this resolution, it seems to me that we should not be debating whether this is a trade issue. This is now going to be in the hands of the WTO to decide whether or not it is unfair. But everybody, Mr. Speaker, needs to understand, other countries are trying to keep our products out of their country for one reason or another, restricting imports for bio sanitary reasons or anything else they can come up with. And in this case, it appears that they are trying to keep our agricultural products, that we produce more efficiently, out of Europe and Japan and some of these other countries, simply because they do not want it to disrupt the problems of their farmers and they want to protect their markets. We are going to let the WTO decide if it is restraint of trade. But as we evolve into greater assurance that we are going to have safety, both to human health, to animals, and to the environment, we need to move ahead with this technology.

Look, the possibilities in developing countries are so tremendous. That is why our whip mentioned that the day after tomorrow I am holding a hearing on biotechnology. The Speaker is going to lead off the testimony in that hearing on the potential and safety of biotechnology. We are going to have Rita Caldwell from NSF come to tell us about the implementation of what we put in my NSF bill in terms of working with African scientists, developing products that are going to help their particular country. And if we get into Africa, eventually, science and biotechnology are going to prevail. We are going to have Mr. Natsios, the administrator of AID, say how important it is that we do not restrict this technology for developing countries.

Vote for this resolution and vote to let science, not emotion, rule the future of agricultural biotechnology.

On May 12th, the Speaker of the House and members of Congress joined with the Bush Administration to challenge the European Union's import ban on genetically modified (GM) crops. WTO rules, while allowing countries to reject imports on the basis of health and environmental concerns, require that any such policy be supported by scientific evidence.

However, the EU has refused to process new applications for trade of transgenic food crops since 1998 without even attempting to demonstrate any compelling scientific reasons. It is estimated that over $300 million annually in U.S. corn exports alone are being lost. Even EU Enviroment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has admitted that, ``We have already waited too long to act. The moratorium is illegal and not justified.''

While the EU stance on GM crops is an unfair economic burden on American farmers, it is also an unjust burden on the world's poorest continent. With approximately 180 million undernourished people, Africa stands to benefit tremendously from GM crops.

The EU is exploiting Africa's dependence on the EU market to stall acceptance of GM crops. For example, with its population literally starving last year, Zambia rejected 23,000 metric tons of U.S. food aid because Europe might reject future Zambian corn exports. EU pressure is even impeding research on new transgenic crop varieties important to bringing Africa closer to sustainability.

The Speaker of the House, USAID Administrator, and leading scientists will testify at my Research Subcommittee hearing this Thursday. We will examine barriers to plant biotechnology in Africa and new government programs supporting partnerships with African scientists in Africa.

The U.S. challenge moves us one step closer to removing unfair barriers that hurt American farmers and deny the people of Africa a tool for combating hunger. Please support H. Res. 252.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a summary of a report we wrote on biotechnology in the Committee on Science called ``Seeds of Opportunity.'' The total report is available at: www.house.gov/nicksmith/opportunity.pdf.

The report referred to is as follows:

summary

The Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science held a series of three hearings entitled, ``Plant Genome Research: From the Lab to the Field to the Market: Parts I-III,'' to examine plant genomics, its application to commercially important crop plants, and the benefits, safety, and oversight of plant varieties produced using biotechnology. The testimony and other information presented at these hearings and information gathered at various briefings provides the basis for the findings and recommendations in this report.

Almost without exception, the crop plants in use today have been genetically modified. The development of new plant varieties through selective breeding has been improving agriculture and food production for thousands of years. In the 19th century, the basic principles of heredity were discovered by Gregor Mendel, whose studies on inheritance in garden peas laid the foundation for the modern science of genetics. Subsequent investigations advanced our understanding of the location, composition, and function of genes, and a critical breakthrough revolutionized the field in 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick described the double helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the substance of heredity. This ground breaking research set the stage for deciphering the genetic code and led to the rapid advances in practical application of genetics in medicine, animal science, and agriculture.

The development of the science of genetics in the 20th century was a tremendously important factor in the plant breeding programs that have produced the remarkable diversity of fruits, vegetables, and grains that we enjoy today and that provide food security for the poor nations of the world. Traditional cross-breeding has been very useful in improving crop plants, but it is a time consuming process that results in the uncontrolled recombination of tens of thousands of genes, commonly producing unwanted traits that must be eliminated through successive rounds of backcrossing. Improving crops through traditional methods also is subject to severe limitations because of the constraints imposed by sexual compatibility, which limit the diversity of useful genetic material.

With the arrival of biotechnology, plant breeders are now able to develop novel varieties of plants with a level of precision and range unheard of just two decades ago. Using this technology, breeders can introduce selected, useful genes into a plant to express a specific, desirable trait in a significantly more controlled process than afforded by traditional breeding methods.

U.S. farmers have been quick to adopt plants modified using new biotechnology, including commercial crops that resist biologically insect and viral pests and tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides used to control weeds. As our knowledge of plant genetics expands, new varieties of plants with improved nutrition, taste, or other characteristics desired by consumers will become available. The federally-funded plant genome program provides much of the essential basic research on plant genetics required to develop new varieties of commercially important crops through advanced breeding programs.

For over two decades, the application of biotechnology has been assessed for safety. Oversight of agricultural biotechnology includes both regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms that have been developed over the last five decades for all crop plants and conventional agricultural systems. Federal regulation of agricultural biotechnology is guided by the 1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, which laid out the responsibilities for the different regulatory agencies, and the 1992 Statement on Scope, which established the principle that regulation should focus on the characteristics of the organism, not the method used to produce it. Three federal agencies are responsible for regulating agricultural biotechnology under existing statutes: the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for ensuring that new varieties are safe to grow; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for ensuring that new pest-resistant varieties are safe to grow and consume; and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for ensuring that new varieties are safe to consume.

Although biotechnology has had an uninterrupted record of safe use, political activists in Europe have waged well-funded campaigns to persuade the public that the products of high-tech agriculture may be harmful to human health and the environment. As a result of these efforts, public confidence in the safety of agricultural biotechnology has been seriously undermined in Europe. Many European countries have established new rules and procedures specifically designed to address ``genetically modified organisms,'' and these have

had a detrimental impact on international trade in agricultural products.

The controversy over agricultural biotechnology now has spread to the United States, the world's largest grower of plants and consumer of foods produced using this technology. At the core of the debate is food safety, particularly the possibility that unexpected genetic effects could introduce allergens or toxins into the food supply. The use of antibiotic resistance markers also has been criticized as dangerous to human health. As a result, there have been calls for both increased testing and labeling requirements for foods created using biotechnology.

Environmental concerns also have been raised. It has been suggested, for example, that widespread use of plants engineered with built-in protection against insect and viral pests could accelerate the development of pesticide-resistant insects or could have a negative impact on populations of beneficial insects, such as the Monarch butterfly. It also has been argued that the use of herbicide-tolerant plants could increase herbicide use and that ``superweeds'' could be developed through cross-pollination between these plants and nearby weedy relatives.

Extensive scientific evaluation worldwide has produced no evidence to support these claims. Far from causing environmental and health problems, agricultural biotechnology has tremendous potential to reduce the environmental impact of farming, provide better nutrition, and help feed a rapidly growing world population. Crops designed to resist pests and to tolerate herbicides and environmental stresses, such as freezing temperatures, drought, and high salinity, will make agricultural more efficient and sustainable by reducing synthetic chemical inputs and promoting no-tillage agricultural practices. Stress-tolerant crops also will reduce pressure on irreplaceable natural resources like rainforests by opening up presently nonarable lands to agriculture. Other plants are being developed that will produce renewable industrial products, such as lubricating oils and biodegradable plastics, and perform bioremediation of contaminated soils.

Biotechnology will be a key element in the fight against malnutrition worldwide. Deficiencies of vitamin A and iron, for example, are very serious health issues in many regions of the developing world, causing childhood blindness and maternal anemia in millions of people who rely on rice as a dietary staple. Biotechnology has been used to produce a new strain of rice--Golden Rice--that contains both vitamin A (by providing its precursor, beta-carotene) and iron. The Subcommittee heard about other research aimed at improving the nutrition of a wide variety of food staples, such as cassava, corn, rice, and other cereal grains, that can be a significant help in the fight for food security in many developing countries.

The merging of medical and agricultural biotechnology has opened up new ways to develop plant varieties with characteristics to enhance health. Advanced understanding of how natural plant substances, known as phytochemicals, confer protection against cancer and other diseases is being used to enhance the level of these substances in the food supply. Work is underway that will deliver medicines and edible vaccines through common foods that could be used to immunize individuals against a wide variety of enteric and other infectious diseases. These developments will have far-reaching implications for improving human health worldwide, potentially saving millions of lives in the poorest areas of the world by providing a simpler medicine production and distribution system.

Set against these benefits, however, is the idea that transferring a gene from one organism to an unrelated organism using recombinant DNA techniques inherently entails greater risks than traditional cross breeding. The weight of the scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that there is nothing to substantiate scientifically the view that the products of agricultural biotechnology are inherently different or more risky than similar products of conventional breeding.

The overwhelming view of the scientific community--including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, many professional scientific societies, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Health Organization, and the research scientists who appeared before the subcommittee--is that risk assessment should focus on the characteristics of the plant and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not on the method of genetic manipulation and the source of the genetic material transferred. These risk factors apply equally to traditionally-bred plants.

Years of research and experience demonstrate that plant varieties produced using biotechnology, and the foods derived from them, are just as safe as similar varieties produced using classical plant breeding, and they may even be safer. Because more is known about the changes being made and because common crop varieties with which we have a broad range of experience are being modified, plants breeders can answer questions about safety that cannot be answered for the products of classical breeding techniques.

FDA has adopted a risk-based regulatory approach consistent with these principles and with the long history of safe use of genetically- modified plants and the foods derived from them. Its policies on voluntary consultation and labeling are consistent with the scientific consensus and provide essential public health protection.

Unlike FDA regulations on food, USDA has instituted plant pest regulations, and EPA proposes to institute new plant pesticide regulations, that target selectively plants produced using biotechnology and apply substantive regulatory requirements to early stages of plant research and development. These regulations add greatly to the cost of developing new biotech plant varieties, harming both an emerging industry and the largely publicly-funded research base upon which it depends. Regulations and regulatory proposals that selectively capture the products of biotechnology should be modified to reflect the scientific consensus that the source of the gene and the methods used to transfer it are poor indicators of risk.

In the international area, the United States should work to ensure that access to existing markets for agricultural products are maintained. The United States should not accept any international agreements that endorse the precautionary principle--which asserts that governments may make political decisions to restrict a product even in the absence of scientific evidence that a risk exists--and that depart from the principle of substantial equivalence adopted by a number of international bodies.

Finally, the administration, industry, and scientific community have a responsibility to educate the public and improve the availability of information on the long record of safe use of agricultural biotechnology products. This is critically important to building consumer confidence and ensuring that sound science is used to make regulatory decisions.

Mr. Speaker, next Thursday, June 12, the subcommittee I chair on research will hold a hearing on biotechnology, the potential and the safety. I am a farmer in Michigan, and this is the first year that I have used the so-called roundup ready soybeans to plant on my farm. I have held back, thinking that maybe the nongenetically modified soybean would bring a higher price or have expanded markets, especially in some of those areas of the world that are rejecting it.

However, that has not been the case. Biotechnology is now one of the most promising sectors of the economy. It is revolutionizing medicine with at least 95 biotech drugs already approved in the U.S., and there are another 371 drugs on the table for acceptance that are being developed for medications that could help cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other conditions. Biotechnology will produce higher- quality foods that can provide both nourishment and immunization to many of the billions of hungry people around the world.

In our NSF bill that was signed into law last December 22, we put language in that bill for grants to work with scientists from African countries to help develop the kind of products that could best help their particular country. Unfortunately, biotechnology has come under attack from some in the European Union and elsewhere who hope to avoid competition in this area. The Speaker of the House, USAID administrator, and leading scientists will testify at our congressional hearing June 12 on the safety and potential of plant biotechnology.

Back in the summer of 1999, the journal ``Nature'' published a study suggesting that pollen from genetically modified corn could harm the monarch butterfly population, really sort of sparking a worldwide controversy. While follow-up studies have since proven that such pollen presents no danger to monarchs, the foundations of fear based on emotion had been set, and soon other nonscience-based allegations about plant biotechnology emerged.

In response, my House Subcommittee on Research met with leading scientists across the country and followed with a series of hearings investigating the potential benefits and safety concerns associated with plant biotechnology. Our findings, compiled in a comprehensive report that we wrote that I entitled ``Seeds of Opportunity,'' showed that crops developed through biotech were just as safe as those crops produced with traditional crossbreeding. Three years since we released the report, its findings still hold true and are now backed by an even larger body of scientific evidence. Also, America's three-pronged safety review by USDA, FDA, and EPA for biotech products comes as close to guaranteeing safety as you can get. I think that is why the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, and several of us in Congress joined with Bush administration officials last month on May 12 to announce that the United States would file a WTO challenge to the European Union's import ban on genetically modified crops.

Enter Africa. President Bush rightly charged that the EU's ban is an unjust burden on the world's poorest countries. With approximately 180 million undernourished people and perennial low yields and quality brought about by droughts, insects and other disasters, Africa stands to benefit tremendously from GM crops. Yet here is the European Union exploiting Africa's dependency on the EU as a trading partner to stall acceptance of GM crops. Let me give Members an example. Starving Zambia rejected 23,000 tons of emergency U.S. food aid because Europe implied that it could respond by rejecting future corn exports from that particular country. There is even some evidence that EU pressure is impeding even research into new crop varieties that could feed Africa, that could cure a blight problem in bananas.

Our research subcommittee will be examining the barriers to plant biotechnology in Africa in more detail next week at the hearing and the Speaker of the House is going to be testifying about the challenge and about the safety as well as the administrator of AID and other scientists.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, sound science should drive what we do, not emotion.

Sound science, should drive trade and regulatory decisions associated with transgenic food crops, not protectionism masquerading behind a thin veil of unfounded fears. The U.S. challenge moves us one step closer to removing the unfair barriers that hurt American farmers and deny the people of Africa a wonderful tool for combating hunger.

Mr. Speaker, conserving our environment is important. Our forests are an important part of both Michigan's and our country's environment. In the west, catastrophic wildfires have decimated our forests over the last several years destroying both government and private property. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) is a common-sense, cost-effective piece of legislation that helps to control these fires as well as combat destructive insect and disease infestations in our forests.

Removing some of the bureaucratic red tape for performing fire prevention measures is not only environmentally friendly but also fiscally responsible, as fire prevention costs American taxpayers approximately one-fourth of what it costs to fight catastrophic forest fires. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act authorizes the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reduce the amount of underbrush and deadwood buildup in forests that serve as kindling and fuel for the hottest, most dangerous fires. It would regulate BLM's activities by putting limits on the tree removal and road construction that has provoked controversy at times in the past. This would give BLM the tools it needs to confront the increasing threat of destructive forest fires on federal lands that have had serious impacts both on people and wildlife.

The bill takes additional measures to improve our forests. These include provisions to encourage energy production from renewable energy sources, protection of watersheds in forest areas and the creation of a forest reserve program aimed at preserving and rehabilitating up to one million acres of degraded and rare forest lands.

Disease and insect infestations are not only detrimental to our woodlands, but also to our tree-lined streets and backyards. In southeast Michigan, we are combating an exotic beetle known as the Emerald Ash Borer. The beetles' larvae feed on the sapwood and eventually kill branches and entire trees. This invasive pest has resulted in the quarantine of all ash products in six counties in southeastern Michigan. There are 28 million ash trees in the six quarantined counties and an estimated 700 million ash trees in Michigan. We are now finding that the pest is spreading into Ohio. The magnitude of this problem is serious. Preliminary data from the Forest Service estimates that the potential national impact of the Emerald Ash Borer is a loss of ash trees up to 2 percent of total timber with a value loss of between $20-60 billion.

Following discussions with Secretary Veneman and gaining the support of the Michigan delegation, Michigan Department of Agriculture, and DNR we were able to get the approval of $14.6 million in emergency assistance from USDA to combat the Emerald Ash Borer. This federal funding will supplement resources provided by state and local authorities and will be used for pest surveillance, quarantine of infected areas, and some tree removal. In order to more efficiently combat destructive pests like the Emerald Ash Borer, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act puts in place measures that will allow accelerated information gathering on such insect infestations. By removing bureaucratic red tape and being more proactive in maintaining forest health, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a step in the right direction towards efficiently managing our forests, preventing catastrophic fires, controlling damaging insect infestations, and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mary Ann McRobert, recipient of the Lenawee Chamber's 2003 ATHENA award.

Throughout her life, Mary Ann McRobert has distinguished herself both personally and professionally through her commitment to helping those in need. Earning a Nursing Degree from St. Vincent's Hospital School of Nursing, Mary Ann went on to earn two degrees in Social Work: a bachelor's degree from Siena Heights University and a Masters degree from the University of Michigan. She has shared her experience and knowledge in nursing and social work as an instructor at Siena Heights University and Adrian College.

Mary Ann has made the most of her extensive education and training, serving in a variety of nursing situations, as a social worker, and as an administrator of several social service organizations. In the last 18 years, she has served as: Interim Director of Call Someone Concerned, Executive Director of the Family Awareness Center, Administrative Director of Bixby Medical Center Psychology Unit, Clinical Social Worker in private practice, and Interim Director of Family Counseling and Children's Services. She also served two terms as President of the Board of Directors for the Family Awareness Center, two terms as Vice President of the Board of Directors for Family Counseling and Children's Services, and the Gerontology Network. Mary Ann has also volunteered for Hospice of Lenawee.

Mary Ann McRobert is well respected in her community, and with good reason. She is well known for her ability to initiate a project, enlist the assistance of others, and see the plan through to completion. Her efforts are not for her own benefit, but for the benefit of others. She has been a fierce advocate and courageous leader for social service causes and, by mentoring and her example, has opened many doors for women and men in community leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence he has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Shaan Gandhi, winner of the 2003 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future.

As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Shaan is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.

Shaan is an exceptional student at Harper Creek High School, and possesses an outstanding record of achievement in high school. Shaan has received numerous awards for his excellence in science and math, as well as his volunteer activities with the Calhoun County Chapter of the American Red Cross and the Substance Abuse Council of Battle Creek. A Siemens-Westinghouse Scholar, Shaan has also participated in the NASA SHARP PLUS program, is a National Merit Scholarship Finalist, and has been accepted to Harvard University.

Therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Shaan Gandhi for his selection as winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to his success. To this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, the newly renamed Hart-Dole- Inouye Federal Center has long been a Battle Creek landmark. Under many names, from the Sanitarium to Percy Jones, to the Federal Center to the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center, it will continue as a historic site serving the community and the nation.

Ever since its opening as a nationally renowned health center started by John Harvey Kellogg, brother of cereal pioneer W.K. Kellogg, the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center has proudly served the State of Michigan and the United States. Purchased by the U.S. Army in 1942 the Sanitarium became the Percy Jones Army Hospital. The hospital, specializing in neurosurgery and the fitting of artificial limbs, treated over 100,000 WWII and Korean war veterans. The many veterans served here include the late Senator Hart, Senator Bob Dole, and Senator Inouye.

Today, the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center provides vital support to our nation's war fighters as part of the Department of Defense. The Center serves as the premier facility for the cataloging of 6.5 million supply items needed by the U.S. military as well as the re-utilization and disposition of those items upon their federal obsolescence.

As a nation we can be rightly proud of the work done here by the highly trained and award-winning workforce who serve within these historic walls. I am honored to have such a facility in my district and look forward to another 100 years of history being made.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sharon Cook, an outstanding educator from Napoleon, Michigan, who is retiring after 31 years of teaching.

Sharon graduated from Napoleon High School in 1965 and attended Western Michigan University, where she majored in English and earned her K-8 teaching degree. She also earned a Master's of Education Degree from Eastern Michigan University. After teaching in the elementary school for a number of years, Sharon transferred to the Middle school, where she taught Math and Language Arts.

In addition to her classroom responsibilities, she has coached girl's track, Basketball, and cheerleading for both football and basketball. Sharon has also served as Yearbook and Newspaper advisor, as well as Service Squad and Class Advisor. She has also coached Michigan Mathematics League teams, reaching state level competition in 1987.

As an educator, Sharon Clark realizes the importance of helping young teachers establish themselves in the classroom and has served as a Mentor Teacher to newly hired teachers at Napoleon.

Perhaps most important is Sharon's dedication to community service. For many years, she has served as Student Council Advisor and encouraged her students to be active in many community projects. With her help, students in Napoleon have collected food for Thanksgiving Food Baskets, conducted Penny Wars for Christmas Giving, Angel Trees for children of prisoners, and most recently, packages for our armed service men and women currently serving in Operation Freedom in Iraq.

In a time when highly qualified teachers who motivate are so important, pleased to honor this oustanding educator on the occasion of her retirement. Sharon has dedicated 31 years in service to the students of Napoleon Community Schools and the community at large.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a couple of issues that concern me a great deal. One, of course, is the growing debt and our unwillingness to deal with the problem of solvency for Social Security.

Social Security is going to run out of money roughly in the next 10 to 15 years, and we are putting off the problem of solving what do we do to keep the program solvent until later. Social Security is probably one of our better programs that we have in the United States, and we should not put off a solution to keep it going.

The other issue, of course, that concerns me is our mounting debt and overspending. This country is now 227 years old. In the first 200 years, we mounted a debt of $500 billion. Now at $6.7 trillion we are amassing an additional debt of $500 billion every year. We have to control overspending. I think it is unconscionable for us to think that our problems today are so great that it justifies borrowing from funds that our kids are going to have to earn.

One reason that we have got the problem right now is revenues are down, and that brings us to jobs and the economy. I want to speak for a moment about losing our manufacturing and our high-tech jobs in this country.

I have been meeting with workers, as I am sure many of my colleagues in Congress have been. All of us should be troubled about the continuing decline in manufacturing in this country. Products from China and other countries are now taking away our business. The manufacturing sector accounted for 41 percent of non-farm employment in 1946. Forty-one percent in 1946, 28 percent in 1980, 18 percent in 1990 and just 12 percent of our total economy today is manufacturing jobs.

What does this mean? This means that millions of people are being pushed out of manufacturing jobs into service sector jobs that often pay less and are less reliable. With other sectors of the economy weakening, we have been depending on high-tech jobs with our research and technology, but Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 years we have lost 560,000 high-tech jobs. We need those manufacturing jobs and we need those high-tech jobs if we are going to continue to be competitive, if we are going to continue to increase our productivity.

Manufacturing is important to the economy because it is a leader in innovation. Manufacturing contributes 57 percent of total U.S. research and development funding. Manufacturing has made up almost a constant share of total U.S. GDP since the forties, but over that period it has varied between 20 and 23 percent of U.S. output.

With aggressive improvements in efficiency, we would expect the manufacturing sector to be growing faster in the international market, but it has been under attack from foreign competition, much of which seems to be unfair.

I have spoken with constituents who say that the Chinese companies sell products for less than the raw materials cost here. Many suspect that Chinese companies are receiving covert subsidies from the Chinese Government. It has been suggested that a variety of other governments use similar underhanded methods to boost their sales here and reduce sales in their home markets.

What can we do? One thing that we are going to be talking about in the next several weeks is should we reduce our overzealous taxation and our overzealous regulation on manufacturing. We now tax our manufacturers in the United States approximately 18 percent more than what they would be taxed if they are located in a foreign country. I think we have got to look at the excessive regulation and the excessive taxation. As we approach a tax bill, it would be my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we concentrate on those tax issues that are going to allow our manufacturing sector and our business sector to be more competitive in an international market.

One especially harmful action has been the steel tariff imposed by the administration. Though the increased price of steel has protected some steel workers from foreign competition, it has also resulted in more layoffs in the steel-using industries than the total employment of the steel making industry. With prices rising by 50 percent or more, hundreds of manufacturers that use steel have simply let workers go or have transferred production out of the country where steel is cheaper.

It isn't healthy to have too much of a service economy where we import most of our goods and fewer and fewer people actually build products. One way to improve things for our manufacturers is to do a better, more careful job of negotiating trade treaties and then enforcing them. Another is to end counterproductive tariffs like the one on steel. We need to make sure our taxes and regulations avoid putting our manufacturers at a significant disadvantage. If we don't do something, we could weaken our economy and lose our productive capacity.