Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague and friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for the very able way that he has handled this debate, really this memorial, this commemoration, for his cogent and insightful remarks. The gentleman suggests that, in fact, this has reignited or reawakened a powerful, diverse Nation. Indeed, that is the case. That was what the terrorists apparently did not expect. On a personal note, may I say that my wife and I are particularly grateful that her sister, an officer worker in the Twin Towers, survived the bombing attack in 1991 and again last year and was able to come down to safety with a lot of difficulty and a lot of courage; and all of those people who had that experience, of course, will have a commitment to make this country even better and even stronger than it had been. I believe that there is not a doubt in anyone's mind in this country who understands America that what happened on September 11 has only reinforced our strengths. It has, in fact, increased our unity and our resolve. The comments from my colleagues here today give us some very strong indication of the sentiment that their constituents feel and resolve that their constituents expressed to them in their districts. I commend all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this remarkable experience and expression here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this resolution be extended 20 minutes to be equally divided between the majority and minority.

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

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 am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), one of the three subcommittee chairmen of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the August 3, 2002, Norfolk Daily News. The editorial emphasizes the need for proper forest management in order to prevent disastrous wildfires. Unfortunately, as the editorial indicates, all too often sensible management plans designed to reduce wildfire threats have been delayed or defeated by environmental activists. [From the Norfolk (NE) Daily News, Aug. 3, 2002[rsqb] Activists Have To Share Blame The extreme environmental groups accused of contributing to the wildfires in the West this year are scrambling like mad to say it wasn't their fault. But as a recent report shows, they in fact have a lot to answer for: The report comes from the U.S. Forest Service, and as press accounts note, it shows that administrative appeals delayed almost half of 326 projects last year that were aimed at lowering the wildfire threat through the hacking away of underbrush and small trees. Those making the appeals, of course, were more often than not environmental groups. In response, the environmental groups maintain that what they're actually doing is trying to save the forests from the awful, dreadful timber industry, as if anytime the timber industry profits, life on this planet has somehow worsened. It's true that removing the biggest and oldest trees does not serve fire-prevention purposes, but that's not what the projects aimed to do. And meanwhile, it's also true that the preferred solution of environmental activists--controlled burns--is often no solution at all. The problem with controlled burns, in addition to being extraordinarily expensive, is that the unwise suppression of natural fires over many decades has led to a buildup of what wildfires like to feed on, namely all that underbrush and all those small trees. The consequence is that the burns cannot be controlled, as was amply illustrated two years ago when one such attempt destroyed 200 homes in Los Alamos, N.M. That burn was also mismanaged, but there are fewer and fewer stretches of forest where even the best management can be assured of keeping such burns from getting out of hand. Thinning the forests mechanically is not only safe and effective and good for the future grandeur of the forests, but not nearly so expensive, because the timber industry helps foot the bill. Delays in the process have to stop if we are not to see many repeat performances for this year's destruction.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the European Union is threatening to refuse food and livestock exports from African countries now facing famine which also accept any food assistance from the United States that might include genetically modified grains. This is economic blackmail, and many people in Africa will be forced to pay with their lives because of starvation. In EU countries, where healthful food is plentiful and is subsidized to a degree that is unmatched elsewhere in the world, it is easy to spread harsh, emotional rhetoric on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. However, EU countries must examine the issue of GMOs from the perspective of Third World countries which face debilitating famines. Third World countries desperately need enriched, disease-resistant, drought-tolerant GMO seed to provide a steady, nutritional food source to feed their people. We Americans have too passively watched the Luddites in the EU use their emotion-driven fears to stop American GMO exports, but it is absolutely intolerable that they are blackmailing African leaders to reject American food aid in the face of famine in that continent. European Union countries certainly have a moral obligation to investigate GMOs through sound science techniques, not simply passing regulations on the basis of opinions of the European mass media and popular culture. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 4, 2002] U.S. Conscience Is Clear Some African nations choose ignorance and death. What a wrenching picture starving Zambians standing outside a bulging grain distribution warehouse, grain sacks empty. ``Please give us the food,'' an elderly blind man pleads with aid workers. ``We don't care if it is poisonous because we are dying anyway.'' Ironically--if that word is strong enough to cover impending death--the food isn't ``poisonous'' at all. It is the same food that Americans, Canadians and people from many other countries eat daily. It contains some grain that is genetically modified, but the major safety concern is the remote possibility of allergic reactions in some people. Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has told the United Nations and the United States that his nation would ``rather starve'' than feed biotech corn to its people. He personally, of course, is not starving. The country has turned down more than 50,000 tons of corn from the United States. About 2.5 million Zambians are in danger of dying if help doesn't come quickly. In rural areas of the country, where drought and government mismanagement have devastated the fields, many people are reduced to eating leaves and twigs. Estimates indicate that 13 million people in six southern African nations, including Zambia, are facing famine. Zimbabwe and Mozambique have also refused American help. Malawi, Leostho and Swazliand have taken U.S. food aid. As usual, it is the United States that stepped up to help these countries, not the well-fed European nations that are leading the mob against biotech crops. When that aid is refused by a president who would rather let his people die than believe the sweeping evidence that biotech grains are safe for the vast majority of people--well, the ignorance and callousness are just staggering. The United States can only offer. It should continue to do so. Sad as all of this is, the innocent victims of famine and ignorance are not on America's conscience.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) which would strike the bill's deadline extension for airports to screen all checked baggage. This Member would like to begin by stating his view that the safety and security of the traveling public must remain the primary objective when addressing aviation matters. However, it appears that the current arbitrary deadline for screening all checked baggage actually is unlikely to enhance security. Instead, it surely will result in larger expenditures, longer lines and greater frustration. It is now clear that airports in Nebraska and throughout the nation will have difficulty meeting the logistical requirements of the current deadline of December 31, 2002. Instead of emphasizing safety and efficiency, airports would be forced simply to put something in place. Nebraska airport managers are very concerned that they will not be able to meet the current deadline due to two major issues: checked bag screening and the Federalization of security for passenger and baggage screening. For example, there is concern regarding the effectiveness and expense of the new required baggage screening equipment, with the possibility that the equipment required for installation may be less effective in reaching desirable screening than other smaller and less expensive alternative equipment now in production and with the likelihood that some of the new equipment now to be required would need to be replaced within a few years. The deadline extension included in H.R. 5005 offers realistic, cost- effective and efficient flexibility. The provision makes it clear that airports will still be required to install equipment to detect weapons and bombs. However, the installation will be done in a manner that takes into account not only safety, but also cost, efficiency, and reliability. Mr. Chairman, rather than taking ineffective interim steps, every effort must be made to get it right the first time. Therefore, this Member urges his colleagues to oppose the Oberstar Amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his reluctant support for H.R. 5005, legislation to establish a Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There are several improvements to the bill included as a result of the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). When the Intelligence Committee, of which this Member is Vice- Chairman, reviewed President Bush's initial proposal, it considered a number of issues: What will be the relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community? Will the Department have the access it needs to intelligence information? Will the Department have the trained personnel to analyze threat information and other critical intelligence data? Will the new Department be tasked to defense the homeland against threats in addition to terrorism--for example, threats from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As offered by the Administration, the Homeland Security Department proposal would not provide for the capability to analyze the range of threat information that is gathered by the U.S. intelligence community. Without such an analytical capability, the Homeland Security Department will have to rely on whatever finished intelligence the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) chooses to supply. The Intelligence Committee overwhelmingly agreed that the new Homeland Security Department could not simply rely on final reports and analysis generated by the myriad of intelligence agencies--its mission is just too important. We agreed that the Department must have timely access to raw data from all intelligence sources, information systems to integrate these diverse data, and the trained people to analyze the information. Mr. Chairman, this Member generally appreciates the improvements the Select Homeland Security Committee made to the bill regarding the tasking for the collection of intelligence gathering by the Intelligence Community under existing law and this Member is particularly appreciative of the Select Committee on Homeland Security's willingness to accept these recommendations and incorporate them into H.R. 5005 by establishing the meaningful analytical organization we recommended. However, during the Select Homeland Security Committee's markup, an unfortunate decision was made to delete the new Department's seat at the table when it comes to intelligence- gathering instructions. The members of the Select Committee expressed the concern that the new Homeland Security Department should not ask intelligence services to gather information on American citizens. Mr. Chairman, the protection in individual liberties of American citizens is an understandable and appropriate priority. This Member fully concurs that the Homeland Security Department should not be allowed to issue instructions that the CIA gather information on Americans. However, to ensure that the Department's analytic capability is robust, it must have a role in tasking our intelligence services to gather information on foreign individuals, entities, and threats. Without a seat at the mission formulation table, the policy decisions of the Homeland Security Department will rely on whatever foreign threat information our Intelligence Community happens to collect under the tasking decisions they have made according to their respective agency and collective priorities. This Member must express deep regret that the amendment to H.R. 5005 he had hoped to offer was not made in order by the Rules Committee. This is an unfortunate error in judgment, apparently reflecting the advice of various persons in the Executive Branch. The amendment was a simple and straightforward one that would have offered a slightly modified version of language that received bipartisan support in the Intelligence Committee. It should be emphasized that this Member's amendment was narrowly constructed and would have specifically authorized such tasking only on foreign adversaries, not U.S. citizens or other persons legally resident within the United States. The tasking for information on foreign adversaries is not a trivial concern, Mr. Chairman. Without the proper information, the Homeland Security analysts will not be able to devise appropriate defenses. The other departments of government have different missions (for example, the State Department is to advance diplomacy, the Department of Defense is to win wars, and the FBI is to prosecute criminals) and their analytic needs are quite different. It is unfortunate that this Member's amendment was not made in order as it would have made a critical improvement to the final bill. Without this authority for the Department of participate in the tasking for the collection of foreign intelligence, we will have a major and continuing gap in information which the DHS will need to do its job well in protecting our citizens and homeland. It is this Member's hope that the other body may include this authority. Mr. Chairman, this Member has grave concerns about the overall approach to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as proposed by the Administration. Its drafting may well have been a defensive reaction to a proposal by the junior Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and by other Members of Congress from both houses. The proposal presented to the Congress has all the indicators of a proposal too hastily prepared and of one that was drafted in too much isolation. It was understandable in that its preparation was a process so heavily guarded--restricted to relatively very few people--in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable massive internal campaign of bureaucratic turf-protection, pre-emptive opposition campaigns from a wide variety of interests, and the immediate opposition of competing congressional authorizing and appropriations committees while the consideration and drafting was underway. The proposal had whole agencies, bureaus, or divisions shifted to the DHS when very major parts of such units clearly don't belong in the DHS. Fortunately, the House has corrected a few of the most egregious misplacements. A lean, well-organized DHS would have been the way to proceed. This is an absolutely huge bureaucracy being created with very disparate parts. Merging the employees and their agencies' cultures into an efficient and effective DHS will be an incredibly difficult feat. It will result in an unnecessarily long number of years to put in place when the security of our country demands an expeditious reorganization of our government. Undoubtedly too, the prospects for increased costs to attain these undesirable results are certain and highly under- estimated. This Member's only hope is that the Senate version and results of a House-Senate conference will give us a much smaller, refined and properly focuses DHS, but from all accounts of expected action in the other body, that appears to be unlikely. Practically no Member of Congress wants to oppose the creation of a DHS, especially during the war on terror when our President is requesting congressional action. Ultimately this Member will have to make the judgment whether the legislative product from the House-Senate conference is better than the status quo and if the costs of further delay in starting over to create a much different and much smaller DHS is achievable and worth the delay at a time when the United States and its facilities and personnel abroad remain very vulnerable. Will the enactment of the legislation creating a DHS that now seems in prospect be worth the delay and dissension caused by starting over and doing it right? That is the question and the answer is not clear, Mr. Chairman, count this Member's vote as a vote to move the legislative process forward.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his very strong support for the conference report for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) (H.R. 3009). This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Thomas) for introducing the original TPA legislation and for his efforts to move this legislation through the legislative process. Additional appreciation is expressed to the distinguished gentleman from California, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee (Mr. Dreir) for his efforts in expediting the consideration of this legislation; to the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the senior senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus); and to all the supportive conferees who worked to bring this conference report to the House and Senate. Under the conference report of H.R. 3009, Congress would agree to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on any trade agreement in its entirety, without amendments. This Member in the past has always supported TPA, or ``Fast-Track Authority'' as it was previously called, because it is an absolutely critical authority to delegate to the President, acting through the United States Trade Representative, to conclude trade agreements with foreign nations for approval by the Congress. Certainly, TPA is necessary to give our trading partners confidence that the negotiated agreements will not be changed by Congress. Without the enactment of TPA, the United States will continue to fall further behind in expanding its export base and that will cost America thousands of potential jobs. Granting TPA to the President is absolutely essential for America to reach towards its export potential. Mr. Speaker, giving examples of expanded trade liberalization agreements from my own state, I can stay with confidence and anticipation that approval of TPA certainly will enhance Nebraska's agricultural exports. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nebraska ranked fourth among all states with agricultural exports of $3.1 billion in 2000. These exports represented about 35% of the state's total farm income of $8.9 billion in 2000. In addition to increasing farm prices and income, agricultural exports support about 44,800 jobs both on and off the farm. The top three agricultural exports in 2000 were live animals and red meats ($1 billion), feed grains and products ($769 million) and soybeans and products ($454 million). However, Nebraska agricultural exports still encounter high tariff and a whole range of significant nontariff barriers worldwide. Similar opportunities for growth in exports also exist in Nebraska's service and manufacturing sector. At the November 2001 World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial in Doha, Qatar, trade ministers representing over 140 countries agreed to the Doha Declaration, which launched a comprehensive multilateral trade negotiation that covered a variety of areas including agriculture. The trade objectives in the Doha Declaration called for a reduction of foreign agriculture export subsidies, as well as improvements in agriculture market access. In order to help meet these trade negotiation objectives, TPA would give the President, through the United States Trade Representative, the authority to conclude trade agreements which are in the best interest of American farmers and ranchers. This legislation is very important for Nebraska because our state's economy is very export-dependent. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration, Nebraska has export sales of $1,835 for every state resident. Moreover, 1,367 companies, including 998 small- and medium-sized businesses with under 500 employees, exported from Nebraska in 1998. Therefore, TPA is critical to help remove existing trade barriers to exports of Nebraska and American goods and services. To further illustrate the urgency for TPA, it must be noted that the U.S. is only party to ``free trade agreements'' with Mexico and Canada through NAFTA and with Israel and Jordan. However, Europe currently has entered over 30 free trade agreements and it is currently negotiating 15 more such agreements. In addition, there are currently over 150 negotiated preferential trade agreements in the world today. Without TPA, many American exporters will continue to lose important sales to countries which have implemented preferential trade agreements. For example, many American exporters are currently losing significant export sales to Chile because Canadian exporters face lower tariffs there under a Canada-Chile trade agreement. This Member would like to focus on the following five subjects as they relate to the conference report of H.R. 3009: financial services; labor and the environment; congressional consultation; the constitutionality of TPA; and the foreign policy and national security implications of TPA. First, as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, this Member has focused on the importance of financial services trade, which includes banking, insurance, and securities. This Subcommittee was told in a June 2001 hearing that U.S. trade in financial services equaled $20.5 billion in 2000. This is a 26.7% increase from the U.S.'s 1999 financial services trade data. Unlike the current overall U.S. trade deficit, U.S. financial services trade had a positive balance of $8.8 billion in 2000. The numbers for U.S. financial services trade have the potential to significantly increase if TPA is enacted into law. The U.S. is the preeminent world leader in financial services. TPA would further empower the United States Trade Representative to negotiate with foreign nations to open these insurance, banking, and securities markets and to expand access to these diverse financial service products. Certainly, TPA would particularly benefit U.S. financial services trade as it relates to the Free Trade Area of the Americans since many of the involved countries are emerging markets where there will be an increasing demand for sophisticated financial services. Furthermore, TPA would also benefit financial services trade as it is part of the larger framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In 2000, GATS members began a new round of service negotiations. Second, the conference report of H.R. 3009 includes important labor and environmental provisions. For example, among other provisions, TPA adds a principal U.S. negotiating objective to ensure that a party to a trade agreement does not fail to effectively enforce its own labor or environmental laws. This type of provision was also included in the U.S.--Jordan Free Trade Agreement which was signed into law on September 28, 2001 (Public Law No. 107-43). Third, it is important to note that this legislation has strong congressional consultation provisions for the time before, during, and after the negotiations of trade agreements. For example, the President is required, before initiating negotiations, to provide written notice and to consult with the relevant House and Senate committees of jurisdiction and a Congressional Oversight Group at least 90 calendar days prior to entering into trade negotiations. This Congressional Oversight Group, the Members of which would be accredited as official advisers to the United States Trade Representative, would provide advice regarding formulation of specific objectives, negotiating strategies and positions, and development of the trade agreement. In addition, TPA would not apply to an agreement if both Houses separately agree to a procedural disapproval resolution within any 60-day period stating that the Administration has failed to consult Congress. Fourth, enactment of TPA is required to secure a constitutionally sound basis for American trade policy in the globalized economic environment focusing our country today. Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President is given the authority to negotiate treaties and international agreements. However, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is given the power to regulate foreign commerce. In this TPA legislation, any trade agreement still has to be approved by Congress by a straight-forward ``yes'' or ``no'' vote, without any amendments, by both the House and the Senate before it can be signed into law. As a result, TPA does not impinge upon the exclusive power of Congress to regulate foreign commerce. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution does not ban the adoption of a Senate or House rule which prohibits amendments from being offered to a bill during Floor consideration. In fact, the House considers bills almost every legislative week which cannot be amended on the Suspension Calendar. Fifth, extending TPA to the President has critical national security implications. Indeed, the terrorist attacks of September 11th highlighted the extent to which American security is placed at risk when the U.S. fails to remain engaged. in areas around the world. Many countries of Central America, South America, Asia, and Africa have fragile democratic institutions and market economies. They remain in peril of falling into the hands of unfriendly regimes unless the U.S. helps to develop the kind of economic stability underpinning democratic societies that enhanced trading opportunities can provide. Mr. Speaker, this Member is very pleased that the final conference report for H.R. 3009 does not include the amendment which was offered in the other body by the junior senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the senior senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) and included in the version of TPA which was passed by the other body. The Dayton-Craig provision, while undoubtedly well intended, would have opened trade agreement bills negotiated by the President under the TPA to amendment--thereby making it very unlikely that other nations would complete trade negotiations with the U.S. Trade Representatives, knowing that such agreements could be further amended by Congress. That problematic circumstance is why Congress had to develop the Fast-Track arrangement in the first place--what we now call TPA or Trade Promotion Authority. This Member would have been compelled to vote against passage of the conference report for H.R. 3009 if the Dayton-Craig amendment had been included in the final report. The Dayton-Craig amendment certainly would have made TPA unacceptable to the other countries with whom we were attempting to negotiate free trade agreements. Mr. Speaker, for the above stated reasons and many others, this Member strongly supports TPA because it is absolutely critically important to the health and the future growth of the U.S. economy. Therefore, this Member very strongly urges his colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 2009. This is probably the most important vote of the 107th Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his opposition to H.J. Res. 101, which would provide for the disapproval of the Bush Administration's extension of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Vietnam. In considering the disapproval resolution, it is important, of course, for us to recognize what the Jackson-Vanik waiver actually does and does not do. By law, the underlying issue here is about emigration--the freedom for their citizens to leave Vietnam in order to live in another country. Based on Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and its continued cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over the past year, renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver will continue to promote greater freedom of emigration. Disapproval would, undoubtedly, result in the opposite. Actually continuing the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam is really also reflective of an American interest in further developing a positive relationship with that country and its people. Having lifted the trade embargo and established diplomatic relations five years ago, the United States has tried to work with Vietnam to normalize, incrementally, our bilateral political, economic and consular relationships. Such an effort, if it brings positive results, is in America's own short-term and long-term national interest. It complements and tests Vietnam's own policy for political and economic re-integration into the world. No doubt such a re-integration will be a difficult and perhaps lengthy process. However, there is certainly no compelling rationale for reversing course on gradually normalizing our relations with Vietnam. Now, for example, Vietnam reportedly continues to cooperate fully with our priority efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of American POW-MlAs. The granting of a Jackson-Vanik waiver has contributed to this cooperative process. Mr. Speaker, the Jackson-Vanik waiver certainly does not constitute an endorsement of the Communist regime in Hanoi. Of course, we have made it abundantly clear that we do not approve of a regime that places severe restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. We condemn such restrictions. On many occasions, with this Member's support, this body passed resolutions condemning just such violations of civil and human rights. The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any new trade benefits, including Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. However, with the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to successfully negotiate and sign a new bilateral commercial trade agreement with Vietnam. Congress will have an opportunity to decide in the future whether to again grant a waiver and decide, eventually, whether Vietnam deserved to be considered for NTR. But, that is a separate process--for the future. The renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver only keeps this process of improved cooperation and progress going forward. Finally, it also is important to note that the renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not automatically make American exports to Vietnam eligible for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs. The waiver only allows American exports to Vietnam to be eligible for such coverage. Mr. Speaker, the Vietnam War is over and we have embarked cautiously on a new and expanding set of relationships with Vietnam. Now is not the time to reverse course. Accordingly, this Member supports the Administration's request by voting ``no'' on the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his strong support for the conference report on H.R. 3763, the Public Company Accounting and Investor Protection Act of 2002. This bill is necessary to protect investors by ensuring auditor independence in the accounting of publicly traded companies. Recent corporate scandals, such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and Tyco, have shaken investor confidence in the U.S. stock market. The ``looting'' of businesses for unreasonable personal gain and the flagrant deception of stockholders and investors by top executives in some instances has been outrageous. This Member believes that a renewed sense of corporate responsibility in America is needed in order to restore the trust of investors. Guilty corporate leaders should serve prison terms and not in ``country club'' prisons. As a result of these recent corporate scandals, Congress is voting today on this conference report in order to strengthen the laws which govern publicly held corporations and accounting firms. This Member would like to first express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and the Distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader of the House, for bringing this conference report to the House Floor before the August recess and thereby sending a strong signal--that corporations, and those individuals who run such corporations, must be responsible, and if they are not responsible, then this legislation will ensure that they pay a stiff price for such arrogance and deception. This Member would also like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, for his steadfast efforts to bring this conference report to the House Floor. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, for his innovative efforts, which are included in this conference report. Lastly, this Member would also like to give recognition to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Senator Sarbanes), the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, for his good faith efforts in negotiating this conference report. It is very important to note that in April the House acted first in response to this crisis of confidence in corporate responsibility when the House passed its original version of corporate accounting reform (H.R. 3763) on April 24, 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 334-90. The Senate later passed its legislation (S.2673) on July 15, 2002, by a vote of 97-0. However, subsequent to the House and Senate's passage of their respective bills, many more corporate accounting scandals have been brought to the public's attention. Therefore, to address these increasingly serious matters, the House passed the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (H.R. 5118) on July 16, 2002, to further strengthen criminal penalties and provide jail terms for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies. As such, this Member is pleased that the conference report for H.R. 3763 properly takes the best provisions from each of the House-passed bills and the Senate-passed bill in order to give maximum future protection to American investors. Therefore, this Member would like to discuss the following important provisions of the conference report for H.R. 3763, which provide the following: (1) creates a public company accounting oversight board; (2) increases auditor independence; (3) stiffens criminal penalties; (4) holds corporate executives accountable; and (5) provides for enhanced corporate disclosures to investors. 1. public company accounting oversight board First, the conference report creates a public company accounting oversight board consisting of five members whom are independent of the accounting industry. Three of the five members must never have been practicing accountants and the other two members may only be accountants who have not practiced activiely for the past five years. This oversight board is authorized to set auditing, quality control and independence standards and it has disciplinary powers to impose sanctions including a finding that a firm is not qualified to audit publicly held companies. Under current law, accountants for publicly held corporations are subject to partial oversight by both their professional organizations and governmental agencies, including the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Federal Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the state boards of accountancy which license accountants at the state level. 2. auditor independence The H.R. 3763 conference report also addresses the problems of auditor independence which, for example, were evident in Arthur Andersen's disputed accounting of Enron. This Member would like to focus on the following three auditor independence provisions of this legislation which: makes the audit committee of the board of directors of a publicly held corporation responsible for the hiring, compensation, and the oversight of the independent auditor; prohibits accounting companies from providing enumerated consulting and auditing services to publicly held companies (This addresses an obvious conflict of interest. It is important to note that this conference report states that auditors may provide permitted consulting services, such as tax preparation, for their publicly held auditing clients with the approval of the audit committee of the client's board of directors.); and requires the rotation of the chief audit partner after auditing a publicly held company for five consecutive years. 3. Strengthens Criminal Penalties The H.R. 3763 conference report appropriately increases the criminal punishment for those corporate crooks who defraud their investors. For example, the conference report creates a new crime of ``securities fraud'' whereby whoever knowingly executes a scheme or artifice to defraud any person in connection with any security shall be fined and/ or imprisoned for not more than 25 years. In addition, this conference report also increases the criminal maximum prison term for mail fraud and wire fraud violations from 5 to 20 years. Furthermore, the conference report for H.R. 3763 strengthens the laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice. This conference report allows a maximum prison term of 20 years for tampering with evidence and a maximum prison term of up to 10 years for destruction of audit records. It is important to note that the criminal penalties in this conference report are very similar to those found in the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (H.R. 5118) which the House passed on July 16, 2002. 4. Holds Corporate Executives Accountable As is well documented, recently a number of corporate executives have abused their power to the great detriment of their shareholders. For example, some corporate executives, who defrauded their investors of their savings, are still able to live in their extravagant mansions. The conference report for H.R. ??36763 addresses these abuses, as the agreement requires chief executive officers and chief financial officers of publicly held companies to certify the accuracy of financial reports and holds them liable if they knowingly deceive the public with such reports. Furthermore, the measure also mandates that chief executive officers and chief financial officers of publicly held companies must return bonuses received within one year of any company report that requires a correction because of misconduct. Additionally, it is important to note that this conference report further addresses corporate executive impropriety by including a provision known as the Federal Account for Investor Restitution (FAIR), which was initiated by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). The FAIR provision requires that funds be returned from these fraudulent corporate executives to investors who have lost money in the markets as a result of corporate executive malfeasance. 5. enhanced corporate disclosures for investors Finally, in order to keep investors fully apprised of the activities of a publicly held corporation, a provision in the conference report requires companies to make real-time disclosures of financial information that is important to investors, such as material changes in a company's financial condition. This provision is an initiative of the House and this Member is pleased that the Senate agreed that this was an important provision to include in this measure. Mr. Speaker, on a different note, it should be noted that this Member is a cosponsor of H.R. 5147, which was introduced by the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Bono) and the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (Mr. Terry). This legislation would require that the value of stock options granted by a public corporation to an officer or employee must be recorded as an expense in a corporation's financial statement. However, this Member believes that it is very unfortunate that the concept behind H.R. 5147 is not included in the conference report of H.R. 3763. This Member also believes that it is necessary to count stock options as corporate expenses. Publicly held companies currently are able to hide billions of dollars of costs and thus inflate profits through the loophole of not counting the cost of stock options as an expense. A distinguished Nebraskan, Mr. Warren Buffet, has been a strong advocate of counting stock options as expenses. In fact, he serves on the corporate boards of Coca-Cola and the Washington Post, both of which, on their own initiative, have decided to count their stock options as expenses. This Member would encourage other corporations to follow their example and would also encourage his distinguish colleagues (Mr. Terry and Ms. Bono) to continue their pursuit of H.R. 5147's passage into law. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Member would note that the conference report for H.R. 3763 is a giant step forward in providing further protection for investors of publicly held corporations in the future. In addition, this Member firmly hopes that the corporate executives at Enron, Arthur Andersen, and WorldCom are punished in the proper manner for their grossly irresponsible, probably illegal, corporate behavior. In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 3763.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think I know the direction of the debate here, but I think it is important that we not deceive ourselves. All of the impassioned comments that I have heard here in the last few minutes are for a commission that would not be created by the Roemer amendment. The Roemer amendment is a very narrow shadow of the commission that the gentlewoman from California described, a broad-based commission. And I would say, to the gentleman's credit, he understands this, because he had to craft something that would be germane to this legislation. This legislation, if we take a look at the four points that are covered here, focuses exclusively on the intelligence community. The first element is to make sure that the inquiry, the joint inquiry under way is implemented. Well, that can take place only after we have seen it; but I will tell my colleagues one thing, a joint committee, or a joint inquiry by the two intelligence committees' recommendations to itself cannot be ignored by the two intelligence committees. Now, what happened on 9-11 was certainly representative of deficiencies in the intelligence community, no doubt about that; and there may be some failures. But the biggest deficiencies, the biggest failures were in the law enforcement community, I say to my colleagues, and the relationship of the law enforcement community to the domestic agencies. In the particular terrorist event that ravished this country on that day, both here across the river and in New York City, of course, it was the failure, the link between the FAA and the commercial airlines and the law enforcement agencies, at least the Federal law enforcement agencies. That was the failure. The gentleman from New Jersey, just a few minutes ago, said some things that he would like to see it broadened. Well, if we are going to have a commission here, and I am not opposed to it, it is going to have to look at the whole array of problems that we had. We cannot simply look at the intelligence community. We have to look at where the response to information would be acted upon. If we take a look at all of the agencies, a part of which are being merged under the proposed homeland security agency or department, those are all of the elements of domestic response and law enforcement that have to be there to do something with the intelligence we hope we have. We were surprised. We had deficiencies in intelligence. I say to my colleagues, it is not going to give us the Commission that everybody here is talking about. It is not going to give us that comprehensive examination. I say it is a cruel hoax to suggest to the families of the victims of what happened across the river and in New York City that such a commission is going to give us those answers. It is too narrowly focused. It had to be, to be offered by way of this amendment. So we may vote for it, but let us not kid each other. This is not going to do it, I say to my colleagues. It is a part of it; it is not the significant part, in my judgment. The biggest failures that took place on 9-11 were in the law enforcement and domestic agency fronts.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Florida has already pointed out the problems that this creates for the other committees of this Congress, that they should have some input in the preparation of a conference report.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Intelligence Authorization Act addresses a number of pressing intelligence needs. For example, the legislation takes steps to strengthen the intelligence community's absolutely critical analytical core. In recent years, the U.S. has been forced to focus on terrorists, proliferators and drug traffickers. These are far more difficult targets to track, and frankly, the intelligence community took too long to adapt to these new threats. It did not reach out aggressively to recruit the human intelligence sources that could have provided us with invaluable information. We lost far too many skilled analysts whose job was to provide early warning. This legislation provides much-needed funding to help rebuild a dynamic, wide-ranging, global analytical capability. It is an effort for which this committee has been serving a leading role for some years now. A second important component of the Intelligence Authorization Act relates to terrorist finances. One of the major intelligence initiatives in the wake of 9/11 has been a serious effort to attack the financial assets of terrorist organizations and their supporters. Terrorist networks such as al Qaeda obviously cannot function without significant financial backing. Al Qaeda, for example, is supported by, one, a shadowy network of fundraisers, money lenders and shakedown artists; two, businesses and charities serving as front organizations; and three, unscrupulous facilitators and middlemen. However, with the decision of the executive branch to fully exploit its existing authorities to target terrorist finances, and with the granting of additional authorities under the U.S. PATRIOT Act, we are now aggressively attacking the money flow. To date, over $100 million in suspected terrorist money has been seized or frozen by the United States and its allies. Mr. Chairman, this is an important and powerful set of financial tools in the war on terrorism. Mr. Chairman, there are other important initiatives here, but I want to say that I think one of the important things that we have done is close an important loophole caused by the Freedom of Information Act. Our adversaries were able to make requests that had to be dealt with for very sensitive information, and we have taken a commonsense approach to ending that loophole. Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by congratulating the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee and the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the leadership they have demonstrated in bringing this genuinely bipartisan product to the floor. This legislation is a very serious effort and was unanimously approved by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Each and every member of the committee and our extraordinary staff dedicated long hours to the hearings and drafting of the bill. Each Member, I think, and the staff clearly recognizes the importance of our actions and our responsibilities to the body, and I think my colleagues can take, if I may say so, justifiable pride in the efforts of HPSCI and our staff and particularly the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support and the adoption of H.R. 4628.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues an editorial from the July 17, 2002, edition of the Omaha World Herald entitled ``Justice for Lindh.'' As the editorial notes, the plea bargain agreement in the case of the ``American Taliban'' John Walker Lindh is appropriate because it will allow the U.S. Government to shield sensitive information from public release and to perhaps garner additional information through the debriefings in which Lindh has agreed to participate. Mr. Speaker, this Member does not want to provide false hope that Lindh will be able to provide extensive insights on the operations of the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, this member strongly supports efforts to continue to investigate all available resources in an effort to paint the most complete picture possible of the terrorists' operations. Furthermore, this Member would commend to his colleagues the editorial from the July 18, 2002, edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star entitled ``Lindh's dad just keeps bile flowing.'' It correctly blasts Frank Lindh's ludicrous statements comparing his son, John Walker Lindh, with South African anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela. Clearly, Frank Lindh does not grasp the full scope of his son's decision to take up arms with the Taliban and the consequences of that decision. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 17, 2002] Justice for Lindh The plea bargain arranged between the U.S. government and John Walker Lindh is a reasonable deal for both sides. Moreover, it offers Lindh, the notorious ``American Taliban'' captured in Afghanistan last November, an opportunity to atone for his crimes against his native land. Critics will say--and their view-point is entitled to respect--that the punishment isn't harsh enough. Lindh betrayed his country. True enough. But consideration must also be given to how much damage his enlistment with anti- Western forces actually did to America. By all evidence, it wasn't much. The young Californian wound up as a grunt--a low-level foot soldier--who apparently never fired a shot at anyone. All parties agree that he was never in direct combat against Americans. However, it is assuredly also true that he was part of a vicious foreign regime that for years lent aid and comfort to al-Qaida. For that alone, we'd be content to see him serve the maximum of 20 years to which he has been sentenced. This outcome serves U.S. interests well on at least two counts. First, it allows the government to avoid airing sensitive information that might have become public if it had pressed its case vigorously at trial. Second, Lindh has committed himself to cooperate fully, answering truthfully any questions government investigators come up with. He also has agreed to take lie-detector tests to help assure that he stays on the straight and narrow. How much is his information worth? That's hard to say, and may never become publicly known. His involvement was so far removed from that of the Sept. 11 hijackers that it seems doubtful he can shed much new light on their operation. Still, he was a low-level operative with the Taliban's de facto government. He may be able to offer names not previously known to investigators. At a minimum, he probable can describe some levels of the organization's decision- making processes, methods of passing along orders and so on. If the Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers being held at the Guantanamo naval base are remaining as tight-lipped as some news reports have suggested, then Lindh's knowledge has real potential to add to the pool of what's known about these thugs. From Lindh's standpoint, if he serves the whole sentence, he will emerge from prison having endured about as many years behind bars as he spent as a free American. He'll be 41-- still young enough to live something like a real life in his remaining years, especially starting from the advantages that probably will be afforded by his family's wealth. John Walker Lindh knowingly made himself into a turncoat, whether out of studied enmity or sheltered naivete. No matter--his acts were a danger to the land that nurtured him. His punishment will address that. Now he has a chance to make amends. We hope he'll approach that task with contrition and dedication. It's about time he did something right.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues an editorial from the July 12, 2002, edition of the Omaha World-Herald entitled `` `Fairness' to be wary of.'' As the editorial stresses, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will place U.S. policy-makers and military personnel in a precarious position whereby practically any random nongovernmental organization (NGO) could bring esoteric charges against them. Indeed, the editorial highlights the story of a Croatian advocacy group which has brought charges against former President Clinton for his support for military actions in Croatia. These charges, which were presented in the special tribunal on the Balkans, were not presented due to any specific infraction but because the advocacy group believes that all sides of the issue should be reviewed for the sake of ``evenhanded justice.' Mr. Speaker, the ICC is likely to consume vast resources on similar baseless cases and charges rather than focusing on the gross infractions of basic international rules of engagement. It is appropriate for this body and for the Administration to adamantly oppose U.S. participation in the new court. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 12, 2002] ``Fairness'' To Be Wary Of Critics have scoffed at the insistence by the Bush administration and Congress that U.S. military personnel abroad be protected from indictment by international tribunals. Such courts, the critics claim, are intended only for prosecution of major war criminals. The indictment of U.S. policy-makers and soldiers, they say, isn't very likely. Recent events, however, have shown that U.S. concerns are justified. The Washington Times reported this week that a special tribunal investigating war crimes in the Balkans is examining whether charges are warranted against former President Bill Clinton and his aides for U.S. support of a Croatian military offensive in 1995. An advocacy group in Croatia sparked the court's action. The activists told the tribunal that if it indicts a former Croatian general accused of slaughtering Serbian civilians during that campaign, it should also indict American officials in the interests of what it called ``evenhanded justice.'' This isn't the first time U.S. officials have come under scrutiny by that court. Previously, the prosecutor for the tribunal had investigated whether NATO had violated international law during its 1999 bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. The prosecutor filed no indictments, saying she wouldn't have been able to collect sufficient evidence to bring charges against high-level officials. In light of those facts, the Bush administration has been amply justified in refusing to seek congressional approval for a new entity, the International Criminal Court, which began operation last week and seeks global jurisdiction. (To keep United Nations peacekeeping on track in the Balkans, the Bush administration compromised this week on the immunity question, while still refusing to endorse the court. The compromise should provide sufficient de facto protection for troops.) Supporters of the new court say it is a vehicle for trying only the most brutal of international war criminals. But such claims lack credibility when a similar international court is dutifully conducting an investigation--out of ``fairness''-- of possible war crimes by a former U.S. president. On balance, we think it's a good idea to have specially appointed courts consider war-crimes matters for individual military conflicts. But the International Criminal Court has been granted too much authority, and the Balkans tribunal has shown a troubling lack of proportion by taking seriously calls for indictments against high U.S. officials. American leaders are right to be wary about the potential for abuse.