Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, in the pre-dawn hours of April 12, 1861, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard gave the order to fire on Fort Sumter. After 34 hours of bombardment, a white flag ended the first battle of the Civil War. The only casualty was a Confederate horse. Later a Northern Congressman predicted that we could, ``wipe up with one handkerchief the blood that would be spilled in putting down the rebellion.'' He was wrong. As the Northern Alliance supported by our bombers and Special Forces roll across Afghanistan, I fear the same overconfidence taking root here in Congress. In the words of the poet, ``We have miles to go before we sleep.'' So it is with the war on terrorism. Many ask me what will come next. The answer is embedded in the question. We all know that there will be a next. It is important that those who advance terrorism not know when. It is important that we understand that the coming phase probably will not be as painless in defeating the Taliban. Other countries do not offer ready-made freedom fighters like the Northern Alliance. We must also brace ourselves for potential news blackouts. I pray that any future deployments of our Special Forces into other countries will not be announced on CNBC. SEAL teams do their best work away from the glare of Klieg lights. Our commander in chief has made it clear from the very beginning, this will be a long war involving many countries that harbor terrorism. It began at a time of their choosing. It will end at a time and under the terms that we decide. We must not become overconfident. It will take many handkerchiefs. There will be casualties, both American and innocent civilians. But I have no doubt that we will prevail. And in the end, we will leave to future generations a much safer planet. To victory.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the following language that is missing from the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001, but that I feel should have been included. The effect of this language would be to clarify that Indian tribes are covered under the act, and to ensure that in the event of a nuclear incident on an Indian Reservation which renders such land uninhabitable, the tribe would be compensated with other lands of comparable size and value. 42 U.S.C. 2014(s) is amended to read: (s) The term ``person'' means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, Government agency other than the Commission, any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any Indian tribe, band, nation or other organized group or community of Indians, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing. 42 U.S.C. 2014(w) is amended to read: (w) the term ``public liability'' means any legal liability arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident or precautionary evacuation (including all reasonable additional costs incurred by any Indian tribe, band, nation or other organized group or community of Indians or a State, or a political subdivision of a State, in the course of responding to a nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation), except: (i) claims under State or Federal workmen's compensation acts of employees of persons indemnified who are employed at the site of and in connection with the activity where the nuclear incident occurs; (ii) claims arising out of an act of war; and (iii) whenever used in subsections (a), (c) and (k) of section 2210 of this title, claims for loss of, or damage to, or loss of use of property which is located at the site of and used in connection with the licensed activity where the nuclear incident occurs. In the case of an Indian tribe with trust or reservation lands located within one mile of the site of a nuclear incident, ``public liability'' includes the loss of use of trust or reservation lands. In the event of a nuclear incident which renders such trust of reservation lands uninhabitable, upon meaningful consultation with the Indian tribe, other lands of comparable size and value shall be placed in trust for the tribe and shall have the same status for all purposes of Federal, State and Indian law as did the uninhabitable lands. ``Public liability'' also includes damage to property of other persons indemnified: Provided, That such property is covered under the terms of the financial protection required, except property which is located at the site of and used in connection with the activity where the nuclear incident occurs.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Boris Khalif, Taimour Firaz Khan, Norma Khan, Sarah Khan, Rajesh Khandelwal, Devi Khemraj Bhowanie, Seilai Khoo, Michael Kiefer, Satoshi Kikuchihara, Don Kim, Andrew Jay-Hoon Kim, Lawrence Kim, Mary Jo Kimelman, Heinrich Kimmig, Karen A. Kincaid, Robert King, Jr., Amy R. King, Lucille King, Andrew Marshall King, Michele King, Lisa M. King-Johnson, Brian Kinney, Takashi Kinoshita, Chris Michael Kirby, Barry Kirschbaum, Glenn Davis Kirwin, Richard Klares, Peter A. Klein, Julie Klein, Alan David Kleinberg, Karen Joyce Klitzman, Robert Phillip Kloepfer, Eugeuni Kniazev, Thomas Patrick Knox, Andrew Knox, Rebecca Kobone, Deborah Kobus, Gary Koecheler, Frank J. Koestner, Ryan Kohart, Vanessa Lynn Kolpak, Irina Kolpakova, Suzanne Kondratenko, Abdoulaye Kone, Bon-seok Koo, Dorota Kopiczko, Scott Kopytko, Bojan Kostic, Danielle Kousoulis, David Kovalcin, John J. Kren, William Krukowski, Lyudmila Ksido, Toshiya Kuge, Shekhar Kumar, Kenneth Kumpel, Frederick Kuo, Jr., Patricia Kuras, Nauka Kushitani, Thomas Kuveikis, Victor Kwaku, Victor Kwarkye, Kui Fai Kwok. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Frances Haros, Harvey Harrell, Stephen G. Harrell, Stewart Dennis Harris, Aisha Harris, John Hart, Eric Samadikan Hartono, John Clinton Hartz, Emeric J. Harvey, Peter Hashem, Thomas Haskell, Timothy Haskell, Joseph John Hasson, III, Terence S. Hatton, Leonard William Hatton, Michael Helmut Haub, Timothy Aaron Haviland, Donald G. Havlish, Jr, Anthony Hawkins, Nobuhiro Hayatsu, James E. Hayden, Philip Thomas Hayes, Robert Hayes, William Ward Haynes, Scott Hazelcorn, Michael K. Healey, Roberta Bernstein Heber, Charles Francis Xavier Heeran, John E. Heffernan, Michele Heidenberger, Sheila Hein, Howard Joseph Heller, JoAnn L. Heltibridle, Ronald John Memenway, Mark F. Hemschoot, Ronnie Lee Henderson, Janet Hendricks, Brian Hennessey, Ted Hennessy, Michelle Marie Henrique, William Henry, Joseph Henry, John C. Henwood, Robert Hepburn, Mary ``Molly'' Herencia, Lindsay Coates Herkness, III, Harvey Hermer, Norberto Hernandez, Claribel Hernandez, Raul Hernandez, Anabel Hernandez, Eduardo Hernandez, Gary Herold, Jeffrey A. Hersch, Thomas Hetzel, Brian Hickey, Donald Hickman, Jsidro Hidalgo-Tejada, Timothy B. Higgins, Robert Higley, Todd Russell Hill, Neal Hinds, Clara Victorine Hinds. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Bonnie Hunter, Peggy Hurt, Robert Hussa, Stephen Neil Hyland, Mark Hylton, Robert J. Hymel, Walter G. Hynes, Thomas Hynes, John Hynes, Joseph Ianelli Jr., Zuhtu Ibis, Jonathan Lee Ielpi, Michael Patrick Iken, Daniel Ilkanayev, Frederick Ill Jr., Abraham Nethanel Ilowitz, Anthony P. Infante, Jr., Louis Steven Inghilterra, Christopher N. Ingrassia, Paul William Innella, Stephanie Irby, Doug Irgang, Kristin A. Irvine-Ryan, Todd Isaac, Erik Hans Isbrandtsen, William Iselepis, Taizo Ishikawa, Waleed Iskandar, Aram Iskenderian, John F. Iskyan, Kazushige Ito, Aleksander Ivantsov, Lacey B. Ivory, Virginia M. Jablonski, Bryan Creed Jack, Brooke Alexandra Jackman, Aaron Jacobs, Jason Kyle Jacobs, Michael Grady Jacobs, Ariel Jacobs, Steven A. Jacobson, Steven D. ``Jake'' Jacoby, Ricknauth Jaggernauth, Jake Jagoda, Yudh V.S. Jain, Maria Jakubiak, Robert Adrien Jalbert, Peter Jalinas, Gricelda E. James, Ernest James, Mark Jardin, Amy N. Jarret, Mohammed Jawara, Maxima Jean-Pierre, Paul E. Jeffers, John Charles Jenkins, Allen K. Jensen, Prem Nath Jerath, Farah Jeudy, Hweidar Jian, Yuan Jianhua, Luis Jiminez, Eliezer Jiminez, Jr., Charles Gregory John, Nicholas John, Nick John, Scott Michael Johnson, Dennis M. Johnson, LaShawna Johnson, William Johnston, Charles E. Jones, Judith Jones, Mary S. Jones, Donald W. Jones, Linda Jones, Arthur J. Jones, III, Allison Horstmann Jones, Donald Thomas Jones, II, Brian L. Jones, Christopher D. Jones, Andrew Jordan, Robert Thomas Jordan, Karl Joseph, Stephen Joseph. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Rex Arnold Pettis and Mike Pelach are two men among many who interrupted their high school educations to respond to the call of duty by serving our country during World War II, Rex on a submarine in the Pacific sinking Japanese ships, and Mike as a medic in New Guinea. While not in the classroom, World War II vets continued their education through experience: Geography, foreign languages, science, strategic planning, all essential in their battle to succeed. Many of these brave men and women never had the chance to return to the classroom to complete their diplomas. Ray Alvin Pettis, twin brother of Rex, died on the battlefield in France. Fifty years later, Mr. Pettis and Mr. Pelach are receiving their high school diplomas. For the third year, Independent School District 192 in Farmington, Minnesota, and the Farmington Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion are honoring these World War II vets in a special graduation ceremony. Mr. James Robert Borman, who passed away just last week, and Mr. Ray Alvin Pettis, will also be honored posthumously for their service in the Air Force and Army, respectively. It is only proper that we honor these who honor the call to duty, sacrificing important years of their lives for the benefit of all. I am grateful to these men for their valor and sacrifices, and I congratulate ISD 192, the American Legion, and the VFW in Farmington for honoring them with a graduation ceremony and high school diplomas.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to read from an e-mail which was sent from a young ensign aboard the U.S.S. Winston Churchill to his parents. The Churchill is an Arleigh Burke-class AEGIS guided- missile destroyer, commissioned March 10, 2001, and is the only active U.S. Navy warship named after a foreign national. I read: ``Dear Dad: We are still at sea. The remainder of our port visits have all been canceled. We have spent every day since the attacks going back and forth within imaginary boxes drawn in the ocean, standing high-security watches and trying to make the best of it. We have seen the articles and the photographs, and they are sickening. Being isolated, I do not think we appreciate the full scope of what is happening back home, but we are definitely feeling the effects. ``About 2 hours ago, we were hailed by a German Navy destroyer, Lutjens, requesting permission to pass close by our port side. Strange, since we were in the middle of an empty ocean, but the captain acquiesced and we prepared to render them honors from our bridge wing. As they were making their approach, our conning officer used binoculars and announced that the Lutjens was flying not the German but the American flag. As she came alongside us, we saw the American flag flying at half mast and her entire crew topside standing at silent, rigid attention in their dress uniforms. ``They had made a sign that was displayed on her side that read ``We Stand by You.'' There was not a dry eye on the bridge as we stayed alongside for a few minutes and saluted. It was the most powerful thing I have seen in my life. The German Navy did an incredible thing for this crew, and it has truly been the highest point in the days since the attacks. It is amazing to think that only a half-century ago things were quite different. ``After Lutjens pulled away, the officer of the deck, who had been planning to get out later this year, turned to me and said, `I'm staying Navy.' '' Mr. Speaker, to our German friends we can only say, danke schoen. To our countrymen and colleagues I say, be of strong heart, we are not alone. We will prevail. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, a number of colleagues have asked if they could get copies of this e-mail as well as photos of the Navy destroyer Lutjens. They can get that by simply going to my Web address at gil.house.gov.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I will be real brief here, but the point the gentleman is really making, and this is what we need to debate and discuss here in Congress and for too long we have been cowed, and I want to come back to that, from having an honest debate about immigration, but Americans are being injured. We talk about what happened September 11, and the list was very, very instructive from my colleague from Virginia, but people are being injured every day by legal, semi-legal, and illegal immigration in America today because no one is minding the store. They are losing their jobs, people are being injured through crimes, rape. We have had that actually happen in my town of Rochester, where illegal people or people who were here on visas have committed serious crimes, and yet there was no consequence. They are losing their jobs and they are losing their futures because of this immigration, and at the same time the INS is taking this unbelievably bizarre attitude. Worse than that, we in Congress, the people who are elected to set the policy for this country are cowed from debating this, or have been up until the last several months, because we are all sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we understand that immigration is part of our culture. And as Ronald Reagan said, we are one of the only countries where people can come here and become Americans. I could go to Germany, and my heritage is of German heritage, but in all likelihood I would never become a German citizen. It is very difficult to get German citizenship. You can go to France, but you will probably never become a French citizen. And that is true of most of the other countries of the world. We permit every year more people legally to come to the United States and become American citizens than all of the other countries combined in the world. And that is good, because we are a Nation of immigrants. But we have to have an honest discussion about illegal immigration and what happens when those people who come here on visas and they break our laws, when they take our jobs, when they do not play by the rules. What are we going to do about it? And the fact of the matter is we have not even had an honest debate about that. But the good news is the American people are waking up on this and they are far ahead of the public policymakers. When I have my town hall meetings, when I talk on the radio, and when I meet with my constituents, they understand. They get it. And they are way ahead of us. And they are beginning to say, when is Congress going to begin to take some serious action about this issue. I want to make one more point before I yield back my time, and that is to say, and our colleague from Arizona made this point, that we want to be careful that we do not sound here on the House floor that we are anti-immigrant or, more importantly, that we are anti-Arab or anti- Islamic immigrants. We have a large number, about 300 in my hometown of Rochester, folks who came here who are practicing members of the Islamic faith. And I have never been prouder than last Monday when they had a rally in Rochester, Minnesota, to hear people who could barely speak English shouting and chanting with American flags in their hands saying God bless America. It reminded me of a country and western singer a couple of weeks ago when he said something so profound and so simple, and it needs to be repeated. He said, ``You know, the terrorists just don't get it. They do not realize that we don't just live in America. America lives in us.'' We do understand and appreciate the value of a balanced and fair system of immigration. But the system has become so skewed and so unfair. When we have 31 million people coming into this country and we do not keep track of them on visas, when there are 200, perhaps 300,000 people who are in fact subject to deportation and yet there is no real consequence, when there are people breaking our laws and no real consequence, then the system is broken and it really is the responsibility of the United States Congress to begin to fix it. We want to work with the former Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, who has a very, very difficult job, and we all understand and appreciate that. But we need to work with him, we need to work with the administration, we need to work within the confines of the Congress to make certain that we bring some sense of order out of this chaos, because what we have right now in immigration policy is absolute chaos. When people can walk up and buy an airplane ticket and the INS knows in their computer files that they are members of potential terroristic groups and that information is not shared, we have a serious problem. When people can take jobs from hardworking, law-abiding American citizens, and there is no recourse for those citizens, there is something wrong with the system. We have a chance, we have an opportunity, and most importantly I think we have an obligation to fix that system. We want to work with Governor Ridge. We believe he represents perhaps the best opportunity to begin to get control of all of this and working with the Congress to come up with a new immigration policy that recognizes we want immigrants in our country, we want to be that shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan talked about, but we also want to have some rules and see to it that those rules are abided by, and that ultimately we do not have a system that literally invites terrorists to come into our country to set up shop, to be able to move freely around our country and never have to be accountable to anybody. So I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for participating tonight to help tell that story because I am convinced the more the American people realize what is going on in this country, the more that they are going to demand from their Members of Congress, from this administration, from Governor Ridge and others that the system begin to change in a responsible way.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and my colleagues that are here tonight for having this special order because I think as we talk about this war on terrorism, if we are not serious about really dealing with some of our immigration problems, then we are not really serious about the war on terrorism. Because if we have enemies from within and we are doing nothing about it, I think the gentleman is exactly right, then we are culpable. Shame on us for not doing more. The more we learn about this, the more troubling this becomes. I was surprised to learn, and I think most of my constituents, when I talk to my constituents, I ask them, for example, how many people do you think come into this country every year on average on some form of visa? I get numbers like 100,000, 200,000. And when I say to them, it is 31.5 million people, they are taken aback. Then the question I ask is, what happens to those people? Where are they now? And the truth of the matter is we do not know. One of scariest things if we look back at the events of September 11, two individuals went up to the ticket counter of American Airlines at Dulles Airport just a few miles from here, they used their own names and they purchased tickets on American Airlines to fly. Now, the interesting thing was the INS knew that those two individuals were members of the Egyptian jihad. Now that did not preclude them from coming into the United States. But the interesting thing is the FBI did not know that, and neither did American Airlines. I was at the Pentagon the other day, and I walked down the hall where they have the pictures of all the people that were killed that day. And I think the saddest picture of all is that picture of that young bride in her wedding dress. Somehow when I think about that, that here the INS knew that these two individuals, using their own names, were members of the Egyptian jihad, and yet that information had not been shared with the FBI or American Airlines. Shame on us. We have got to do something about this. In fact, the more I have learned about this, and I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) because he has done a great job of shedding the light of day on this issue because we need to know. The American people need to know. For example, in the last year that we have numbers for, 895 people came to the United States on visas from Iraq. Now, we do not have a whole lot of business dealings with Iraq. We buy a little bit of oil from them. We know that they have been problematic relative to harboring terrorism. How did 895 people get into this country on visas? And, most importantly, where did they go?

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and my colleagues and the whip for being here tonight to take a few minutes to pay tribute to a very special American. I think he is very special for a lot of reasons. I remember the first time we were driving through Iowa and we were listening to WHO in Des Moines, Iowa, and this voice came on the radio, and at first I sort of said to myself, is this a joke? But the more I listened, the more I said, hey, finally there is somebody out there who gets it. That was probably at least a dozen years ago. A tremendous story has been written since then about Rush and his audience around the United States. He did not create that audience. That audience was there. They were desperately looking for somebody who got it, someone who thought the way that they did; and I think it is a tremendous tribute to him that that audience has continued to grow, and I think it is a tribute to the fact that there is an awful lot of common sense in the American people. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) mentioned earlier about our class, the class of 1994, when after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, finally the Republicans took control of this House, took control of the Senate, and really began to change the American agenda, and I think for the better. I think Rush Limbaugh was a big part of that. I remember when we went down to Maryland, Baltimore; and we had some of our programs for new Members, and Rush came and spoke to us one night. It was a very special night, and we actually made him an honorary member of the class of 1994, the majority makers. I think he was touched to receive that pin. I reminded him that night of something I have needle-pointed on my wall that my wife needle-pointed for me a number of years ago. It is an expression from Winston Churchill. It is one of my favorite quotes from Churchill. It a very simple expression; but I think it says a lot, and in many respects Rush Limbaugh embodies this expression. He said, ``Success is never permanent; failure is never fatal. The only thing that really counts is courage.'' If you look back at what happened in 1994, what Rush did for us, what Rush did for the American people, what Rush did for the conservative movement, is he gave us the courage to believe that we were, in fact, the majority. I think it was people like Rush who really psychologically gave us a huge boost in that election and I think began to change the whole tenor of the discussion. Much of the debate we were having back in 1993 is no longer even relevant. That is how far the debate and the discourse here in this city and in this country have changed. He was a big part of that. So I want to thank the gentleman for having this Special Order. I have a few other points I might make later.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of some of my favorite undeniable truths, here is one. There is a distinct single American culture, rugged individualism and self-reliance which made America great. Another is character matters; leadership descends from character. Finally, there is something wrong when critics say the problem with America is too much religion. What Rush Limbaugh really did is he talked about the time-tested values that are America. In many respects, he just continued to refresh our memories about what Ronald Reagan talked about all of his political career. He talked about those time-tested values such as faith, family, work, thrift, and personal responsibility. Those are the cornerstones. Those are the basic building blocks upon which this great American culture is built. It really is those things that he talked about again and again and again and helped us refocus on what is important in this country. He used humor, he used facts, he used quotes; he listened to the American people, but he put into words what a lot of people were thinking. I think that is why he has such a big audience and I think it is also why some of the media elites in this city and in New York and in other big cities were so envious and so angry originally. Now they have come to accept Rush. But originally they were so angry and they were so angry because all of a sudden they did not have a monopoly anymore. It used to be there were three networks on television. There were maybe four, five, six large newspapers around the country. They basically controlled what people learned about what was going on in Washington and around the world. But then along came people like Rush, and all of a sudden he democratized the media. Everybody could participate. All of a sudden, they did not have to rely on just a couple of large newspapers and three networks. All of a sudden, there was a wealth of information coming at them, and things that they did not see on the nightly news were talked about on Rush Limbaugh. It made all the difference. Mr. Speaker, in 1994 when I first came to Congress, Rush Limbaugh had recently published a list of 35 Undeniable Truths. A couple of my favorites are more appropriate than ever. ``There is a distinct singular American culture--rugged individualism and self-reliance--which made America great.'' We are still a people of individual characters who, together, make up the rich fabric of a nation. As we have united together during this time of national tragedy, we will continue to demonstrate the ``can-do'' attitude which has carried us each, through personal challenges. Knowing Rush, this rugged individualism will carry him through as well. ``Character matters; leadership descends from character.'' Thomas Paine when writing during the birth of our nation said, ``These are the times that try men's souls.'' Our Founding Fathers tested their character and produced amazing acts of leadership. The character of our President and Congress are being tested and we have pulled together to defeat terrorism. Rush Limbaugh's character will continue to uphold the leadership he provides every day to millions of listeners. ``There is something wrong when critics say the problem with America is too much religion.'' Clearly the past month has demonstrated that America's faith in God has been the mainstay which has supported us in our grief and in our action to secure a terror-free future. Faith will also see Rush through his personal challenge as well. He talked about Time tested values--faith, family, work, thrift, and personal responsibility. I have no doubt Rush Limbaugh will overcome this temporary adversity and continue to shine as a bright star in the broadcast realm. I'm looking forward to the next show.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield further, I could just close, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the gentlemen, and particularly our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado. I remember that story, but I did not live it the way the gentleman did. We followed it on the radio. I would just say that Rush is going to keep going strong for many, many years to come. The power of ideas is stronger than anything. I have no doubt that Rush is going to overcome this adversity, and we will see and hear from him for many years to come. There is an old German expression. My German is not that good. It is something like this. (Expression in German). It translates to ``That which does not kill me only makes me stronger.'' He may have lost his sense of hearing, but he has not lost his perspective, he has not lost his voice, and he has not lost his keen interest and attention to the American body politic. I think as long as he has those, he will continue to be that voice of common sense, of reason, of traditional American values. I salute him tonight. I look forward to many years of listening to his program, and most importantly, I look forward to listening to the next show.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, freedom is not free. We are born knowing that sooner or later one day we will be called upon to fulfill our part in America's destiny. On September 11, this generation received our challenge. Throughout our Nation's history, every generation has had to ante up. Our time is now. As William Jennings Bryan said, ``Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.'' We must, and we will, achieve this victory for the people of the United States and for all civilized, peace-loving people around the world. The blood and treasure of our Nation will be invested. The leadership, resources and unwavering courage of the United States are critical in this struggle. We will rise to the challenge. And, in the end, we will leave to future generations a safer planet. Let us remember those brave Americans in our Armed Forces. They take their places now in the long gray line that has never failed us. May God bless them and give them the courage to achieve a great victory and establish a lasting peace.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is good, but again, we cannot exactly analyze how that will work, but ultimately, again, if we try to artificially raise the prices too high, particularly for fluid milk, it backs up into what we call Class III milk, which is 85 percent of the milk produced in my district, ultimately winding up going into cheese, and that is where the problem begins to really get difficult for us. So while I recognize the frustration of trying to make an amendment here on the floor of the House in the Committee of the Whole, which is the appropriate place, I really do hope that my colleague will take the offer that has been made, that we can work on this as we go forward. It does not have to be part of this farm bill. I think there are a growing number of people here that really believe the time has come to at least scrap everything we have and start with a blank sheet of paper. Our friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) did not do it this year, but a couple of years ago he read on the floor of the House the formula that is used today in the milk marketing order system. It is unbelievably complicated. There are only I think three people in Washington who completely understand it, and I understand that there is a rule at USDA that no two of them could be on the same airplane at the same time. We really do need to have a new dairy policy. It needs to be more simple, it needs to be more understandable, and we must make certain that it does not have unintended consequences. With the deepest respect, I will oppose the amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for this very constructive debate. This is the first time I think since I have been here, we have had actually a constructive discussion about dairy policy. I appreciate the frustration, particularly of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on issues that are important to him. We are in the Committee of the Whole, and this is the opportunity we have to offer these kind of amendments. I am afraid that I and my staff were trying to figure out exactly what this amendment, and with the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), would mean. We had a very difficult time sorting all of this out, and I suspect that was even true for some of the experts that worked for the committee and perhaps even down at the USDA. What I am concerned about, it has been mentioned already, is the law of unintended consequences. This is a place, of course, where we write law, but it is also an area where we can make bad law, and I am afraid what will happen with this amendment if we raise the price of Class I milk, and this is what a couple of our colleagues said earlier. Class I milk that goes into fluid milk, if we raise that price too high, whether it is in Vermont or anywhere else in the United States, what ultimately will happen is we will increase production because we do write law in this Chamber, we amend laws in this Chamber. There is one law we can neither amend nor change, and that is the law of supply and demand. That really is what is at the core of the problem we have with dairy policy, because if we artificially set prices too high we increase the supply and we may forestall some of those farmers going out of business, but ultimately, we are only going to forestall the day when that will happen.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to offer advice to the Chair.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. It has been interesting listening to this debate, and again we are wandering a bit far afield. I want to clarify one thing for the benefit of all Members. Mr. Chairman, Pheasants Forever supports the base bill as it is written. I want to come back to two very important facts that Members seem to be getting away from. Fact number one, this is a farm bill. Did everybody hear that? This is a farm bill. This is not an environmental bill, and Members need to think about that. Fact number two, this bill increases conservation programs by 78 percent. I understand that may not be enough for some people, but that is a huge increase. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) just talked about farmers who were turned away on some of the conservation programs. He was evidently talking about the EQIP program. We increased that program under this bill from about $200 million to $1.2 billion. That is a huge increase. But what this amendment is about is redefining what a ``real farmer'' is. We just heard that expression. A real farmer is somebody who farms full time. When I hear these arguments, even coming from some of the folks in the administration who have never seen a real farm, they do not seem to understand that out in places where we really farm, farmers do not farm 20 or 30 acres any more. To be a real farmer, farmers have to farm 400, 600, 800 acres, or more. According to the research that we have from FAPRI, which is an independent, nonpartisan farm consulting group, they said that this amendment will cut payments to farmers who grow more than 409 acres in Minnesota, the payments they could receive, by two-thirds. That is devastating. Two-thirds. Somebody who is growing 409 acres of corn in Minnesota is not a big farmer. That is not a corporate farmer. Incidently, in the State of Minnesota, and in most States now, we have outlawed corporate farming. There are no corporate farms. The only corporate farms we have are family-owned corporations where a brother, a sister, two brothers, a family has created a corporation. This is bad business. We have to talk about that average family farm. It is going to affect them. One of the things that we have tried to do in this bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member because I think they have come together and realized one of the weaknesses we had in farm policy is we did not have a countercyclical program. We gave people too much money when prices were good; and then we had to come back with these supplemental programs when prices were bad. Mr. Chairman, we want predictability not only for that average farmer, we want predictability for the Federal budget. This is a good bill as written. We cannot afford to strip away $1.9 billion every year from that average family farmer, to take away that support in the countercyclical payments, and put it into additional conservation programs. Seventy-eight percent is more than enough. This is a farm bill, not an environmental bill. Defeat the Kind amendment. Pass the bill as written.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mark Twain said there are lies, there are damn lines, and then there are statistics. It has been interesting to listen to the debate. We have heard a lot of statistics, and I am going to share some of my own. I am one of the few Members that serves on both the Committee on Agriculture as well as the Committee on the Budget. We have heard this term ``subsidy'' thrown around so freely here tonight as we talk the sugar program. I would like to just read from the Economic Research Service put out by the USDA, their latest report, the Agriculture Outlook, September 2001. This is what the sugar program costs in 1993. We had a net profit to the Federal taxpayers of $35 million. In 1994, we had a net profit of $24 million. In 1995, the taxpayers made $3 million. In 1996, it was $63 million; and the next year, it was $34 million. The next year, we made a profit of $30 million. In 1999, we made $51 million. It is true in fiscal year 2000 it cost the Federal taxpayers $465 million. Now, that was not the fault of the sugar beet growers or the sugar cane growers, it was not the fault of the farmers in the United States, it was the fault of failed trade policies. It was the fault of the Federal Government of not doing its job of policing the system. Do not blame the farmers for our failures by the bureaucrats here in Washington. That is what this amendment is all about. This has been a very successful program. We are a net importer of sugar. We need the sugar industry. We need predictable prices. Defeat the Miller-Miller amendment. Let us vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, clearly, listening to the debate now on this issue, it becomes clearer and clearer that the point of order is well taken. This is a debate about States' rights. We have heard that. That belongs in the judiciary, not the agriculture, bill. Now, a lot of the arguments we have heard today I share the concern. I represent a lot of dairy farmers. They have had a lot of tough luck here the last several years. And we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Let me just remind Members of a couple of important facts that have been underscored by independent consultants that have looked at this. The truth of the matter is we are losing dairy farmers at about the same rate in States that are in the compact as those States who are not. Now, we have heard these arguments this morning. We continue to hear them. Well, the dairy compacts will increase the amount of net income for dairy farmers, but it will not raise the price of milk; and it will not cost the taxpayers anything. Well, that sounds like the tooth fairy to me. The truth of the matter is, the only thing that we can honestly say that the dairy compacts have succeeded in doing is to divide the dairy farmers of the United States. That is a mistake. At the very time that we need to speak with one voice about dairy policy, we are speaking with different voices. We have the Northeast, we have the Southeast, we have the people in the Southwest, we have the Upper Midwest and we have California; and they are all speaking a different language. They are all suffering the same consequence. We are losing too many dairy farmers. But creating these intrastate cartels makes no sense. In terms of advice to the Chair, the reason that the 13 colonies came together, one of the reasons they came together was to prevent this very kind of thing from happening, from allowing one or two or several States to come together to gang up against the rest. One of the arguments the proponents forward is, well, we have 165 co-sponsors. Well, perhaps they can get even more States into their compact and they can get 300 cosponsors. That still does not make it right. The real issue is whether or not States ought to be able to come together to gang up on other States. The net result to the Upper Midwest ultimately will be is that we will be pinched further and further and further. In Wisconsin and in Minnesota we are losing three to four dairy farmers every single day. And creating compacts in the Northeast or the Southwest or the Southeast is not going to change that. It is going to make matters worse. So the only thing this accomplishes is it divides dairy farmers at the very time we ought to be speaking with one voice. A couple of years ago our colleague from Wisconsin read the formula by which milk prices are set for our dairy farmers under the milk marketing order system. It is the most convoluted system in the world. And the problem with the northeast dairy compact is it makes it even worse. We ought to have national pooling. The cows in my district do not know where the milk comes from. The cows in my district do not know where the milk comes from or what it goes into. We have this unbelievable system in the United States right now. Creating compacts only makes it worse. It divides dairy farmers. That is the reason the colonies came together, to prevent this kind of thing from happening. This amendment is not in order on this bill. Perhaps we should have the debate later, but let it work through the process in the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to rise in support of this bill. Today we are going to have a debate about farm policy. Many of the people who are going to get involved in the debate have not been involved in the hearings and listening sessions we have had around the world in the last couple of years. Let me compare what is happening to American farmers to what is happening in the world market. Many people are saying, why do we subsidize agriculture here in the United States? The truth of the matter is, most farmers do not like subsidies, either. They want to make their living from the market; but it is not a level playing field, Mr. Chairman. We need to understand that. The latest numbers that we have here in the United States, we subsidize agriculture to the tune of about $43 an acre. In Europe, they subsidize agriculture $342 an acre. That is not a level playing field. Our trade negotiators in the last round of the Uruguay trade talks agreed to limit the United States' export enhancement funding to about $200 million. In Europe, it is $6.5 billion. That is not a level playing field. In the area of currency, right now we are at a disadvantage to the Canadians of about 23 percent; the Brazilian real, it is 55 percent. If there were a level playing field out there, we probably would not need to do as much as we are doing. This bill is about predictability. I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. It is about predictability for our farmers; but most importantly, it is about predictability for us on the Committee on the Budget and here in Congress. With a countercyclical payment program, when prices are high, it will be less expensive to us. When prices are low, then we are going to have to subsidize a bit more. But at the end of the day, it will provide predictability for the Committee on the Budget, for the Congress, and most importantly, for our farm producers. This is a good farm bill, just as it is. Some people are going to say, we do not spend enough money on conservation. Mr. Chairman, this bill will increase conservation programs by 78 percent. Some will say that that is not enough. I disagree. There will be negotiations between the House, the Senate, and the White House as this bill goes forward; but I hope we can move it off the floor today just as it is written. This is a good bill. It ought to pass today as written.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, lying aboard a British warship in Baltimore Harbor, Francis Scott Key listened through the night as shells rained down on Fort McHenry. The small, undermanned garrison suddenly found itself under the attack of the greatest Navy in the world. One thousand American soldiers were charged with the daunting task of defending Fort McHenry against 30 British warships and thousands of enemy ground troops. The bombs fell for 25 straight hours. Many hit their target. Others burst overhead, raining shrapnel on the soldiers below. When the rocket explosions ceased on the morning of September 14, 1814, Key surely thought that Fort McHenry had been taken. Straining to see through the smoke that hung over the water in the early morning light, Key wiped away tears to see the Stars and Stripes still flying defiantly over that battered fort. The Americans had achieved the unthinkable. They had bravely held their position against all odds. The magnificent sight moved Key to pen the words that have stirred American hearts ever since, the Star-Spangled Banner. Two weeks ago, 187 years after the defense of Fort McHenry, our Nation stared in horror at the smoke hanging over New York City and Washington, D.C. We looked on in disbelief as the towers of the World Trade Center crumbled before our very eyes. Yet out of the destruction shone a beacon of hope. Wiping tears from our eyes, we watched modern heroes, New York's firefighters, raising the Stars and Stripes atop the mountain of rubble. The comparison to Iwo Jima is inescapable. Madam Speaker, the attack on America was not an attempt to defeat our Army. It was an organized plan to destroy the lives of innocent Americans. It was a direct assault on the American spirit. The terrorists succeeded in killing thousands of our fellow citizens, but they can never kill the American spirit. Napoleon once said, ``The great soldiers run to the sound of the guns.'' Consider the heroism of the passengers aboard United Flight 93 who attacked their hijackers. They saved thousands of lives on the ground and perhaps the most precious symbols of our Nation. We will never forget the firefighters who gave their lives when they courageously rushed into the burning towers as others streamed out. Now we see the quiet heroism of rescue workers who continue to dig tirelessly through the rubble in hopes of finding just one survivor. These Americans stand on the shoulders of the defenders of Fort McHenry. Throughout our history, many adversaries have underestimated the steely resolve of the American spirit. They underestimate us now. We have been called to action, to demonstrate the virtues that make this a great Nation. At a similar hour, Winston Churchill said, ``Do not let us speak of darker days. Let us speak, rather, of sterner days. These are not dark days. These are great days, the greatest days our country has ever lived. We must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable in the history of our race.'' Madam Speaker, as we declare war on terrorism around the world, the American flag will inspire us just as it inspired Francis Scott Key. It will serve as a notice to our adversaries. Though bruised and bloodied, we remain unbowed. The authors of terror may never understand the words of our national anthem, but they will come to understand the spirit that it embodies. We will turn our rage into moral outrage. When the dust of battle clears, America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave. Madam Speaker, to victory. May God bless America.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, every generation faces its own challenge. We in our day met ours on Tuesday morning. Our ancestors looked squarely into the ugly face of Naziism and of communism. They knew that the future of all they held dear counted on them. They understood the stakes. They met the challenge. They prevailed. And the world is better for it. The ``ism'' that we must defeat is terrorism. We will bury our dead, we will comfort the wounded, we will rebuild those buildings. But if we fail to defeat this enemy, all of our burying and building will be in vain. The attacks against innocent Americans were acts of war. The souls of the victims cry out. They cry out a warning. If we fail to defeat terrorism, there will be more attacks, and more victims. We must commit ourselves to a total war. Clauschwitz said that the goal of any military encounter is to destroy the enemy's will to fight. This must be our goal. We must destroy their will to advance their agenda through terror. We must raise the price of practicing terror so high that generations to come will gag at the very thought. There have been many times in our Nation's history when our adversaries have miscalculated the steely resolve in the American spirit. They miscalculate us now. The war that we must confront will not be easy. There will be dark days. We may not win every battle. But we will and we must wage the war with valor and with vigor. We must and, with the grace of God, we will prevail.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to clarify something that has been circulated on the floor of the House. Supporters of the Cox-Waxman amendment mentioned in a Dear Colleague that Minnesota and other States have already banned the use of MTBE. While we always appreciate support for our environmental achievements in Minnesota, I want to make this very clear and set the record straight. Minnesota does restrict the use of MTBE, but we ensure air quality by maintaining a 10 percent blend of clean-burning ethanol gasoline. Congress and California should follow Minnesota's lead. Let us continue to maintain air quality, decrease dependence on foreign oil. Please, vote ``no'' on the Cox-Waxman amendment.