Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who chairs the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 114, which would authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Since August, the intense national debate that has developed in Congress, in the American public, and internationally about whether the United States should use military force if necessary against the regime of Saddam Hussein, and to use such force preemptively, has served a very salutary, even necessary, purpose. Both as a former Army counterintelligence officer and a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this Member hates security leaks. The massive leaking about sharp internal disagreements within the executive branch, especially the Pentagon, unfortunately preceded the necessary international diplomacy, essential consultation with at least key committees in Congress, and any concerted effort to inform the American public as to why military action may be required now and why an Iraqi regime change may be necessary. It also seems clear that the discussions of U.S. military action to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, WMD, stocks and efforts for a regime change in Iraq had gotten ahead of the planning and decisionmaking for such possible action. Many of this Member's colleagues, in both Houses of Congress on a bipartisan basis, and this Member, along with a sufficient number of voices from the American public, helped make it clear to the Bush administration that a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force was an essential step before any preemptive military action against Iraq could be launched. Despite an earlier White House counsel's advisory opinion that a congressional resolution was not required, in a September 4 meeting with elected congressional leaders, President Bush advisedly agreed that his administration would first seek such a resolution. Thus, the House is here today embarked on this gravely important duty. Another very positive result of the leaking and the resultant intense controversy over the issue of military action on Iraq is what likely will be the outcome of the international community's furor about a potential unilateral and preemptive American strike against Iraq. That strenuous opposition is especially the case among our traditional European allies and the Arab states. As was the case in the Gulf War, the administration sought international support for actions on Iraq through the United Nations as a result of President Bush's exceptional speech to the U.N. General Assembly. Finally the international community has become serious about demanding the reintroduction of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq with the unfettered access demanded to search out and destroy production in storage sites of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons. The U.S. is right to insist upon an unconditional time-certain demand for any new inspection regime to begin and to insist upon full compliance with unfettered access for U.N. inspectors. The international community now has this forceful proposition before it: Either an effective U.N. weapons inspection program resumes and continues in Iraq now or the U.S. has established more forcefully the legitimacy of military action for regime change with the reasonable expectation of a supportive international coalition for military action against Iraq and for the perhaps more difficult task of Iraq reformation in its aftermath. Because of an intense public debate on the necessity of military action against Iraq and especially the involvement of Congress, the resolution the House has before it today has evolved into a far more acceptable one and the legislative process has not yet been completed. The broad language extending the authorization for the military force to ``secure peace and stability in the Middle East'' has been narrowed to Iraq. The War Powers Act's requirements with reporting requirements to Congress are now included in the resolution. A limited notification to Congress by the President about the intent to use or the use of the authorization for military force is now included in the measure. And importantly now included in the resolution is the requirement to report to Congress under Section 7 of Public Law No. 105-338 about the U.S. planning and actions to be conducted or undertaken by America in Iraq after the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power. In other words, according to that Act and that report, humanitarian assistance, democracy transition assistance, and methodology for Iraq to repay its debts are all elements explicitly required. Before using military force, the President now under the procedures specified in H.J. Res. 114 must make available to Congress his determination about two things: that ``reliance on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq,'' and (B) that military action is consistent with the U.S. and international war against terrorism. These are among the important changes to a proposed congressional resolution that evolved to the one before us today. Now, what is the case against Saddam Hussein? Especially important, what is it that justifies the preemptive use of military force? This Member's colleagues will recall, of course, that without provocation, Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait with an attempt to annex it. Crucially, however, as the House considers preemptive force, it must be recognized that Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical weapons, against Iran and against the Kurdish population of his own country. Is there any legitimate doubt that he would be willing to use them again? Unfortunately, I have no such doubts that he would indeed use weapons of mass destruction again. There also is no legitimate reason to doubt that he has a significant stock of both chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. recovered unused SCUD warheads with traces of both such types of chemical and biological agents in 1991, and in this forum this Member can only say that Saddam Hussein has now developed further ways to deploy such chemical and biological agents against his enemies. The evidence is clear too, obtained from numerous verifiable sources, that Saddam attempts to develop nuclear weapons, that he did so in the past and today again. Ongoing attempts by Saddam to acquire dual-use technology for use in a nuclear development program continue, and that is notwithstanding the controversy about the intended use of one such attempted acquisition. Should anyone have any doubts that Saddam has and is attempting to procure plutonium to substantially shorten the time of developing nuclear weapons, I have no such doubts. Thus, WMD remains a great threat to a widening circling of Saddam's neighbors and our own forces and facilities in the area. However, again, what is also crucial and urgent is whether after the terror strikes of 9-11, we have any doubt that he would provide such WMD chemical, biological, and perhaps nuclear, in the future to terrorist groups who would use them against our citizens and those of our allies. This Member does not doubt in the slightest, and it is a risk that the U.S. cannot accept. In saying this, this Member does understand that the administration cannot yet present incontrovertible evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam. There are, of course, reasons for strong suspicions about such links. That logically brings the House to the question of why at this time Congress should authorize the future potential use of military action by the administration. This Member believes it is clear that the threat Saddam poses will only intensify. The U.S., the Western democracies, and Iraq's neighbors should never have permitted Saddam to hamper and then bar the reentry of U.N. weapons inspectors. In the 11 years since the end of the Gulf War, and certainly in the 4-year absence of such inspections, Americans are now in more danger because of that collective lack of resolve to enforce WMD disarmament and because of the commercial and foreign policy goals of some of America's European allies and Russia. Now, of course, in a post-September 11 world, the U.S. knows all too well that mass terrorism has been waged against civilians, in this country and abroad. It is a terrible part of the equation that the American President and the Congress now must responsibly consider. Does the U.S. now have a reasonable basis to conclude that Saddam is not an imminent threat against the United States? Is there a clear justification for attempting to override the conclusions of the Commander in Chief? The answers are, unfortunately, no. Delaying action is a greater risk to America's national interest, the security of our citizens, than the uncertainties that always attend a war and its aftermath. The resolution authorizing the use of force, or one that we might craft by amendment, is an authorization this Congress should approve. As the House takes this extraordinarily important step, fully mindful that Congress in passing the resolution authorizes putting members of the U.S. Armed Services in harm's way, and recognizing no citizen in this country is assuredly safe now from related terrorist events either, Congress has additional important responsibilities. Congress needs to take every step to assure that the executive branch has given adequate consideration and provided contingency planning and resources on the following questions, which, bear in mind, are beyond the questions about adequately helping and preparing and deploying our military force. These questions are: number one, has the U.S. taken adequate steps to broaden the international coalition for not only the military operations, but especially for the more important and long-term task of developing a democratic regime in Iraq that will not threaten the security and stability of the region? The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) made reference to this question. Number two, has the administration prepared contingency plans to take into account that Saddam may use chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, directly or through anonymous terrorists, against other nations in the region before or during the conflict which may ensue, for example, to be used against Israel? Has the U.S. prepared for what could be a rather extraordinary Israeli response? Number three, has the administration taken steps to understand and prepare for the international consequences of such military action against Iraq in the region and elsewhere in the world? Will U.S. action strengthen the influence of Iran in the region, even in Iraq? Will U.S. military action strengthen demands for an independent Kurdish state in Iraq, including areas in neighboring countries? Will a victory in Iraq unleash a Shi'a Muslim bloodbath against the Sunni Muslim population or a large part of the Iraqi population that supported or is perceived to have supported Saddam Hussein? Is the U.S. ready to control it? Certainly the Shi'a have suffered tremendous provocation for such retribution. Number four, has the administration adequately considered the resources the U.S. will need in this Iraq war-peacekeeping scenario in order to successfully pursue the ongoing American war effort against al Qaeda and terrorism, including the far-from-finished military, peacekeeping and broad reconstruction requirements in Afghanistan? Mr. Speaker, this list of questions is only illustrative. It could be much longer. The passage of H.J.Res. 114 today, momentous as it is, as necessary an action as it is, constitutes but the first step in many important duties the Congress must pursue in this arena. Congress must be ready and fully committed to accomplishing them in a constructive, bipartisan effort with the executive branch. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly encourages his colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.J.Res. 114 and then to join in a constructive bipartisan effort to insist and assure that the executive branch has considered and proposed contingency plans and resources to meet the unexpected challenges and the unattended consequences of military action against Iraq, if it is necessary, if it is necessary, I emphasize, to use military force to eliminate the danger that Saddam Hussein poses to the countries in the region, to our allies, and to our citizens here at home and abroad.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his very strong support for H. Res. 468, the Transatlantic Security and NATO Enhancement Resolution, which is an important and historic resolution before the House today. Additionally, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Europe, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for his efforts as we worked together to draft this resolution, consider this resolution in the Europe Subcommittee, and bring this resolution to the Floor. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and the Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for agreeing to waive the full Committee's jurisdiction over H. Res. 468 so that the House can debate and vote on this measure before Congress adjourns. Indeed, as an original co-sponsor of this resolution and as a strong supporter of NATO and NATO enlargement, this Member is pleased that H. Res. 468 enjoys bipartisan co-sponsorship, including support from the House Leadership and from the full International Relations Committee. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, with dramatic changes in Russia, have necessitated the evolution of NATO as an organization--a process of change that is accelerating. Among three of the most notable changes are--Alliance enlargement, a new focus on terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the creation of the NATO-Russia Council. The first post-Cold War legislation endorsing NATO enlargement was the NATO Participation Act of 1994, which the House of Representatives approved on October 7, 1994. The Senate, which has responsibility for ratifying the necessary changes to the NATO Treaty, shortly followed suit. At the NATO Madrid Summit of 1997, the Alliance began the process of expanding its membership from the lineup of eager former Warsaw Pact nations. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became full members in March of 1999. Overall this expansion has been very positive for NATO and for these three countries. The Alliance is headed for a second enlargement round, with accession decisions expected at the Prague Summit in November. There are formally ten aspirant countries: all of the remaining Warsaw Pact satellite partners of the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Croatia. (Because it did not begin the formal accession process until May 2002, Croatia will not be eligible to receive an invitation to join NATO this year.) America's European and Canadian allies acknowledge that in the upcoming Summit the U.S. assessments of the readiness of the aspirant countries will be crucial. The consensus emerging in the Alliance is that seven new members will be invited to formally begin the accession process in Prague. On November 7, 2001, the House passed the Gerald B.J. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act, which this Member introduced and was named for our esteemed, departed colleague, a committed and active supporter of NATO. The Act, which had strong bipartisan support from House leadership, expressed congressional support for a robust second expansion round at Prague. It also authorized U.S. foreign military financing for seven aspirant countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. After an appeal from President Bush, the other body's limited but influential opposition to a second expansion round relented, and the other body approved the House bill by a vote of 85-6 on May 17, 2002. On June 27, 2002, Chairman Gallegly and this Member introduced H. Res. 468, with the initial original co-sponsorship of the Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). As introduced, the resolution was intentionally silent on which countries the House would recommend for accession invitations at the Prague Summit. Like leaders in our Executive Branch, the Subcommittee wanted to keep the pressure on the leading aspirant countries to address remaining deficiencies in their individual Membership Action Plans (MAPs) and in meeting the commitments that are important for NATO membership. On September 25, 2002, during the Subcommittee mark-up, and with this Member's full support and consultation, the Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee offered an amendment which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the seven most qualified countries be offered invitations to join NATO. The Subcommittee approved the amendment by voice vote and favorably reported the resolution, as amended. The resolution's passage will signal to the world U.S. House support and membership recommendations for the enlargement decisions at the Prague Summit. It also will demonstrate to the American electorate House support for members of the other body as they assume their treaty ratification responsibilities to implement the Prague enlargement decisions during the next Congress. Why the interest in enlarging NATO membership? Why does NATO remain relevant and even crucial? What are the benefits of and concerns about enlargement? Why should Congress, the American people, and the NATO member nations support a robust NATO expansion round countries at the Prague Summit? Despite the demise of the Soviet Union and positive changes in Russia, a resilient and vital NATO is needed (1) to perform its core function as a mutual defense pact against the possibility of direct aggression against NATO or a member state, (2) to provide a forum to facilitate a greater degree of consultation, cohesion and cooperation among NATO members, and (3) to serve as a source of integrated military strength to address conventional or unconventional threats or demands for out-of-area peacekeeping activities vital to NATO's interests. NATO is the only multilateral security organization in place, potentially to be augmented by non-NATO participants in NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP), which is capable of conducting effective military operations and preserving the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic region. An expanded NATO provides the stable environment needed by its new member nations and aspirant countries in Central and Eastern Europe to successfully complete the political and economic transformation for integration into Europe and the community of Western democracies. Already, NATO membership requirements have been absolutely crucial in moving aspirant nations to civilian control of their militaries, transparency in military budgeting, interoperability of their military forces with NATO, resolution of internal ethics conflicts and territorial disputes, greater respect for human rights, reduced governmental and business corruption, judicial reform, market-oriented economies, and functioning parliamentary democracies. The Alliance's military force structure, with its enhanced levels of interoperability, joint defense planning, command/control/ communication/intelligence systems, and common force goals and doctrine, provides the crucial basis for forming ad hoc coalitions of willing NATO countries to take on combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian relief missions--supplemented by PfP participants, as in Bosnia and in Kosovo. NATO membership motivates member states generally to sustain their commitment to collective defense and, in particular, to meet the goals of NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI). Thus, our allies improve their militarily capabilities and are less dependent on American forces. The Alliance has accepted a new role in the war against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems among rogue states and non-state actors. Success will require more than the capability for a rapid and effective military response. It also will require: an enhanced level of intelligence-sharing; coordination among NATO members' law enforcement agencies; improved police, judicial and financial agency cooperation; and information exchanges. Russian civilian leadership is gradually recognizing that NATO is not a threat but rather a forum where Russia can most effectively communicate with her western neighbors. Additionally, Russian civilian leadership in the NATO-Russia Council and the confidence-building and cooperative steps that follow from the new council can lead to the economic prosperity and security of the community of Euro-Atlantic democracies. At a time when overt threats from Russia to its neighbors immediately to the west have declined or disappear, and when intense opposition to NATO expansion by the civilian Russian leadership has noticeably declined, there should be less reticence among NATO members to accept Baltic nation members and to willingly bear the mutual defense costs and concerns related to these prospective NATO members. With the careful redirection of some of NATO's focus away from meeting a massive Soviet/Russia strike against NATO Europe, and toward new tasks of peacekeeping, responding rapidly to out-of-area military or terrorist actions, and fighting the war on terrorism in NATO countries, the aspirant countries, with fewer resources and generally, smaller populations than most NATO members, can bring specialized military capabilities to the table for use in these new NATO missions. Mr. Speaker, Congress must recognize that NATO is adapting to meet the threats to its member nations and to its collective interest. With the implementation of the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) concept for the assemblage of effective coalitions of the willing, NATO now has far more flexibility to address a range of new and very different threats. When the United States must defend its interests out of area, it is more likely to have some friends from NATO at its side who can effectively operate with it, despite a very troubling U.S.-Europe military capabilities gap. Finally, and in conclusion, bringing in new qualified nations to NATO is not, on balance, a burden. Aspirant countries' vigorous interest in membership and their commitments to democracy, peace and stability will make NATO a more vital organization in an eastern European neighborhood. These countries have been striving to meet NATO membership qualifications and to finally join the ranks of the prosperous, peaceful, democratic nations of the Euro-Atlantic region. How, morally, can we deny them this tremendous step toward these worthy goals--some 57 years after the end of World War II? Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2002, this Member unavoidably missed rollcall vote No. 423 (final passage of H.J. Res, 111, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003). Had this Member been present, he would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 427 & 428 for reasons of official business to release the first annual report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the approval of the Journal and on H. Con. Res. 476.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the bill, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H.R. 3450, the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act. Furthermore, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, for bringing this important legislation to the House Floor today. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for their efforts to improve access to quality preventive and primary health care for the medically underserved--including the millions of Americans without health insurance coverage. The Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act would: (1) reauthorize the critically important Community Health Centers program for another five years, including reaffirmation that Health Centers should be: located in high-need areas; provide comprehensive preventive and primary health care services; governed by community boards made up of a majority of current health center patients to assure responsiveness to local needs; and, open to everyone in the communities they serve, regardless of ability to pay; and (2) reauthorize the important Telehealth Programs, as well as the Rural Health Outreach and the Rural Health Network Development. In addition, H.R. 3450 would authorize a new Small Health Care Provider Quality Improvement Program. These programs would go a long way to facilitate the provision of care to vulnerable populations living in rural areas all across the country. This Member is particularly pleased that language is included in H.R. 3450 that would provide automatic designation to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and Federally Certified Rural Health Clinics as Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) facilities for a period of six years. This Member recognizes that the National Health Service Corps plays a critical role in providing care for underserved populations by placing clinicians in urban and rural areas. However, it has come to this Member's attention that health centers and rural clinics must obtain Health Professional Shortage Area designation to become eligible for the placement of Nation Health Service Corps personnel. While this Member is pleased to see that H.R. 3450 would improve on the current HPSA designation process, he would have preferred that the bill include permanent automatic designation, which would have guaranteed that FQHCs and rural health clinics would not have to return to the current, cumbersome HPSA designation process. This is a process that certainly seems unnecessary and duplicative, and which in some cases may result in delays in the placement of needed practitioners at high-need health centers and rural health clinics. Last year, this Member sent a letter, along with several colleagues, to the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health requesting this change on a permanent basis and greatly appreciates the inclusion of the provision--even in the short term. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member looks forward to working with the Committee and Subcommittee leadership, as earlier noted, on this important issue and this important bill as H.R. 3450 moves foward.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the resolution, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H. Res. 398, which would recognize the impact of Fragile X and would call upon the Federal Government to enhance and increase its efforts and commitments to Fragile X research. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the Chairman of the House committee on Energy and Commerce, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, for bringing this important resolution to the House Floor today. This Member would also like to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watkins] for sponsoring H. Res. 398 and for his personal interest in Fragile X. Fragile X syndrome is a hereditary condition which causes a wide range of mental impairment, from mild learning disabilities to severe mental retardation. It is the most common cause of genetically- inherited mental impairment. In addition to mental impairment, Fragile X is associated with a number of physical and behavioral characteristics. House Resolution 398 would recognize the devastating impact of Fragile X on thousands of people in the United States and their families. In addition, the resolution would call on the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other sources of Federal and private research funds to enhance and increase their efforts and commitment to Fragile X research. Furthermore, the resolution also would call upon medical schools and other health care educators, medical societies, and associations, and Federal, state, and local health care facilities to promote research that will lead to a treatment and cure for Fragile X. Finally, H. Res. 398 would comment the goals and ideas of a National Fragile X Research Day and would support interested groups in conducting appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate support for such a day. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H. Res. 398.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 5472, which extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches to July 1, 2002. Chapter 12 bankruptcy once again is set to expire on January 1, 2002. This legislation is very important to the nation's agriculture sector. This Member would express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for introducing H.R. 5472. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his efforts in getting this measure to the House Floor for consideration. This extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy is supported by this Member as it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. The use of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy provision has been an important and necessary option for family farmers throughout the nation. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, it will be another very painful blow to an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have no viable option other than to end their operations, but it will also cause land values to likely plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will negatively affect the ability of family farmers to earn a living. In addition, the resulting decrease in farmland value will impact the manner in which banks conduct their agricultural lending activities. Furthermore, this Member has received many contacts from his constituents supporting the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--it is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 5472.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the conference report on H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act which includes provisions that make several existing temporary Federal judgeships permanent. Unfortunately, Nebraska was not included on the list. This Member greatly appreciates the attempts by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to make this critically important improvement for the people of Nebraska. Despite the gentleman's best efforts, the conferees from the other body would not agree to include Nebraska on this list. As such, this Member is very concerned and disappointed that the Nebraska judgeship was not included in the final conference report. The Nebraska temporary judgeship was created in 1990, and will expire with the first vacancy after November 2003. The caseload for the Federal District Court in Nebraska has steadily increased since that time, rising well above the Judicial Conference weighted standard of 430. In fact, in 2001, there were 1500 new filings and 1242 pending cases, with a weighted filing of 482. Without this judgeship, the weighted filings are expected to exceed 600 per judge. In addition, Nebraska currently has two District Court judges who have taken senior status and are expected to retire in the near future, further increasing the caseload on Nebraska judges. Mr. Speaker, clearly, this is an important issue to this Member and to the state of Nebraska. It is impossible for this Member to understand the reason this important change was not included in this conference report. The opportunity was available and yet inexplicably not taken by the conferees from the other body. However, because of the many important provisions in this bill, this Member will vote ``aye'' even while expressing his extraordinary disappointment and regret that the permanent Nebraska judgeship was not included in the conference report. If there was a problem on another issue or judgeship in the House offer, Nebraskans did not deserve to lose this opportunity for the much-needed permanent judgeship designation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues an editorial from the September 18, 2002, edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star entitled, ``We've seen Saddam's act before.'' It correctly conveys the skepticism with which the United States and the United Nations should approach Saddam Hussein's recent announcement to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. [lsqb]From the Lincoln Journal-Star, Sept. 18, 2002[rsqb] We've Seen Saddam's Act Before Anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein suddenly caved in to international pressure and will now ``unconditionally'' permit weapons inspections is dangerously gullible. Saddam's negotiating style was described accurately and colorfully by President George W. Bush. Once again Saddam is ``sidestepping, crawfishing and wheedling.'' Translations of the six-page letter, complete with a three- page addendum, have not yet been released. But some news sources, including The Economist, reported that the letter from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri to the U.N. ``leaves scope for doubt. It merely says they can return, for example, not explicitly that they will enjoy unrestricted access.'' A senior State Department official in a White House briefing described the letter this way: ``It is not a promise to fulfill all its obligations under Security Council resolutions. It is not a promise to allow full and unfettered access for U.N. inspectors. It is not a promise to disclose, or a disclosure, of all its prohibited programs. And it's not a promise to disarm, as Iraq is obliged to do.'' Saddam should not be allowed to let a promise turn into delay. United Nations officials have said in recent days they are prepared to resume inspections immediately. The United Nations should waste no time taking up the offer. Send in the inspectors now. Call Saddam's bluff.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as stated on the record many times, this Member continues his strong opposition to the total elimination of the estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this Member's opposition to this terrible idea have been publicly explained on numerous occasions, including past statements in the Congressional Record, and today this Member gain will reiterate the reasons for his opposition to the permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax. This Member has every expectation that legislation to permanently repeal the Federal estate tax is going nowhere in the other body. Furthermore, on March 18, 2002, this Member noted, in his House Floor statement on H.R. 536, that he will most assuredly vote ``no'' on the total repeal of the inheritance tax, and this Member would further note that he in fact did vote ``no'' on the total repeal of the inheritance tax. This Member again would say that while he is a long-term advocate of inheritance tax reduction, especially in regard to protecting family farms and ranches, and small businesses, this Member strongly opposes the permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax provisions. This Member believes that inheritance taxes unfortunately do adversely and inappropriately affect Nebraskan small businesses, farmers, and ranchers when they attempt to pass this estate from one generation to the next. This Member also believes that the estate tax elimination provisions are at worst a faulty product and at best only a shadow of what could be beneficially done to reduce the inheritance tax burden on most Americans who now and in the future are actually subject to such estate taxes. It must also be noted that this Member is strongly in favor of substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and that he has introduced legislation, H.R. 42, to this effect. This Member believes that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small business, farm and ranch families and individuals benefit from estate tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level, such as provided in H.R. 42. This Member's bill (H.R. 42) would provide immediate, essential Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate tax exclusion to $10 million effective upon enactment. (With some estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, under the current law for year 2001, the estate tax exclusion is only $675,000.) In addition, H.R. 42 would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation thereafter. The legislation would decrease the highest Federal estate tax rate from 55 percent to 39.6 percent effective upon enactment, as 39.6 percent is currently the highest Federal income tax rate. Under the bill, the value of an estate over $10 million would be taxed at the 39.6 percent rate. Under current law, the 55 percent estate tax bracket begins for estates over $3 million. Finally, H.R. 42 would continue to apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is provided in current law. In fact, this Member has said on many occasions that he would be willing to raise the estate tax exclusion level to $15 million. Since this Member believes that H.R. 42 or similar legislation is the only responsible way to provide true estate tax reduction for our nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member will once again state his reasons, as follows, for his opposition to the total elimination of the Federal estate tax. First, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega- millionaires would be very much contrary to the national interest. Second, the elimination of the estate tax also would have a very negative impact upon the continuance of very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy institutions in our country. Finally, and fortunately, this Member believes that actually it will never be eliminated in the year 2010. At this point it should be noted that under the previously enacted estate tax legislation (e.g., the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act), beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is eliminated (with two exceptions) such that the value of inherited assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, as noted previously by this Member, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act could result in unfortunate tax consequences for some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on any increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs--resulting in a higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under the current ``stepped-up'' basis law. Unfortunately, H.R. 2143 made the stepped-up basis elimination permanent resulting in a continuation of the problems just noted by this Member--higher capital gains and larger tax liability for heirs. In closing, Mr. Speaker, while this Member is strongly supportive of legislation to substantially rise the estate tax exemption level and to reduce the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and as such introduced legislation to this effect (H.R. 42), this Member cannot in good conscience support the total elimination of the inheritance tax on the super-rich. Therefore, this Member will be voting against H. Res. 524.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to submit, for the Congressional Record, a letter to Mr. Thomas Scully, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), requesting that he address a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) billing issue immediately. This Member is taking this unusual step for additional visibility in the hope that this serious problem will be fixed immediately. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 17, 2002. Mr. Thomas Scully, Hubert Humphrey Building, Washington, D.C. 20201. Dear Mr. Scully: On behalf of the Nebraska Hospital Association, Nebraska's 56 Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) and the communities they serve, I respectfully request that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) address a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) billing issue immediately. As you are aware, most CAHs are eligible to bill for CRNA services on a ``pass-through'' basis. This means that they receive cost-based reimbursement for those CRNA services. To receive periodic payments for CRNA's services, the CMS has instructed Nebraska hospitals to bill these services, including professional services, on a UB-92 form rather than to the Medicare Part B carrier on a HCFA-1500. The hospitals have also been instructed to use the revenue code ``964'' to bill for the CRNA's professional services on the UB-92 form. However, it is my understanding that the CMS non-outpatient prospective payment system code editor (OCE) will not allow CRNA claims to be processed (and as such cannot be paid) with revenue code 964. Consequently, Nebraska hospitals have not received their Medicare payments which have been due for more than a year. Many Nebraska hospitals are having their cash flow suspended by hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases. Therefore, this is a significant issue to these hospitals. We have been informed that the CMS will not be able to change the 964 edit until April 1, 2003. A system fix should be made now or at the next quarterly update rather than wait until April 1, 2003. A temporary ``fix'' has been used by other fiscal intermediaries through the use of revenue code 379 in lieu of 964, which is a generic ``anesthesia'' revenue code. This will at least allow the hospital claims to be paid. However, one or more fiscal intermediaries are concerned with compliance and fraud and abuse issues and will not allow hospitals to use revenue code 379 as a temporary fix. In order for CMS to address this problem immediately, I am requesting that CMS issue a letter of instruction or a program memorandum to Nebraska and other fiscal intermediaries (whatever document may be issued in the least amount of time). This letter should be clear in its direction to fiscal intermediaries to use the revenue code 379 as a temporary fix in order to get the hospitals' claims processed without delay. I am aware that a draft program memorandum has been issued with regard to this matter. If the CMS could make that program memorandum final, then fiscal intermediaries could utilize revenue code 379. In my opinion, the CMS also needs to designate an individual that fiscal intermediaries or hospital associations can contact regarding critical access hospital issues. This individual needs to understand how a CAH operates, as well as how policies changed by the CMS will affect other issues, particularly billing. The 964 revenue code is a good example of problems many CAHs are experiencing. I am certain that any critical access hospital in Nebraska would be glad to host this individual for a tour and orientation of how a CAH operates. Again, I respectfully request that you address this CRNA billing issue immediately, as it seriously curtails the financial viability of rural hospitals. I look forward to your prompt response and for your information, I intend to place this letter in the Congressional Record. Best wishes, Doug Bereuter, Member of Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2002, official business in Washington, D.C., caused this Member to unavoidably miss two rollcall votes. On rollcall No. 385 (motion to go to conference on H.R. 1646, the State Department Authorization bill), this Member would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 386 (approving the Journal), this Member would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this resolution be extended 60 minutes to be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the way of introduction of the next gentleman, I would say that the Speaker, in the aftermath of the events of September 11, decided to create an entity within the House of Representatives to focus on the problems of terrorism. He placed that responsibility in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and created under the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) a new subcommittee to focus exclusively on terrorism, and that subcommittee is chaired by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the ranking minority member is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). A report they have prepared for the House is exceptionally insightful, very important in our work here; and I commend the gentleman and the gentlewoman from California for their effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the recent recall of ground beef highlights the need for increased attention to food safety and the means to achieve it. An editorial in the August 2, 2002, Norfolk Daily News, discusses the need to utilize a variety of approaches to further ensure safety. This includes adequate inspection at the plant and proper food preparation. In addition, the editorial states that ``the Federal government has made it possible, though not simple, for processors to employ the most fail-safe system of all--irradiation. Already in wide use in the food industry, it can extend shelf life as well as destroy the pathogens which seem to survive despite inspection efforts. Its use needs better acceptance in the red meat industry, and especially from those activists who claim to have the best interests of consumers at heart.'' The Food and Drug Administration has approved irradiation for the control of pathogenic micro-organisms in red meat. The FDA concluded that irradiation reduced disease-causing microbes and did not compromise the nutritional quality of treated products. While the U.S. food supply is generally very safe, we must continue to seek improved methods of ensuring this safety. Irradiation is one of these methods.