Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his very strong support for H.R. 2910, the Norman Sisisky Post Office Building Designation Act of 2001, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3131 South Crater Road in Petersburg, Virginia, as the ``Norman Sisisky Post Office Building.'' This Member would like to thank the main sponsor of H.R. 2910, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Rep. Randy Forbes]; the rest of the Virginia congressional delegation; the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Dan Burton]; and the Ranking Member of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Henry Waxman] for their instrumental role in bringing H.R. 2910 to the House Floor. Mr. Speaker, the late Congressman Sisisky was in many ways bigger than life--he lived life to the fullest, worked as hard as any Member in this body, and always enjoyed his family and friends. We can all take great pride in the kind of person Norm was, and in his many important contributions to not only the State of Virginia, but also the United States as a whole. As many of you probably know, this Member traveled with Congressman Sisisky frequently on NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) matters and to the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy (previously known as the Munich Wehrkunde Conference). In fact, Norm Sisisky participated in the Munich Conference on Security Policy longer than any sitting Member of the House and served as this Member's Democrat co-leader of the House delegation to this conference in February of this year. This Member can still recall Norm's remarks during a NATO PA meeting where a discussion of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), European burden sharing and the need for Europe to meet its own NATO military commitments brought Norm to his feet with the simple words of ``Show me the money.'' He went on to explain that while he was supportive of ESDP, his support was conditional on the need for our European NATO allies to increase their own defense budgets to meet not only ESDP requirements, but more importantly their NATO requirements. The House NATO PA delegation was certainly proud of Norm Sisisky's blunt and forceful remarks, as Norm Sisisky wasn't one for beating around the bush nor for talking just to talk--when Norm spoke we all listened. This was just one of the many examples of Norm Sisisky's keen knowledge of national defense matters and his forceful personality. This Member had great respect and appreciation for him as a person and as a congressional colleague. He was one of this Member's favorite people and we all miss him greatly! Therefore, this Member supports the naming of the Post Office Building in Petersburg, Virginia, the ``Norman Sisisky Post Office Building''. It certainly is a honor well- deserved which this Member strongly urges his colleagues to support.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 398 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 2217, the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations conference report. This Member also commends the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee for their hard work on this important bill. This Member is appreciative of the $15 million appropriation for continued construction for the replacement Indian Health Service Hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska. Of course, it is unfortunate that the appropriation is less than the Administration's request and the House-passed allocation which would have completed the appropriations for the hospital project; however, at least construction can continue under this reduced funding level. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee and the Subcommittee staff for the invaluable assistance they have provided over the years in obtaining funding for this new hospital, which is much needed and will greatly benefit Native Americans in Nebraska. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2217.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 3004, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which is being considered under suspension of the House rules. As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, H.R. 3004, of which this Member is an original cosponsor, is necessary to detect and eliminate terrorist funding by giving the Federal authorities the enhanced tools to address financial crimes. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the distinguished Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for their role in bringing this legislation to the House Floor today. The September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon illustrate the extensive financial infrastructure which can be associated with terrorism. As both the Vice Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and as House Intelligence Subcommittee Chair of Intelligence Policy and National Security, this Member has been actively studying the details surrounding the tragic events of September 11th. Therefore, this member would like to focus on the following three provisions of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001: (1) codification of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) within the Department of the Treasury; (2) enhancement of law enforcement's ability to address informal banking systems used by terrorists such as the South Asian ``hawala'' system; and (3) making bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States a Federal crime. First, this legislation codifies FinCEN's status as a Department of Treasury bureau with a separate authorization and statutorily assigns the FinCEN with duties consistent with those assigned currently by order of the Treasury, such as the administration of the Bank Secrecy Act. The FinCEN was created in 1990 by an order of the Secretary of the Treasury to be the government's primary financial intelligence unit. In addition, the FinCEN has been very successful in collecting and analyzing data related to large currency transactions and other suspicious financial activity. Moreover, this legislation also requires the FinCEN to provide computer support to the Office of Foreign Asset Control which is also within the Department of Treasury. This FinCEN support will avoid unnecessary computer data base duplication. Second, this legislation enhances the ability of law enforcement to address informal banking systems such as hawalas. Many terrorism experts believe that a share of terrorist financing is conducted through an ancient South Asian money exchange system called ``hawalas.'' Hawala is an underground network of financiers who acquire funds in one country and subsequently have a partner in a different country pay a certain amount per recipient. In this case, no transaction records are kept with no funds crossing any borders. This legislation mandates the creation of a unit within FinCEN specifically tasked with addressing informal nonbank networks such as hawalas. Furthermore, this legislation also requires a report to Congress from the Secretary of the Treasury on these informal banking systems. Lastly, this legislation, among many other things, makes it a Federal crime for anyone to knowingly smuggle more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instrument across the United States border. The measure provides a punishment of up to five years in prison and confiscation of the smuggled money. Under current law, the only requirement is that such currency be declared to customs inspectors upon entering the United States. This Members believes that the criminalization of bulk cash smuggling is necessary to help eliminate terrorist funding within the borders of the United States. Therefore, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3004, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 217, this Member rises in strong support for the bill which recognizes the historic significance of the fiftieth anniversary of the alliance between Australia and the United States under the ANZUS Treaty. The measure also pays tribute to the United States-Australia relationship, reaffirms the importance of economic security cooperation between the United States and Australia, and welcomes the state visit by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. This member would like to commend the efforts of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois and Chairman of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde), and the distinguished gentleman from California and Ranking Minority Member of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Lantos) for introducing and moving forward this legislation. Mr. Speaker, when the ANZUS Treaty was signed on September 1, 1951, no one could have anticipated that 50 years later, Australia would invoke Article 4 of the treaty to assist the U.S. in its efforts against the threat of terrorism. Indeed, the treaty was negotiated and signed during the Cold War when the spread of Communism to Pacific countries loomed as the major threat. It was considered much more likely at that time that the U.S. would need to invoke the treaty to aid and defend the other signatories. Now, the threat of Communism has disappeared, but U.S.-Australian military ties remain very strong and, in fact, poised to defeat the new threats to global security, including threats to financial, transportation, and immigration systems. Currently, Australia has offered the services of 150 elite Special Air Service soldiers and 2 Royal Australian Air Force Boeing 707 refueling aircraft. Additionally, the Australian Government has indicated that, if necessary, they could contribute long-range surveillance support and an amphibious command ship to the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, this commitment on the part of the Australians is to be commended as is the role it has previously played in defending the shared interests of the U.S. and Australia. Indeed, in every major 20th Century conflict--World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, Australian forces have joined American forces on the front lines. It is important to note that Australia's defense forces have cooperated and coordinated closely with the U.S. The command, control, and communications systems of both countries in important respects are integrated. Also, Australia has long been designated as one of America's most important non-NATO allies. Japan is the only other country in the Asia-Pacific region to share this distinction. Not only has Australia been a key ally to the U.S. in previous conflicts and continues to be so in this current conflict, it has been a stabilizing force in its neighborhood. Australia did not shirk from its regional responsibilities when a crisis erupted in East Timor. Australia stepped forward readily, early, and decisively to lead the multi-national peacekeeping intervention in East Timor and it remains a principal guarantor of security there. Australia's continued leadership in the Pacific will be critical following the terrorist attacks of September 11th as Indonesia, a neighbor and the world's most populous Muslim country, and the Philippines grapple with their response to the attacks. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. and Australia share similar backgrounds as former British colonies and as destinations for huge numbers of immigrants who were seeking a fresh start. Freedom flourishes in both countries. Indeed, the U.S. and Australia are very much like close cousins. Now, we, as cousins, are facing a potentially long and complicated war in a world very different from the one which necessitated the ANZUS Treaty. This Member urges his colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 217 to show continued support for Australia--our international cousin, our friend, and our very valuable and trusted ally.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for S. 1465, a bill authorizing the President to exercise waivers of foreign assistance restrictions with respect to Pakistan through September 30, 2003. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from kansas serving in the other body, Mr. Brownback, who previously served in this body, for his commitment to develop an expertise in South Asian and Central Asian issues and for introducing S. 1465. This Member would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde, for expeditiously moving this measure to the floor. Pakistan is located in a neighborhood where its alignment with the United States during the cold war was neither an easy nor popular choice, and yet Pakistan served well as an ally to the United States during that era. Following the unspeakable and horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the world has entered a new era, and, to its credit, Pakistan has once again made a choice that was neither easy nor popular--that is, to align itself with the United States in the war against global terrorism. Madam Speaker, this legislation provides President Bush with the tools he needs to encourage Pakistan's continued participation in United States efforts to combat terrorism. It provides the President with the opportunity to provide increased assistance to Pakistan is critical and very appropriate at this time. However, this Member would note that even if the terrorist attacks had not occurred, reviewing current sanctions against Pakistan, as provided in S. 1465, would have been appropriate. Following the October 12, 1999, unfortunate, but bloodless coup, which brought him to power, General Musharraf has abided by the Pakistani Supreme Court's prescribed timetable for reinstating local elections, and he continues to promise that Pakistan will conduct Federal elections in October 2002. Additionally, freedom of the press appears to be improving according to the Pakistan Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2000. While the Pakistani economy continues to suffer, reports indicate that General Musharraf's administration has made progress in improving transparency and in liberalizing trade. Certainly, these steps would have warranted the consideration of resuming foreign assistance which could foster continued improvements in these areas. It could also assist in supporting improvements in other human rights areas. Madam Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to support S. 1465.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as you know, this Member led the House delegation of 13 Members of the House of Representatives to the major annual meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Ottawa, Canada, during October 5-9, 2001. In addition, to the usual variety of important issues involving NATO and the national legislative bodies of the NATO-member countries and those of associate member countries of this Parliamentary Assembly, such as America's missile defense program, NATO involvement in the Balkans, NATO expansion plans, and the European Security and Defense Program, this meeting was understandably pre- occupied by the American war against terrorism after the tragic events of September 11th at the World Trade Center in New York City, at the Pentagon, and at the crash site of a hijacked airliner in a Pennsylvania field. Clearly, the most important signal of international support for our war against terrorism was the unprecedented invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty by the North Atlantic Council for the 19 member nations. It is a formal recognition by NATO that a foreign attack on the United States is regarded as an attack on all the NATO members and thus it puts in place the resources for collective action upon request. It was not surprising, therefore, that the degree of solidarity by all of the NATO members delegations and those of the Parliamentary Assembly observer countries and associate member nations, including the Russian Federation, was very positive. Indeed it was overwhelmingly apparent, with a sense of unity, commitment, and pledges and action on cooperation that were evident in every ideological or partisan element of the Parliamentary Assembly. Our delegation went to Ottawa with the expressed purpose of assessing that solidarity; reinforcing it, if necessary; responding to inquiries; and expressing our gratitude to our NATO partners and especially to the host country of Canada for their solidarity with us in this war and assistance to us in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack. We, the House delegation, believed and are now even more convinced that, during this past weekend, when the House was not in active session, the most important mission and place for us to be, when the House was not in session, was at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting. As it turned out, this was undoubtedly one of the most poignant and important Assembly meetings in the 47 year history of this organization, which is the linchpin of parliamentary support for the most effective multilateral defense alliance in the history of the world. Mr. Speaker, we were especially pleased that on your initiative you offered to come to address the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and deliver a written message from President George W. Bush. that initiative was rapidly and enthusiastically welcomed with a formal invitation. This is an exceedingly rare circumstance when the top elected leader of a NATO country, not the host country, addresses the Assembly. Thus we were very pleased and honored that you traveled on the weekend from your Illinois home to, a New York City event related to the recovery of that city, to Ottawa for your speech to the Plenary Session. There along with the addresses of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien; Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the Secretary General of NATO, and Ambassador Marc Grossman, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, you set the proper tone for the Assembly deliberations and the legislative and executive actions that will follow around NATO nations and other countries. The great response to your speech, to your meetings with the governmental leaders of Canada, and to your sincere expressions of gratitude to the Canadian people for their extraordinary support and outpouring of sympathy, condolences, and solidarity after the horrendous terrorist attack on America, were so obviously appreciated. Your presence helped us under-gird the sense of NATO and broader international support for the war against terrorism which our country will lead. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all our colleagues, I am including a copy of your speech to the Parliamentary Assembly, the message of President Bush to the Delegates, and the statement of this Member, the Chairman of the U.S. House delegation, who was privileged to follow you to the podium to speak for the American delegation. Statement by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives J. Dennis Hastert to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, October 9, 2001, Ottawa, Canada Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to address this body today. It is a great honor for me and I thank you for this courtesy. Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, a sworn enemy--an enemy that dares not confront us in the open--attacked us in the most cowardly fashion--by targeting innocent citizens. And make no mistake; it was not just an attack on America, it was an attack on all of us. It was an attack on the values of freedom and democracy that are embodied in each of the Parliaments represented in this Assembly. This enemy operates in the shadows, hates with an unnatural passion, and practices political fanaticism that glorifies violent death and condemns innocent life. These terrorists are cowards who flout international law and any standard of common decency. They hate freedom. But they also misunderstand something very fundamental. As my colleague the Minority Leader Mr. Gephardt said so clearly: and I quote ``They think freedom is our vulnerability.--It is our strength.'' Some say that America cannot serve as the world's policeman. Frankly, it is a role that Americans as peace loving people tend to shy away from. But the people of the United States are resolved--more resolved than I have ever seen them in my lifetime--to carry whatever burden is necessary to rid our world of the evil that threatens our democratic way of life. True, the burden is heavy, but our strength as an alliance is mighty. And our cause is being joined by freedom loving nations around the world--even by those who traditionally have not been our allies at all. Together we must enforce the rules of common decency; together we must take the steps necessary to protect our citizens from these lawless and evil bandits. And so the campaign has begun. Some of it quietly and some, as it began on Sunday, with military action, as American and British forces hit terrorist camps and Taliban strongholds. Let there be no mistake, no uncertainty in the minds of those who wish us harm--you will be found, you will be punished and your roots will be destroyed so those who share your demonic views cannot rise again. While the grim images from New York and Washington and a field in Pennsylvania will forever be seared in our minds, I am heartened by the support we've received in the days following these attacks. Within 48 hours, my office had received letters of condolence and support from governments and parliaments worldwide, including governments from every nation represented in this room. My fellow parliamentarians, on behalf of the United States Congress, and all Americans, I come before you to say thank you. Thank you for your condolences. Thank you for your solidarity. And thank you for your enduring support. I want to mention a special word of thanks to America's northern neighbor and our hosts here today: Canada. More than 100,000 Canadians gathered in this city just days after the attack to express solidarity, in the words of the Prime Minister, ``as friends, as neighbors and as family.'' And in the spirit of family, the Canadian people welcomed some 45,000 Americans who found themselves here. In many instances Canadians spontaneously drove to airports and took stranded passengers into their homes. At the other end of this great country two Vancouver police officers collected thousands of dollars for the families of police officers who died in the attack--and offered each donor a sticker with the Statute of Liberty, and American flag and the words, ``Never Forget.'' To the Canadian delegation I say thank you. You gave us shelter, you gave us comfort, and you gave us hope. No nation could have a finer neighbor than America has in Canada, and that is something we will ``Never Forget.'' Today, four weeks after these horrific acts, this massive outpouring of sympathy and fraternity continues to overwhelm. I recall vividly: British Prime Minister Tony Blair crossing the ocean to stand with us in solidarity during a rare joint session of the United States Congress; Tens of thousands of German citizens assemble at the Brandenburg Gate waving American flags; Poles lighting candles outside the American embassy in Warsaw; And in my ancestral home of Osweiler, Luxembourg each of the 139 families who reside in that tiny village flew the American flag on their homes--a village awash in red, white and blue. These act of kindness and solidarity--and the thousands of others in every nation represented in this room, have moved our hearts and given strength to the American people. Much has been written about America's willingness to stand with its European neighbors during and after World War II. I assure you, as the history of this new war--the war on terrorism--is written, the first chapter will be dedicated to you--our NATO allies--and others around the world--who stood tall in support of America. Let me also tell you that Americans know that other nations, too, are crying out in pain. For the terrorists did not simply attack America that day, they assaulted the world. Citizens from more than sixty nations perished. Among the dead are hundreds of Britons, Turks, Germans and Canadians. Gone too are Danes, Belgians, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irish, Czechs and others. Clearly the attack on America was not an attack against one, it was an attack against all. And let me hasten to add that this utterly evil act did not differentiate among religions. Alongside Christians, Sikhs, and Jews, the terrorists killed Muslims from Pakistan; Indonesia, Bangladesh, America, and many other nations. My fellow Parliamentarians, President Bush told America and the world, we ``should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on T.V., and covert operations, secret even in success.'' Less important in this unconventional war will be your governments' commitments of infantry battalions, of naval vessels, or of fighter aircraft--although some will be needed. Each of us who serves in a Parliament must rethink our level of defense, security and intelligence expenditures. It can no longer be business as usual. As President Bush and the other NATO heads of state join in solidarity, so too must we, as parliamentarians, continue to stand together. The events of September 11 remind us that there is so much that binds us, and so little that can divide us. In the days after the attacks, the United States Congress convened for a solemn debate authorize our President to use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' to respond to the attacks and to deter future ones. We approved a massive emergency spending package to begin rebuilding what the terrorists destroyed; to lend assistance for our troubled economy; and to buttress our military and intelligence efforts. And while the NATO heads of state conduct the appropriate diplomatic, political, and military response to these attacks, we--as legislators--can and must work in tandem to fight these terrorists. Much as we yearn to return to life as we knew it before September 11, we cannot, because the threat is still real-- and it will be for sometime to come. As President Roosevelt said after the other great attack on American soil nearly 60 years ago, ``Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.'' I am aware that during these deliberations and at previous sessions, you have debated the complex issue of missile defense. As we say in America, let me put in my two cents. Can there be any doubt that we must together work to develop and deploy defenses against all forms of attack? For if these terrorists could plan and execute the sinister acts of September 11, surely, if given the capability, they would not hesitate to launch missiles against our cities as well. They killed six thousand--they targeted fifty thousand--why would they hesitate to kill millions? We as parliamentarians must enact or modify laws that enhance law enforcement cooperation. We must strengthen international financial safeguards, improve airline and airport security, and broaden immigration information and intelligence sharing. Together, we must enact statutes that allow us to bring justice to the terrorists now operating a web of hate around the world. These are difficult, complicated issues but we know how to sort them out. Writing laws is our profession--and we are good at it. But we must not get bogged down in indecision and let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We must not become complacent or allow ourselves to be distracted by other urgent needs. We simply need to get the job done or the horror that visited my nation on September 11 will be repeated, perhaps in your nation. And, equally important, our Parliaments must continue to protect the freedoms and liberties that each of our nations hold sacred. Only moments after granting our President the authority to employ military force against those responsible for the events of September 11, the United States House of Representatives took up a resolution calling for tolerance toward Muslims, toward Arabs, and toward others in America who might be unjustly treated based upon the acts of these few extremists. The civilized and free world must do as much to embody the principles we proclaim, as we do to protect them. Mr. President, I bring with me a personal message to this Assembly from the President of the United States in support of your resolution and to express appreciation to the nations assembled here ``for the sympathy expressed and the support offered by your governments and by your people.'' We will distribute that message to the delegations in writing. It says in part: and I quote ``to our Allies, our partners, and our friends around the world, I want to emphasize that we welcome all nations into an international coalition committed to finding, stopping, and defeating terrorism. The choice is clear, and all must choose. . . . Our cause is just and our cause is justice itself. . . . We ask for your support for this resolution and for this endeavor'' unquote. When I hear President Bush speak of our cause as ``justice itself,'' I am reminded of the words of one of his predecessors, from my own home State of Illinois, the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Although he was speaking almost 150 years ago, his words still ring true today as we struggle to preserve for the future our sacred values. Abraham Lincoln said, ``let all Americans--let all lovers of liberty everywhere--join in the great and good work. If we do this . . . succeeding millions of free, happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed . . .'' Mr. President, as an alliance--as a World Community--we have been awakened to a new and horrible threat. But we are strong. And we are determined. Even as we pray for our young men and women who we have put in harms way, we are confident of their skill in battle, their patriotism, and their willingness to sacrifice. None of us can predict the future but of one thing I am certain. We in America, and we in this proud Alliance, will continue to pursue freedom, democracy and peace, and we--not the terrorists--will be the victors. I thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H.R. 3061, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, for bringing this important bill to the House Floor today. In particular, this Member supports the additional $25,000,000 provided to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for digitalization. Public broadcasting has been issued a mandate to be on the air with a digital signal by 2003. By FY 2004 all stations will bear the additional costs of dual carriage of analog and digital signals. Nebraska ETV Network has worked closely with this Member and has informed me and shown evidence that they anticipate using the digital signal to offer multicating and interactive video that will enable the network to address even more needs of children and adult learners. The State of Nebraska has already committed significant resources to convert the nine-station Nebraska ETV Network to digital technology. The funding plan approved by Nebraska's legislature and governor to ensure the Network's compliance with the Federal mandate assumed a commitment from the Federal Government to help close the DTV funding gap. If we are to ensure that our local communities continue to receive the rich educational, cultural and informational programs and services offered by local public television stations, we must help them. On another issue, the Member would like to commend his colleagues for their continued support of efforts to improve the delivery of health services in rural areas. Specifically, H.R. 3061 provides $142 million for the National Health Service Corps, which plays a critical role in maintaining the health-care safety net by placing primary health-care providers in our nation's most underserved rural and urban communities. The measure also appropriates $1.319 billion for the Consolidated Health Centers program--$150 million more than fiscal year 2001. Community Health Centers (CHCs) provide primary and preventive care to medically underserved and uninsured people, including 5.4 million rural residents. Certainly, this Member commends this effort and encourages the expansion community health center services to address the needs of rural and underserved communities. This Member is especially pleased that the appropriations bill provides $35 million for the Medicare Rural Health Flexibility Program. Nebraska has been on the forefront of converting rural hospitals to critical access status. As of October 1, 2001, Nebraska has 53 Critical Access Hospitals which is the most in the country. Furthermore, H.R. 3061 appropriates $52 million to the Rural Health Outreach and Network Development and Research Grant Program and $27.6 million to the Rural Telemedicine Grant program. These grants are available to rural communities working to provide health care services through new and creative strategies including telemedicine and trauma care services. Additionally, this Member would like to take this opportunity to explain his ``nay'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaffer], a vote taken with some reluctance but very careful consideration. Within this Member's home state of Nebraska, the number of children enrolled in special education programs has risen by 3,700 students from 1995-1999, a nine percent increase. This Member has always supported fulfilling the commitment made by Congress made in 1975, which this Member notes was prior to his service in U.S. House, to fund IDEA at 40 percent. Currently, the Federal Government is funding an average of 12.6 percent of the per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities. The other 27.4 percent of our unfilled promise is a burden that state and local governments are having to include in their budgets. This Member has said for many years now that the one significant way that Congress can help decrease property taxes for his Nebraska constituents as well as to meet their other programmatic, construction or enhanced teacher salary priorities, is to keep the congressional promise to provide 40 percent of the costs of special education. Of course, it would be ideal to have the full 40 percent funding of IDEA in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. However, the Schaffer amendment would have severely cut appropriations for disadvantaged children through Title I, vocational education and TRIO in order to offset the increase in IDEA funding. The underlying bill (H.R. 3061) provides a $1.4 billion increase for IDEA, which is $400 million above the President's request. Furthermore, this Member notes that over the past two years, funding for IDEA has been increased by $2.7 billion. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3061.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, this Member was absent for official business purposes in Ottawa, Canada, as the Chairman of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for the major annual meeting during the evening of October 9, 2001, and unfortunately missed two roll call votes. Had this Member been present, this Member would have voted in the following ways: 1. Rollcall No. 372--``aye'' on final passage of H. Con. Res. 244 authorizing the printing of a revised edition of the publication entitled ``Our Flag.'' 2. Rollcall No. 373--``aye'' on final passage of H. Res. 250 expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of Energy should increase the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as vice-chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security, this Member rises in the strongest possible support for H.R. 2883. This Member congratulates and commends the chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his extraordinary leadership in preparing a bipartisan bill that was approved unanimously by the committee. Under his guidance, this body is preparing to move rapidly to address a number of long-standing deficiencies in our intelligence collection and analysis. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has not suddenly awakened to the very real inadequacies of the intelligence agencies and programs of our government and the financial resources and legislative tools they need. As Chairman Goss has said on numerous occasions: ``The message is not new; the audience is new.'' The American people understand now, through tragedy, that our intelligence and counterterrorism programs are extremely important. With that in mind, this Member congratulates the chairman and my colleagues on the committee for the clear and decisive message sent by this legislation. I also congratulate the ranking member of the committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her assistance in crafting this bipartisan legislative product. The committee comes before this body today in an amazing degree of unanimity regarding our concept of the terrorist threat, among other threats to our national security, and for the necessary intelligence community response. This level of bipartisanship is a tribute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Mr. Chairman, the cowardly and horrific terrorist attack of September 11 highlighted for our citizens and the world the fact that we live in a new world, a world where many of our commonly held assumptions about security and safety are being re-examined. Even before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the Bush administration had embarked upon a comprehensive review of U.S. intelligence policy, led by the retired Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft and the deputy director of Central Intelligence for Community Management, Joan Dempsey. Obviously, this intelligence review has assumed an even greater importance and urgency, for ultimately the outcome in this war in which we find ourselves will be determined by the quality of our intelligence. The review is not yet complete, and the executive branch has not firmly established the criteria and emphases that will guide us in the 21st century. However, this bill provides much of the important guidance to ensure that its policies can quickly be implemented. This committee's task has been made particularly difficult because in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, there naturally is, in some quarters, a desire to find a simple solution, a quick fix. Certainly the legislation before this body today provides much needed additional funds to improve our intelligence capabilities and to wage the war against terrorism. At a more fundamental level, H.R. 2883 seeks to respond to serious policy and structural problems. In some cases, these are problems that have been years in the making and will take a long time to turn around. For example, there is, within the intelligence community, a critical shortage of language specialists that are particularly relevant in a war against terrorism. The legislation before this body today seeks to further address the language shortage and to facilitate the recruitment of native speakers drawn from the various relevant ethnic American communities. Similarly, this bill continues the committee's longstanding and urgent needs for increased support for human intelligence collection. Human intelligence, or HUMINT, is the placement of highly trained, language capable officers into positions where they can acquire information vital to our national interest. Our HUMINT capability was decimated by former Director Stansfield Turner, and in the years following the end of the Cold War. Also, our human intelligence collection effort was understandably directed during the Cold War period at collection on the Soviet Union and its client states, not on Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia, and especially not on the problems of terrorism and narcotics trafficking. This is a resource problem, while long emphasized by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it is a problem now all too apparent. This legislation continues the committee's effort to address this deficiency but with more emphasis. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2883 also reverses the 1995 limitations on asset recruitment. These restrictions, called ``the Deutsch guidelines,'' were promulgated as a means to limit our association with unsavory characters with human rights or other criminal problems. While the concern underlying these guidelines was certainly understandable, the reality is that the Deutsch guidelines have had a chilling effect on the recruitment of people who can actually and effectively penetrate the inner circle of the terrorist cells and networks and the narcotics rings. The recruitment of assets with unique knowledge or access to these terrorists and drug cartels is the key to successful HUMINT in this area. The regrettable real world reality is that, certainly in the crucial battle against terrorism and drug rings, we must allow our foreign officers to recruit assets that are some rather unsavory characters. To break the back of the al Qaeda terrorist network, we will, in all likelihood, have to recruit individuals who are already influential members of al Qaeda, who themselves have committed acts of terror. To win the war on terrorism we have to end the cycle of risk aversion. Recruiting the equivalent of A-1 grade boy scouts or straight arrows will not give us the penetration and the intelligence we need. In many cases, there will be difficult decisions to make, but the United States has professionals and intelligence and law enforcement fields who can and must make those decisions. This legislation makes it clear that the foreign intelligence personnel can recruit those individuals who possess the information the United States needs to defend its people and its interests. There will be checks and balances put in place, but even though some of these assets will go bad, we need to be careful about our criticism. If the risks are realistically weighed against the chances of operational success, this body must not rashly second-guess those decisions. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and again, I commend the Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for their leadership and all of my colleagues who have contributed so much to this legislation. Our staff, of course, is outstanding. Certainly it continues to be among the very best in the Congress, and we owe a great deal of our success in bringing this legislation to our staff. They are crucial. They are competent. My colleagues should have every confidence in them as we do.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this important amendment would permit farmers to voluntarily set aside a portion of their total crop acreage in exchange for higher loan rates on their remaining production. This innovative proposal, which goes by the name of Flexible Fallow in Farm Country represents an effort to maintain planning flexibility, while improving on other areas of our farm policy. As I said, it is a voluntary program. It is an annual conservation use feature. It would be added to the farm bill's loan rate provisions. If a farmer wants to operate under the new farm bill conditions, that opportunity remains. If a farmer needs greater leverage over crop production and marketing, Flexible Fallow would make that possible. The amendment would allow producers to conserve up to 30 percent or set aside up to 30 percent of their planted acreage on a crop-by-crop basis. This approach was suggested during one of the agriculture advisory meetings this Member held in his district; and it, in fact, is considered in other States. The proposal, I think, has significant grass-roots support, because agricultural producers recognize the need for change and the need for more options to increase farm revenue. Another very important point to stress is that this proposal would allow producers to make this decision annually. As a result, the land taken out of production would not send a long-term signal to our global competitors about our future production. It would leave producer countries like Brazil or Argentina guessing as to the impact of the collective decision of the American farmers who choose to participate in the Flexible Fallow program from year to year. They have the capacity to bring substantial amounts of land into production in those countries to replace ours in export markets, something we certainly should seek to avoid. This Flexible Fallow program is a market-responsive proposal. When commodity prices are low, farmers could choose to voluntarily conserve or set aside more land in exchange for a higher loan rate. As prices improve, more land would come back into production. In August of 1999, the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, FAPRI, released an analysis of the Flexible Fallow program. FAPRI is a well-respected, dual-university research program involving the University of Missouri-Columbia and Iowa State University and joined by a consortium of four other universities. Its analysis found that crop farmers' annual net income would increase $5.4 million over the 2000 through 2008 period. The FAPRI analysis stated, ``Reduced plantings translate into stronger crop prices under the Flexible Fallow scenario. The largest impacts occur in the 2000 to 2002 period as more producers take advantage of the land-idling provisions.'' The Flexible Fallow Program also promotes conservation. The legislation requires the idle land to be devoted to a conservation use. Producers would use management practices designed to enhance soil conservation and wildlife habitat. This Member is aware of the projected costs or estimated costs of this program. They are not inconsequential, but I believe that the funds made available under this legislation, authorized by it, could be better used if part of those funds were shifted over to the Flexible Fallow Program. That is a matter of choice, a matter of policy. I happen to think this is the right way to go and as do many of my farmers. Mr. Chairman, American farmers continue to face enormously difficult times. Producers continue to struggle with plentiful supplies and low prices. While there are no easy answers, there are some steps we can take to help farmers. A lot of that is being done here today as part of this bill. This Flexible Fallow amendment provides one important alternative. I urge my colleagues to support it. Point of Order

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I concede the point of order.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments. I think the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) should be commended for offering these three amendments. All are subjects of great concern and interest to my own constituency. As I held my agricultural town hall meetings, all of these issues were brought up as important issues that should be addressed. The gentleman from South Dakota, in offering No. 58, specifically on wetlands, has a major impact, as he mentioned, not only on his State, but several States including my own. And No. 60, which is an issue directed against the lack of competition in the marketing area and in the input area, is particularly important to our constituents. I think these amendments deserve very strong support.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be taken up en bloc.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment our colleagues from Texas, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, for their efforts in bringing us important legislation, and one, I think, that will be even further improved by a variety of amendments that they have agreed to accept. I have three that I offer today at this point. The first relates to the Conservation Reserve Program. By virtually any measure, the CRP has proven to be enormously successful. It is a national investment which provides dividends to environmentalists, farmers, sportsmen, conservationists, the general public and wildlife. The CRP actually dwarfs other conservation and wildlife protection efforts. This Member is pleased that it has been reauthorized and expanded. However, this amendment is offered to close a loophole which was brought to this Member's attention at a recent listening session in northeast Nebraska. Quite simply, this amendment ensures that the CRP be used for its intended purposes. This straightforward amendment states that only land which has been in production for 4 consecutive years is eligible for the CRP, unless the land is already in the program. We are finding that a variety of people are using this to buy land which they will use for acreage, leaving it in the CRP a short period of time. I understand that the staff may work in conference to perfect this, if necessary, but I believe it is an important change and closes a loophole unintendedly created within the program. The second amendment that I offer in No. 6 relates to the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards part of the USDA. It is based on legislation introduced in the other body by the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. Clearly, the issue of concentration in agriculture, particularly in the meat packing industry, is a growing concern. There is simply too little competition, and Congress should work to correct this problem. The report issued by the General Accounting Office last year found significant shortcomings in the composition of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's, GIPSA, investigative teams. This amendment helps to address these concerns. During listening sessions in this Member's district and in other meetings, producers have made it clear that the consolidation and concentration of firms that sell supplies to farmers and among those that buy their crops and livestock is hurting family farm operations. This is an issue which is mentioned over and over in a concerted and emphatic manner. The support for their views often may be anecdotal, but I believe it is a concern so widely and strongly expressed that the House Committee on Agriculture and the Congress must not ignore it. Mr. Chairman, the third amendment that I offer en bloc, No. 7, relates to value-added loans. It enhances the USDA's Rural Business Industry Guaranteed Loan Program and promotes value-added products. The amendment simply expands the loan program to areas other than rural communities if a majority of those individuals involved in the project reside and have farming operations in rural communities, and the project adds value to or processes agriculture commodities. This would remove a stumbling block for worthwhile projects which currently are prohibited even though they would benefit our Nation's farmers. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critically important that Congress assist these projects designed to add value to agriculture commodities. Producers need to be able to move up the agriculture and food-producing and marketing chain in order to capture a larger share of the profits generated from processing their raw commodities. This amendment is a small, but I think positive, step toward that goal. It removes a barrier to receiving a business and industry guaranteed loan, while maintaining important safeguards to help ensure that the program is used as intended. This Member urges his colleagues to support this amendment and the other two.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the October 1, 2001, and the October 2, 2001, editorials from the Omaha World-Herald entitled ``Loosey-Goosey Borders'' and ``Loosey-Goosey Borders: II.'' For many years, this Member has argued that it is critical to U.S. security interests to have our government energetically reform and effectively implement visa control for foreign nationals and to screen those foreign nationals who are seeking to be accepted as legitimate refugees or immigrants. As the October 1st editorial notes, ``U.S. law enforcement agencies should know who is entering the country and where they are supposed to be.'' Sadly, it took the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for the American public to fully understand why that is the case. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 1, 2001] Loosey-Goosey Borders One of the greatest challenges facing the United States now is how to maintain an open, free society while protecting the country from terrorists who exploit that freedom. A key element of the question is the millions of foreigners who enter the United States each year, some of whom have had terror, not touring, on their mind. In 1998, about 30 million people entered the country on visitors' visas, a form that is relatively easy to obtain, sometimes after only a few routine questions. Then this is what happens: nothing. Once these visitors arrive, the U.S. government washes its hands of them. They are never checked on unless they commit a felony of some kind. In practice, they are free go home or disappear into American life, as they wish. Many of them never leave. One estimate suggests that half of the 7 million illegal aliens in this country didn't enter illegally but simply overstayed their visas. And the Immigration and Naturalization Service has no idea who they are, where they could be or what they might be up to. Officials say that 16 of the 19 hijacker-terrorists entered the United States on temporary visas as students, workers or tourists. U.S. borders aren't simply porous, said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration studies in Washington; they are, to all intents and purposes, wide open. That is crazy. An open border is an open invitation to terrorism. First, the painfully obvious. The INS should keep track of all who visit the United States, where they are and when they are required to leave. The act of not leaving should trigger a reaction from INS enforcement officers--perhaps a letter of inquiry, perhaps arrest, depending on the potential threat. Keeping track of visitors will take a computer system, a reform mandated by Congress in 1996 but abandoned when border states objected to the delays and loss of business. It will mean time lost and, in all likelihood, traffic jams, particularly at busy U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian borders. But it is vital to check foreign visitors both in and out. Not to do so invites what has happened. Protecting the United States may require that the embassy and consulate staffs where visas are issued be better trained or enlarged. They are the first line of defense against attack, and they should act positively, checking backgrounds and criminal records of would-be tourists, particularly if the applicant is from a problematic country such as Iran. The changes needed might also involve modifications in the visa waiver program, by which nationals in 29 friendly countries such as Great Britain and Norway are admitted to this country without the formality of a visa. At the very least, these visitors, too, should be checked in and out via computer. Because the criminal world so highly values stolen or forged passports from waiver countries, more stringent security provisions might be needed. Foreign visitors shouldn't look at increased scrutiny or security as an accusation or violation of rights. They are, after all, guests, here on sufferance and required to obey the law. Few other countries have been as wide open as the United States in the past, and even fewer are likely to be in the future. U.S. law enforcement agencies should know who is entering the country and where they are supposed to be. These organizations can then judge potential risks and problems and handle them as the law allows. When the INS keeps closer track of visitors, it isn't intended to harass but to identify, not to accuse but to protect. It's not xenophobia. It's self-defense. And self-defense, within the context of freedom, has suddenly become of vital importance. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 2, 2001] Loosey-Goosey Borders: II As the United States moves to take control of its borders and keep track of foreign nationals entering the country, it is important to change the way student visas are handled, too. About half a million foreign students enter the country every year, some headed for colleges or universities, some for vocational or language schools. The vast majority of them actually attend school. Some, however, do not, and disappear into the population. In that category was one Hani Hanjour, who was supposed to study English at Holy Names College in Oakland, Calif. Ten months after he skipped out on his student visa, he and companions hijacked the jet that crashed into the Pentagon. Hard as it might be to understand, schools are not required to notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service if foreign students fail to appear or drop out. Five years ago, Congress ordered the INS to begin tracking foreign visitors. That was to include students starting in 2003. But in August, a bill was introduced to end the system before it began. The system would have issued cards with magnetic strips to students. The strips, containing personal information, would have to be swiped through a reader when the student entered the country and the cards would have to be shown to school authorities when they arrived on campus. Then, campus officials would be required to report changes of address and other information concerning international students. More than a hundred schools spoke out against the INS plan, as did NAFSA/Association of International Educators, a lobbying group. Many university officials worried that any identification system would discourage international students. Perhaps it would, but it shouldn't. It is not unreasonable and it should not be intimidating to require foreign students not only to be what they claim--students--but to allow the immigration service to keep track of their whereabouts. The education lobbying group has seen the light and changed its position. Last month, after the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., its spokesman said, ``The time for debate on this matter is over, and the time to devise a considered response to terrorism has arrived.'' That is a commendable turn-around, one that college and university leaders would do well to emulate. The idea is not to punish foreign students or inconvenience their schools but to protect Americans from terrorists who might enter the country under false pretenses. The system needs to be put in place yesterday.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, despite this Member's very strong reservations about the fundamental lack of necessary policy reforms in the overall bill, he rises in strong support of Title III of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001. Since Nebraska's 1st Congressional District's economy relies heavily on agriculture-related trade, the export and humanitarian programs authorized in Title III impact this Member's district more directly than perhaps any other provisions passed in this body. Also, this Member would remind his colleagues that these programs impact many Americans as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that for every $1 generated by agriculture exports, an additional $1.30 is generated through export-related activities. Therefore, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Agriculture and International Relations Committee (Mr. Combest, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Lantos). In addition, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for her unwavering support for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Furthermore, this Member also especially would commend the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), for her dedication to the Farmers for Africa and Carribean Basin Program which builds on the current Farmer-to-Farmer Program, previously established by this Member, by linking African-American volunteers engaged in farming and agribusiness with their counterparts in Africa and the Carribean Basin to provide technical assistance. Their efforts are much appreciated. Mr. Chairman, for the United States to remain competitive in the world agriculture markets it is crucial to support market development activities which encourage the sale of U.S. commodities and value-added ag products overseas. Our European, Asian, and South American competitors have funneled significant government monies into market development. Indeed, our competitors individually outspend the U.S. at a rate of at least 4 to 1. In the competitive arena of ag trade, it is critical to provide U.S. ag-industry components with appropriately funded market development tools for effectively fostering new overseas markets, entering existing overseas markets, and maintaining overseas markets. Title III more than doubles funding levels for the Market Access Program (MAP) from $90 million to $200 million and increase funding levels for the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP) from $28 million to $37 million a year. On a related note, this Member is pleased that the current version of Title III of H.R. 2646 includes language supporting a study on fees for services provided by the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) rather authorizing the USDA collect such. This Member has previously expressed his concerns about the collection of fees for commercial services provided overseas by the FAS. For small and medium businesses attempting to broaden their operations overseas, assessing fees for FAS services and impressive expertise could prove to hinder such businesses' expansion. In addition to authorizing ag trade and export programs, Title III of H.R. 2646 authorizes what are among our strongest foreign policy tools--U.S. food aid programs. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased to note that he has on several occasions toured Crete Mills in Crete, Nebraska, a milling facility in his own district which produces much of the fortified grain and soy products used in food aid programs. This Member would like to convey to his colleagues that the company and its employees are enthused about continuing to play a role in meeting the needs of their hungry neighbors around the world. Additionally, of course, it has noticeably raised the market prices for farmers' grain in a wide radius around Crete. In supporting the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, this Member hopes that the U.S. attain its frequently articulated goal of stability in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, South America, and Asia. Indeed, following the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is increasingly important that the U.S. make investments in the health and education of the children in particularly unstable regions. Upon the foundation of a healthy, educated population, the U.S. can continue to work toward other foreign policy goals--building democratic institutions, addressing human rights concerns, developing economic stability, and countering terrorism. Finally, as the author of the original Farmer-to-Farmer Program as earlier noted, this Member is pleased to support the Farmers for Africa and Carribean Basin Program, an initiative introduced as freestanding legislation by the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). The Farmers for Africa and Carribean Basin Program builds upon the current Farmer-to-Farmer Program, which is reauthorized in this bill, by linking African-American volunteers engaged in farming and agribusiness with their counterparts in Africa and the Carribean Basin to provide technical assistance. This approach has worked in Asia, South America, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union; therefore, the renewed emphasis and extension of this program to Africa and the Carribean Basin certainly is appropriate. Mr. Chairman this Member urges his colleagues to strongly support Title III of H.R. 2646.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in support of H. Res. 247, to honor, congratulate, and thank Cal Ripken. In less than a week, Cal Ripken will conclude his remarkable baseball career and it's certainly appropriate to take this opportunity to recognize his contributions both on and off the field. Throughout his 21 years in the majors, Cal exemplified the highest possible level of sportsmanship. His constant dedication and unmatched work ethic earned him the respect and admiration of teammates, opponents, and millions of fans. Quite simply, Cal knew the right formula for success. He combined a serious approach to the game's fundamentals with an infectious enthusiasm and sense of fun each time he went on the field. Cal's determination as well as his love of the game were obvious for all to see. Cal clearly put up some of the most impressive numbers in baseball history during his Hall of Fame career. He also set a new standard for shortstops with his power hitting and nearly flawless fielding. He is one of only seven players with at least 400 home runs and 3,000 hits. However, the most amazing number in Cal's illustrious career is certainly 2,632, the number of consecutive games he played. It's a record that virtually everyone agrees will never be matched and it symbolizes an unequaled commitment to doing a job and doing it right. Many of Cal's accomplishments can be quantified, but these numbers offer only a glimpse of his profound influence throughout baseball and society. He became a role model for children and adults alike who saw what can be done through preparation, hard work, and perseverance. Cal's unique style of play appealed to fans on many different levels. The intense baseball fan admired his meticulous attention to detail and studious approach to the game. The casual fan appreciated his dramatic home runs and extraordinary defensive plays. Even those who didn't follow baseball admired all that he represented as a player. The Iron Man won gold glove and silver bat awards, but it was the intangibles that helped set him apart. Perhaps more than anything, it's Cal's character and strong values that make him such a special individual. His loyalty, demonstrated by playing his entire career with the Baltimore Orioles, was extended to his teammates and those who enjoyed watching him play. Off the field, Cal always had times for the fans. He also put an emphasis on giving back to the community. He and his wife have supported numerous charities through the Kelly and Cal Ripken, Jr. Foundation and have promoted adult literacy, medical research and numerous other worthy causes. Fortunately for baseball fans everywhere, Cal has made it clear that he plans on staying involved in the game that he loves. His commitment to share his knowledge with young players means that the ``Ripken Way'' will continue even after Cal retires. Madam Speaker, this Member is pleased to join all of America in saying ``Thank you, Cal'' and wishing him well.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the Central Intelligence Agency established guidelines that limited the ability of its field personnel to recruit individuals with checkered backgrounds. Henceforth, the human rights history of potential assets would have to be thoroughly vetted. This limitation has been criticized by the National Commission on Terrorism, by former CIA Directors Woolsey and Gates, by the Vice- President, and others. They correctly note that it is precisely those individuals with shady backgrounds who are able to infiltrate terrorist organizations. If we are to penetrate and destroy highly secretive networks such as al Qaida, then we must deal with some very unsavory characters. We must remove the handcuffs from our intelligence service. Mr. Speaker, this Member places into the Record a prescient op/ed from the September 14, 2001, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. Entitled ``Spies Needed to Stop Terrorism,'' the editorial correctly notes that this nation must overcome its aversion to old-fashioned spying and aggressively seek to infiltrate and destroy terrorist networks. Therefore, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to carefully read this editorial as this is one area that we must reform successfully to win the war against terrorism.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, the chairman's understanding of our position is correct.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial, entitled President Needs Trade Authority, from the September 5, 2001, edition of the Norfolk Daily News, which emphasizes the need to grant the President ``fast track'' trade negotiating authority. This Member is a longtime supporter of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), or ``FastTrack Authority'' (as it was previously called), because TPA is necessary to enable the United States to commence, conclude, and implement trade agreements with foreign nations. Without the enactment of TPA, the United States will continue to fall further behind in expanding its export base, which in turn will cost America thousands of potential jobs. Congressional passage of TPA for the President is absolutely essential for America to live up to its export potential. Therefore, this Members urges his colleagues not only to carefully read this editorial, but also to support granting trade promotion authority to the President now! [From the Daily News, September 5, 2001] President Needs Trade Authority Former secretaries of agriculture of one mind regarding ``fast track'' issue Members of Congress ought to be impressed that 10 former secretaries of agriculture, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in agreement on an important matter of trade policy. From Orville Freeman, who served under President Kennedy, to Dan Glickman, who served under President Clinton, all were in agreement that President Bush ought to be granted ``fast track'' trade negotiating authority. With some exceptions among those in farm organizations who fear only big companies find ways to profit from exports, the agricultural community seems unified regarding benefits of foreign trade. That accounts for broad bipartisan support of measures to promote it. Presidents had fast-track authority beginning in 1974, and until congressional Republicans failed to renew it for the Clinton administration in 1994. They erred, and that error should not now be compounded. Trade negotiations are already conducted under broad guidelines approved by Congress and the president. Having arrived at specific trade pacts under such authority, Congress must not pick and choose, second-guess and thereby jeopardize agreements. With the fasttrack arrangements, it can either accept or reject an agreement, not nitpick and rewrite the terms. Thus Congress retains an overall veto; the president retains negotiating power. It is the right balance. Through the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and early in the first Clinton term, the fast- track authority existed in the White House. The error of failing to restore it after 1994 should not be compounded now by defeat of the proposal. America's efficiency in all phases of food production means it can compete effectively on a worldwide basis. This advantage cannot be exercised to improve the economic status of agriculture by tying the hands of the one individual who can, with a cooperative Congress, do most to encourage beneficial trading terms to reach consumers in foreign nations. The letter to current Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, signed by those 10 former secretaries, said, ``American agriculture has much to gain by passage of Trade Promotion Authority and too much to lose if Congress fails to seize this opportunity.'' Re-establishing this authority would do much to assure Americans, and especially those involved in farming and ranching, that their economic opportunities will not be hostage to narrow partisanship.