Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H. Con. Res. 102, the Hunger to Harvest Resolution: A Decade of Concern for Africa. Additionally, this Member, as a cosponsor of this resolution, would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for introducing this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks of September 11th highlighted the extent to which American security is placed at risk when the U.S. fails to provide development aid and assistance to areas in peril of falling into the hands of unfriendly regimes. Indeed, sub-Saharan Africa currently faces many of the same conditions which coalesced to create the Afghanistan in which the Taliban has thrived. Much of sub-Saharan Africa has fought ravaging civil wars, demoralizing poverty, recurring droughts, and debilitating disease. This country's own long-term security depends to a large extent on stability in sub-Saharan Africa. The mirco-enterprise, agriculture development, debt relief, and health programs which are outlined in this bill have the potential to serve as key investments in preventing terrorism against the U.S. and against U.S. interests. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 102.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. This legislation will help ensure that businesses are able to acquire property and casualty insurance while still providing full taxpayer protection against terrorist losses. This Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for both introducing this legislation and for his efforts in moving this legislation. Additional appreciation is expressed to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who played a crucial role in drafting this legislation. On most crucial parts of this legislation there was bipartisan cooperation and assistance led by the ranking minority member of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). The uncertainty caused by the terrorist events on September 11 have resulted in our attention to the possibility of severe future problems for the insurance industry and the insured, even a crisis, from additional severe terrorist attacks. To illustrate this, reinsurance companies provide insurance against massive losses for insurance companies. Many commercial reinsurance policies need to be renewed by a December 31 deadline of this year. Since this terrorist attack, many primary insurance companies, because they cannot receive reinsurance, have sent notice cancellations to businesses indicating that they will not receive coverage for losses caused by terrorist activities. If both small and large businesses are unable to receive insurance coverage for acts of terrorism by the end of the year, it will contribute to the further instability of the American economy. Insurance provides a very important element of the stability needed by businesses to continue functioning and investing, and for bankers to continue lending to businesses. As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the important elements of the limited Federal role in commercial insurance, this Member supports this legislation for the following two reasons. First, obviously it helps ensure that commercial insurance continues to be available for businesses--and available at affordable costs. Second, it provides necessary taxpayer protections against possible severe terrorist losses to businesses. Under this legislation, Federal assistance will be provided to those commercial insurers which have suffered a significant terrorist loss over a specific dollar threshold. The Secretary of the Treasury will determine if there has been an industry-wide loss to the commercial property and casualty insurance industry exceeding $1 billion due to a terrorist act. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury can also make a company-specific triggering determination if industry-wide losses exceed $100 million and the portion of those losses for the insurer exceed both 10 percent of the company's capital surplus and net premiums. If one of these thresholds is reached, the Federal Government will provide to each relevant insurance company 90 percent of the amount of insured terrorism losses minus $5 million. This Federal cost-sharing is capped at $100 billion. Unlike the different Senate approaches which are being proposed, the House legislation requires the Federal assistance to be paid back in full by the insurance companies who suffered the terrorist loss. Under H.R. 3210, the relevant insurance companies will be required to pay assessments back to the Federal Government for up to $20 billion of Federal assistance over a three year time period. Above this $20 billion threshold, up to $100 billion, in order to recoup the level of Federal assistance, the Secretary of the Treasury will impose a commercial policyholder surcharge. Since the insurance companies are required to pay back the Federal Government for the exact level of Federal assistance through both assessments on the industry and/or commercial policyholder surcharges, this legislation ensures that taxpayers are not liable for the Federal cost-sharing. Therefore, this legislation is not an insurance company bailout; it protects the American taxpayer against a big hit while continuing to maintain insurability against terrorist attacks. This legislation also protects taxpayers from punitive damages against insurance companies for terrorist loses in Federal court. Since the Federal Government is providing assistance to insurance companies in cases of significant terrorist losses, punitive damages against insurance companies could result in taxpayer liability. This legislation does not limit a plaintiff's right to hold a primary tortfeasor liable for a terrorist act. For my Nebraska constituents, it is important to note that punitive damages are not allowed under Nebraska state law in Nebraska state courts. In conclusion, since this legislation balances the need of businesses to continue to receive commercial insurance against terrorist acts at affordable costs, with taxpayer liability protection, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3210.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support for H.R. 3338, the Defense appropriations bill for FY2002. This Member would like to offer particular thanks to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for their work on this important bill. Additionally, this Member is pleased to thank the Committee on Appropriations for including $3.8 million in fiscal year 2002 for the Air National Guard's Project ALERT. Currently, Project ALERT serves as an on-line training tool developed and used by the Nebraska National Guard in collaboration with the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the University of Nebraska, and Nebraska Educational Television. The $3.8 million appropriated in H.R. 3338 will assist with the completion of the initial development and implementation phases. Indeed, the implications of Project ALERT extend nationwide and to components of both the active and reserve military forces. Allowing military forces to complete some training courses on their own time, as Project ALERT does, provides an opportunity to cut on-site training costs and time and to maximize exercise time. For the U.S. military to meet the challenges it will face during the current war on terrorism and throughout the 21st century, it is crucial that Congress invest in innovative and flexible training tools such as Project ALERT. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3338.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to comment on the conference report for S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act. Clearly, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, properly focused attention on the need to improve security at our nation's airports. Without a doubt, the current system has serious flaws and the traveling public deserves better. This Member cosponsored and strongly supported H.R. 3150, which was approved by the House on November 1, 2001. The House bill took the right approach. It would have federalized the airline security screening process and required strict, new standards governing airline security. Additionally, H.R. 3150 would have given the President needed flexibility on the issue of baggage screeners to determine which option (i.e., private, federalized, or some combination of the two) would provide the highest degree of security. Quite simply, the House version was more responsible than the Senate bill, which was crafted hastily in the heat of the moment. This Member is disappointed that the House leadership caved-in to the Senate on the crucial issue of airport screeners. It was a very bad mistake for the House leadership to accept the federalization of screeners, as this action simply will put in place a huge new Federal bureaucracy without ensuring an increase in airport security over the House version. Despite assurances, this Member is convinced that the system established for by this conference report will make it difficult to insist on excellence or to fire under-performing employees. It has been reported that Federal employee unions are already preparing lawsuits to remove elements of the legislation designed to facilitate the firing of employees who do not perform at acceptable standards. The screening issue unfortunately overshadows many positive features of this legislation. Having expressed these very major concerns about the specific airport screening system being forced on the taxpayers and the American people, this Member is pleased to report that the conference report includes a number of provisions from the House-passed bill that are important improvements over the Senate bill. For example, the conference report increases the number of sky marshals, requires the fortification of cockpit doors, and mandates screening checked bags for bombs and explosives. In addition, the S. 1147 conference report creates a new Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation, which would be in charge of security for airlines as well as railroads, buses, and commercial shipping. Unfortunately, the White House's lukewarm support for the House bill also badly damaged efforts to arrive at the best solution. Now we have failed to follow the model of many European countries and the Israeli Government which have coordinated a successful national government- private sector approach. This new path will be irreversible and we'll never have an opportunity to see what might have been. As Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and others have indicated, airports are highly unlikely to use the opt-out provision included in the conference report. Airports will have no incentive to move back to a non-Federal workforce. The conference report also is worse, or more expensive, for travelers from some parts of the country like my home state of Nebraska, when it comes to the new fees needed to fund the new system. Under the House bill, each passenger would have paid a maximum of $5 per round-trip in new security-related user fees. The conference report imposes a fee of $2.50 per passenger for each leg of a trip, up to a maximum of $10 for a round-trip. For Nebraskans who must make a connection while flying round-trip to either coast, the fee will now be twice as much as it would have been under the House bill. Thus it discriminates against low population states in the country's Midlands. This increase would be acceptable if it accompanied a commensurate increase in security, but clearly the conference report is not an improvement over the House- passed version. While nothing in this conference report will put in place new security features before the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday weekend, perceived psychological, editorial and public opinion pressures forced this bad compromise so that action could be completed prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. Although prompt action is needed, the artificial Thanksgiving deadline led to this flawed legislation, which will not provide needed airport security reform. Therefore, this Member believes that we may have missed the opportunity to provide real and improved airport security. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that Congress is addressing the critically important issue of aviation security, but regrets the missed opportunities which the conference report represents.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the November 15, 2001, editorial from the Lincoln Journal- Star entitled ``Importance of peacekeeping is now clearer.'' The editorial rightly endorses continued U.S. engagement in Afghanistan as the Taliban quickly retreats, encourages the construction of a multi- ethnic administrative structure in Afghanistan, and accurately recognizes the complexities of these endeavors.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to comment on H.R. 2887, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and would like to command the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, the sponsor of this bill, and the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for bringing this legislation to the House Floor today. Mr. Speaker, this Member is unaware of any Member of Congress who opposes the appropriate testing, evaluation and proper labeling of prescription drugs for use in children. We need to ensure that medicines are safe and effective for both children and adults. The only question for debate is how to accomplish this critical public health objective. As you are aware, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act would continue a program that grants prescription drug companies an additional six-month patent exclusivity, as an incentive for them to test their drugs on children. While pediatric exclusivity has resulted in an increase in the number of pediatric drug studies and has provided valuable information to pediatricians about how to use drugs in children, this Member is concerned about the current law for several reasons. Most importantly, the law has imposed higher prices on consumers because it delays the introduction of lower-priced generic drugs for an additional six months. This Member is also concerned that the pediatric exclusivity provision provides substantial incentives to drug companies to test drugs that have high sales, particularly among adults, rather than those drugs which pediatricians need more information. It appears that brand name drug companies are receiving six months of exclusivity for testing a drug on children, even when that testing is of minimal value because it is for an indication that rarely occurs in children, such as ulcers, hypertension, or Type II (adult-onset) diabetes. However, there seems to be adequate provisions which would cause companies to initiate such testing to gain an additional six-month patent exclusivity only upon FDA request. Furthermore, pediatric exclusivity provides little incentive to test drugs that are still under patent, but do not result in high profits. It appears that pediatric exclusivity leaves many drugs unstudied in children, because the drug companies believe they will not make enough from six months of additional patent protection.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the November 12, 2001, Norfolk Daily News. The editorial offers insightful comments on the issue of aviation security and the proper role for the Federal Government. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, much attention has been focused on the need to improve security at our nation's airports and in our airplanes. Clearly, there are a number of areas that need prompt improvement. The bill approved by the House on November 1, 2001, (with bipartisan support) would do much to strengthen our nation's aviation security. The House-passed bill creates a new Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation. It also Federalizes the airline security screening process and requires strict, new standards. However, the House version gives the President the flexibility to determine which option provides the highest degree of security--either using Federal employees or developing a Federal- private sector coordination. This Member hopes that an agreement will be reached soon which allows the aviation security legislation to be sent to the President. Unanimity Not Same as Right Senate, House have important differences about federal role It was of special interest that in the debate about federalizing airport security personnel, the U.S. Senate was unanimously in favor. The rare 100-0 margin may have influenced the vote in the House, but not enough to carry the majority in the lower chamber. A measure designed to change the present system, but not to the point of federalizing all the workers, passed the House by a narrow margin. That leaves the outcome to negotiations between members of the House and Senate. Some believe these wide differences point to unnecessary partisanship. We see it based on important principles of governance. For the proponents of federalization, Sen. John McCain described it not altogether accurately: ``This is about law enforcement, and law enforcement is a federal function.'' But law enforcement is also a local and state responsibility. There is actually a division of responsibilities, which need not be a weakness unless agencies do not cooperate. The Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon succeeded not so much because of failures in airport screening procedures (box cutters and small knives were not considered dangerous as guns), as because of deficiencies in another system that is unarguably and totally a federal responsibility. That is, the system to protect America's borders, to bar illegal entry or access by those who intend harm. Of course, this is a virtually impossible task to perform error-free in so vast a land. That it is an immensely difficult job--especially for a nation whose legal system has come near the point of ascribing the rights inherent in citizenship to aliens, legal and illegal--does not mean failures are to be excused. It means that they should be examined carefully, to try to reduce future risks to American citizens and legal immigrants. The point is that efforts to date to meet this unique responsibility through the exclusive employment of agents of the federal government have not created a risk-free environment. Nor will adding airport screeners to the ranks of civil servants. Competent people to help with that task, with better equipment and more authority to challenge passengers, and with extra direction from federal authorities, could do the screening. It is useful to remember that it is far easier to remove a poor performer from civilian ranks than from the civil service. There should be bipartisan acknowledgment of that fact.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of the conference report for H.R. 2330, the Agriculture appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2002. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing this conference report to the Floor. Mr. Speaker, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of this constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important projects of interest to the state of Nebraska. First, this Member is pleased that the conference report provides $452,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The Alliance is an association of twelve leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing technologies. The MAFMA awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching funds. During the seventh year of competition, MAFMA received 39 proposals requesting a total of $1,382,555. Eleven proposals were funded for a total of $348,147. Matching funds from industry for these funded projects total $605,601 with an additional $57,115 from in-kind funds. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing and processing industries. Mr. Speaker, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing world-wide demand for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link between universities and industries for the development of competitive food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive in a increasingly competitive global economy. This Member is also pleased that the conference report includes $196,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and has assisted numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented levels of drought in several parts of our country, this effort is obviously important. Another important project funded by this conference report is the Alliance for Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and the University of Georgia, which received $293,000 under the conference report. The mission of this Alliance is to assist the development and modification of food processing and preservation technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue to receive the safest and highest quality food possible. This Member is also pleased that the legislation funds the following ongoing Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Food Processing Center, $42,000; Non-food agricultural products, $64,000; Sustainable agricultural systems, $59,000; Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) (a joint effort with Iowa State University and the University of Missouri), $1,040,000. This Member would also note that the conference report includes a loan subsidy of $3.9 million for the Section 538 rural rental multi- family housing loan guarantee program, which is to support $99.77 million in loan authorizations. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100% Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults. Mr. Speaker, this Member certainly appreciates the appropriations for the $40.166 million loan subsidy for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program, which is to support $3.1 billion in loan authorizations. The program has been very effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non-metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Member supports the conference report for H.R. 2330 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of the conference report for H.R. 2620, providing appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other Independent agencies for fiscal year 2002. This Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished Ranking Member from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and all the members of the Subcommittee for their work on this important bill. This Member is especially pleased that funding was included for several important projects in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska. First, $490,000 was included in the conference report for Doane College in Crete, Nebraska, which will be used for the continuing effort to rehabilitate the historic Whitcomb Conservatory for joint use by the college and the community as a performing arts center. This Member greatly appreciated the previous inclusion of $430,000 for this project in the FY2001 appropriations legislation. The additional funding provided for FY2002 should provide much of the resources to complete this project. The Whitcomb Conservatory is a unique, five-sided structure, built on the ``Prairie'' or ``Frank Lloyd Wright'' architectural style, which was completed in 1907 and is a component of the Doane College Historic District National Register listing. The additional funding is needed for major structural repair of its roof, installation of a new mechanical system (including a new heating and cooling plant), new wiring, and a complete cosmetic refurbishing. The Conservatory has been vacant for more than 30 years. However, the Crete community--as well as the student population of Doane College is growing--and necessitates refurbishing the building. Doane College and the Crete community have a close and long-standing working relationship and have a formal joint-use agreement for the future use of Whitcomb Conservatory. The restoration of the Conservatory will create a community resource and provide a setting for musicals, summer community theater, special concerts and lectures. Second, this Member is most pleased that $240,000 was allocated for the Walthill Public School in Walthill, Nebraska, to be used to improve the facilities for science education in this school district. The resources are badly needed by this school system which has a very large Native American student body. The students at Walthill are 97 percent Native American and come from primarily low-income families. Therefore, this Walthill initiative will serve to supplement a state initiative focused on serving a predominately Native American population. Almost certainly, this school is the least adequate public education facility in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska. Since the school district's land consists primarily of Indian reservation land, which is not subject to the property tax that is the predominant source of funding for public schools in Nebraska, Walthill Public School receives Federal Impact Aid funds. As a result, Walthill has virtually no tax base available for bond issues. This proposal is an attempt to reverse the recent re-segregation of the Native American population at the school, which has resulted from the declining level of education and education services at Walthill. Third, this Member appreciates the $500,000 in funds provided in the Environmental Protection Agency's portion of this conference report for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Water Sciences Laboratory at the Water Center. These funds are needed by the Water Sciences Laboratory to assist in the purchase of the next generation in field and laboratory equipment so that it can maintain its capability to address ground and surface water quality problems. The Water Sciences Laboratory does both regional field research and analytical research in ground and surface water quality throughout the north-central United States. The Laboratory is responsible for the development of innovative field methods to remediated hazardous water contamination. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 2620.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the House of Representatives delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, this Member rises in strong support for H.R. 3167, the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. Indeed, this legislation enjoys the support of Members from the elected leadership on both sides of the aisle, including the Speaker of the House, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the House majority leader, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); the minority whip, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior); and the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). Additionally, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); the ranking minority member of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the chairman emeritus of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); and the chairman of the subcommittee on Europe, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), are cosponsors of the measure. Mr. Speaker, this Member is also pleased to note that among the cosponsors are many Members of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, including the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus); the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner); the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis); the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson); the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). Also, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), not a member of the delegation, who has been very active in NATO expansion issue is a cosponsor, as would be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), if we had had their names in time. The measure before this body today outlines and reaffirms congressional support for further expansion of NATO. In addition, the legislation endorses the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance as expressed in statements by former President Bill Clinton and by President George W. Bush. Further, the bill specifically designates Slovakia to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994, and the President is authorized to designate, as he deems appropriate, other countries as eligible for the assistance under the same program. Finally, this legislation authorizes foreign military financing for the following leading NATO alliances aspirants. These are not all of the aspirants, but these are the ones that the administration has requested authorization levels for: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and now Slovakia. These levels that are in the legislation reflect exactly the administration's request. I think it is important to note that H.R. 3167 does not specifically endorse the candidacies of any countries. It simply endorses expansion, hopefully at the Prague Summit in the year 2002, for those countries which meet the criteria outlined by current NATO members, and they are substantial criteria, not easy to meet. I identified a few of them a few minutes ago in discussing the rule. On November 1 of this year, the Committee on International Relations considered and passed this legislation, as amended, by voice vote. This Member and the dean of the New York Republican delegation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), offered the sole amendment to the measure during the committee markup, which redesignated the title as the Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act. This amendment was approved, of course, by voice vote in Committee and approved unanimously. Mr. Speaker, this Member can think of few more fitting legislative memorials to our former distinguished colleague who, through his service in this body and as a long-time member of the House NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation, consistently championed efforts to strengthen and expand NATO. Indeed, Congressman Solomon wrote a book on it. I would say also that Members should know that he played a very active role in the Assembly. He served as the chairman of one of the five working committees of the Assembly, the Political Committee, the one that dealt with the most controversial and most comprehensive list of subjects. He also served as the vice president of the Assembly for the maximum 2-year term, and he was proud to be a member of a small delegation that President Clinton took to the Madrid Summit when decisions were made about NATO enlargement to include the countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Congressman Solomon was unswerving in his belief that the former Warsaw Pact countries, if they meet the NATO criteria, plus others, including some of the new nations springing from the disintegration of Yugoslavia and nations farther to the southeast, should have the opportunity to join the NATO security alliance. He recognized that NATO membership for those countries would be critical in maintaining stability and prosperity for the entire continent and particularly for Eastern Europe. This Member believes that Congressman Solomon would be pleased to know that his vision for an expanded NATO continues to enjoy overwhelming support from this body. Mr. Speaker, this Member, who once again led a House delegation to the NATO PA spring meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, this year, was impressed with the grassroots support in Lithuania for NATO membership. In fact, during that trip, this Member asked a street vendor why he displayed a pro-NATO sticker on his cart. The vendor explained that he would never forget how a family member of his had been taken to Siberia by the Soviets and had never returned. Therefore, because of this and very similar incidents affecting thousands of citizens of the three Baltic nations in the early stages of World War II, this vendor said, That is why I am for NATO expansion--so it can never happen again. He is joined by so many people of the former Warsaw Pact countries who viewed NATO membership, or the prospect for it, as very important to the stability of future freedoms for their citizens. Without a doubt, NATO has been the most effective collective defense alliance in the history of the world. It has provided collective security to the member nations of Western Europe. Therefore, it is no surprise that many members of the former Warsaw Pact now aspire to such membership. For NATO to continue its expansion is entirely appropriate at this time, as is congressional support for expansion, but of course, expansion only when appropriate criteria are met, when these countries can make a proper contribution to the NATO collective security. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3167. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office on H.R. 3167 for printing in the Record. Congressional Budget Office, November 5, 2001. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3167, the Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Joseph C. Whitehill, who can be reached at 226-2840. Sincerely, Dan L. Crippen, Director. Enclosure.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who has been very much interested in NATO membership for a number of countries of Eastern and Central Europe, and has played a special role in outreach to Slovakia.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman on his comments in closing debate on his side of the aisle today. I would say that the gentleman from Texas who made remarks in the well certainly makes his comments from a very principled point of view. His philosophy is exemplified entirely by his comments here. I respect his point of view on this issue although I disagree with it. To the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the concerns he raises I think are legitimate concerns, but I would say in response to them, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and this gentleman have both said in the past, the criteria for NATO membership, set out by the 19 existing members, are very tough. They insist on economic progress, on substantial movements towards democracy, on transparency in defense budgets, on civilian control of the military, and on interoperability. Some of these countries, even some of the seven listed for authorization for assistance, are, frankly, some distance away, undoubtedly, from meeting all of the initial criteria. But the prospect for membership in the EU, the prospect for membership in the NATO alliance itself have been important incentives that are held out there for membership to bring about change in these societies. I think the House should be proud of its leadership in suggesting expansion at the previous round of decisions on NATO expansion made in Madrid. The House of Representatives was really the first entity in the world to suggest it was appropriate to consider expansion of NATO. And as we looked at the Visegrad Four, we found and encouraged very specifically membership for the countries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, that had made the necessary commitments and that met the criteria set forth. It was only a disappointment to both the other body and this House that Slovenia, a newly independent country, was not also included in the first round, because we felt that they as well had met the criteria for membership. Mr. Speaker, I would think as we look for the next year to come before the summit in Prague, we may well consider giving our view as a Congress on which additional countries seem to have met most adequately the criteria for NATO expansion at that summit. Mr. Speaker, I believe the legislation before us today makes a major contribution. Its authorization levels are consistent with those the administration has requested. Finally I would just close my remarks by citing two quotations from President William Clinton and President George W. Bush that are actually cited in the legislation itself. President Clinton said in a speech in Detroit in 1996, ``NATO's doors will not close behind its first new members. NATO should remain open to all of Europe's emerging democracies who are ready to shoulder the responsibilities of membership. No Nation will be automatically excluded. No country outside NATO will have a veto. A gray zone of insecurity must not reemerge in Europe.'' Then, in June of this year, President George W. Bush at Warsaw said, ``All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe as Europe's old democracies have. I believe in NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings. As we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as a pawn in the agenda of others. We will not trade away the fate of free European peoples. No more Munichs, no more Yaltas. As we plan the Prague Summit, we should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.''

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who in this last year has joined the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, and has done an outstanding job and has had a personal outreach program to Lithuania and to the Baltic states for some period of time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who followed European and NATO issues long before he became chairman. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the vice chairman of the Defense Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 277, I call up the bill (H.R. 3167) to endorse the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to just compliment the gentleman from California on his articulate statement, and I appreciate his kind remarks regarding this Member. His comments about President Putin, I think, are certainly appropriate. We have seen very moderate and positive statements on NATO expansion, on missile defense, coming from President Putin since the tragic events of September 11th. And I think it is very interesting, as I conclude these comments, to note that NATO assets, AWACS planes, are sent from Europe to the United States today to help our fighter aircraft patrol our cities since American AWACS aircraft are deployed for operations related to Northern Watch over Iraq, in the Persian Gulf regions, and in operations related to Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the dean of the delegation and the person who helped me offer the amendment to name this Gerald B.H. Solomon legislation. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the articulate statement offered by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). He spelled out, I think in some detail, why NATO continues to be very important to the democracies of Western Europe and to the United States and Canada, as well. Indeed, in Lithuania, we saw graphic examples and heard from people on the streets, at high levels of government and the people in the booths selling things to us why NATO was so important, why they do not want to come under totalitarianism again. In fact, I think there is strong bipartisan support for the continuation of NATO. The dissident voices we heard here today are certainly appropriate in a democracy, but I think they do not reflect the bipartisan recognition that NATO has been important, it is important today, and it will be important in the future. There are probably two critical institutions in Europe today which help ensure that this security umbrella will be over the nations of the former Warsaw Pact in Central and Eastern Europe and that they will be able to continue their movement towards democracy and a full array of human rights. They are, first and foremost, NATO; and secondly, the European Union. As the countries, seven of which are identified for authorization, or reauthorization, in this legislation move towards, or hope to successfully gain, membership in NATO, they are making a number of changes. They are embracing a full array of the features of democracy to meet the criteria for NATO membership, they are providing for transparency in their military budgets, they are providing for civilian control of their military, and they are providing for the kind of interoperability of their defense systems with those of the 19 countries of NATO. It is on the basis of NATO that we were able to form a coalition that performed so well in the Persian Gulf, that was brought to bear after we had some failures from the United Nations in certain parts of the Balkans, and which today underlie the coalition which President Bush and the United States have built in our war against terrorism. It is not by accident that it was the other countries of NATO which provided the first meaningful response to a coalition against terrorism when they invoked Article 5, that meant that when there is an attack on one of its members, in this case from a foreign source on the United States, they said by invoking Article 5, that it is an attack on all of us. So this defensive alliance, 52 years of age, has taken on some new responsibilities for Western democracies and for the United States, in this case in the war against terrorism. It is a critical institution. As we see the other countries of Eastern and Central Europe attempt to secure EU membership and NATO membership, we should also note that NATO has created the Partnership for Peace program to permit not just these seven countries, but a wider array of countries, even into the former Soviet Union, with an opportunity to eventually move towards full integration with Western institutions and Western democracy through NATO membership. Indeed, the door is not shut to Russia. In fact, we have provided, through the North Atlantic Council, a special opportunity for Russia to have input into the deliberations of NATO; not anything approaching a veto, for certainly something we would not want to give them. Mr. Speaker, If we did not have NATO today we would have to create something like it. So, Mr. Speaker, I not only urge support of the rule, but since time is limited on the debate on the bill itself, I thought it was appropriate to make these remarks here today with respect to the importance of NATO today and into the future.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, due to House Rules, unfortunately there were several Members of Congress who wanted to cosponsor, H.R. 3167, the Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, but were unable to be officially listed by the House Bill Clerk under our House Rules. The distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Sweeney] all contacted my office to cosponsor; however, their names were not added as cosponsors since the House International Relations Committee reported the bill on November 5th. This Member regrets that they were not added, but wants to recognize their intentions in this fashion.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the October 27, 2001, editorial from the Omaha World-Herald entitled ``Taliban Atrocities.'' Despite its great efforts to prevent civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the U.S. will inadvertently kill some civilians as it continues its bombings against Taliban-held areas. The civilian deaths which have already occurred (and those which likely will occur) certainly and very obviously are not part of a concerted scheme to kill the Afghan people. They are (and will be) an unfortunate consequence of the war on terrorism and those who continue to harbor terrorists. Unfortunately, civilian deaths simply are a part of any war. Contrast that fact with the conditions, as outlined in the editorial, which the Taliban has inflicted upon the Afghan people. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the U.S. win not only the war on terrorism but also the media war to uncover the horrific human rights abuses systematically implemented by the Taliban against the Afghan people. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Saturday, October 27, 2001] Taliban Atrocities (By John Cottschalk) The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan sounded a hypocritical note when he claimed that the United States is carrying out genocide against the Afghan people. On the contrary, the United States has gone to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties. Although accidental bombings of residential structures have occurred, military analyst William Arkin noted in The Washington Post that for U.S. military planners, ``avoidance of civilian casualties has become institutionalized even to the point of rejecting important targets if there is a high probability of civilian harm.'' The Taliban's claim of the moral high ground is further undermined by the fact that it is using Afghan civilians as human shields by relocating its military hardware into schools and mosques. It is especially brazen of the Taliban to pose as a champion of human rights, considering the horrors it has imposed on the Afghan people in recent years. Here are only a few incidents in the lengthy inventory of human rights abuses by the Taliban: In January of this year, the organization Human Rights Watch reports, the Taliban conducted a summary execution of 300 civilian adult males after it retook the town of Yorkaolang. In September 2000, Taliban forces used bombs, shells and cluster munitions indiscriminately against residential areas in the town of Taloquan and surrounding villages before capturing the area, according to statements by refugees. In May 2000, Taliban forces summarily executed at least 200 prisoners near a mountain pass northwest of the town of Pul-i Khumri. In August 1998, the Taliban captured Mazar-i Sharif, a strategic city in northern Afghanistan. Here is how Human Rights Watch described the Taliban's subsequent actions: ``Within the first few hours of seizing control of the city, Taliban troops killed scores of civilians in indiscriminate attacks, shooting noncombatants and suspected combatants alike in residential areas, city streets and markets. Witnesses described it as a `killing frenzy' as the advancing forces shot at `anything that moved.' '' Anti-Taliban guerrilla groups, including fighters for the Northern Alliance now supported by the United States, by no means have a spotless human rights record either. Over the past decade, such forces have attacked residential areas with artillery fire and carried out summary executions of Taliban soldiers and suspected supporters, according to Human Rights Watch. Such considerations indicate the difficulties that lie ahead in erecting a stable, democratic government in Afghanistan in the post-Taliban era. As for the Taliban, it stands damned by its own disreputable actions. In light of its appalling record, it has no moral standing to lecture the United States about respect for human life and protection of innocent civilians.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time to speak about my dear departed colleague and friend, Jerry Solomon. Jerry Solomon and I were elected together in 1978. We became friends and I now count him as one of the very best friends I have ever had. His wife, Freda, and my wife, Louise, he and I shared a friendship among us that simply grew over time to a point that I came to appreciate him in so very many ways. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) had just talked about his interest in doing whatever he could to advance the best interest of our country. Jerry Solomon was an unabashed flag-waving patriot. But he was a patriot in deed as well as word. And we came to know that because of his service on the Committee on International Relations, first of all, and later the leadership he brought to the Congress through his chairmanship of the House Committee on Rules. His dedication to his family has been frequently mentioned. One of his children, the only one I am privileged to know, is Linda Solomon who has played and continues to play a very crucial role as the person in charge of protocol for the Committee on International Relations, and she is a very valued and respected and loved staff member for the committee. I want to speak about Jerry Solomon, however, in a way that perhaps I have a special opportunity and knowledge. And that is to talk about his role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It was through Gerry's encouragement that I first became involved in 1984. He already as a young Member of the House was involved in this interparliamentary effort involving the parliamentarians from the then 16 NATO countries and later the 19 countries that now constitute NATO and the associate members. He was very well respected in that body. We have five major committees. He chaired for the maximum length of time the political committee, which you might be surprised was the one that dealt with the most controversial subjects and had the widest area of coverage. That was in 1993 through 1996. Later, in 1997 and 1998 for the maximum 2-year term, he served one of the assemblies of vice presidents. He was extraordinarily effective in that venue just as he is and was in this House. I want to relate one personal experience that I am sure his wife, Freda, will remember very well. We traveled together frequently since I had the privilege to chair the delegation at the encouragement of Jerry Solomon because he was very busy with the Committee on Rules. We were having plane trouble as we tried to take off from refueling in the Azores on the way back from a NATO meeting in Europe. We had to return to the Azores because of pressurization. We tried again. And Jerry Solomon was stewing because he had to get back here to chair a Committee on Rules hearing. His wife tried to calm him. My wife tried to calm him. Eventually about 6 hours later we got on to a transport plane, no seats, just webbing and the floors. I can recall and I am sure Freda will recall how that ramrod straight-back Marine was lying back on the floor in the cold on the deck of the transport plane and we worked our way back to Washington, D.C. so he could take over the responsibilities of the Committee on Rules and move some important legislation for the House. Jerry Solomon made many contributions here. It is impossible to enumerate them all. But of the things that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I had the privilege to do today is to offer an amendment to legislation that was pending and which we passed unanimously from the committee encouraging and enumerating the support for NATO expansion. We amended that bill to name it for our colleague, our late departed colleague Jerry Solomon, because he was such a leader in encouraging the enlargement of NATO both within the assembly and here in the House of Representatives. And because the House of Representatives, of all of the entities across the whole world, took the lead first in trying to push for NATO expansion, and because Jerry Solomon played a major role in assisting President Clinton at the Madrid Summit, which considered for the first substantial time NATO expansion, for these reasons we thought it was particularly fitting. So I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for joining me in that effort, for a suggestion that was always followed through on, and for yielding me this time on behalf of our beloved colleague, the late Jerry Solomon. We wish all the best possible in the days ahead to Freda and his family as they miss his physical presence here on Earth.