Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, all too often, the hard work of House staff goes unnoticed. Members of Congress thank their legislative staff when their bills pass the House, but rarely do they thank the people who make the House Floor run on a day to day basis. So today I rise to recognize someone who deserves the thanks of this entire institution: Stacy Rastauskas, the outgoing Assistant Floor Chief of the House Republican Cloakroom. For 2 two years, Stacy has helped to run the House Floor from her desk in the Republican Cloakroom. She has been a source of invaluable information to all Members, a trusted colleague to countless House staff, and a mentor to our House pages. It is impossible to visit the Cloakroom without being on the receiving end of one of her brilliant smiles. In short, Stacy made the Cloakroom feel like home to us all. Soon Stacy will be leaving to open a Washington office for Ohio State University. I cannot possibly thank her enough for the dedicated hours she spent as Assistant Floor Chief. It is with a heavy heart that we say goodbye and good luck. The Republican Cloakroom won't be the same without her.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our guest chaplain, Rev. Dr. Larry D. Pickens, a well-known pastor in my Congressional district. Currently senior pastor at First United Methodist Church in Elgin, Illinois, Rev. Pickens recently was named top staff executive of the United Methodist Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Affairs. In this role, Rev. Pickens will direct the Methodists' relations with other churches and work to build unity among the denomination's 8.3 million members. A former pastor in inner-city congregations in Chicago for fifteen years, Rev. Pickens has also served as a delegate to a ``people-to- people'' seminar on the legal system of South Africa. Within the church, Rev. Pickens has spent the last four years as a member of the Judicial Council, giving him a better understanding of church governance. Admitted to both the Illinois Bar and the South Carolina Bar, Rev. Pickens holds a J.D. degree from DePaul University College of Law. He also holds degrees from Chicago Theological Seminary, Garrett- Evangelical Theological Seminary, and North Park University. We are honored to have Rev. Pickens with us this morning. His involvement in his community and his new role in seeking unity among all denominations underscores his devotion to doing God's work for the betterment of humanity. Thank you, Rev. Pickens, for being here this morning to open the United States House of Representatives and for your continued service and dedication.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to congratulate and thank Law Revision Counsel John R. Miller for his 28 years of service to the House of Representatives upon his retirement on May 3, 2004. During his time as Assistant Counsel, Deputy Counsel, and Law Revision Counsel, John's dedication, professionalism, and expertise have served the House well, and his important contributions will be missed. Overall John has given 33 years of service to the Federal Government, and I know he looks forward to a well-deserved retirement. As the director of the Law Revision Counsel staff, John has been responsible for significantly improving the procedures for preparing and publishing the U.S. Code and for making the office self-reliant, a goal which goes back to 1975. Under John's leadership, the Office no longer requires outside assistance to produce the Code, and the staff continues to improve its efficiency. For almost three decades, John has played a pivotal role in meeting the mandate of the Office to accurately reflect the intent of Congress in consolidating and codifying Public Laws. While John will shortly no longer show up for work each day, we will remember his strong legacy. The House is a better and stronger institution because of the efforts of John Miller. We wish him all the best in retirement.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, 2 months from today, American senior citizens will begin to realize discounts on their pharmaceutical medications. June 1 is when Medicare-approved prescription drug discount cards hit the streets, and savings between 10 and 25 percent on their life-saving drugs take effect. This is a much-needed first step for seniors seeking relief on their monthly bills. These Medicare-approved discount cards are part of the new Medicare law that Congress passed and the President signed. It includes coverage of pharmaceutical costs, some new preventative care benefits, like free physical exams and better care for seniors with chronic illnesses. To learn more, I am urging my constituents in northern Illinois to call 1-800-MEDICARE, that is, 1-800-MEDICARE, or log on to WWW.MEDICARE.gov. These two informative sources run by the Department of Health and Human Services will provide unfiltered, unfettered news seniors can use about their new drug benefits.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nussle budget and in opposition to the various tax and spend alternatives that we have heard from the other side of the aisle. The Nussle budget is the best alternative if you want to keep the economy growing, if you want to keep the country secure, and if you want to keep spending under control. If you want to keep the government growing, if you want to keep the tax burden rising, if you want to keep jobs flowing overseas, and if you want to make America less secure, you can find a Democratic budget alternative that is more to your liking. But, once again, as we do every year, we have two radically different visions for the future of America presented in the budget debate. The budget is important because it is in the budget that we make the choices in how we choose to govern in this country. The Nussle budget calls for responsible government. And I guess when you talk about responsible, maybe we do talk about values and we talk about values of not spending beyond our means, and we talk about values of protecting our children's future. It says that we should not raise taxes just as the economy is finally getting its footing. It fully funds the war on terror and our homeland defense; and, incidentally, it raises homeland defense, not cuts homeland defense, 9.5 percent, so that our troops have the equipment and the training and the pay and the ammunition and the support of this Congress to keep this Nation secure. The 9/11 Commission is now examining what happened in the days leading up to the worst attacks against America in our Nation's history. And one inescapable conclusion is that we did not invest enough money in our intelligence community in the late 1990s so that they could do the job to protect America. The leaders of the Democrat minority voted consistently to cut intelligence spending throughout the 1990s as they voted to slash defense spending. And that anti-defense, anti-intelligence philosophy lives on in one of the Democratic alternatives that we have before us today. We will not make that mistake again. We should do everything within our power to make certain that what happened on September 11, 2001, never happens in this country again. The Nussle budget calls for spending restraints in the rest of the budget. I think that is appropriate, and some people may even call that a value. We no longer live in the era of surpluses because of the war, because of terrorism, because of the downturn in the economy; and we do have a big deficit. We need to spend less money and this budget spends less money. We disagree with our Democratic colleagues who by tradition want to spend more money here in Washington and raise taxes to do it. And when we say we want to cut waste, fraud and abuse, they say that we are gutting the programs that they care about the most. The Democrats do not believe that government wastes any money or that the government can become any more efficient or that higher productivity for government employees is a good thing. They will defend the bureaucracy with every rhetorical weapon in their arsenal. We challenge the bureaucracy to do more with less. We ask them to weed out waste and fraud and abuse. We believe that a bloated Federal Government is bad for the economy, bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the fiscal future of this Nation. Our Democratic friends want you to believe that their tax increases will hit the richest Americans. You heard it 15 times in the last speech. Why should we not tax the million-dollar earners? Well, I will tell you who they are. The million-dollar earners are the small business owners, they are the entrepreneurs, they are the job creators, and they hit the job seekers the hardest. When you go to my district in the Fox Valley of Illinois, it is the small business people, it is the small entrepreneurs that are creating jobs in this country. They are doing it today. We do not want to handcuff them. The Democrats like to talk about how they help the jobless, but their budget policies will keep the jobless from getting jobs. Higher taxes kill jobs. In fact, 95 percent of the entrepreneurs who file as Subchapter S Corporations or partnerships will be hit by the Democrats' taxes, while 58 percent of small business owners would also be hit. These higher taxes would make it harder to hire that extra worker or expand that business to keep competitive with the Chinese or the Europeans. In this economic environment, the last thing we need is a policy that kills jobs. This is a familiar debate. The Nussle budget promotes a stronger defense, a stronger economy and a smaller and smarter government. The various Democratic alternatives promote bigger government, a bigger tax burden for America's job creators, and a bigger fiscal mess down the road. In this debate we have heard it time and time again, it is not really a debate of policy. It is really a debate of philosophy. It is a debate that asks the question, can government spend people's money better and can government make better decisions for our children and ourselves or can people spend their money better and can people make better decisions for themselves? Vote for the Nussle budget and vote to keep America strong and secure.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal appreciation, and the appreciation of the United States House of Representatives, for the service of Michael L. Stern to the House as Senior Counsel in the Office of General Counsel. After more than 8 years in the Office, Mr. Stern will be moving to the other side of the Capitol to become the Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Mr. Stern has provided invaluable assistance and advice to the House and its Members, Officers, and Committees in connection with a broad range of legal matters. Many House Committees and Subcommittees, in particular, have come to rely on his expertise and guidance in connection with their investigative and oversight activities. Mr. Stern has brought his litigation skills to bear both in defending Members and other House employees and entities in judicial proceedings at the trial and appellate levels, and in responding to deposition, trial, grand jury, and administrative subpoenas. Over the years, Mr. Stern has also played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House in its interactions with other governmental entities. I know that Mr. Stern will serve the Senate with the same level of distinction with which he served the House. On behalf of the entire House of Representatives, I thank him for his many years of service and extend to him our very best wishes for his continued success.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. First of all, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He has been a leader in this Congress for a long, long time; and I have seen him in action in the Middle East and other places. He has the utmost concern for our men in uniform and respect for them and compassion for them. However, I have to take some difference in his conclusion; and I just want to say that when we made that decision to move into, first of all, Iraq, we all made decisions based on the information we had before us, information that a previous President had, information that we had in the Senate, information that we all looked at. It was the best information that we could bring before us. I do not think anybody in this Chamber or in this town tried to deceive anybody on that information. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him and say we tried to make the best decisions for our men and women in this country with the information that we had. We still do not know where weapons of mass destruction are: if they are buried, if they are in a lab someplace, or where they are. But we know that the enemy at that time had the potential to make those weapons; and for all we knew, they had those weapons. So I rise today in support of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. This resolution is quite straightforward. My constituents back home would call it plain talk. It is common sense. It commends the Iraqi people for adopting an interim constitution. It commends our military for their brave efforts in liberating Iraq. And it affirms to the world that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. That is what it does. It is hard to imagine that anyone in this Chamber could be against it; yet some are. Politicians sometimes behave in strange ways in election years. We all know that. And there are those who have vowed to change our national leadership no matter what it takes. But the ``no matter what it takes'' approach causes folks to do some foolish things, to cast some foolish votes. How can anyone vote against a resolution that commends our troops as they fight a just war overseas? How can anyone defend a dictator who used rape rooms as a matter of state policy? How can anyone forget the 400,000 victims in mass graves that had already been found in Iraq, brutally murdered by the Hussein regime? There has been a lot said in the press and even on this floor about the victory of the Spanish Socialists in last Sunday's election in Spain. Clearly, the Spanish people have a right to elect their own government. But I hope that the terrorists do not draw the wrong conclusion about that election. Europe should have learned a painful lesson in the 1930s and should never return to a peace-through- appeasement strategy. Our country, the United States of America, must never adopt a policy of appeasement. We must never let terrorists take encouragement from anything that we do on the battlefield or in this Chamber. We all must say with one voice that we were right to rid the world of the murdering thug Saddam Hussein; that our troops did the right thing to bring Uday and Qusay and all of Saddam's brutal henchmen to justice; and that the long march to democracy that has started finally both in Baghdad and Kabul is both inexorable and inevitable. Today, with this resolution, we start the public trial of Saddam Hussein. Let us never forget the pain that he caused countless Iraqis, his neighbors, and even his so-called friends. Let us never forget the threats that he posed to America and America's allies or his willful disregard of the 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions. And let us never say that this war was in any way unjust or illegitimate. Every brave man and woman who sacrificed their lives, their limbs, or their blood and sweat and tears to fight the Hussein regime did so for a righteous and just cause. This is not like Vietnam. Vietnam is over. This war we fight now is a war against terrorists. It is a war against those who have attacked and killed Americans abroad and on our own soil. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist of the worst kind. Some of my colleagues might be looking for the shades of gray in this debate, but I simply do not see the gray. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are cut from the same cloth. They are both brutal killers. They both hate America with every ounce of their being. And because we are free, we want all people on Earth to be free. And they both must be brought to justice. We have Hussein, and we will get bin Laden. Take a stand against terrorism. Take a stand for our troops. And vote for this important resolution.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest. A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany from May 16-29 of this year. During this two-week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat Members, Bundestag and Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Participants also will be hosted by a Bundestag Member during a district visit. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for two weeks in July. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Members of Congress. The U.S. delegation is expected to facilitate these meetings. The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HB-28, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Deere & Company on the 200th anniversary of founder John Deere's birth. John Deere, who developed the world's first commercially successful, self-scouring steel plow, thereby opening the West to farming, was born on February 7, 1804. John Deere emigrated to the western Illinois settlement of Grand Detour in 1837 and set up a blacksmith shop near the Rock River. After fashioning the first self-scouring steel plow, John Deere moved to a water-powered factory along the Mississippi River in Moline, Illinois--a town of roughly 55,000 people just outside my district. In 1868, John Deere incorporated his business under the name Deere & Company and established enduring values that have sustained his company for over 165 years--quality, integrity, innovation and commitment. Today, Deere & Company does business in more than 160 countries and employs roughly 43,000 employees worldwide, many of whom reside in my Congressional district. They are the world's leading manufacturer of agricultural and forest equipment, a major manufacturer of construction equipment, and a leading supplier of equipment used in lawn, grounds and turf care. Today, I wish to recognize Deere & Company on the achievements of pioneer blacksmith John Deere and congratulate the company he founded on the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend to the attention of our colleagues the recent celebration of one of our former colleague's 90th birthday this past September 27. Charlotte Thompson Reid, one of my predecessors who served in the House from January 1963-October 1971, has been known as the ``Grand Lady of Aurora, Illinois,'' the largest city in my congressional district. Charlotte Reid has always been an inspiration to those of us who have known her. Her sparkling personality and just plain Midwest-friendliness is renown throughout all of Chicagoland. Her conscientious service in Congress overlapped with the beginning of my teaching career in Yorkville, Illinois and her outstanding record helped inspire me to seek public office in the late 1970's. In fact, her daughter, Patricia, is currently a State Representative in the Illinois General Assembly. While in Congress, Charlotte served on the Appropriations, Interior and Insular Affairs, Public Works, and Ethics Committees. In 1971, she was appointed to be a Commissioner on the FCC where she served with distinction until retiring in 1976. She was a member of the President's Task Force on International Private Enterprise from 1983 to 1985, and has been a member of the Hoover Institution's Board of Overseers since 1984. She is a resident today of Aurora. One last anecdote. Not only was Charlotte Reid herself elected to Congress five times with overwhelming margins, but her enthusiastic support and endorsement helped to elect two future Congressmen--another of my predecessors Tom Corcoran in 1976 and her work on my behalf helped elect me ten years later in 1986, during my first and toughest campaign for Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are all indebted to Charlotte Reid for her energy, her gentle manner and her zest for life. On behalf of us all, I wish her a belated, but happy 90th birthday and many more to come.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with sadness at the passing of Joe Skeen. Joe Skeen was a friend of mine, a great member of this Congress for many years from New Mexico, somebody who served this Congress with great love, with great compassion, and a steady hand. We will all miss him. He chose not to run in the last Congress, but he was a great friend; and his funeral will be this coming Thursday, and later on we will have a session to honor him. Mr. Speaker, I also rise this evening to give an end-of-the-session assessment of the first session of the 108th Congress, to recount our accomplishments and to review what we have left to do. This session of Congress commenced as we were engaged in a struggle against terrorism and as our economy struggled in a near recession. We opened this session with three major goals: first, to make our Nation safer from terrorists and those states that support them; second, to grow our economy and create jobs for American workers; and, third, to make America a better place to live for all of our citizens. We have had a notable success in all three areas. First, we have made this country more secure from foreign threats. The Congress passed and the President signed three different supplemental appropriation bills to support our efforts on the war on terror. This helped pay for the war in Iraq and for our continued efforts in Afghanistan. And, of course, the American people are greatly concerned for the safety of our troops in both places, but we must continue to support our brave men and women as they fight to defend our freedom and to defeat the terrorists who want to bring death and destruction to our homeland. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and the Taliban's Afghan regime actively supported terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda trained in both countries. Now, both countries are making the tough, but vitally important, transition to democratic government. Changing terrorist- supporting dictatorships into democracies is hard work, but it is important work for our national security. We also passed defense appropriations and authorization bills that included necessary long-term funding for our defense efforts and included a pay increase for our troops and a historic change in the disabled veterans compensation. For the first time since the Civil War, many disabled veterans will be able to receive both their disability payments and their retirement benefits. The President also signed into law the Military Family Tax Relief Act, which provides overdue tax relief targeted to our dedicated servicemen and their families. September 11 also proved that we must be vigilant on our home front. That is why we created the Department of Homeland Security in the last Congress. In this session we created a Select Committee on Homeland Security and a Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations so that this Department would have the proper funding and oversight. Indeed, the Congress completed work on the first appropriation bill dedicated solely to homeland security this year. The second challenge we faced at the beginning of this year was a slowing economy. The economy faced the twin shocks of a bursting high- tech bubble and the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Those shocks undermined both business and consumer confidence, while shattering investor confidence. We had to do something about it. We passed the President's economic growth package aimed at restoring confidence in the business, consumer, and investor sectors. Coupled with the earlier tax cut signed into law in 2001, these tax relief bills accomplished all three goals. It gave small businesses the relief they needed to buy more equipment and incentives to expand their businesses. It returned more money to consumers so that they could spend more. And it inspired investors to return back to the markets. The results have been better than expected. The economic growth rate hit 8.2 percent in the last quarter. Manufacturing output is at the highest levels in 2 decades. The Dow Jones has reached its highest level in 18 months. And the job rate shows the best signs of improvement in 2 years. Aside from the war and the economy, our Nation faced other challenges. Health care costs continue to be one of the top concerns of our citizens. We passed historic reform of the Medicare system that will now include a prescription drug benefit for the first time in history. I am very proud that we kept our promise to senior citizens by delivering this most important reform. The prescription drug benefit means that never again will low-income seniors have to face the choice between putting food on the table or paying for life-saving prescription drugs. It also means that seniors with high- cost drugs will have an insurance benefit that will protect them. Finally, the average senior will get their drug costs reduced by up to 60 percent because of this far-reaching reform. Included in this historic legislation was historic assistance for rural and urban hospitals, as well as other important health care reforms. I am most proud of the new health savings accounts, tax-free savings accounts that allows consumers to have more control over their health care costs. These health savings accounts will revolutionize the health care market in this country, giving consumers better health care at a lower price. Aside from health care, we faced another domestic crisis, the lack of comprehensive energy policy. From the rolling brownouts of California to the New York City blackouts, from the turbulence of the natural gas market to the persistent problems of higher gasoline prices, energy policy became a front-burner issue. So working with the White House, we put together a comprehensive energy policy aimed at making our Nation more energy independent. This legislation did several things. It created incentives to get the most out of our natural resources, from promoting greater energy efficiency, to encouraging the use of renewal fuels such as ethanol. It encouraged greater reliability for electricity by providing for open access of transmission lines, while improving the transparency of electricity markets. This energy policy has another salutary effect. It will create jobs. The latest estimates are that it will create up to a million jobs. We passed the energy conference report by a large bipartisan margin in the House, and we are waiting for final action by the other body. It is my hope that this vitally important legislation will not get caught up in the flurry of lobbying by the trial lawyers. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the rotunda to drop the delaying tactics and send this conference report to the President. Another perennial issue is education. In the 107th Congress, we passed the President's No Child Left Behind legislation aimed at increasing accountability and demanding results when it comes to educating our children. This year, we kept our promise by increasing education funding to $4.1 billion, the highest Federal contribution to education in history. Clearly, we are keeping our promise to the parents and teachers and children of America. Finally, we passed a series of legislation initiatives designed to make this Nation a better place to live. We passed the Do Not Call and Do Not Spam bills, aimed at stopping consumers from being harassed through the phone and through computer by telemarketers. We passed the Amber Alert bill, to help keep our children be safe from kidnappers. We passed historic levels of funding to combat AIDS. We passed the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, to protect communities from out-of-control forest fires. We passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act so that consumers have better access to their consumer reports to protect against the persistent problems of credit card fraud. In other words, we delivered good legislation for the American people. As we get ready for the second session of the 108th Congress, we still have some work to do. We still have a highway bill to pass. Nothing is more important to our Nation's economic well-being than a modern transportation system. I want to get this bill done by early next spring. We need to complete the work on the welfare reform bill. When we reformed welfare in 1996, we helped millions of Americans get a hand up rather than a hand out. Millions of Americans woke up in the morning and went to work rather than woke up and went to the welfare office. They got a job and got a paycheck. We need to reauthorize this bill, and we need to reauthorize it soon. We also must find a way to get the budget back to balance. The attacks of September 11, the war against terrorism, and the struggling economy have all led to deficit numbers that, while manageable, must be controlled. This year's nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary budget increased by a 3 percent margin, a relatively small increase, but one that can be improved. Our budget chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has worked hard to find ways where we can control Federal spending. As we debate next year's budget, we will work to find ways to cut the budget deficit in half through lower spending. But as we work to control spending, we must also work to ensure that the economy stays on track. The tax cuts were enacted to help spur recovery. We must keep them in place to ensure that they finish the job. Those who want to raise taxes and thus threaten our recovery and job creation are just wrong. We have already seen that as the economy grows, the budget deficit falls. Keeping the economy growing is a sensible way to get the budget back to balance. Finally, we need to start the debate in this Nation on how to reform our tax laws. Not only is our tax system too complicated, it also hurts our Nation's competitiveness. If our companies cannot compete, we lose jobs here in America. As we reform the Foreign Sales Corporation Tax, as required by the recent WTO decision, we must also start a discussion on how we create the best tax system possible to meet the needs of the people of this country in the 21st century. I want to thank all Members for their patience and for their perseverance. Public service in the Congress is not an easy vocation, and it is especially hard on families. I thank all Members for their service to this Nation. I would also like to thank the dedicated staff and especially the floor staff, the clerks and the pages, who work long and hard to make this place efficient and workable. Thank you for your fine service to this Nation. I wish you all a happy holiday season, and God bless you all.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I also want to thank those many, many staff members who spent uncounted hours, night and day, to help make this bill possible. I especially want to thank my own staff member, Darren Willcox, who sacrificed many late nights and early mornings and long weekends despite having a wife and a baby boy at home. I want to thank Brett Shogren of the majority leader's staff, and many, many other young men and women who committed their time, dedicated their time to try to do a good job in this people's House. I want to thank those folks at the legislative counsel who spend untold hours of trying to craft the right language to make this legislation the right legislation for the American people, and those folks at the Congressional Budget Office who crunched numbers day after day after day to make things work. In this time and space of legislative arena, there are times when things come together. There are times of great opportunity. And there is a time for change. This, indeed, is one of those times for that opportunity. This, indeed, is one of those times for great change. A poet once said that ``things fall apart, the center cannot hold. The best lack conviction while the worst are full of passion and intensity.'' For the good of our senior citizens and for the good of our Nation, the center must hold. The best must be full of passion and intensity. And today, we must pass this historic legislation. I want to thank all of those who have put aside their partisanship and worked together for the good of this Nation. I want to thank the conferees, especially the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) in the House, and Senator Frist and Senator Baucus and Senator Breaux of the Senate. They have worked long and they have worked hard on this product through many late nights and long weekends, and they deserve our gratitude. The third time is a charm when it comes to prescription drugs. This Congress under this leadership passed drug prescription legislation in the 106th Congress. The House passed a prescription drug bill only to see it die in the Senate. In the 107th Congress, we passed a prescription drug bill only to see it die in the Senate. And finally, we are poised to complete this long journey. When Medicare was first conceived, the baby boomers were young adults and most seniors got their health care from a doctor's visit or a trip to the hospital. Thus, those who constructed the program were not overtly concerned about long-term cost projections or about prescription drugs. Today, we face a different story. The baby boomers are now thinking about retirement, and they want their prescription drugs. Prescription drugs now make up more than a third of health care costs. This conference report makes two fundamental changes to the Medicare system. It makes it more sustainable in the future, and it provides seniors with a prescription drug benefit. Why do we have to make Medicare more sustainable in the future? Because if we do not, my kids and all those other young adults out there will be forced to pay 30 percent of their salary in the next decade or two for the Medicare program. And I just do not think we can make that happen, and that will not sustain Medicare; and I do not think it is fair to them. So in this bill we start the process of making Medicare more sustainable. We means test the part B premium and index the deductible to inflation. We introduce free-market principles and give consumers more power to choose their health care. We include cost-containment measures so that if Medicare costs grow too quickly, the Congress and the President will be forced to confront that fact. Finally, we create health savings accounts which might be the most dramatic and exciting reform of our health care system in generations. These health savings accounts give consumers the ability to make health care choices. This will hold down skyrocketing health care costs and deliver better health care for our citizens and for our seniors. As we make these necessary financial reforms in Medicare, we also modernize the program with a prescription drug benefit. And after this legislation goes into effect, low-income seniors will never be confronted with the choice of putting food on the table or paying for life-saving prescription drugs. Low-income seniors will finally have the benefit that will take care of their drug costs, and this will save the deposit money in the long run. For example, if a low-income senior has diabetes, the monthly cost of Glucophage, a drug that helps control that disease, is about $30 a month. But if diabetes is left untreated, a single hospitalization for renal kidney failure is about $6,700. The benefit is both penny-wise and pound-wise. It will also help the typical senior by cutting down their drug costs by 40 percent. And those seniors with high drug costs will save even more, up to 60 percent or more. In other words, this prescription drug benefit is a good deal for all seniors. This legislation has other important factors. It includes incentives to employers so that they will not drop their current plans. In fact, this bill will make it more likely that if you have coverage with your employer, that employer will continue to offer that benefit. It also includes vitally important help to rural America. And if you live in the cities or urban America, it is probably not a problem. But if you are trying to compete with your rural hospitals and keep doctors and hospitals going in rural areas, you know that is a problem. This bill solves the problem. It takes care of rural hospitals. It provides rural health care. That is something that many of us have been fighting for for a long, long time. Let me be the first to admit that this conference report is not perfect. The far left does not like it. And some of our friends on the far right do not like it. But let me tell you who does like it. The AARP has endorsed it. So has the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association and almost every other major seniors organization and doctor and patient group. I urge my colleagues to put politics aside. I urge you to consider this piece of legislation for the good of this Nation. I urge you to stop and think when is the last time that we have really been able to change the paradigm of health care in this country. When is the last time that we have really had the chance to offer our seniors in this country a future for good health care, for good pharmaceutical coverage and for a chance to live and enjoy a great future. I ask for a positive vote.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the folks who have worked for months and years to bring this bill to fruition. During that period of time, we have seen oil prices go up and down in this country. We have seen a dependence on foreign oil of almost 72 percent of all the petroleum that comes in this country from overseas. Twenty-seven percent of that oil comes from a country called Saudi Arabia. We have seen blackouts in this country, in California and New York. We have seen natural gas prices go up and down, but on the way up because we do not have the infrastructure, the pipelines and the grids to be able to move our natural resources and our commodities across this country. We have the wherewithal to solve these problems. We have the ability to move our energy across this country. We have the engineering potentials. We have the engineers. We have the ability to build and solve problems, but we need the legislation to make it happen, and this legislation helps that come to a reality. I want to rise in support today of this conference report on the Energy Policy Act of 2003. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and all the House conferees for their work in producing this much-needed legislation. I think of the problems that we have before us, and I have listened to some of the debate before about what this bill does not include. There are some things that this bill does not include. Probably some of the richest oil reserves that we have in this Nation are not included in this bill, maybe for good environmental reasons, maybe for fear that we do not have a reason to fear, but it is not in it. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe it is a bad thing, I do not know, but it is not here. So we have to find ways to make up for it. We have to find new ingenuity, new ways, new engineering ways to find the great willpower and the science and the American people that we can find new ways to bring energy into our homes and into the vehicles that we use to create the transportation, to move people from place to place, to move the products that creates our commerce. America does need a fair, a balanced, and a comprehensive energy policy now and not later. It is about our peace of mind. It is about our daily security and our energy security, our economic security and even our national security. Over the past years, Americans have experienced the effects of overburdened and out-of-date energy systems. We have seen high prices at the gas pump, staggering home energy bills, and many of our citizens have been victims of no power at all, and this has cost our Nation billions of dollars and our economy thousands of jobs. Congress needs to act to meet this need. America must have a comprehensive energy policy that will provide access to more efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly energy. Just as important, this bill will deliver nearly a million new jobs as we update and upgrade our energy infrastructure. The Energy Policy Act helps meet America's energy needs by improving our electricity system. Everybody here can remember the blackouts just this last year of August 14. This bill helps ensure that that does not happen again. It mandates enforceable, reliable standards that provides incentives for transmission grid improvements, and it makes it easier to site new transmission lines. These reforms, coupled with additional investment in our aging transmission system, will increase the reliability of our Nation's power grid to help future blackouts. This bill also goes a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our dependence on homegrown, renewable fuel sources. I am pleased that the energy policy conference report includes a renewable fuel standard. It increases the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol. This helps certainly the potential that this Nation has to find new sources and renewable sources, and one other thing that would be a great remiss if I did not mention. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee who worked diligently, who had nothing to gain in these bills, worked hard to make sure that these provisions were in the bill. I appreciate that. He did a great job and made sure that all of the interests of this country and all of the interests of people who had the ability to do great things were included in this bill, and I thank him for that effort. This bill also provides significant incentives for clean coal technology. Coal is vital to our Nation's economy. Fully one-half of our electricity comes from coal, and we have 250 years worth of reserves. This bill makes important investments in coal-based research and development that focuses on new technologies to significantly reduce emissions. It offers incentives for existing coal plants to purchase advanced air pollution control equipment, and it also ensures that clean coal will continue to play a major role in America's future energy needs but will do so with vastly-reduced air emissions. This fair and balanced bill also helps provide our future energy needs while protecting the environment. The Energy Policy Act launches the state-of-the-art programs that have emission-free hydrogen cell fuel vehicles on the road by 2020. It improves the regulations governing hydroelectric dams to allow more hydroelectric generation. It provides grants to State and local governments to acquire alternative- fueled vehicles, hybrids, and ultra-low sulfur vehicles. Finally, it takes steps to reduce greenhouse emissions by offering financial incentives for the production of electricity from renewable and alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. We certainly cannot overlook that the Energy Policy Act is also about jobs, specifically securing the future of current workers and creating new jobs for the next generation. Investment in our Nation's energy infrastructure means putting Americans to work. While this bill will create nearly 1 million jobs nationally in our manufacturing, construction, agriculture and technological sectors, in my own home State it means 146,000 new jobs will be added to farm fields, factory floors and laboratories. This bill is fair and it is balanced and it is comprehensive, and it is good energy policy, and I hear the complaints on the other side of the aisle, it is huge investments. To have good energy policy, we have to have investment. We have to put capital where capital can be an investment and we can make change. This bill does exactly that. This bill will make a difference. This bill is bold. It is the right thing to do, and I would congratulate the sponsors. It is time to move it. It is time to make a difference in this country. Let us pass it.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I come before you today to urge your continued support for the War on Terror. While there has been spirited debate in this Chamber during the past two days, the stakes are too high for us not to meet the obligations and responsibilities at hand. Make no mistake about it: by passing this War on Terror Bill, we are investing in the future safety and security of the American people. None of us will ever forget September 11th, 2001, when terrorists attacked our freedom, our peacefulness, our American way of life. I still remember looking out my office window and seeing the smoke from the Pentagon attack rolling across the Washington Mall, at that moment, I knew this Congress--Republicans and Democrats--would stand shoulder- to-shoulder with our President to say ``Never Again.'' The very next day, this House moved swiftly. We approved emergency funding to rebuild what the terrorists destroyed, and to buttress our homeland security and our intelligence efforts. We enacted new, stringent laws giving our judicial system and law enforcement the tools necessary to fight this new war on terrorism. We embarked on the most ambitious reorganization of our federal government in more than 50 years, establishing a Department of Homeland Security, whose core mission is to prevent terrorist attacks against America. Now, we must approach the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan with the same vigor with which we undertook the defense of our homeland. The pending legislation does just that. It is estimated that the Terrorists of 9/11 spent less than $500,000 to undertake an operation whose economic toll far exceeds $150 Billion. There is no question as to the significant economic consequences that terrorism holds for the global economy. Yet, there are those who question the need for this War on Terror Bill. Worse yet, they also question our overall mission-- Why are we in Iraq? Why are we in Afghanistan? Why spend this money in this way? Let me be clear; to protect America: Terrorism cannot stand; Terrorism must be rooted out and destroyed. My colleagues, we have taken the battle to the enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan are now the central fronts in the War on Terror. Our brave men and women in uniform are stamping out terrorists in Baghdad, Iraq and Kandahar, Afghanistan before these methodical killers strike Brooklyn, New York, or Batavia, Illinois. And while much remains to be achieved, the Commander in Chief and is National Security Team are having remarkable success. We liberated the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban's cruel grip; We rid Iraq of the evil of Saddam Hussein; We have taken into custody hundreds of al-Qaida operatives and benefactors, reducing the likelihood of future attacks on all countries. And, we have begun to sever the financial ties that bank roll these evil acts. Terrorist training camps in Iraq and Afghanistan have been uncovered and destroyed; Forty-three of the fifty-five most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead or in custody; and, thousands of other Baath Party loyalists and terrorists have met their ultimate fate. This is an investment in our future. The President is calling on us to provide our courageous troops the tools they need to fight terrorism abroad, finish the job, and return home safely. Our President needs our continued support to help the emerging, democratic government take hold in Baghdad and Kabul. This cause is worthy of our assistance. While I have heard some say we should use this money to rebuild our roads, bridges, and schools here at home, I must remind my colleagues that peace and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan is very much an investment in America's safety and security--both now and in the future. We all know that until democracy firmly takes root in these two nations, Americans, joined by troops from Poland, Australia, Britain, and thirty allied countries will remain on the ground, risking their lives on our behalf. To date, some sixty nations from around the globe have already pledged their support. Why? Because they understand keenly that what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects the Persian Gulf and beyond. Running water, functioning electricity, an impartial judicial system, and properly trained law enforcement are basic, and essential elements of a government infrastructure that must be in place before we should leave. When it comes to our commitment of resources, let's do it right from the outset so our American military can finish these missions and return home as soon as possible--safe and sound. Let me be clear: this is much more than a vote on dollars and cents; this is a vote to protect Americans from future attacks both at home and abroad. We pledged on September 11th, 2001, we would ``Never Again'' fail to do what's necessary. Let us not fail today. Vote ``yes'' on this War on Terror Spending Bill.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democrat leader for her remarks, and I think in the spirit of Bob Michel, God Bless America was probably a very fine resemblance.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, this morning the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader, and I had the honor of bestowing on four of our former colleagues the Congressional Distinguished Service Award. The four honorees were John Rhodes of Arizona, Louis Stokes of Ohio, Don Edwards of California, and Bob Michel of Illinois. I first discussed creating the award last Congress with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the then Democratic leader. We thought it appropriate and fitting to have an award that is dedicated to former Members of Congress whose service to the country exemplifies the best traditions of the United States House of Representatives. Today we honored four former colleagues, two Republicans, two Democrats, who had widely different political views, but who shared a love for their country and for this Congress. John Rhodes, Louis Stokes, Bob Michel, and Don Edwards shared certain virtues even as they pursued different political agendas. The words integrity, humility, honesty, and steadfastness describe all four of these individuals. None of them, none of the men that we honored today, pursued political ambition at the expense of common decency. None sacrificed their souls on the altar of political expediency. They inspired many with their political insight and their remarkable ability to bridge differences when seeking compromise. All of them left their mark on this institution. Some were succeeded by a former staff members who they mentored. All were giants in their district who cultivated many to go into public service. All of them left this institution a better place by their service, and for that we give them our humble thanks. It was an honor to award these individuals, to hear them speak from their hearts today about what this House meant to each of them. It is a very special place for them and their generation and for us today. I wish them Godspeed. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the entire proceedings of this morning's proceedings into the Congressional Record.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the hour is late. We have had a lot of rhetoric. We have had a lot of flailing of arms and pointing fingers across the aisle. It is time for us to come to a reasoned decision. It is time for us to look at all the debate that we have had, to look at the facts. I guess I could be suckered into a debate about fiscal responsibility over the past years, votes we have had and votes we did not have. But the fact is we have a very important bill on the floor of this House tonight, a bill that probably will reach into every American household and give people decisions and benefits on how they are going to take care of their mothers and their fathers and the elderly people that they hold dear. I want to salute those folks who worked hard on both sides of the aisle to carry on this debate. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I am grateful for their hard work. I have worked on health care issues in this Congress for more than a decade. When you compare me to the great gentleman from Michigan, that is probably not very much time. But Bob Michel put me on Mrs. Clinton's health care task force back in 1993 and Newt Gingrich asked me to deal with the issue of health insurance portability in 1995 and we did that. In every Congress that I have presided as Speaker, this House has passed a prescription drug benefit as part of an effort to modernize Medicare. Today, we have a chance to take a most dramatic step in health care reform, the most dramatic step we have taken in 25 years. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say that we do not spend enough. That is not surprising, because they think that $1 trillion over $400 billion is better over a 10-year period of time. Some of my friends on this side of the aisle believe we spend too much. That is not surprising, either, given their philosophical beliefs. But this bill spends what we can afford to spend. We cannot afford to ignore this issue this year. We on both sides of the aisle have held out a promise to America's seniors that we will give them an opportunity to have a prescription drug benefit and a new modern Medicare. Ladies and gentlemen, we hold out this promise. Tonight is the night that we have an opportunity to fulfill that promise. In a sense, this is the best of times and the worst of times when it comes to health care in this country. We have the finest doctors. We have the best hospitals. We have people who are uninsured. But we also have the cutting-edge issues and lifesaving prescription drugs. We also have skyrocketing costs. And we have too many people who are uninsured. And we have drugs that for some folks are just too expensive. Last week, we passed legislation to deal with the uninsured when we passed association health plans. Today we deal with the cost issues of health care. Earlier today we passed a health savings account bill which puts the consumer in the driver's seat in driving down costs. And now, in this bill, we make Medicare work better for senior citizens. A Medicare program that does not include a prescription drug benefit is not serving America's seniors well. When Medicare was first conceived in the 1960s, it was at its heart a program with the costs of going to hospitals and going to doctors. Back then, prescription drugs were not used to the extent they are today. You got an aspirin once in a while, but they just did not play the role they play today. Today because of advancements made over the last 30 years and the R&D we have done in this country, we have drugs that help us stay out of the hospital, we have drugs to help with cholesterol, we have drugs that help us with diabetes, with arthritis, with high blood pressure, on and on and on. And there are lifesaving drugs. Seniors should have better access at a better price to these drugs through the Medicare system. This bill makes that happen. It will cut drug costs by an average of 37 percent for the average senior. It also includes catastrophic coverage so that no senior with high drug costs will be forced into bankruptcy. This is a compassionate program for senior citizens. This bill also includes conservative reforms to make sure that Medicare stays solvent. We cannot allow the Medicare system to continue to grow so large that it actually bankrupts this country. We must introduce market-based reforms that lead to greater choices for seniors and greater competition among providers. I agree with the proposition that an 80-year-old grandmother should not be forced into a PPO simply because she gets a prescription drug benefit. But I also agree that a 50-year-old father who has health care choices throughout his whole working career will feel comfortable shopping around for the best health care plan for his individual needs when he qualifies for Medicare. Competition, choice, the marketplace, these are the concepts which will save Medicare for the coming decades. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. This is a defining moment for this Congress. It is too late for obstruction. It is too late for nit-picking. It is too late for all the lame excuses that we often hear. Senior citizens will long remember if you voted for them today, but they will never forget if you voted against them. Ladies and gentlemen, not many times in this great hall do we have a piece of legislation when all the forces come together and we have an opportunity to make real change. We have that opportunity tonight. I ask you to vote to provide senior citizens with a better Medicare system and a real prescription drug benefit.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the State of Washington for yielding me this time. I thank her for her leadership on this issue. We have been talking about this for a long, long time. I am somewhat amused in hearing some of the rhetoric here on the floor this afternoon. I hear words like ``reckless'' and ``abominable'' and big words; but when we talk about this, I do not hear the word ``fairness'' very often. We got into a long discussion about other tax bills. And child tax credits, that we should vote for them. We did vote for them. Not only did we extend them just a little bit just like our other friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to extend them, to the year 2005, but we extended them clear out to the year 2010. On top of that we said that those folks who may be a fireman or may be a teacher and earn over $110,000 a year maybe ought to get some of this tax break as well, and we have added that on. So that issue is off the table. That is not an argument that we talk about this afternoon. And when we talk about other tax bills out there, our veterans and other issues, we had that in that bill as well, so veterans can get a tax break and families that lose their loved ones can get a tax break. But we have passed it. Let us just get it done. What we are talking about here is fairness to families. We have talked over and over again about small businesses, the family farm, the orchard, the little ranch, some folks who have pulled together all their resources for a little business, a small manufacturing, might have been a real estate firm. But I grew up in one of those small businesses. My family owned a retail store. We were a farm service business; and in the 1950's the stockyards moved away from Chicago, and we lost that business. The feeders moved away. But families learn how to start over again. So we went from the feed business to the food business, started a restaurant business. But I will tell the Members all my life and my family's in those businesses, we did not take vacations. The kids stayed and worked in that business. We did not know what a paycheck was until we were 18 or 19 years old. We were paid $5 at a time, put a little gas in the car, go buy lunch, and that was how we got paid. Families sacrifice to make small businesses work. Families sacrifice to make small farms better. They pay taxes all the time. People say this is a big tax break for people who made these businesses, but they paid the income taxes. They pay them every year. They pay real estate taxes. They pay sales taxes. They have been taxed to death; but yet they have made that sacrifice to make that business work, and now we are simply saying that as the years of those people who found those businesses are ending, they ought to have the comfort and relief to pass that business on to the next generation, to their children and to their grandchildren. And this is not just for rich people. This is for everybody who shares in the American Dream. The largest beginning group of people who start small businesses in my district are Hispanics. They are minorities. Do the Members not think they ought to have the same break for themselves and their children if they want to pass it on to the next generation? Sure, they should. So why are we denying it? We need to pass this piece of legislation so that we can keep this American heritage of families working, of families creating wealth, of families owning businesses because when they sell their business, who buys it? Some foreign company maybe, maybe a Fortune 500. That family loses that grasp in being able to carry that business forward. This is a plain and simple bill. We have had it on the floor under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Washington three times before. It is time that we pass it. It is time that we make it law. It is time that the other body understands what we are trying to do and to come along and make it law with us. The American people deserve this legislation. Let us move forward and pass it today.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution supporting the Administration's efforts in challenging the European Union's five-year moratorium on biotech products. As an original cosponsor, I congratulate President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick for putting American farmers and sound science first by challenging this illegal trade ban on genetically modified foods before the WTO. Over the last few years, we have seen country after country implementing protectionist trade policies, like the EU moratorium, under the cloak of food safety--each one brought on by emotion, culture, or their own poor history with food safety regulation. Simply put, non-tariff protectionism is detrimental to the free movement of goods and services across borders. We all know that free trade benefits all countries. However, free trade will be rendered meaningless if it is short-circuited by non-tariff barriers that are based on fear and conjecture--not science. As the Representative of the 14th District in Illinois, my district currently covers portions of eight countries, including four of the top 25 corn-producing counties, and three of the top 50 soybean-producing counties in the nation. The State of Illinois is the second-largest producing state of both corn and soybeans in the country. Forty percent of this production currently goes to exports, valued at approximately $2.7 billion per year. U.S. agriculture ranks among the top U.S. industries in export sales. In fact, the industry generated a $12 billion trade surplus in 2001, helping mitigate the growing merchandise trade deficit. It is important to realize that 34 percent of all corn acres and 75 percent of all soybean acres are genetically modified. And what exactly are we talking about when we say ``genetically modified?'' The EU would have you believe this is a new and special type of food, questionable for human consumption. In fact, since the dawn of time, farmers have been modifying plants to improve yields and create new varieties resistant to pests and diseases. Why would we want to snuff out human ingenuity that benefits farmers and consumers alike? The European Union has had an indefensible moratorium on genetically- modified products in place for five years with no end in sight. This is a non-tariff barrier based simply on prejudice and misinformation, not sound science. In fact, their own scientists agree that genetically modified foods are safe. Still, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, bans on genetically modified products continue to persist and multiply--the worldwide impact has been staggering. The current EU moratorium on genetically-modified products has translated into an annual loss of over $300 million in corn exports for U.S. farmers. More disturbing is the recent trend in Africa, where several nations have rejected U.S. food aid because the shipments contained biotech corn. This based solely on the fear that EU countries will not accept their food exports if genetically modified seeds spread to domestic crops. These actions by our trading partners have consequences. U.S. farmers are already beginning to plant more non-biotech seeds. This trend will increase farmers' cost of production as well as increase the damage from harmful insects. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently approved a corn technology that will allow the commercialization of the first corn designed to control rootworm--a pest that costs U.S. farmers approximately $1 billion in lost revenue per year. It is absurd to think that farmers would not be able to take advantage of this technology. Clearly, the long-term impact of these policies could be disastrous for U.S. farmers in terms of competitiveness and the ability to provide food for the world's population. Addressing world hunger is particularly critical when approximately 800 million people are malnourished in the developing world, and another 100 million go hungry each day. Biotechnology is the answer to this pressing problem. Farmers can produce better yields through drought-tolerant varieties, which are rich in nutrients and more resistant to insects and weeds, while those in need reap the benefits. As you can see, halting or even slowing down the development of this technology could have dire consequences for countries where populations are growing rapidly and all arable land is already under cultivation. Official WTO action will send a clear and convincing message to the world that prohibitive policies on biotechnology which are not based on sound science are illegal. Hopefully, the WTO will act quickly to resolve the Administration's case on behalf of American farmers. There's no doubt that the U.S. and American agriculture go into this battle with the facts on our side. We simply cannot allow the free trade of our agriculture products to be restricted by this unfair and unjust moratorium. After all, the price of inaction is one we can no longer afford to pay.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today the House opened with a prayer from our guest chaplain, Father Phil Kaim. Father Kaim is a newly ordained priest in the Rockford diocese in the State of Illinois. Father Kaim is also a close personal friend of mine and a former member of my staff. When Phil worked in my office, I always admired his clarity of vision, his strong conviction, and his compassion for those around him. Phil had a knack for politics. He worked for me for almost 10 years. He served in my office as my district director and was my eyes and ears back home in Illinois. Phil was very good at his job, but I guess he decided he had a higher calling. Six years ago he made a decision to become a priest, and after the election of November of 1998 he left my employment, packed his bags and moved to Rome to study at the North American College to become a Roman Catholic priest. On May 17 of this year he was ordained. He will return to Rome later this year to continue his studies. Father Kaim, thank you for your prayer today and good luck to what I know will be a bright future.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this jobs bill and I urge all my colleagues to support it. Earlier today, we voted to extend unemployment compensation once again. I favored that legislation because I think that was the right thing to do. But it was not the only thing to do. We also must pass this jobs bill. Because most unemployed Americans don't want another unemployment check. They want a payroll check. They want a job. Some of my Democratic colleagues will oppose this jobs bill and support even more unemployment compensation. They will oppose this bill because it increases the deficit as they demand that we spend trillions of dollars in bigger government. This misguided philosophy will lead us only to bigger government, bigger deficits and no jobs. When will you learn that it is the private sector that creates jobs in this country? That cutting taxes on investment will lead to more investors and more jobs? That putting more money in the hands of the people means putting more people back to work? When I was a high school teacher, I used to teach these simple lessons. Now, it is time to apply these lessons to the task at hand. This bill doesn't go far enough, but it is a strong start. It cuts investment taxes by more than half, so that investors are not penalized for their efforts. It increases small business expensing and increases bonus depreciation, so that small businesses can hire more workers. It accelerates earlier tax cuts so that real money will go to middle class taxpayers. This helps families pay for home improvements, college education, or anything else then want. These tax cuts are front-loaded so the economy will get the biggest bang for the buck. Some of them are phased out in a couple of years in order to fit into the $350 billion budget requirement. We will have plenty of time to discover if these tax cuts are popular enough to extend. My guess is they will be, but Democrats who want to raise revenues to pay for bigger government will have their chance to make their case. I look forward to that debate. But for now, we have a job to do. And that job is to create jobs. Vote for this bill. Vote to put the American people back to work.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1170, the Child Medication Safety Act, which prohibits school personnel from requiring a child be medicated in order to receive an education and stay in the classroom. There have been reports that schools have forced parents to put their children on medication, such as Ritalin, in order to allow them to continue attending school. Some have gone so far as to keep children out of the classroom until the parents relent and agree to put their kids on these drugs. In one specific case, a child was removed from their home because the parents refused to put them on medication as mandated by the school. This is outrageous. School personnel should never presume to know the medication needs of a child. Only medical doctors have the ability to determine if a prescription for a psychotropic drug is appropriate for a child. As a former school teacher, I am sympathetic to need to have order in a classroom with as few disruptions as possible. However, it has been my experience that kids will be kids and there will always be children in the classroom who are overactive or inattentive. It's important to note that nothing in this legislation prevents a school or school personnel from recommending a parent seek medical review of their child's physical or mental health. This legislation just keeps them from requiring medication in order to receive education services. The prescribing of medication should be left to parents and medical professionals not school officials. Psychotropic drugs are serious medications and have an altering effect on the mind. These drugs have potential for serious harm, addiction and abuse that is why they are listed on Schedule II and IV of the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, it is critical that they only be prescribed by licensed medical practitioners who have seen the child and made a medical evaluation to determine a diagnosis and the proper needs of a child. H.R. 1170, the Child Medication Safety Act, is important legislation that protects children and parents. I would like to thank Congressman Burns and Chairman Boehner for their hard work on this bill. I strongly support their efforts to move this legislation forward.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I rise today to make a simple plea: Support this bill and support job creation in this country. Before I got into this game of politics I taught economics and history. In the study of history you find that sometimes two people look back at the same event and see different occurrences and that different things happened. There a lot of different interpretations of the Civil War, the War Between the States, whatever you might have. I think there are also a lot of interpretations of what happened in the nineties to the economy. I remember that vote that the minority leader talked about that night. It was at a time when the Clinton administration was in the doldrums, it was a time when their economy was floundering. They did have a vote, and I think the subsequent result of that was we came with a Republican majority. But there are a lot of different views on how history develops. Today we see the result of that bubble of the nineties deflating. We see the result, where businesses and corporations who based their growth on debt found out that maybe that was wrong-minded. We find it is a time that maybe we need to make investments, so corporations, the creator of jobs, and small businesses, the creator of jobs, actually put out dollars, so that you can create jobs, and not debt, where you could grow on debt because it is deductible on your taxes. What we want is for people to invest their money. We want small businesses to say we are going to invest in that new pickup truck, or that new product, or a tractor, so that we can put somebody on it, so we can create a job, so that we can expense it and create more economic activity in this country. Our unemployment rate is now at 6 percent. I have to say that that is unacceptable and we have to do something about it. We have heard that onomatopoeia of rhetoric, of negative words, but words only last so long. Words sometimes are an important tool in this place, but the fact is truth is important, and the truth is we need to get the economy going again. There are a couple of ways to do it. You can bring consumer confidence back. You can give families the confidence they need so they can start to buy and invest in this economy. You can make sure that small business people feel that they have the confidence and they have the capital that they need to invest in jobs and create jobs. You can create an environment to make people feel comfortable to invest their money, and that is almost all of us. Anybody who has a 401(k) or a pension plan or a mutual fund, we are all investors, and we have seen in these rocky times some of those investments go down. But we need to give those folks the confidence that they can invest in this economy and see it grow again. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means put together a bill that does those things. Eighty percent of all jobs are created by small business, so the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means made sure that this legislation takes steps to ease the burden on small business. This is one way to help them grow, so they are going to expand and so business will hire more workers. Consumers drive this economy, so this package is designed to put more money in the hands of the consumers so that they can invest in the economy. That is why we accelerate the tax cuts passed last year. That is why we accelerate the marriage penalty relief. That is why we speed up the child tax deduction. That is not for rich people. That is for real people, people that go to work every day, people that punch a time clock, people that make this economy work. Finally, yes, we need to get some confidence back in the market. Almost every family has lost some of their wealth because of the decline in our economy. We have had a decline in the economy; we have had 9/11; we have had a war in Iraq; and we have had a war in Afghanistan. But it is time to change the focus, it is time to get this economy going again, and there is one way to do it, and that is, today, put your card in that slot and say let us get this economy going again. Vote for this package. Get America back on its feet. It is our responsibility to create that environment for the economy, and we have this chance to do it today. Let us do it.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the words of John Marc Sianghio, Jr., a young man from Oswego, Illinois, to the Congressional Record. John was recently named a winner in the Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy scriptwriting contest for 2003. The Veterans of Foreign Wars holds a Voice of Democracy competition each year in order to give high school students an opportunity to express their patriotism. This year, an overwhelming 80,000 students across the country participated in the contest. John's essay reflects upon the responsibilities inherent to life in a free nation--freedom's obligation. I commend the Veterans of Foreign Wars for their continued commitment to fostering a sense of patriotism and responsibility in the youth of our great nation. And I congratulate John on his success and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. 2002-2003 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Contest ``Freedom's Obligation'' (Illinois Winner.--John Marc Sianghio, Jr.) Lady Liberty stands vigil over a city, and a nation that does not sleep. In her torch shines perpetual daylight, fueled by the great virtue that is tireless action. ``Action'' she demands. Even her silence cries out to the world, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' Though the words say ``give me'' the sub-text shouts ``come!'' It is not an invitation, it is a command: not a gift, a demand. The imprisoned lightning in her torch thunders with a message understood in every language, that the Republic over which she stands with its liberties and justices, is not for all. It stands only for all those with the boldness to take it, for all those willing to pay its price. This precious freedom is open only to those who can meet its obligation. That obligation can only be action, for America is a republic born of a hard and painful labor, a republic that earned its freedom at the point of a gun, and that has held its freedom with the same. America is a nation that did not emerge as the random offspring of intercoursing tribes. It emerged by the active will of its people. Nor was its revolution won in the minds of inert philosophers, rather in the hearts of the masses; hearts that not only had passive sentiment, but that physically pumped charged blood into live limbs, stirring them to action: Hearts that bled freely so that the flag of independence might be striped in scarlet . . . But that once vibrant crimson has faded through uncounted years of stagnancy. Stagnancy is the greatest treason. We justify it in this age by referring to it by an alias. Like the devil it is, it has many names. It is called caution, debate, delay, filibuster, complaint, apathy, and inaction. If it is not action . . . it is treason. Treason was not a word in my vocabulary when I immigrated to this country. I was two at the time. Freedom when I first set foot on American soil meant that I would be out of the coach class seat that held me for twenty two hours, that I could stretch my legs on solid ground. Was that true freedom? Of course not. I had to learn freedom. I had to earn freedom. From the moment I was first old enough to realize the opportunities and liberties gifted to me by American Freedom, the enormity of Freedom's obligation was already creeping onto my shoulders. As I have grown older and learned more and more about my rights, the responsibilities wrapped inside these rights also began to emerge. As immigrants to this country, there was a long difficult process which my family and I had to undertake to stay in this country. This process required much sacrifice by each individual involved. However, we wanted to work to earn the freedoms we enjoyed. Had we not done it, we would have debased our honor and lowered ourselves to the state of common thieves. The sacrifices I have made earned me my freedom. Your story, your struggles, your road to earning freedom is probably much different. However, our obligations to freedom are in essence the same. So what is the spirit of our obligation? What is the common labor that must be undertaken to be worthy of Lady Liberty's embrace? It is simply love. Patriotic love. I speak of a patriot's love, not as the lust of a fool who thinks he serves his country by ignoring her laws and making his own rules because he believes they are better. I speak of true love, like that in marriage. Freedom's obligation is the marriage of our minds and our souls. It is a dreamer's desire for the ideal, guided by the rational hands of what is real. Our obligation is to strive for that ideal. Realistically, we know that true freedom can only come when every human being is rid of their every chain, chains of poverty, chains of addiction, and chains of hatred. Still we are obligated as individuals to strive for the ideal of freedom. The ideal that every person is created equal because every person creates himself equal. It starts with one. It starts with me, and it starts with you. If we do not meet our obligations, this ideal can never be reached. If we do not meet our obligations, we cheapen freedom, and we cheapen ourselves. For it is freedom's obligation, the great price at which freedom comes, that gives it its value. That is why we must act, so freedom may retain its value, and that we as individuals may maintain our integrity and human worth as well. For the obligation of freedom is Lady Liberty's call to the individual who longs to be free. Who, like a newborn child that struggles for its first life sustaining breath, expands his lungs against the weight of apathy so that he may breathe free.