Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I offer this resolution in that it recognizes the continued importance of transatlantic relations and the need for a continued and meaningful dialogue between the United States and Europe. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the difficult debate over Iraq, the Subcommittee on Europe held two hearings in June on the future of transatlantic relations. At these hearings, experts from both Europe and the United States presented their views on what went wrong. More important, however, was the consensus view of all of the witnesses who testified at these hearings that the time was right to put the debate over the Iraq war behind us and to begin to energetically consider how to reenergize the transatlantic relationship in a positive manner which is forward looking and which focuses on developing common strategies to address common challenges. H. Res. 390 urges a renewed effort to develop stronger relations with our friends and allies in Europe through enhanced dialogue and communications between this Nation and Europe, especially through such mechanisms as the various formal and informal interparliamentary organizations which we have here in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, as the Iraq debate has shown, both sides need to communicate more. It is neither in the interest of the United States to ignore Europe nor to try to work with a weak or divided Europe. Europeans, on the other hand, need to attempt to better understand U.S. policies and objectives and its responsibilities as a global power. The good news is there is dialogue, but that dialogue must be enhanced, and it must be predicated on the conviction that the United States and Europe cannot meet the global challenges which confront us both unless we strengthen our partnership and address these challenges together.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the following editorial from the October 19, 2003, edition of the Omaha World-Herald expresses support for greater efforts to reach trade agreements that reduce tariffs and non- tariff barriers imposed against American exports. The phrase ``fair trade'' is often inaccurately counterposed against the phrase ``free- trade.'' So-call free trade agreements should always be constructed to be fair to American business and farm enterprises and to exporters. Adapting to Change A demonstration in Lincoln last weekend expressed strong opposition to free trade. The rally was part of a national ``fair trade'' campaign critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement and of a planned Free Trade Area of the Americas. The fact remains, though, that a free-enterprise economy such as the United States' functions best when it is shorn, for the most part, of artificial constraints such as tariffs and quotas. Opening up a country to trade promotes efficiency, reduces inflationary pressures and generates new opportunities in multiple directions. A protectionist system stifles those crucial goals. Studies by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have long pointed out that the countries that have experienced the greatest economic growth have been those that have embraced open markets and eschewed protectionism. The anti-free-trade claims also offer illusory promises involving job security. Protectionism tidily promises to lock in the economic status quo. Ultimately, however, it lacks the power to ward off economic disruption. (The same holds true for any trading system; change is unavoidable.) No wonder the loss of jobs at an automotive rubber-hose plant in Lincoln (as Goodyear shifts some of its production to Mexico) spurs an outcry among some residents. It's unrealistic, though, to imagine that the ``fair trade'' agenda provides a solution. The fair-trade movement stresses, for example, that it is necessary to sharply ratchet up wages in developing countries so that the differential with U.S. pay rates can be greatly narrowed. Short of waving a magic wand, though, it's hard to see how that can be accomplished. U.S. employment in traditional industry, such as steel or textiles, has declined for decades not as the result of any malevolent free-trade conspiracy but because of productivity gains and fundamental market forces--the signals sent by the decisions of autonomous companies and consumers, as well as a serious overcapacity in supply and, in the case of steel, extraordinary pension costs. The prescriptions of anti-free-trade organizers cannot erase those basic economic realities. The demonstrators in Lincoln took particular aim at the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico, however, is establishing ever-greater economic links to Nebraska. Mexico is now the state's No. 2 foreign export market, exceeded only by Canada. In recent years, Nebraska's exports to Mexico have increased far more than the state's exports to any other nation. In 2000, the state's exports to Mexico totaled $266 million. In 2002, they totaled $465 million. Free trade does not promise an economic utopia. In fact, a free market by definition means that a society will face a certain degree of economic change--job losses, but also new opportunities. The proponents of ``fair trade,'' in contrast, exaggerate the ability of their ideas to cocoon the U.S. economy from the marketplace. Change is inevitable. A free-market system, bolstered by open trade, best encourages the dynamism and flexibility that enable a national economy to prosper.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two editorials on North Korea. First, this Member hopes his colleagues will review the October 20, 2003, editorial from the New York Times in which the newspaper finally is willing to call the acts in which North Korea has been engaged ``blackmail.'' Indeed, for many years, this term has accurately described the conduct of the previous Kim II Sung regime and now the Kim Jong II regime. An agreement by the United States, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan that there would be no attack on North Korea ``in exchange for its commitment to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs'' is a sufficient quid pro quo as long as North Korea's acceptance of this proposed agreement is not tied to economic aid. This Member feels very strongly that the United States cannot fall into a cycle of extortion again. Second, this Member commends the editorial which was published in the October 21, 2003, Los Angeles Times. As the editorial correctly notes, North Korea poses a regional threat and therefore its neighbors--China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan--must be included in all efforts to craft and verify agreements whereby North Korea will dismantle its nuclear weapons program. [From the New York Times, Oct. 21, 2003] Trying Diplomacy on North Korea President Bush is now taking a wiser and more sophisticated approach to the crisis caused by North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons. In a proposal whose details are still being refined, Washington and four other nations would guarantee not to attack the North in exchange for its commitment to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. This proposal makes an eventual peaceful, diplomatic solution to this extremely dangerous problem somewhat more likely. Just how likely is impossible to tell because there is no assurance that North Korea's highly unpredictable leaders will agree to disarm. If the North does spurn this reasonable offer, Washington will find it easier to persuade Asian nations to support more coercive steps, like international economic sanctions. North Korea's nuclear programs are particularly alarming because the nation has a long history of selling advanced weapons to all who will pay for them, including other rogue states and perhaps terrorists. Yet in the past year, as the North has raced ahead with reprocessing plutonium into bomb fuel, Washington has handicapped its own efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution by refusing to specify what America would be willing to do if the North firmly committed to giving up its nuclear weapons ambitions in ways outsiders could reliably verify. The White House had insisted that specifying any such quid pro quo would be giving in to North Korean nuclear blackmail. Blackmail is a fair description of North Korea's behavior. But in a situation in which everyone agrees that military action against the North would have catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of innocent South Koreans and Japanese, Washington's principled stand poorly served American interests. With this proposal, Mr. Bush is now making a serious effort to revive negotiations and is personally seeking the support of his fellow leaders at the Asia-Pacific summit meeting in Bangkok. All four of the nations that would join Washington in the proposed security guarantee--China, Japan, Russia and South Korea--are represented there. Washington's new approach deserves strong support from each of them. In offering security guarantees to the North, Mr. Bush wisely overruled hawkish administration officials who preferred moving directly toward coercive economic and military steps. This initiative comes less than a week after the administration's skilled diplomacy won unanimous backing for a United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq that broadly endorsed Washington's policies there. Diplomacy is an important tool for advancing America's national security. It is good to see it. [From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 21, 2003] Correct Nuclear Strategy President Bush's announced willingness to take part in a joint guarantee not to attack North Korea is an important maneuver in getting Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program. Even if Kim Jong Il's regime refuses to accept anything short of a full-fledged treaty, Bush's more conciliatory approach should win needed diplomatic support from China and South Korea. Bush took advantage of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Bangkok to discuss North Korea's nuclear ambitions with Presidents Hu Jintao of China and Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea. In August, both countries joined the U.S., Japan and Russia to present a united front, urging North Korea to end its atomic weapons development. The U.S. is correct to enlist the assistance of North Korea's neighbors; nuclear proliferation is a regional threat, not an issue of concern only to Pyongyang and Washington. When North Korea resisted further talks, China and South Korea urged Washington to try to woo the North back to the table by providing written, not just oral, assurance that it would not attack. Bush offered to take that extra step, although he correctly ruled out a formal treaty. Pyongyang's refusal to abide by its 1994 agreement with the U.S. to freeze its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy supplies and economic aid raises doubts it would live up to a treaty. North Korea first should be required to show international inspectors that it is not reprocessing plutonium and enriching uranium. One administration official said the U.S. was willing to sign an agreement saying it had no ``hostile intent'' if North Korea demonstrated that it was making ``verifiable progress'' in dismantling its weapons program. That's an important change from administration insistence that Pyongyang end the program before getting any economic help. The North considered such an ultimatum unacceptable, but it might end the program in stages if it saw rewards at each step. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty last year and keeps saying it is reprocessing plutonium from 8,000 fuel rods. That may be bluff and bluster, but if true it would produce enough fuel for perhaps 20 nuclear weapons. Monday, it fired a conventional missile into the Sea of Japan in a test timed to coincide with the Bangkok summit, though not with Bush's initiative. Pyongyang has sold missiles to other nations; because it is desperately poor and periodically racked by famine, there is no reason to believe it would refrain from selling weapons-grade nuclear material. China provides most of North Korea's food and oil supplies and has been instrumental in arranging six-nation talks. It should point to Washington's flexibility as it pressures North Korea to resume talks and give up nuclear weapons in exchange for security and aid.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the editorial entitled ``Support for America's Iraq effort is evident'' from the October 10, 2003, Norfolk Daily News highlights a recent Gallup Poll in which nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents who were polled still support the removal of Saddam Hussein despite the personal hardships the war has created for them. Furthermore, the editorial notes that the United States and Great Britain are by no means alone in implementing peacekeeping missions in Iraq and then correctly commends the efforts of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Kazakhstan--countries which, like Iraq, were only fairly recently released from the bonds of tyranny. Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to read this editorial for these stories are receiving far too little attention elsewhere in the American, and indeed, the world media. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Oct. 10, 2003] our view Contrary to indications left by brief news reports, the effort to bring order and self-determination to Iraq has been joined by a variety of nations. They have committed forces, and are united in the fight against tyranny. And a majority of Baghdad's residents regard Saddam's removal as worth their hardships. Support for America's Iraqi Effort Is Evident Two false impressions left by daily reports from Iraq are that the effort to depose Saddam Hussein had little support from the people of that nation and that America is going it alone, though with some help from its major ally, Great Britain. Contrary information gets too little attention, for random acts of violence and controversy about the United Nations role--or lack of it--grab the headlines. America's openness to political debate and its free press help to feed such impressions. Reading more than the headlines or listening to more than sound bites provides a more balanced view. Of special importance was the recent Gallup Poll taken five months after occupation of Baghdad: Two-thirds of the residents of that city, home of many Saddam loyalists and hard hit despite unusually precise military targeting, indicated to the pollsters that the dictator's removal was worth the hardships forced on them. Considering the looting that occurred before occupation forces could be effectively assembled and the inconvenience resulting from the water and power disruption, that is a remarkable result. It might even indicate that more Iraqis than Germans and French understand the evil represented by Saddam and his Baath Party. As for the contribution to this peacekeeping effort in Iraq, the fine print in recent reports shows that while America's 140,000 force is dominant, other countries are responding in important ways. Britain has 7,400 on the scene; Italy, 3,000; Poland, 2,400; Ukraine, 1,640; The Netherlands, 1,106. Countries in between Romania's 600 troops and Latvia's 106 include Bulgaria, Denmark, Thailand, El Salvador, Honduras, Czech Republic, Hungary, Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Mongolia, Norway, Portugal and Nicaragua. Those with less than 100 include Lithuania, Slovakia, Albania, New Zealand and Kazakhstan. So this vital campaign against tyranny finds many and diverse nations united in a vital cause, even if the United Nations has turned passive, and not as helpful as it should be if terrorists and tyrants are to be defeated.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for H.J. Res. 63, the Compacts of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. Additionally, this Member would like to extend thanks to the very distinguished gentleman from Iowa, the Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, (Mr. Leach) for his efforts to conduct oversight of the Compact negotiations and ultimately to bring this measure to the Floor today. Both the gentleman and his staff on the Subcommittee are to be commended for their vigilance. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the Chairman of the Resources Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the Compacts of Free Association for his efforts in guiding this resolution through the legislative process. When this Member served as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, he requested a Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into the use of Compact of Free Association funds. Indeed, this Member traveled to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) many years ago and was disturbed by the conditions of schools, roads, and public buildings despite the infusion of U.S. aid. Unfortunately, the GAO reports certainly corroborated this Member's grave concerns about pervasive fraud, corruption, and waste of funds by the RMI Government and the poor planning and construction of infrastructure in both the RMI and the FSM. This resolution would approve the amended Compact of Free Association, the agreement through which the United States provides assistance to the people of the RMI and the FSM. Overall, the revised Compact addresses many of the concerns which this Member has expressed for many years about this assistance and development programs for these two island groups which are two of the four Trust Territories for which the United States assumed responsibility after World War II. Of course, Congress must continue its oversight role to ensure that the people of RMI and FSM get the aid and services which they deserve and that the funds are not diverted for misuse by government officials in those countries. In closing, Madam Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H.J. Res. 63.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. This Member, who is a co-sponsor of the measure, would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for introducing the measure and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts in bringing H.R. 2359 to the Floor. Under H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Program, which is an employment verification program, would be extended through 2008 and, indeed, would expand access to the program for the entire U.S. Madam Speaker, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 correctly prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens or people with non-immigrant visas. Unfortunately, at that time, Congress did not give employers the corresponding tools with which to comply with this Act. For example, due to concerns regarding discrimination, employers are limited in the questions they may ask of potential employees to verify if those individuals are authorized to work in the U.S. If the employment verification documents that potential employees produce appear to be legitimate, then employers must accept the documents as legitimate without further inquiry of the potential employee. During Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforcement raids, certain employers were found to have hired large numbers of illegal aliens, either knowingly or unintentionally, and subsequently they were subject to penalties. As technology has progressed to allow for the cheap and quick production of legitimate-looking fraudulent documents, the inability of employers to distinguish between valid documents and fraudulent documents has significantly increased. It became clear that businesses dedicated to complying with the IRCA needed new tools to assist with the endeavor. When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 was enacted, it authorized the creation of three employment verification tools, including the Basic Pilot Program. Initially, employers in California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York, and Iowa could voluntarily use the Basic Pilot Program to compare the information received from potential employees with Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) databases to determine if potential employees could be employed legally in the U.S. Madam Speaker, throughout the 1990's, many legal immigrants and illegal aliens moved to Nebraska seeking jobs in the meatpacking industry. Subsequently, this Member began to receive contacts from businesses in his district concerned about their capacity to comply with the IRCA. Therefore, on November 30, 1999, this Member joined his House and Senate colleagues in the Nebraska Congressional Delegation in a letter to then-INS Commissioner Doris Meissner requesting the extension of the Basic Pilot Program to Nebraska. This Member continues to firmly believe that providing Nebraska businesses with the tools to hire a legal workforce is an important component in maintaining a stable economy in the state and in meeting needs to effectively enforce immigration laws in this country's interior. On March 19, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice granted Nebraska businesses access to the Basic Pilot Program. Currently, about eight Nebraska businesses actively utilize the program. Madam Speaker, for Congress to allow the Basic Pilot Program to lapse following the horrific and unspeakable terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, would demonstrate true negligence. More than ever, the U.S. must fully enforce its immigration laws to protect its citizens from future attacks. In its capacity to identify document fraud and illegal aliens, the Basic Pilot Program can indeed play a role in the fight against terrorism. In conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H.R. 2359.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the October 4, 2003, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News, which is entitled ``More of a problem than a solution.'' Although this Member certainly is pleased that the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council unanimously approved a resolution which establishes a U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, he continues to hold many of the concerns outlined in the editorial with regard to the failure of the U.N. to adapt to current realities. Recently, this Member became a co-sponsor of the National Commission on the Modernization of the United Nations Act of 2003 (H.R. 3079). Through this measure, which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), Congress would create an independent commission to explore how the U.S. could encourage structural changes in the U.N. Indeed, for the U.N. to remain relevant, the institution must be open and willing to reassess its structure, and the United States should lead the campaign for changes. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Oct. 4, 2003.] More of a Problem Than a Solution President Bush has asked the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq. But instead of responding with a loud ``yes'' and saying they will finally do the right thing for people in need, many members harrumphed and growled and once more demonstrated that the world organization may be on the road to irrelevance. Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general, reminded anyone who would listen how the world body had ``imperfectly'' kept the planet peaceful for 58 years and that the current U.S. policy of pre-emptive action puts all of that at risk. Someone should bring it to his attention that the imperfections have included round after round of genocide and incessant war in Africa. A policy of pre-emption in the absence of clear, immediate danger is, in fact, a policy that could be pronounced unwise at one point in human history. That point was prior to the advert of weapons of mass destruction and multiple acts of catastrophic terrorism. The Bush administration was awakened by the Sept. 11 terrorism to new realities that make some previous policies as outdated as would be the manufacturing of carriages instead of cars in Detroit. It is naive to suppose, as Mr. Annan does, that the U.S. example may lead other nations to protect themselves through aggressive action they would not otherwise have employed. The United Nations demonstrated that it is more problem than solution when it failed to follow through on the last in a series of resolutions that Iraq must account for weapons of mass destruction, and it will not somehow absolve itself of irresponsibility through negligence and antagonistic rhetoric now. If the United Nations does not come through, the United States must ponder whether it can instigate a positive restructuring or become increasingly less supportive of the organization.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the October 5, 2003, an editorial from the Omaha World Herald, which is entitled ``Half-empty, half-full.'' As the editorial correctly notes, Iraq remains a country ``full of positive potential but also fraught with danger.'' [From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 5, 2003] Half-empty, Half-full Gene Taylor, a Democratic U.S. representative from Mississippi, recently returned from a trip to Baghdad. He struck the right note when he said the situation in Iraq ``is neither going as well as the administration says it's going nor as badly as the media say it is going.'' Indeed, the situation is decidedly mixed. That hasn't stopped diehard partisans on either side from trying their best to highlight only one facet of the matter, however. The catalog of challenges is well known. Saddam Hussein loyalists and outside terrorists have succeeded, for the time being, in rattling people's nerves about security. Enemies of the U.S. campaign have assassinated one member of Iraq's Governing Council and murdered a Shiite cleric who advocated tolerance for the American presence. They have used pinprick attacks to kill and would U.S. soldiers at a slow but relatively steady rate that has diminished support for the Iraq operations among many Americans. Meanwhile, saboteurs continue to hobble the electrical grid and oil-pipe network. Large numbers of Iraqis remain without jobs. Mafia-style gangs have become a serious concern in Baghdad. Ethnic tensions simmer among Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, sometimes erupting violence. The United States has come up short, so far, in gaining financial assistance from foreign governments. And a variety of uncertainties beset the ambitious endeavor to move Iraq's political system toward a constitutional republic. And yet, much is going right. A vivid description of the progress came in an opinion essay written by Julie Flint, a veteran Middle East journalist, for a Lebanese newspaper. Media depictions of Iraq as trapped in bottomless turmoil are wrong, she argued: ``Outside Baghdad, in the Shiite south, the mood was overwhelmingly upbeat. In Basra, ordinary people gave the thumbs-up at the mere sight of a Briton. . . . In Amara, streets were buzzing well after midnight. . . . Shops are overflowing with imported goods; food prices are lower than they were during Saddam's last years. Approximately 85 percent of primary and secondary schools have reopened. . . . All Iraqi cities and 85 percent of its smaller towns have fully functioning municipalities.'' Similarly, Pamela Harris, a United Press International writer praised for her wartime reporting, noted in a recent good news/bad news analysis how she had seen ``happy children running out to greet Marines when they walk through downtown Hillah without body armor or rifles because they have worked long and hard to win the trust of the townspeople, and they have succeeded.'' USA Today recently noted that, thanks to U.S. policy that as tapped $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen during the Gulf War of 1991, government workers in Iraq have received major pay increases. The article described a police officer whose monthly pay has gone from $25 before the war to $275 now. This leap in the purchasing power of many Iraqis, combined with a tariff-free influx of imported products, has spurred a dramatic flurry of consumer spending, not least on major items such as refrigerators and ovens. (The average price for home appliances has fallen by 41 percent from prewar levels) Iraq, in short, is in the middle of a momentous time of transition--full of positive potential but also fraught with danger. As the debate rages over whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, one thing is certain: The United States cannot cut and run. Together with the Iraqi people and whatever support can be mustered from the international community, we will have to see this through--without minimizing how difficult the task will be.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to commend the Turkish Grand National Assembly for its decision to approve the deployment of Turkish troops to Iraq to help restore security and stability there. Last week, the Turkish parliament voted by a nearly 3 to 1 ratio to authorize the government to send troops to Iraq. This was an important and politically courageous step by our fellow parliamentarians in Ankara, one that could help stabilize Iraq, while at the same time helping to repair Turkish-American relations, a strong and positive signal that the Turkish parliament values the Turkish-American alliance and that the vote last winter was an unintended anomaly in our relationship. This Member is optimistic that this vote marks a return to a normal pattern of cooperation that has marked Turkish-American relations. At the same time, we should recognize it was a courageous vote because many Turkish voters harbor an understandable concern about sending their soldiers on an operation abroad, especially to their neighbor. Yet our Turkish colleagues recognized that international security depends on the stabilization of Iraq, and they have agreed that Turkey should play a role in helping to rebuild its neighbors. Mr. Speaker, despite the concerns of some Iraqis, the Turkish parliament's decision yesterday is a positive step and I commend them for it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following column written by Sonja Hillgren, editor of the Farm Journal, which appeared in the Summer 2003 issue of the publication. This column highlights the improper hurdles that the European Union (EU) has put in place to block the importation of American agricultural products. The current EU restrictions on the importation of food with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have cost agricultural producers billions of dollars in recent years. As the column indicates, some of the products the EU uses and exports have long been GMO-based. The intransigence by the EU is having a very detrimental effect on American farmers. Also troubling are the indications that the EU is planning to move forward with labeling and traceability requirements that will continue to act as a mechanism to block U.S. agricultural products. This clearly runs counter to the WTO principle that rules should be based on scientific evidence. The EU's GMO standards are transparently devoid of any relationship to sound science and are either based strictly on emotion or are designed quite simply as trade barriers--or both. The U.S. must take strong action to bring reason back to this issue. Biotech and Fortress Europe [From Farm Journal, Summer 2003] (By Sonja Hillgren, Farm Journal Editor) Those wily Europeans have devised a scheme that could freeze out imports of U.S. crops and food products. Their vehicle is labeling and traceability for genetically modified (GM) food and feed. Approved last month by the European Parliament, the plan is on a path for implementation next year. ``It is clearly about restricting trade,'' says Criss Davis, a Shullsburg, Wis., farmer who chairs the international marketing committee of the United Soybean Board. I don't want to contemplate the consequences for the U.S. farm economy if we fail to respond aggressively at the same time as we continue a respectful dialogue with consumers, processors and retail grocers in the European Union (EU). That is how U.S. soybean growers have kept open the market for the past seven years. Under the new EU rules, any food or feed with more than 0.9% of an EU-approved GM product must be labeled as biotech. Food with more than 0.5% of a GM product not approved by the EU would be barred from the European market. Tough to implement. Especially onerous is the requirement for labels and traceability for processed products like soybean oil, even though tests cannot detect whether or not processed products have been genetically altered. An invitation for fraud, it is a big change from current rules that require labels only if a modified gene can be detected. ``They are going to have a terrible time implementing it,'' warns Davis. Soybean meal, corn gluten feed and other livestock feed also will have to be labeled for the first time. The rules do not require labels on meat, milk and eggs from animals fed GM feed or on yogurt, beer or other products produced from GM yeast or enzymes--all of which are abundantly produced in Europe. Europeans say these new rules are a necessary prelude to lifting a nearly five-year ad hoc moratorium on their approvals of a pipeline of biotech crops. The Bush administration recently challenged that ban before the World Trade Organization (WTO). And the EU began suing its member nations to lift individual country bans on biotech. Europeans also say they are doing the U.S. a favor because traceability will be necessary for the next generation of biotech products. Those are valid points. But Americans counter that there is no scientific reason for tracking current biotech crops that are no different from non-GM products. As soon as the new rules are in place, the administration should file another WTO case. Let's examine the deeper problem by focusing on more than $1 billion in yearly soybean exports to Europe, the single largest customer of U.S. soybeans. The vast majority of our soybeans are biotech, and European consumers and retail stores have indicated that they will reject any foods with biotech labels. Thus Europeans can import evenmore soybeans from Brazil, where suppliers pretend not to grow biotech beans even while smuggling some from Argentina. While the GM conflict is being argued before the WTO, the Europeans can expand non-biotech oilseeds (grain and livestock, too) in the 10 nations that will join the 15 nations of the EU next year. Their goal could be to make the expanded 25-nation EU nearly self-sufficient in grain and livestock agriculture. Trade deal. More than 40 years ago, when Europeans were bigger food importers, U.S. trade negotiators convinced them to import U.S. soybeans duty-free. A bone of contention for the past 20 years, the principle was reaffirmed in a 1992 Blair House trade agreement. A cynic could view the biotech rules as another European attempt to undo a 40-year-old oilseed agreement. For those who want to fight the Europeans head-on, it is wise to remember that the U.S. doesn't hold the best hand of cards. The EU has won two WTO cases against the US.--for a tax break on exports via offshore subsidiaries and for steel tariffs. The EU has held off on imposing $6.2 billion in retaliatory duties, including on U.S. fruits and rice. As a US. strategy, we can encourage other nations, including the Europeans, to remain open to biotech. Brazil says biotech will become illegal on farms next spring, but many Brazilian farmers want GM crops, so that conflict is coming to a head. Both U.S. farmers and USDA can underline the impracticality of the new EU rules and monitor cheating by competitors. At the same time, we can begin to look at a viable system to track GM crops to deal with the next generation of biotech. Says Davis, ``I think we have the ability to capitalize on those things better than our competition.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two editorials. First, this Member hopes his colleagues will consider the October 8, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, which describes the drawbacks of ``Buy America'' provisions with respect to peacekeeping and reconstruction projects in Iraq. Obviously, given the size of the supplemental request for these activities, ``Buy America'' provisions have strong appeal on the surface. As a representative who has specific responsibilities for trans-Atlantic relations, this Member urges his colleagues to think twice before supporting ``Buy America'' provisions and consider the contents of this brief editorial. Second, this Member commends the October 8, 2003, Omaha World-Herald editorial entitled ``An ill-advised raid.'' Indeed, this editorial discusses the short-term and long-term consequences of the recent Israeli attack upon camps that may well have been used for training and harboring terrorists. Israel's grief over its continued casualties from suicide bombings is absolutely understandable, and the U.S. shares its disgust of these tactics. Nevertheless, recent Israeli military air attack in Syria even without prior notice to the U.S. Government may create even further difficulties for the U.S. in Iraq and the Middle East. That is the view of the Omaha World-Herald--a view which should be taken quite seriously by all of us in Congress. Furthermore . . . British soldiers showed admirable determination last spring in carrying some of the harshest fighting, in Iraq. But some in Congress are now trying to kick the British (and other U.S. allies) in the teeth by insisting on a rigid ``buy American'' requirement for U.S. military purchases. That is a recipe for tripping up efforts at international contributions to the rebuilding in Iraq. Such a step would also disrupt long-standing and constructive trading relationships. Dump this loser of an idea.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 372), expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the murder of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in support of H. Res. 372 expressing the condolences of the House in response to the death of Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. As my colleagues will recall, Foreign Minister Lindh was senselessly attacked and murdered on September 10, 2003. This Member commends the author of this resolution, his good friend and the ranking Democrat of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for introducing this expression of our heartfelt sympathy to the people of Sweden on the loss of their foreign minister. Although this Member did not have the pleasure and honor of meeting Foreign Minister Lindh, it is widely recognized that she represented the very best of Sweden. She was a strong advocate for her country as its leading diplomat. Ms. Lindh possessed a passion for human rights and justice and was committed to world peace. Throughout her tragically-shortened political career, Anna Lindh served as the head of the Social democrats youth movement, entered Parliament in 1982, became environment minister in 1994, and began serving as Foreign Minister in 1998. Many knowledgeable persons speculate that she would have been eventually serving as Sweden's Prime Minister. As Foreign Minister, she worked tirelessly to promote a more active Sweden in international affairs and within the European Union. Over the past year, she became one of Sweden's strongest advocates for joining Europe's single currency. Anna Lindh worked to have Sweden and NATO cooperate on defense matters, and she actively supported the admission of the Baltic states into both NATO and the European Union. And, of course, under her leadership, Sweden enjoyed friendly relations with the United States. Madam Speaker, by her death, the people of Sweden, and of the world, have suffered the loss of a respected national leader. In closing, the Member strongly urges passage of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam 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 just considered.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his excellent statement. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the author of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 355) commemorating the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of H. Res. 355, a resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Bulgaria. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for introducing this resolution. The gentleman's efforts have been crucial in recognizing and promoting the important relationship between Bulgaria and the United States. Indeed, his involvement and knowledge about Bulgaria go back more than a decade. The United States established diplomatic relations with Bulgaria on September 19, 1903. Two weeks ago, a celebration was held in Sofia marking this occasion. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Bulgarian people have made historic and courageous decisions and sacrifices in support of their desire to be a strong, diplomatic, and democratic member of Europe and a faithful ally and good friend of the United States. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently stated that relations between Bulgaria and the United States are the best they have ever been in all of the past 100 years. Indeed, Bulgaria is becoming an increasingly important strategic partner. Bulgaria has promoted stability and peace in Southeast Europe by supporting the NATO-led operations Allied Force and Joint Guardian in the Balkans. Bulgaria has also provided peacekeeping forces to SFOR in Bosnia and KFOR in Kosovo. After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Bulgaria was among the very first countries to denounce terrorism and pledge active support to the United States in the fight against terrorism by supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan. Bulgaria has supported Coalition operations in Iraq and is presently providing 500 infantry soldiers to the Iraq stabilization force. Furthermore, in a truly historic achievement, Bulgaria was invited to join NATO at the Prague Summit in November of last year. And Bulgaria has stood firmly with the United States in the cause of advancing freedom worldwide during its present term as a nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council. President Bush recently stated, ``Americans have always considered the Bulgarian people to be our friends, and we will be proud to call you,'' meaning the Bulgarian people, ``our allies.'' Madam Speaker, this Member wholeheartedly agrees with President Bush: Bulgaria has proven to be an active and contributing partner and a de facto ally. And this resolution affirms this important relationship on occasion of the 100th anniversary of U.S.-Bulgarian diplomatic relations. Madam Speaker, in closing, this Member urges my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I urge support for the resolution. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 1276, the American Dream Downpayment Act. This bill, of which this Member is an original cosponsor, authorizes $200 million in grants to be made available as part of the HOME program to first- time low-income families for downpayment assistance. This important legislation is strongly supported by the Administration and is a priority of the distinguished Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Mr. Martinez). First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Harris) for introducing this legislation. Furthermore, this Member would also like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Ranking Member of this Committee, for their support in bringing this measure to the House Floor. One of the main obstacles for families who want to purchase a home is that they do not have the resources for a sufficient mortgage downpayment. As a response to this pressing need, this legislation would provide downpayment assistance grants to more than 40,000 first- time low income families. The American Dream Downpayment Act would be administered as part of HUD's successful HOME program which currently provides grants to states and entitlement communities (over 50,000 in population) to use for affordable housing. This bill authorizes $200 million in new authorized funds to be used for downpayment assistance by states and entitlement communities. Furthermore, this bill would preserve the flexibility of the HOME program by allowing these states and localities to craft a package of downpayment assistance which meets their specific needs. Mr. Speaker, in closing, as a Member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, this Member strongly supports H.R. 1276, the American Dream Downpayment Act. This Member encourages his colleagues to support H.R. 1276.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to express his strong support for the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Technical Corrections Act of 2003 (H.R. 3038) and would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, for introducing this important legislation. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for their efforts to improve access to quality preventative and primary health care for the medically underserved--including the millions of Americans without health insurance coverage. Yesterday, Nebraskans celebrated the opening of the People's Health Center of Lincoln--the first Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in this Member's congressional district. The health center will provide valuable primary health care services to the residents of Lincoln and Lancaster County. As the Peoples' Health Center of Lincoln becomes an established entity in the community and begins to grow in terms of size as well as patients served, this Member has no doubt that the facility will call upon the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) for assistance in meeting the critical needs of Nebraska's underserved population. This technical corrections bill is extremely important to new and current FQHCs across the nation. The measure makes clarifying changes to reconfirm that facilities, like the Peoples' Health Center of Lincoln, automatically receive Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) designation, and subsequently become eligible for the placement of National Health Service Corps (NHSC) personnel. This Member would personally like to thank Representative Bilirakis and his staff for their help with clarifying the automatic HPSA language in particular. The NHSC and the Health Centers program are both intended to address the health care needs of our nation's most underserved rural and urban communities. Previous requirements mandated that health centers and rural clinics apply for and obtain HPSA designation, even though each center already serves a Federally-designated Medically Underserved Area or population, to become eligible for the placement of NHSC personnel. This process certainly seems unnecessary and duplicative, resulting in a delay of needed practitioners at high-need health centers. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3038. Such action will reduce bureaucratic barriers and allow for the coordinated use of Federal resources in meeting the health care needs of areas that lack sufficient services.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H.R. 3146 and would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, for introducing this important legislation and for his efforts to extend the authorization for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, as well as related welfare reform initiatives, such as the mandatory child care program, the abstinence education program, and the transitional medical assistance program. Moreover, this Member would like to thank Chairman Thomas for including language in H.R. 3146 to address Medicare payment disparities between rural and urban hospitals. The Rural Health Care Coalition, which this Member currently leads as the Interim Co-Chairman, has been diligently working to bring equity to the rural health care delivery system. One of the Coalition's key priorities has been to address hospital payment disparities to ensure that facilities in rural areas and small cities can stay in business and continue serving patients who need care. Medicare pays for inpatient services in large urban areas using a standardized amount that is 1.6 percent larger than the standardized amount used to reimburse hospitals in other areas (both rural areas and small urban areas). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2003 (Public Law No. 108-7) provided a six-month base payment increase for rural and small urban hospitals from April 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003. Specifically, this measure raised the inpatient base rate for hospitals in rural and urban areas to the level of the rate for those in large urban areas. The bill before us today will extend this payment increase until March 31, 2004. Such action is cruical--especially for cash-strapped rural facilities which are near the breaking point and in need of urgent aid. This policy will help maintain access to care in rural and less populated urban areas of the country by better aligning hospitals' payments to their average costs. The estimated impact of eliminating the base rate differential for six more months will result in $3.8 million for Nebraska hospitals, according to the Nebraska Hospital Association. This Member will continue to work on initiatives to bring even greater Medicare equity to Nebraska this year. In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3146. Reducing the difference in Medicare reimbursement levels between rural and urban hospitals is critical. Rural hospitals receive less Federal funding than hospitals in urban areas for providing the same services. This legislation will keep base payments at the same level as those in urban areas for six more months.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday while Washington was consumed with the arrival of hurricane Isabel, a significant celebration was taking place in Sofia, Bulgaria. On September 18, the United States and Bulgaria marked the 100th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our two countries. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bulgaria has worked hard to build a stable democracy and to provide its people the very freedoms we have for so long taken for granted in this country. The people of Bulgaria should be proud of what they have accomplished over this past 13 years. Bulgaria has also worked to reaffirm and strengthen its friendship with the United States. Bulgaria has worked with us to promoted stability and peace in the Balkans by providing peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Kosovo. After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Bulgaria was among the very first countries to denounce terrorism and pledge active support to the United States in the fight against global terrorism. Bulgaria supported Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and is presently providing 500 infantry soldiers to the Iraq stabilization force. Mr. Speaker, in closing, on the occasion of this 100th anniversary of United States-Bulgarian diplomatic relations, it is appropriate to reflect on this important relationship and to dedicate ourselves to promoting good relations for the next 100 years.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member on the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member on the subcommittee, for all their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. This important legislation presents a tremendous opportunity to improve flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental protection. This Member is pleased that the bill includes necessary provisions which assist the Sand Creek watershed project in Sanders County, NE. Among the many benefits it provides, the Sand Creek project will help meet Federal environmental restoration goals, address local flooding problems and preserve water quality. The Sand Creek Project can serve as a showcase of emerging science and restoration techniques for secluded wetlands with their multiple environmental benefits to the Great Plains and other States. The project is sponsored jointly by the Lower Platte North NRD, the City of Wahoo and Saunders County. The Sand Creek section of the H.R. 2557 allows the local sponsor of the project to complete needed soil, water and other environmental restoration work and ultimately to receive proper financial credit in its matching share of Federal funds in this project. This action would result in significant cost and time savings. Additionally, the enclosed would authorize the Secretary of the Army to accept advance non-Federal project sponsor funds until Federal funds are available in order to move this project forward consistent with State plans to relocate U.S. Highway 77 as an expressway. The Sand Creek project received conditional authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Earlier this year, the Corps formally approved the project. The Sand Creek project has attracted widespread support. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees to H.R. 1588. Certainly, this Member has no objections to expediting citizenship for non-citizen members serving in U.S. armed services and supports efforts to provide appropriate incentives for a very small percentage of the few non- citizens who meet established requirements to join our professional military forces. However, in granting citizenship to these qualified men and women, it is not necessary or desirable to also grant priority to their parents, spouses, and children. And it is certainly not appropriate to waive the requirement that such family members financially support themselves in the U.S. Unfortunately, the provisions in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1588, which this motion instructs House conferees to accept, would have that effect. Through the provisions, the spouses, children under the age of 21, and parents of men and women who have been granted citizenship based on their service in the U.S. armed forces and who have died in the line of duty would be authorized to seek permanent resident status on an expedited basis. Then, unlike other people seeking legal immigrant status, these family members would not be required to meet financial thresholds which indicate that they would not immediately be public charges. Most of the American public is unaware of these provisions. Enacting such excessive inducements for joining the U.S. military is a step in the wrong direction, particularly if it results in this country increasingly depending upon what could come to be thought of and called ``foreign mercenaries'' to serve in the armed forces. This practice has too many similarities to the mercenary forces of the Roman Empire in its decline as Roman citizens themselves became unwilling to serve in the Roman legions. Imagine, too, the reactions of foreign nations that begin to see our military personnel as serving almost solely to gain citizenship for themselves and their families. Mr. Speaker, this Member encouraged his colleagues to vote against the Rodriguez motion to instruct.