Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the Lee amendment. It calls, of course, for the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study and determine the extent of intelligence sharing within the Intelligence Community, DOD and the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. I would like to make two general points first. As a part of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's review of the Intelligence Community regarding prewar intelligence on Iraq, the committee has already begun to examine this issue and will assess the effectiveness and procedures governing the sharing of intelligence to international and foreign bodies. Secondly, the committee acknowledges that the Comptroller has some capabilities for investigation. But I would note that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has a long and distinguished record of conducting bipartisan and thorough reviews of intelligence matters. Therefore, before outside help is requested, it seems only appropriate that the committee should have an opportunity to fulfill its mandate for the House and for the Congress to conduct rigorous oversight of the Intelligence Community. This subject area of the amendment is not going to be neglected. Now a few details. In the run-up to renewed weapons inspections in Iraq late last year, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the press that although his team could use U.S. intelligence, the team was not supposed to trust anyone, and that it was the team's decision, not a particular government's, as to what facilities and where the inspections were to be carried out. The earlier U.N. mission to Iraq was accused of spying for the United States. Therefore, Hans Blix indicated that he had to make the distinction between his possible use of intelligence and his team's ability to conduct an independent and neutral investigation of Iraq's WMD facilities. Blix admitted using CIA reports in a November 28 interview with CNN but cautioned that he would not allow his team to be dictated to by a foreign government. Some have suggested that the U.S. failed to provide the arms inspectors with useful information. At this point, this Member believes that this is simply not true, not true at all. We are going to find out about that, however, when we complete our investigation. Hans Blix actually received, I think, unprecedented access to intelligence. The U.S. provided the U.N. weapons inspectors with the ability to task and assign U.S. U-2 surveillance aircraft operating over Iraq. He told the U-2s where to go and what to target. This is virtually unheard of, U.N. civilians ordering U.S. pilots on hazardous missions. Why did we do this? Why did we give a U.N. official this extraordinary opportunity and authority? In the words of Hans Blix, ``The U-2 data will improve our ability to carry out our inspections.'' If there was a problem in timely response to intelligence, the problem was in the U.N.'s ability to act on information after they had received it from the United States or from other sources. This is not really too surprising since there were literally hundreds of Iraqi agents or personnel whose job it was to slow down the inspectors, to send them in the wrong direction, or to make sure they would end up in the wrong place, or to report on their progress so that deception and deceit and cover-up could take place before they arrived. This is not a failing of the United States but, rather, the inability of UNMOVIC to overcome Iraqi denial and deception techniques. The gentlewoman, I hope, would understand that if there were problems in communication of intelligence, much of the problem was the U.N. reluctance to rely on U.S. sources. This is addressed in an article in USA Today and I do not cite it except that they are quoting Blix. They were reluctant, they said, to rely on U.S. intelligence for fear that Iraq would accuse them of spying for the United States, an accusation that Iraq made, of course, the first time we had inspectors in. Here is a quote: ``Still smarting from their admission that U.S. intelligence gave inspectors secret missions during the last round of inspections in 1998, U.N. officials have deliberately curbed access to the CIA and allied intelligence agencies.'' The ground rules established by the U.N. stipulated that the CIA would not equip the inspectors, unofficial discussions between the CIA and the inspectors were prohibited, and only the U.N. would be allowed to analyze the data that was collected. We have got a lot to look at. Members will have access to some of this very information across the board in an unprecedented fashion. This is a responsibility of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We have the capabilities. We have the intent. I would say we ought to be given the opportunity. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I hope it will be rejected.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the June 23, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial emphasizes the need to take a science-based approach regarding the issue of biotech crops and highlights a positive example in India. On the other hand, the European Union's continued moratorium on approving new agriculture biotech lacks a scientific basis. This discriminatory and protectionist stance harms U.S. farmers, consumers worldwide, and developing countries. The U.S. is correctly challenging the EU's position, which is transparently devoid of any relationship to sound science. A Tale of Two Mind-Sets Recent days have shown a big contrast in how some governments abroad approach the issue of genetically modified foods. One development, from India, reflects a commendable, science-based approach to biotech crops. The other, from the European Union, indicates the E.U.'s continuing insistence on using bogus claims about biotech crops as an excuse to shut out U.S. food exports. In India, the government says it is nearing regulatory approval of a genetically modified potato that has one-third more protein than normal. The new potato is to be distributed to school children as part of their mid-day meal. The head of India's biotechnology department voiced strong support for the new product, calling it part of ``a technology for the future.'' Many of India's more than 1 billion people are plagued by dietary deficiencies in protein and vitamin A, she said, and biotech foods such as the new potato can help address the need. In another encouraging sign, a group of Indian scientists stepped forward in April to rebut the claim by anti-biotech activists that the new potato is the brainchild of profit- seeking Western corporations: As reported by The Associated Press, ``the Indian scientists made clear they are on the front lines of such developments.'' Last week, representatives of India's biotech sector' spoke out, saying that their industry' is in a state of ``near paralysis'' due to opposition from critics of genetically modified foods. One Indian biotech consultant lamented that the ``protest industry'' has ``exploited a few--technical violations and has made the entire system rigid.'' In Europe, anti-biotech activists enjoy particular clout, and last week talks between U.S. and E.U. officials over genetically modified foods broke down. The United States will now turn,to the World Trade Organization to appoint a panel to rule on the case. The United States is said to have a good chance of gaining a ruling that would compel the E.U: to end its ban on American biotech crops. Don Lipton, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau Federation, was right when he said that ``countries shouldn't be able to erect barriers for nonscientific reasons.'' In India, the government, to its credit, acknowledges that point. Regrettably, European governments are content to ignore it and continue their opportunistic stonewalling.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to note the establishment of Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia, on June 19, and to congratulate Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, on his appointment as the first Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. The establishment of the first functional strategic command for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an important step for the Alliance as it reforms its command structure to better carry out the missions needed to defend its member countries against today's threats. Allied Command Transformation replaces the old Allied Command Atlantic, which had been responsible for keeping open sea lanes between North America and Europe during the Cold War. Today, NATO faces a more pressing task: transforming allied forces from static formations designed for territorial defense to expeditionary forces able to deploy wherever needed to combat security threats. By locating Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, home to U.S. Joint Forces Command, the transformation lessons being learned by the U.S. military can be shared with our NATO allies. The establishment of Allied Command Transformation is an important part of the new NATO command structure, which reduces the number of NATO headquarters from 20 to 11 and eliminates geographic responsibilities. This leaner, deployable command structure will allow the Alliance to command missions wherever the member countries decide that NATO is needed. This Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the attached speech by Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, at the ceremony to commission Allied Command Transformation on June 19, 2003. Remarks by the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, at the Ceremony to the Commission of the New Allied Command Transformation Admirals, Generals, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a unique ceremony, because we are not only welcoming a new commander-- we are also changing fundamentally the very nature and purpose of this strategic headquarters. Indeed, we are creating a new organisation all together. That, in the history of this great Alliance, makes this a very special day. Our first task is to thank the man who has led Allied Commander Atlantic since last October--Admiral Sir Ian Forbes. Admiral Forbes, your predecessor, General Kernan, once described Allied Command Atlantic as NATO's bridge to the future. When you took command of this headquarters, you vowed to continue that mission. You have done so and with true distinction. Your staff here at Norfolk has nothing but the highest praise for the work you have done here. That is an most important testimonial. Let me add my own thanks, and congratulations, for the important work you have done here since January 2002, first as Deputy and then as Acting Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic. You have provided sound leadership in Norfolk through a critical period of concluding SACLANT's successful mission and defining the role--and I might add, daring role-- this new command will play in the Alliance. We will continue to value your leadership as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation. Admiral Giambastiani--or Admiral ``G'', as you are already known here--this is your first day on the job. But you have already made history, as the first commander of the new Allied Command Transformation. This is an honour that is well deserved. I would like to congratulate you, as well, on this appointment. In the coming years, Admiral, you will have a key role to play in shaping NATO's transformation. It is a transformation that has already begun, and the establishment of this Command--ACT--is proof positive. ACT will shape the future of combined and joint operations. It will identify new concepts, and bring them to maturity. It will then turn these transformational concepts into reality; a reality shared by the entire NATO Alliance. And it will do so in close cooperation with the U.S. Joint Forces Command co-located here, to ensure that NATO's transformation stays in lock step with the changes taking place in the United States. Indeed, the creation of a new permanent command here in Norfolk--one dedicated solely to transformation--demonstrates the investment NATO is making in preparing itself for 21st century operations. This Command underscores NATO nations' commitment to a continuous, permanent process of transforming and modernising our armed forces. ACT is, in a very real sense, both the symbol of the new NATO, and the architect that will shape its future. It will play an invaluable role in ensuring that the Atlantic Alliance can continue to defend the security and interests of its members against threats and challenges which we cannot even imagine today. ACT is a symbol of this Alliance's confidant embrace of the future and its challenges. Admiral Giambastiani, as I said last week to NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels, your new title, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, means that you more than anyone else will personify the critical importance this Alliance places on transforming its capabilities for the 21st century. An awesome responsibility. But welcome nevertheless to the NATO family.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for handling this concurrent resolution and for the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), as well, on this very important resolution. I want to begin by of course expressing my strong support for the resolution and thanking the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), one of our colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, for authoring the legislation and for working with the staff of the subcommittee and the full committee. He has long been a champion of Albania in the House, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution. As mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), this is a pledge also on the part of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia through what they did in Tirana for full continued support for moving towards NATO membership. Under the Adriatic Charter, the United States and these three countries pledge to consult whenever the security of one of them is threatened. For their part, the aspirant countries promise to continue defense reforms and to undertake steps to enhance border security so that they can contribute to regional stability. Some of the language in the Adriatic Charter might look familiar. Indeed, this document was based on the successful Baltic Charter, which was signed in 1998 between Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Five years ago few observers would have been so bold as to predict that those three countries occupied for 50 years by the Soviet Union and then Russia-to-be would be poised to join NATO and the EU next year. The Baltic Charter signifies an American commitment to help those three countries in their successful efforts to join NATO and the EU. Today, the Adriatic Charter holds the potential for helping Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to achieve the same goals. This Member, of course, recognizes and commends the efforts of Secretary of State Powell and those of our diplomats working the European and Eurasian Bureau of the State Department for their initiative in crafting the Adriatic Charter. As NATO prepares to admit seven new countries next year, it is important that these three remaining candidate countries are not forgotten. NATO's door remains open to all who are willing and able to assume the responsibilities of membership, and it is important that the Congress assert that it is the achievements of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia that will determine when their aspirations for accession will be realized. Each of them are working through membership action plans to meet NATO's standards, and each will be judged on their own accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, already, these three nations have acted like allies. All three countries have sent troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. In addition, Albania sent 75 special operations troops to take part in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Macedonia this month has sent 29 special forces troops to Iraq to take part in the stabilization operations there. We appreciate their contributions and look forward to the day when they are ready to take on the full responsibilities of NATO membership. Mr. Speaker, the Adriatic Charter is also one more step towards President Bush's goal of a Europe whole and free from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This Member commends and congratulates the people of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia for their initiative and progress, and this Member urges the House to pass this resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2465. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 2465, which extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches to January 1, 2004. Chapter 12 bankruptcy once again is set to expire on July 1, 2003. This legislation is very important to the nation's agriculture sector. This Member would express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for introducing H.R. 2465. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his efforts in getting this measure to the House Floor for consideration. This extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy is supported by this Member as it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. The use of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy provision has been an important and necessary option for family farmers throughout the nation. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, it will be another very painful blow to an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have no viable option other than to end their operations, but it will also cause land values to likely plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will negatively affect the ability of family farmers to earn a living. In addition, the resulting decrease in farmland value will impact the manner in which banks conduct their agricultural lending activities. Furthermore, this Member has received many contacts from his constituents supporting the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--it is clear that the agricultural sector in hurting. In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2465.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to announce that the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act, a bill that will address the significant differential in reimbursement levels to urban and rural skilled health care professionals, now has 72 bipartisan cosponsors. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services defines ``physician work'' is the amount of time, skill and intensity a physician puts into patients' visits. Rural physicians put in as much or even more time, skill, and intensity into a patient visit as do physicians in urban areas. Yet, rural physicians are paid less for their work. This is not only unfair, it is discriminatory. Nebraska physicians and other health professionals are currently being shortchanged by about $8.7 million annually in Medicare payments. If a Member represents a rural locality, their District's physicians and skilled health professionals are likely being short-changed as well. Physician work should be valued equally, irrespective of the geographic location of the physician. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act and asks for language to be included in any comprehensive Medicare reform bill that is considered on the House floor. The legislation would gradually phase-in a floor to adjust the reimbursement upward for rural physicians without lowering pay in other areas.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member wishes to add his strong support for the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 (H.R. 660) which would allow small business owners to band together across state lines through associations to purchase health insurance for families and employees. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this important resolution to the House Floor today; this issue is very timely as this week is Small Business Week. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Fletcher] for sponsoring H.R. 660. Over the past several years, we have witnessed significant changes in our health care system. Congress, employers, and the American people are currently searching for ways to control the cost of health care. In doing so, it is important that we do not compromise access and quality. This Member believes that Congress must evaluate three key areas when considering heath care proposals: affordability so that people can purchase health care that best fits their needs; accountability, so patients are guaranteed the quality they were promised; and accessibility, so millions more Americans can receive high-quality health care coverage that best fits their personal and family needs. Access to affordable health insurance is a major problem for many of the 26 million uninsured Americans who live in families supported by the self-employed or small business employees. Professional societies and trade associations have tried to fill that void by offering health insurance plans to their members. Unfortunately, the myriad of state regulations and mandatory coverage requirements make it very difficult, expensive, and often impossible to offer coverage in all 50 states. If health insurance is not affordable it's not accessible. The Small Business Health Fairness Act is intended to enhance the purchasing power of small businesses so that they could purchase such insurance more cheaply, and thereby provide health insurance coverage to more people. The association health plans created by the measure would be exempt from health insurance regulations of the various states. Thus, under the bill, these association health plans could operate in different states but would not be subject to the different health insurance regulations of those states. Instead they would be subject to regulation by the Labor Department. Similar association health plan language has been included in patient protection bills that Congress has recently considered. This Member has always supported these proposals. Madam Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 660.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as stated on the record many times, this Member continues his strong opposition to the permanent, total elimination of the estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this Member's opposition to this perfectly terrible idea have been publicly explained on numerous occasions, including past statements in the Congressional Record. It must also be noted, however, that this Member is strongly in favor of substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and that today he has re-introduced legislation to this effect. This same bill, H.R. 42 was introduced in the previous 107th Congress by this Member--the only change in the bill introduced today is that the highest individual income tax is now 35 percent. This Member believes that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small business, farm and ranch families and individuals benefit from estate tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level, such as provided in this Member's newly re-introduced measure. This Member's bill would provide immediate, essential Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate tax exclusion to $10 million effective upon enactment. With some estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, for tax year 2002, the estate tax exclusion was only $675,000. In addition, this Member's re-introduced bill would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation thereafter. The legislation also would decrease the highest Federal estate tax rate from 55 percent to the ``highest individual income tax rate'' that corresponds to that specific tax year--the highest individual income tax rate will be going down to 35 percent in stages. Finally, this Member's re-introduced bill would continue to apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is provided in current law. In fact, this Member has said on many occasions that he would be willing to raise the estate tax exclusion level to $15 million. Since this Member believes that his bill or similar legislation is the only responsible way to provide true estate tax reduction for our Nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member must use this opportunity to reiterate the following reasons for his opposition to the total elimination of the Federal estate tax. First, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega- millionaires would be very much contrary to the national interest. It is not in America's interest that absolutely huge estates should be passed from generations to generations--getting ever larger. The establishment of a permanent privileged class, re-enforced every generation, is too much like the situation in many European countries from which immigrants fled from hopelessness from the total domination of a small feudal class. Second, the elimination of the estate tax also would have a very negative impact upon the continuance of very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy institutions in our country. Finally, and fortunately, this Member believes that actually the Federal estate tax will never be eliminated in the year 2010. Reason will ultimately prevail and this effort to totally eliminate the estate tax on the super-rich will be seen as the very counterproductive step that it would be. At this point, this Member notes that under the previously enacted estate tax legislation (e.g., the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act), beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is eliminated, with two exceptions, such that the value of inherited assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, as noted previously by this Member, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act could result in unfortunate tax consequences for some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on any increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs--resulting in a higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under the current ``stepped-up'' basis law. In closing, Mr. Speaker, while this Member is strongly supportive of legislation to substantially raise the estate tax exemption level and to reduce the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and as such today re-introduced his legislation to this effect, this Member cannot in good conscience support the permanent total elimination of the inheritance tax on the super-rich.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of S. 703, which designates the regional headquarters building for the National Park Service under construction in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Carl T. Curtis National Park Service Midwest Regional Headquarters Building.'' This legislation, which was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel, passed the Senate on April 11, 2003, and was approved by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 2, 2003. Carl Curtis was born in 1905 near Minden, Nebraska. He served in the House from 1939 until 1955 and subsequently served in the Senate until his retirement from Congress in 1979. His 40 years of congressional service set a record for Nebraska, and he served with dedication and integrity. Carl Curtis passed away in 2000. This Member recalls how as a thirteen year old on a family vacation he visited Senator Curtis's Washington, D.C. office. On this occasion, and always, he showed his deep Nebraska roots as he spoke glowingly and knowledgeably about Nebraska and our Seward County community. Carl Curtis believed that elected public service was an honorable calling and he lived up to that conviction. This Member greatly appreciated and admired his commitment to public service and to representative democracy. This Member urges his colleagues to support S. 703, which would provide a fitting tribute to this outstanding former legislator, since the new National Park Service regional office will be built on the banks of the Missouri River, a river which was the focus of important legislation on which Senator Carl Curtis showed crucial leadership on a number of occasions.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the June 11, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``The Right Thing.'' This editorial correctly notes that the atrocities committed by the horrific, repressive regime of Saddam Hussein were reason enough for liberating the people of Iraq. [From the Omaha (NE) World-Herald, June 11, 2003] The Right Thing Amid all the talk about whether, or even if, substantial numbers of weapons of mass destruction are going to be found in Iraq, it is also important to ask how much it matters. Our assessment is that, yes, it does matter--in the sense that strongly couched reports of such weaponry were at the heart of the Bush administration's argument for toppling Saddam Hussein. Yet we also believe that the answer to the question, while instructive, is not pivotal. Ousting Saddam will turn out to be an overarching good deed. It stands on its own merits. At present, the purported weapons are not turning up. Does this mean they just weren't there, or does it mean that Saddam's regime and the Baath zealots that undergirded it were exceptionally good at hiding them or destroying them or spiriting them across international borders? Let's hope the Pentagon's new weapons-hunting team, slated to take over the search soon, will provide definitive answers. Four months ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell made an impassioned case before the U.N. Security Council that the weapons existed, along with equipment for making more. We said then that if one-half or even one-fourth of what Powell was asserting were true, there would be a strong case that the Iraqis weren't complying with U.N. mandates. At this point, there has been no hard evidence that the existence of even those fractions will be borne out. In addition (as we said then), the evidence of a Saddam-al Qaida link was iffy. Fair enough. But we also went on to say that Saddam nonetheless should be ousted. We stand by that. Saddam's behavior was that of some sort of devil incarnate. He murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, starved others, tortured and maimed unknown numbers more, snubbed agreed-upon arms inspections and other mandates after the Gulf War of 1991 and attacked aircraft attempting to enforce ``no-fly'' zones. We also said earlier that there were three scenarios for Saddam's departure. In descending order of desirability, they were abdication, liberation of Iraq by a U.N. force or liberation via a U.S. attack, aided only by allies. The last of these three was what played out. That's unfortunate, but this is an imperfect world. Now that world wants to know: Did the U.S. administration, in company with Britain's Tony Blair, (1) get the weapons allegations right at the time when they were articulated; (2) err in assessing the evidence; or (3) just plain confabulate in order to drum up popular support? If it turns out to be the last of those three, then the U.S. and British administrations will take their lumps in the marketplace of public opinion and perhaps at the polls as well. We're not saying that's what happened; time will sort such matters out. But it ought to go without saying that Americans and Britons don't need to be ``spun'' (``conned,'' in older terminology) in order to do the right thing. The right thing: Ousting Saddam was that. Exactly that. He was a murderer and a brutal oppressor who helped destabilize a whole region and robbed his people of a generation of progress. On that basis, Americans and Britons--along with others in the international community who will now seek to help Iraqis back to their rightful place in the world--have nothing to apologize for.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but H.R. 1308 is a new $82 billion tax cut package that simply is too large. The House-passed version of H.R. 1308 will add to the already unprecedented national debt that future generations will face. Apparently, the Senate last week initially considered a proposal similar to the House-passed version of H.R. 1380 during its negotiations on child tax credit legislation, but the Senate rejected this proposal out of hand because of the effect it would have in worsening the deficit. Furthermore, while the focus of debate has been on the extension of the child tax credit, only a tiny fraction, about 4 percent, of the $82 billion tax cut amount--$3.5 billion--goes toward extending the child tax credit for the estimated 12 million children who were left out of the previously enacted tax cut legislation. It is also unfortunate that over two-thirds of the House-passed version for child tax credit benefits will go to many higher-income families through an increase in the income level from $110,000 to $150,000 at which the child tax credit begins to phase down for married families. This would make married families in the $110,000-150,000 income range, who now receive a partial child tax credit, eligible for a full credit. It also extends a partial tax credit to many families in the $150,000-$200,000 range or, in the case of families with more than two children, to some families with incomes exceeding $200,000. The extension of the credit to these higher-income families would cost $20.4 billion through 2010 under the House-passed bill. While the Senate-passed child tax credit bill has a similar provision, it costs only $4.8 billion because the Senate provision would not begin to phase in until 2008 and would not take full effect until 2010. Mr. Speaker, therefore, what is at stake is more than a simple extension of the child tax credit, instead what is at stake is whether or not many of the major tax cuts already passed will be extended beyond their sunsets and whether new additional tax cuts will be passed to further add to our deficit without the costs being offset. This Member believes that if this happens then our nation's long-term fiscal status is destined to markedly decline. Furthermore, this Member has been an outspoken critic that the original tax cut proposal from the Administration was too large, and this Member continues to believe that unless we take a more fiscally responsible course of tax cuts, then we will simply be passing a greater mountain of debt of our nation's children and their children. This Member also believes that such fiscally irresponsible tax cuts will increase the pressure to make even more draconian cuts in our Federal programs--beyond what is considered to be the necessary cuts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in such programs.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 252. I commend the gentleman from Missouri for introducing this important resolution. It is clear that the U.S. must send a strong and unmistakable message to the European Union that its discriminatory and protectionist trade practices regarding biotechnology will not be tolerated. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, this Member asserts that this is an important issue in trans-Atlantic relations. This resolution puts the House on record as supporting the U.S. in its efforts within the World Trade Organization to end these practices. The EU's current moratorium on approving new agricultural biotech products has no scientific basis. It harms U.S. agricultural producers and it exacerbates food shortages in Africa. This Member has been strongly urging the administration to take action on this issue by bringing a case against the EU to the WTO, and is very pleased the announcement has been made that we have done so. The current EU restrictions on the importation of food with genetically modified organisms, GMOs, have cost agricultural producers billions of dollars in recent years. The U.S. must be aggressive in knocking down such non-tariff trade restrictions. The EU's delay on lifting the moratorium on biotech crops is unacceptable and the WTO action is certainly appropriate. The intransigence by the EU is having a very detrimental effect on American farmers. It has been reported that since the early 1990s, U.S. corn exports to Europe have plummeted 95 percent, and this issue is one of the causes. Incredibly, too, they have used their emotional arguments against GMOs to coerce African countries facing famine not to accept donated American food and agricultural products. So in contrast to what the gentleman from Wisconsin said, this is strictly not a European issue, this is coercion on their part against African countries who are compelled to leave that food donated to deal with famine and malnutrition setting on the docks. Also troubling are the indications that the EU is planning to move forward with labeling and traceability requirements that will continue to act as a mechanism to block U.S. agriculture products. This clearly runs counter to the WTO principle that rules should be based on scientific evidence. I think it is interesting to note that David Byrne, EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, has been quoted as saying, ``The EU's position on genetically modified food is that it is as safe as conventional food.'' However, the moratorium remains in place and American farmers continue to lose valuable markets, not just in Europe, but third world countries. This matters because it is more important to the farmers today facing difficult times due to the ongoing drought and lower revenue. When filing the WTO case, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick stated clearly why it is so important for the U.S. to take action. He said, ``The EU's moratorium violates WTO rules. People around the world have been eating biotech food for years. Biotech food helps nourish the world's hungry population, offers tremendous opportunities for better health and nutrition and protects the environment by reducing soil erosion and pesticide use.'' This Member believes that the EU's GMO standards are transparently devoid of any relationship to sound science, and are either based strictly on emotion or are designed quite simply as trade barriers, or both. The U.S. is correct in taking strong action to bring this back to reason. I strongly support H.R. 252 and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 7, marks the 11th National Trails Day. This important event, held the first Saturday of every June, is coordinated nationally by the American Hiking Society and locally by trail clubs, parks, agencies and businesses. National Trails Day provides an outstanding opportunity to enjoy trails and thank the countless volunteers who build, maintain and protect them. As cochairman of the House Trails Caucus, this Member encourages his colleagues to show their support for trails on June 7 and throughout the year. The theme for National Trails Day 2003 is ``Healthy Trails, Healthy People.'' It will emphasize the many health benefits associated with trail use. The existing network of trails throughout the U.S. would not be possible without the assistance provided by grassroots trails groups and individuals who are determined to make a positive difference in their communities. The tireless efforts on behalf of trails by countless volunteers across the nation help to ensure that future generations will be able to discover the wonders of our country's rich diversity and history. In closing, Mr. Speaker, trails play an important role in communities throughout the country and this Member urges his colleagues to join in the celebration of National Trails Day on Saturday, June 7th. This effort fits well with President Bush's ``Healthier U.S. Initiative'' to encourage physical activity. In addition to promoting healthier and more active lifestyles, trails provide outstanding, family-oriented recreational opportunities to all Americans. They also offer important economic development benefits to nearby communities.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member was in his congressional district on official business on Monday, June 2, 2003, and therefore missed three rollcall votes. If this Member had been present, he would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 227 (H. Res. 159, expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of Texas State Representative Irma Rangel)-- ``aye''; Rollcall No. 228 (H. Res. 195, congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for hitting 500 major league home runs)--``aye''; and Rollcall No. 229 (H.R. 1465, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4832 East Highway 27 in Iron Station, North Carolina, as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office'')-- ``aye''.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act. Certainly, this Member has no objections to expediting citizenship for noncitizen members serving in U.S. armed services and supports efforts to provide appropriate incentives for a very small percentage of few noncitizens who meet established requirements to join our professional military forces. However, in granting citizenship to these qualified men and women, it is not necessary or desirable to also grant priority to their parents, spouses, and children. And it is certainly not appropriate to waive the requirement that such family members financially support themselves in the U.S. Unfortunately, provisions in H.R. 1954 would have that effect. Through this bill, the spouses, children under the age of 21, and parents of men and women who have been granted citizenship based on their service in the U.S. Armed Forces and who have died in the line of duty would be authorized to seek permanent resident status on an expedited basis. Then, unlike other people seeking legal immigrant status, these family members would not be required to meet financial thresholds which indicate that they would not immediately be public charges. Most of the American public is unaware of these provisions. Enacting such excessive inducements for joining the U.S. military is a step in the wrong direction, particularly if it results in this country increasingly depending upon what could come to be thought of and called foreign mercenaries to serve in the Armed Forces. This practice has too many similarities to the mercenary forces of the Roman Empire in its decline as Roman citizens themselves became unwilling to serve in the Roman legions. Imagine, too, the reactions of foreign nations that begin to see our forces as forces that serve to gain citizenship for themselves and their families. Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote against H.R. 1954 and to push strenuously for changing this legislation before enactment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 215 I inadvertently pressed the wrong button. I meant to vote ``no.'' Announcement By the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 255. This legislation is noncontroversial. It is one introduced by this Member. I very much appreciate the support and assistance of the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, (Mrs. Christensen), for moving this legislation. Mr. Speaker, what this facilitates is the granting of an easement by the National Park Service to Otoe County, Nebraska, so that a road may be constructed to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trails and Visitors Center, expected to open in July of next year in time for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The Otoe County government will construct and maintain the road, but it is essential that we have a road for visitors to visit the visitors center. I introduced this legislation originally in the 107th Congress. It was not acted upon. Time is running short; and, therefore, I very much appreciate the fact that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and his staff facilitated the presentation of the bill for the consideration of the House today. This visitors center will focus primarily on the flora and fauna discovered by Lewis and Clark, well documented for the Nation as they paved the way for the settlement of the great American West. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 255. This is a non-controversial, but very necessary bill. It would simply grant an easement to Otoe County in Nebraska allowing it to build an access road to the Missouri River Basin Lewis & Clark Interpretive Trails & Visitors Center which is now under construction at a site adjacent to Nebraska City, Nebraska. This Member originally introduced this legislation during the 107th Congress when it became clear that the National Park Service could not grant this easement without congressional action. Otoe County has agreed to construct and maintain the access road. This Member would like to begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the Chairman of the Resources Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the Ranking Member of the Committee, for their assistance in expediting this legislation. When completed, the access road facilitated by H.R. 255 will lead visitors from the State Highway Route 2 Expressway to an outstanding Lewis and Clark interpretive center. The center is scheduled to be completed in early 2004 with the grand opening set on July 30, 2004, which coincides with the Lewis and Clark signature event in Nebraska at historic Fort Atkinson, the site of the famous ``Council Bluff'' in Nebraska where Lewis and Clark had their first council with Native American leaders. The Nebraska City Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center will find an important role by focusing on the flora and fauna encountered and documented by the expedition. Across the country, the bicentennial commemoration is expected to draw millions of Americans and foreign visitors to sites along the Lewis and Clark trail over the next several years. This new center will certainly be one of the must-see stops. Much like the Expedition itself, this project has had to overcome numerous challenges and obstacles. Its success is due to the remarkable foresight, persistence and dedication of many individuals. This Member has had a longstanding interest in the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Starting from a first reading of Lewis and Clark's journals, many years ago, this Member has always been thrilled with the story of this extraordinary and courageous journey which was so important in the settlement of our region and the westward expansion of our Nation and people. This Member's legislative efforts related to the Lewis and Clark Expedition began more than two decades ago with the authorship of an amendment to the National Trails System Act in 1980 to include provisions for a series of interpretive markets along the Lewis and Clark Trail in Nebraska and for the authorization of an interpretive center in each of the states through which the Lewis and Clark Trail passes. It has taken Nebraska about 22 years to reach the point of constructing a center, but the results will be worth the effort. In 1987, Congress specifically authorized construction of a Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Interpretive Center in Nebraska to explain the significance of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The same year, at this Member's request, Congress appropriated $25,000 for historical markers at Lewis and Clark campsites in Nebraska and $30,000 for initial planning of a trail interpretation center, both under the 1980 authorization this Member authored. The National Park Service plan issued in 1991 recommended that the center be located in Nebraska City. The same year, the Park Service acquired a 65-acre tract of land for the center. This tract, along with adjacent land that was later donated, provides a panoramic view of the Missouri River, much as Lewis and Clark would have viewed it. In fact, two stops on the river at Nebraska City in 1804 are recorded in their journals. The story of the incredible Lewis and Clark expedition has appeal for Americans of all ages and backgrounds and presents an opportunity for a unifying experience. In the coming months and years, the public will undoubtedly increase its demands for more information about Lewis and Clark and their bold and courageous adventures. When Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, the United States had only about five and a half million people all concentrated in the eastern third of the continent, primarily along the coast. As a result of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the size of the country nearly doubled and the stage was set for a period of unparalleled development and progress. But first, the new acquisition had to be explored. President Jefferson chose Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to ``explore the Missouri River & such principal streams of it, as, by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado, or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purposes of commerce.'' Lewis and Clark departed St. Louis on May 14, 1804, and returned to St. Louis 28 months later on September 23, 1806. That difficult but exciting journey covered 8,000 miles through the area which now constitutes the states of Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Along the way, Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery encountered formidable challenges that easily could have thwarted their mission. However, they continued to keep their focus firmly on the ultimate goal. During their journey to the Pacific Ocean and back, the Lewis and Clark expedition documented numerous scientific and geographic discoveries and helped pave the way for the United States to become a great world power. This Member believes that passage of H.R. 255, will play a small, but vital role in permitting ready access to the new visitors center and thus increase the attention to the bicentennial activities. As someone with a long-standing interest in the Expedition and a co-chair of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Congressional Caucus, this Member is pleased to have H.R. 255 considered on the Floor and urges his colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, this House for the first time in 6 years spoke unanimously and decisively on the current situation involving Cyprus. On March 27, this body voted 422-0 to express our disappointment that a United Nations-backed settlement plan would not be presented to the people of Cyprus for their consideration. The resolution, introduced by this Member, also called for the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to quickly return to the negotiating table to find a fair and lasting settlement acceptable to all. Since passage of that resolution, two extraordinary events have taken place on that divided island. The first took place over Easter holiday when Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Rauf Denktash, announced a freedom of movement policy whereby the border separating the two sides would be open for the free passage of the island's population. In another welcome move shortly thereafter, the Cyprus Government announced that it was initiating 19 confidence-building measures. Some of those included lifting of trade restrictions between the north and the south and the de-mining of the Greek Cypriot side of the buffer zone. Mr. Speaker, whatever the impact the actions of this House had on events which have taken place on Cyprus, a new and positive attitude has taken hold on that island. This Member would like to commend Mr. Denktash for taking the bold and most welcome actions he initiated. In addition, this Member wishes to offer a special note of congratulations to President Papadopoulos for the comprehensive and impressive measures his government has put forward and has begun to implement. Others include the hiring of Turkish Cypriot professionals in the Cyprus Government; restoration of direct telecommunications between the Greek Cypriot side and the north as well as with Turkey; permitting Turkish Cypriot athletes to participate as members of national sporting teams of the Republic of Cyprus; improved health care opportunities for Turkish Cypriots; and an accounting of missing personnel, just to name a few. Of further interest, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan traveled to north Cyprus last weekend. It was this Member's hope that the visit would help pave the way for the eventual resumption of settlement negotiations between the two Cypriot sides. In the meantime, however, it was also this Member's hope that Turkey could be helpful in building confidence on the island by announcing several new initiatives as well. These could include the demining of the Turkish side to the buffer zone; placing the town of Famagusta under U.N. control for its reconstruction and return of its original inhabitants; addressing the issue of the enclaved people living in northern Cyprus, and to restart the missing persons' investigative committee. Mr. Speaker, while open borders, telecommunications and demining will not ultimately settle the division of the island, these measures, hopefully, will lead to more trust and a willingness to quickly resume the negotiations, and find a settlement for this division, which is the strong desire of this House.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to note that today, May 9, is Europe Day. Fifty-three years ago, then French Foreign Minister Robert Shuman announced a plan that proposed the pooling of European coal and steel production under a common authority as a way to bring some sense of order to the economic recovery of post-World War II Europe. The Shuman Declaration, which was formalized in a treaty the following year, was regarded as the first step toward achieving a united Europe. Since that time, we have witnessed an extraordinary evolution within Europe toward what has now become the European Union-- a treaty-based institutional framework which defines and manages economic and political cooperation among its current 15--soon to be--25 member countries. Mr. Speaker, although the difficult debate over Iraq presented yet another challenge to the relationship between the United States and a few countries in Europe, it remains clear to this Member a strong, developed transatlantic relationship is critical to the long-term political, economic and security interests of both the United States and Europe. It is also clear that one of the central ingredients to a successful partnership with Europe is a stable, integrated and dynamic Europe--and the European Union has evolved to become, along with NATO, one of the two critical international organizations for achieving those objectives. We in this country may not fully understand or appreciate all that has, and is, evolving within the European Union. But it remains clear that as we have worked so well with Europe within the NATO Alliance over the years, we must strive to develop a better working knowledge of, and relationship with, the European Union that will be both a transatlantic partner and an economic competitor for America. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare for the forthcoming U.S.--EU summit in June, today, Europe Day, is as good a time as ever to begin to renew our enduring and critical alliance with the countries of Europe and with the European Union.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today this Member rises to inform the House that the United States Senate a few minutes ago by a vote of 96-0 voted to give its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the NATO enlargement protocols. The lines drawn across Europe at Yalta are gone. By its action today on the 58th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, the Senate has approved the membership of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in the North Atlantic Alliance. According to the Constitution, it is the Senate that must give its advice and consent to treaty protocols. But, Mr. Speaker, this Member must note the leading role that this Chamber has played in promoting the admission into NATO of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. The decision to admit former Communist countries from Central and Eastern Europe into the Atlantic Alliance is one of the great success stories in American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It is a bipartisan success, promoted by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The seven nations across the face of Eastern and Central Europe that join NATO are democracies that will help build a stronger North Atlantic Alliance. Having fought so long and hard to gain their freedom, these nations know how very precious freedom is. I ask all the states of the NATO nations to give their approval under their national processes as Canada, Norway and now the United States have done.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform the House about the signing of the Adriatic treaty last Friday in the Albanian capital of Tirana. This agreement was signed by Secretary of State Powell and the foreign ministers of Albania, Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the three currently-remaining NATO aspirant nations. The Adriatic Charter pledges the United States to support efforts by Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to join NATO and other Euro-Atlantic institutions. In this agreement, the three aspirant nations commit themselves to accelerate their democratic reforms, protect human rights, implement market-oriented economic policies, and enhance their mutual cooperation. Under the Adriatic Charter, the United States and these three countries pledge to consult whenever the security of one of them is threatened, and the aspirant countries promise to continue defense reforms and undertake steps to enhance border security so they can contribute to regional stability. Mr. Speaker, the Adriatic Charter is one more important step toward President Bush's goal of a Europe whole and free from the Baltic to the Black Sea. I commend and congratulate the people of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia on the occasion of the signing of the Adriatic Charter.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the April 12, 2003, editorial from the Lincoln Journal Star, entitled ``Castro shows he is still a brutal tyrant.'' As the editorial correctly notes, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's recent crackdowns on political dissent cannot be tolerated. Castro Shows He Is Still a Brutal Tyrant Early this year, the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Nebraska arranged a trip to Cuba for students in its depth reporting class. The students made an effort to talk to dissenters, pro- democracy activists and independent journalists. Today, six of the people they met are in prison, according to student Sarah Fox. In addition, two Cubans met by the UNL group have been identified as government spies, according to Professor Joe Starita, a leader of the visit. Since March 18, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has jailed more than 75 Cubans, including many in the recent Varela Project, which collected more than 10,000 signatures last year calling for a pro-democracy referendum. Castro's latest round of suppression shatters hopes the 76- year-old autocrat will permit meaningful progress toward democracy near the end of his long stay in power. The people jailed by Castro were guilty only of exercising freedoms--criticism of the government, political activism, independent journalism--that Americans take for granted. Raul Rivero, a poet and independent journalist, already has been sentenced to 20 years in prison after pre-ordained legal proceedings. Also facing long prison sentences are economist Martha Beatriz Roque, labor activist Pedro Pablo Alvarez and editor Ricardo Gonzalez. During the crackdown, government officials hauled the dissidents from their homes and confiscated tape recorders, fax machines, computers and clippings from American newspapers. Amnesty International described the sentences as ``a giant step backward for human rights.'' The U.S. State Department described them as ``the most despicable act of political repression in the Americas in a decade.'' The Human Rights Watch said Cuba is ``flouting fundamental human rights norms.'' The level of repression in Cuba has fluctuated during the 43 years Castro has held power. In recent years, however, Castro seemed more tolerant of dissent, and he opened the doors of the island nation to tourists and international visitors. Despite the welcome influx of foreign currency, Castro eventually felt threatened by the opposition movement in Cuba. Adding to Castro's paranoia was encouragement given to Castro's opponents by the American government. The top U.S. diplomat in Cuba, James Cason, met with dissidents, offered them public support and allowed them to use U.S. facilities in Cuba for their meetings. If Castro had been willing to continue loosening the reins of power, Cuba could have enjoyed the economic benefits of increased tourism and trade. Instead, his crackdown reaffirms that Castro is nothing more than a garden variety tyrant more interested in clinging to power than improving the lives of his people.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the April 10, 2003, editorial from the Lincoln Journal Star, entitled ``Cheers for Toppling of Saddam.'' Indeed, the editorial captures the enthusiastic spirit of the Iraqi people as American troops liberated them from the horrific, repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Cheers for Toppling of Saddam On Wednesday the war in Iraq reached a historic `tipping point,'' as Brig. Gen Vince Brooks termed it, symbolized by the toppling of a 40-foot statue of Saddam Hussein in a main square of Baghdad. Hundreds of Iraqis, especially the Shiite Muslim majority that suffered under Saddam's predominantly Sunni Muslim government, celebrated with cheers, exchanging high fives with U.S. Marines. A group of Iraqis dragged the head of the Saddam statue through the streets. Others battered it with sticks and shoes. Few predicted that this historic moment would occur so soon after a war of less than three weeks. President George W. Bush, in fact, warned Americans on March 23, ``It is evident that it will take awhile to achieve our objective.'' And in fact, more military action lies ahead. Parts of Baghdad are not secure. Coalition ground forces have not yet moved into other cities, including Tikrit, Saddam's birthplace 100 miles north of Baghdad. No one knows with certainty whether Saddam is alive or dead. But Iraqis on Wednesday grasped that Saddam's 24-year rule of terror had come to an end. Also abundantly clear is the new prowess of the U.S. military. The brilliant campaign to remove Saddam so far has produced a death toll far less than predictions and in fact less than the toll of the Desert Storm war in 1991. The combination of smart weaponry, high-tech surveillance equipment and instantaneous communication turned coalition troops into a potent force capable of making split-second adjustments to battlefield conditions, even in urban environments. Drone aircraft fed television images of streets and rooftops. Ground troops called for precision air strikes rather than fighting blind. Troops even used hand-held computerized translators that allowed them to communicate with Iraqis. The advanced technology, training and updated strategy brought success at minimal cost more quickly than many dared hope. So Wednesday was a day for celebration. ``He's gone? He's gone?'' chanted a group of boys in the Kurdish city of Irbil. ``Bush No. 1 Bush No 1,'' shouted young men in Baghdad. Women held their babies for American troops to kiss. Women and children handed them flowers. And coalition troops were making discoveries that showed why there was dancing in the streets at the realization that Saddam's grip was loosed forever. In Basra, Iraqis showed journalists the ``White Lion'' jail where they said Saddam's secret police tortured prisoners with beatings, mutilations, electric shocks and chemicals. Similar discoveries were being made elsewhere in Iraq. The cheers of today might be soon forgotten as Iraqis begin the task of rebuilding their country and establishing a new government. And it must be acknowledged that this historic moment came despite objections from scores of nations around the globe. Nonetheless, it was gratifying on Wednesday to witness the end of the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein.