Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining amount of time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concluding comments, and all of these speakers this evening have had a very positive outlook on the opportunity, a rare opportunity, for us to really bring peace and unity to the island of Cyprus. This is an opportunity we cannot avoid trying our best on. This is an opportunity with a maximum amount of leverage. I urge, therefore, my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 165) expressing support for a renewed effort to find a peaceful, just, and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 165, a resolution offered by this Member regarding the political situation in Cyprus. The Subcommittee on Europe adopted this measure unanimously last week, because an historic moment in the history of Cyprus was about to be lost if the momentum which had been building over the past 2 years to bring about a resolution of the Cyprus problem was allowed to slip away. I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), for his support on this issue and his willingness to see this resolution move forward. I believe the resolution represents an important statement by the House on the need for a solution for the Cyprus problem. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their help in moving this legislation to the floor; and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for managing the legislation tonight. I also want to particularly acknowledge the work of our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who has long been a leader in keeping this House informed of the situation in Cyprus and the status of the peace process. It is interesting and very salutary, I think, that we have as supporters of this resolution, indeed, as cosponsors of the resolution, some of the Members that are strongest in support of Greece and are strongest in support of Turkey. House Resolution 165 commends the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, for his tireless efforts to seek a resolution to the Cyprus problem, a problem which has been on the agenda of the Security Council for almost 40 years. In fact, it is the oldest item continuously on the Secretary General's peacemaking agenda. In addition, this resolution expresses the disappointment of the House that the recent United Nations plan for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem could not be agreed to by the two Cypriot sides, despite the effort of many and, in particular, the United Nations Secretary General. Referenda put before both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots would be approved to create a confederation to bring peace and unity to Cyprus, if only they were given that opportunity. In a report that the Security Council issued on Saturday on the Secretary General's effort to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan made it clear that ``a unique set of circumstances, including the membership of Cyprus in the European Union, offering a framework of incentives to reach a settlement, as well as deadlines within which to reach it'' was emerging and that the potential existed to make a true impact on peace. Finally, the resolution urges both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to quickly resume negotiations to resolve this problem. It expresses the view of the House of Representatives that we want and appreciate continued efforts by Greece and Turkey to maximize their influence to prevent this opportunity to bring peace and economic prosperity to the entire Cypriot community from being lost. The resolution urges the United Nations and the Bush administration to redouble their efforts to encourage the talks to begin again in order to seek a solution. Mr. Speaker, since 1974, the island of Cyprus has been politically divided in what has been often a bitter and violent dispute. Consequently and regrettably, the people of Cyprus have been culturally and socially isolated from each other by a heavily fortified green line in what today represents something akin to the Berlin Wall of the last century. This Member has personally walked that green line through Nicosia on two occasions. The commander of one of the four national peacekeeping forces, the British commander, told this Member that in his capacity, he has men in his unit whose fathers have served in that unit at that location. For the past 29 years, various attempts and numerous proposals have been put forward to bring Greek and Turkish Cypriots together to resolve what has become known as ``the Cyprus problem.'' None of these attempts to bring about reconciliation has been so close to achieving success than the effort which is before us now has had as an opportunity during this past 5 months. Last November, with the entry of a divided Cyprus into the European Union looming, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed a comprehensive framework for a just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. His plan was hailed as a positive attempt to resolve the problem. In presenting his framework, the Secretary General asked Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to accept the plan by February 28. When neither side resolved their differences with the proposal by the end of the February, the Secretary General asked the two leaders to meet him in The Hague on March 10 and to sign an agreement that would put the framework to simultaneous referenda on the island. On March 10 both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders did meet with Annan in The Hague. However, we learned with great disappointment that the Secretary General's framework was rejected when the Turkish Cypriot leader announced he could not accept the settlement plan, and would not agree to put the referenda to the Turkish Cypriots. This decision was disappointing because informal polls indicated that a majority of Turkish Cypriots were prepared to support the plan and bring the longstanding division and suffering of the island to an end. Despite our uncertainty over the future of the island, last week, as our subcommittee prepared to adopt this resolution, we were informed that several measures were being initiated by the various parties which seemed to us to be very positive. The first was the announcement by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan that he would bring a new effort to unite the Greek and Turkish Cypriot areas of Cyprus forward. The second was the announcement that Turkish Foreign Minister Gul would travel to Northern Cypress to discuss the peace process with Turkish Cypriot leaders and then would travel to Belgrade to meet with Greek leaders to discuss how to resume the peace negotiations. Both of these announcements were very welcome, and this Member commends the Turkish leadership for their willingness to address the issue. A third announcement was that the Turkish Cypriot leader, Denktash, had sent a letter to the Cypriot President, Mr. Papadopoulos, suggesting several measures which the Turkish leader was offering as a way to begin rebuilding confidence between the two sides in advance of resuming the negotiation. Mr. Speaker, this Member felt that the gestures may have been positive because one of the biggest obstacles which had plagued the peace process for all these years has been the lack of confidence and trust on both sides. Unfortunately and very quickly, we saw just how much distrust actually does exist today on that island because some people thought there was a hidden agenda, and maybe there was, but I hope that was not the case. Whatever the real motivation of the proposal, a little bit of trust and confidence is something both sides could use right now. This Member wonders what is wrong with lifting current restrictions on crossborder trade, tourism, education and culture exchanges, even if for only 1 day a week just as a way for both sides to see if they really are prepared to live as a united island. This Member also wonders why some of the measures could not be agreed to outside of a more comprehensive agreement based upon the U.N. peace plan. Mr. Speaker, in just 12 days the Government of Cypress will sign the accession papers paving the way for the southern part of the island to enter the European Union. The economic benefits of this membership to the southern half of the island will be significant. On the other hand, it would be a terribly damaging blow to the potential economic prospects for the Turkish Cypriots. The current differences between the income levels of the two communities would continue to widen dramatically. Now is the time for both sides to put aside their past differences and to make a serious commitment to resolve this problem of a divided Cypress. We are never going to have a better opportunity. As Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated, his settlement proposal is still on the table; and I believe resumption of the negotiations should continue to use the Secretary General's plan as a basis for an agreement. Mr. Speaker, the people of Cypress have endured 29 years of separation. They are ready, it is clear, to see and support referenda. Therefore, it is a sincere hope of this Member that the leaders of both sides will return to the negotiating table and resolve this important problem so that next year, in 2004, we will be celebrating the first anniversary of a united Cypress and not the 30th anniversary of a divided one. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges Members of the House to speak with one strong voice in support of a resolution on the Cypress problem and thus urges support for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who I would say is among the House's most outstanding experts on Cypress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 149) expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of Serbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of H. Res. 149, a resolution expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of Serbia. It is with sadness that this Member brings this resolution to the floor of the House of Representatives today. Prime Minister Djindjic was assassinated on March 12. This tragic event was a shock to the people of Serbia, to the people of the Balkans, and to people around the world. If anyone represented the present state of the Balkans, all of the changes that occurred in recent years, the hope for a free, democratic and prosperous future, it was Prime Minister Djindjic. He was the decisive leader who played a critical role in bringing democracy to Serbia. He was probably the most visible and important proponent of helping the Serbian people come to terms with the past, the destruction and the injustices of the tragic events which have been happening in the Balkans over the past decade. He was the leader most determined to integrate his country into Europe and the community of Western democracies, to provide a future of security, prosperity, and hope to the Serbian people. However, only 2\1/2\ years after the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, let us not forget how fragile freedom and democracy in the region really is. During this crucial period, Prime Minister Djindjic was the leader who represented the best hope for the changes and reforms necessary to lead the former Yugoslavia to a new and different direction; but in the context of a country and a region of so much violence, hatred and corruption over the past decade, anyone who would have made these necessary forums would certainly make enemies and endanger both himself and the path of reform in his country. Prime Minister Djindjic sought to change the political system in Serbia, sought to fight organized crime and official corruption, and sought to bring suspected war criminals to justice. He attempted to develop better political institutions, to establish an independent judiciary, and to reform the police and the military. Although not exempt from what may have been legitimate criticism, perhaps even appearing to turn a blind or jaded eye to some of the forces that are so prevalent in Serbian society, he was seen to be making remarkable progress. He was the leader of a coalition and the leader of a younger generation who were bringing their efforts to bear to transform Serbian society. However, in the process, the forces of the past proved remarkably entrenched and widely based. Mr. Speaker, let us recognize how significant the tragic event of March 12, 2003, is for Serbia and the Balkans. Let us recognize that the path of reform and fighting the forces of the past is not easy. Reformist leaders in Serbia and throughout the Balkans are vulnerable, and reformist and newly-democratic governments are fragile. President Bush said Prime Minister Djindjic will be remembered for his role in bringing democracy to Serbia and for his role in bringing Slobodan Milosevic to justice. Mr. Speaker, let us also remember Prime Minister Djindjic for his courage and bravery in fighting some of the most corrosive and virulent forces of the past in Serbia and the former Yugoslavia. This resolution shows that the House of Representatives supports the reforms that Prime Minister Djindjic spoke about most energetically and upon which he sought action. Reflecting upon the forces that brought his death must cause our country and the international community to redouble our efforts to assist the country of Serbia and Montenegro as it seeks a new and different future. We offer our strongest encouragement to the new leaders of Serbia and Montenegro so that they may redouble their efforts in pursuit of crucial reforms. They must have the courage, the resources, and the support first of their citizenry and their country, but also the international community to aggressively fight the forces of the past, the forces of hatred and violence, the forces of organized crime and the history of official corruption in their country. Mr. Speaker, in offering this resolution and statement, this Member offers his deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the family of Prime Minister Djindjic and the people of Serbia and Montenegro. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for expediting the consideration of this resolution. I want to particularly note the contributions of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who had the major role in drafting the legislation. I am grateful to have his assistance and his cosponsorship along with a substantial number of other Members who believe this is an important way for the House to recognize the contributions of the Prime Minister.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Cunningham amendment. We have heard a lot about the distinguished history of Turkey as a NATO ally, and as an ally in Korea as well, and in Afghanistan leading the ISAF for 8 months, and in Operation Northern Watch over Iraq where they provided the air base for our flights for the last 12 years. They have been an incredibly faithful ally. Now, what happened in Turkey is really this, when it comes down to it. They had an election in November. It swept in a new party. Ninety percent of their national assembly is new. This party, the Justice and Development Party, had never been in power; and never had even shared power before. And through inexperience and incompetence they were surprised to have lost the vote. They got the plurality. They had too many absentees and too many abstentions and they were surprised that they did not have the absolute majority vote. This is not the time to punish Turkey for that inexperience. Their own party leader, a charismatic man, was not eligible to serve in the Parliament at that time. Now he is the Prime Minister. They have done an incredible amount of things, but the other thing I want my colleagues to consider is that they were the biggest loser in the Gulf War. Not the United States in terms of costs, no one else; the cost to them was somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion, unreimbursed. We had our costs paid for, primarily so, by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Now, let us see what Condoleezza Rice said in behalf of the President today. She said in this letter addressed to the chairman, ``American and Turkish soldiers stood side by side during the Cold War and on battlefields from Korea to Afghanistan. The President's supplemental request recognizes and reflects that past, and his desire,'' that is the President's desire, ``to strengthen the relationship further. This assistance . . . can play a significant role in bolstering the U.S.- Turkey partnership.'' This is not the time to undercut our President. And this very moment is certainly not the time, because the concessions and the kind of agreements recently conveyed to Colin Powell says Turkey is there for us. Please defeat the amendment. The costs for passing this amendment are extraordinary.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the March 31, 2003, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News entitled ``Unharmed.'' The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remains critical to Slovenia and other countries who until recently suffered under the yoke of tyranny. Such countries have made difficult, immediate sacrifices to gain the long-term protection which NATO membership provides and should be recognized for their efforts. Unharmed slovenia's vote indicates nato not harmed by war on iraq Critics of Bush administration policy have feared, that the war in Iraq and U.S. ``unilateralism'' might damage critical alliances like NATO. From tiny Slovenia--population 1.9 million--comes heartening evidence that this may not be so. Slovenia is the most successful of the Balkan nations to come out of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and from the beginning, its leaders decided the future lay with the West. In recent referendums, Slovenes voted to join both NATO and the European Union. The E.U. vote was never in doubt, but Slovenia's leaders, who fully understand that NATO membership has real obligations, feared the effect of the war on that vote. In the end, two-thirds of the voters approved: An economist, Milan Cadez, gave the New York Times a reassuring reason why as he left a polling place: ``Only America is capable of doing anything for peace. The E.U. is not capable of doing anything. They watched the crimes in Bosnia and when the Americans come, they make order.'' And, it should be noted, are still there to help maintain order. The Slovenes might have their doubts about the war in Iraq, but they have few reservations about the benefits of the U.S.-led military alliance.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as our troops move into Baghdad, countless Americans are watching as embedded reporters use 21st century technology to relay the bloodshed and horror of the battlefront into their living rooms. These images cannot help but have a profound impact on all of us. We would be well advised to heed the advice of Winston Churchill that, ``Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature.'' A timely editorial published in the Omaha World-Herald on Saturday, March 29, 2003, reflects the situation Americans face in Iraq and on the homefront. This member commends it to his colleagues, especially noting its recommendations that only unconditional victory now will suffice. [From the Omaha Daily Herald, Mar. 29, 2003] Baghdad Bound Wars, many have observed, don't follow scripts. Certainly the one in Iraq underscores the point. It it not turning out to be as quick or as clean as many seasoned observers, including some highly placed military officials, had hoped. But as the second week began, positive developments emerged. The (official) start of the war met with unexpected contingencies. First came one of the worst sand-storms in modern memory. Only those who have experienced a major and prolonged storm of that kind can begin to imagine what it would be like to pursue a military engagement under such conditions. Another surprise has been the tenacity of some of the Iraqi soliders. They may not be the best-trained fighters, but desperation and zealotry combined have kept them in the battle longer than many expected. Desperation and zealotry have also led to some despicable dirty tricks--war crimes, really. Much of this was expected, but is no less infuriating for that fact: Fighting from hospitals. Fake surrenders that become massacres. Forced human shields. Apparent executions of prisoners and Iraqi civilians. And more. But the tide does appear to be turning. Massive bombs are shattering strategic targets in Baghdad. Ground forces are speeding up, and bit by bit they are securing the ever-important supply line all the way back to the Persian Gulf. Helicopters (for which sand-storms are a curse) are back in the air, laying down lethal fire and ferrying troops. Additionally, thousands of Iraqi citizens, once they feel reasonably secure, have begun to flee to safety behind American and British lines. There they are being fed and medically treated as necessary, affirming that the allies truly are on the scene as rescuers. None of that makes this a stroll on the beach. Baghdad will be tough to pacify. Casualties among the liberators are rising. Some innocent Iraqis, inevitably, are dying. That makes this the point at which the troops--and we would add, their loved ones at home--must have some steel in their spines. The only sensible course now is unconditional victory. The allies can win it, and we believe they will. Chapter 2 will be winning the peace.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act. This bill, of which this Member is an original cosponsor, will encourage private savings which is a crucial factor in promoting economic stability. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit (Mr. Bachus) for introducing this legislation. This Member would also like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (Mr. Oxley), and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the Ranking Member of this Committee (Mr. Frank), for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House Floor. This bill, H.R. 522, passed the House Financial Services Committee, by a voice vote, on March 13, 2003. This legislation is virtually identical to a bill that passed the House last year, by a vote of 408- 18. Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to act on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, reform in the 107th Congress. As a matter of background, Congress in 1934 initially set the deposit insurance coverage limit at $5,000. The last increase was in 1980, when Congress raised the value of coverage to $100,000, per person, per institution. According to the FDIC, due to inflation, the real value of this $100,000 coverage limit has decreased by about half. This Member would like to focus on the following four provisions in this important legislation which will: 1. Increase the FDIC coverage level to $130,000 and index this level for inflation every five years thereafter; 2. Increase the FDIC coverage level for retirement accounts to $260,000; 3. Increase the FDIC coverage level for in-state municipal deposits to the lower of $2 million or the sum of the new coverage level plus 80 percent of the deposits in excess of the new standard; and 4. Ensure the financial institutions receive their equitable share of dividends and credits from the deposit insurance fund. First, this legislation would increase the $100,000 FDIC insurance limit to a new limit of $130,000. The deposit insurance limit would then be indexed every five years to a cost of living adjustment and rounded to the nearest $10,000. This Member believes this increase in the FDIC limit is warranted and justified. This Member has met with many Nebraska community bankers who have emphasized the importance of increasing the deposit insurance coverage limit in order for community banks to attract and maintain core deposits. Currently, community banks are losing deposits to more distant brokerage and mutual fund companies. If community banks do not have the core deposits to make loans, the economic development of communities suffer. Local money needs to stay in a community where it can build infrastructure and create jobs. Second, this bill would increase the coverage level for retirement accounts from the current $100,000 to a level of $260,000, which will encourage greater retirement savings. It is important to take this action, since the current rate of savings by Americans is quite low. Moreover, this change is particularly important to older Americans to ensure that they have secure banking services nearby. In many rural areas, the alternative to this coverage level increase is for consumers to bank at more distant institutions. Third, this legislation would also importantly increase coverage for in-state municipal deposits to the lower of $2 million or the sum of the new coverage level plus 80 percent of the deposits in excess of the new standard. Community bankers have stressed to this Member their support for greater coverage of municipal deposits as they now only receive $100,000 of FDIC protection. Municipal deposits are taxpayer funds from state and local governments, and schools deposited in local banks. This change is very important in Nebraska since there are so many different public entities collecting revenue and in turn making deposits in local banks. Lastly, this Member supports the provisions in H.R. 522 which were authored by the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. Maloney) and this Member. These three provisions were included in the Manager's Amendment which passed by voice vote during the Committee's consideration of the virtually identical bill in the 107th Congress. We offered the following changes to help ensure that financial institutions receive their equitable share of dividends and credits from the deposit insurance fund. This bill establishes a 1 basis point cap on the premiums that the FDIC can charge those institutions that qualify for the lowest-risk category under the risk-based premium system, when the actual level of the reserve ratio is above 1.15 per $100 of insured deposits. Furthermore, H.R. 522 provides that when the reserve ratio of the deposit insurance fund is between 1.35 and 1.4 per $100 of insured deposits, the FDIC must pay dividends equal to 50 percent of the amount in excess of 1.35. This bill also includes language which establishes an ongoing credit pool that could be used by institutions against their premium assessments based on the historical contributions of the institution to the deposit insurance fund. This provision will reward those institutions who helped fully recapitalize the bank insurance fund in 1996. In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 522.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues this March 27, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald. The editorial rightly praises the other body for its vote to reduce the President's proposed tax cut in the budget resolution in the face of the cost of the war in Iraq. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 27, 2003] Fiscal Winds of War Cutting taxes in an effort to reinvigorate a sputtery economy is an idea that has merit, and the Bush administration can be praised for pursuing the effort. But the U.S. Senate, in its surprise vote on Tuesday, got it right: $726 billion was simply too much in the face of an open-ended and obviously costly war with Iraq. The Senate, in a stance it reconfirmed yesterday, voted to reduce the tax cut (as part of a $2.2 trillion budget) to $350 billion, still a substantial tax reduction. Next comes the haggling between House and Senate, since the House- approved version would give President Bush the full $726 billion cut he sought. By the best available evidence, the administration lost track of its vote tally in the Senate. It asked for an initial $75 billion for the war in Iraq, evidently confident that it would win both that and the full tax reduction. But the Senate, by a narrow margin, opted for prudence. The majority rightly saw the $75 billion as a down payment-- enough to sustain the effort for six months, with more bills to come later and yet more after that as the effort gets under way to reconstruct Iraq. Bush's reluctance until this week to put even a tentative price tag on the Iraq war and aftermath has raised a question in our minds: Is the administration concerned that domestic support for the war will fade if the average American is asked to sacrifice something? If so, we would hope to disabuse the White House of such a notion. Several recent polls suggest that 70 to 75 percent of Americans support this effort to dislodge the evils of Saddam Hussein. We believe that if it takes giving up (at least for now) part of a proposed tax cut to undergird the fight financially, most Americans are ready to do that. We are reminded of World War II, when Americans willingly observed meatless days, endured gasoline rationing, drove on bald tires and so on to bolster the war effort. We have no reason to believe that today's citizens are made of less stern stuff. Congress should unhesitatingly give the president the war funding he is asking for. His tax-cut plan can be revisited later. Meanwhile, as a people we're in this fight and had better pay for it. (Don't forget the hyperinflation that resulted from President Lyndon Johnson's insistence on conducting the Vietnam war on the cuff.) Congress has a duty here, too. Whatever tax-cut figure it ends up with, it should make good on its word: Spend the difference on the war, and if there's any left, shore up the Social Security system. Any other use of the funds constitutes a breach of promise.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 118) concerning the treatment of members of the Armed Forces held as prisoner of war by Iraqi authorities, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to speak on behalf of those brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have been taken prisoner of war by the Iraqi regime, and for those who are missing in action. All Members were appalled by the reports and images of the barbaric treatment of our soldiers by the Iraqi regime captors. This resolution will send a clear message of resolve that this Congress will stand by and insist on the rights of its military sons and daughters in their time of peril. We will spare no effort to bring them home alive and in good health, and to hold to account anybody who would dare mistreat them. All of us join families, comrades in arms and friends in prayer for their safe return, the safe return of all members of our armed services. I note with pride that the American military is already carrying out its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. We have invited the Red Cross or Red Crescent to visit our prisoners, and we demand the same access for the Red Cross to coalition prisoners held by Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) the majority whip.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.