Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4673, the Support for Overseas Cooperative Development Act. This Member introduced H.R. 4673, along with the distinguished Member from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), to recognize the importance of and the strengthened support for cooperatives as an international development tool. This Member would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations; the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific; the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English); the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor); and the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), for their cosponsorship of this measure. Indeed, this measure is a bipartisan effort and it certainly enjoys bipartisan interest and support. Finally and very importantly, this Member wants to thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for cooperating in the advancements of H.R. 4673 through the committee and for his support. Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances language currently provided in Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the use of cooperatives in international development programs. Specifically, this bill will give priority to funding overseas cooperatives working in the following areas: agriculture, financial systems, rural electric and telecommunications infrastructure, housing, and health. Importantly, H.R. 4673 does not provide for additional appropriations. While the administration does not routinely take positions on such matters, the Agency for International Development has not raised any objections to H.R. 4673 and I believe it is quite supportive and sympathetic. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, cooperatives are voluntary organizations formed to share the mutual economic and self-help interests of their members. In the United States, cooperatives have existed, of course, for many years and in many forms, including agriculturally based cooperatives, electrical cooperatives, and credit unions. The common thread among all cooperatives is that they allow their members who, for a variety of reasons, might not otherwise be served by traditional institutions, to mobilize resources available to them, and to reap the benefits of association. Since the 1960s, overseas cooperative projects have proven successful in providing assistance and compassionate assistance, I might emphasize, to low-income people in developing and transitional countries. Today, people in 60 countries are benefiting from U.S. cooperatives working abroad through projects which can be completed at very little cost to U.S. taxpayers. The low costs are possible because the money used for the projects is spent on technical and managerial expertise, not on extensive bureaucracy and direct foreign assistance payments. Mr. Speaker, the benefits of cooperatives as a development tool are numerous. This Member would like to mention examples of democratic and economic results from the fostering of cooperatives working overseas. Building economic infrastructure is a key role of overseas development cooperatives. Through representatives from the U.S. cooperatives, people who have traditionally been underserved in their countries, especially in rural areas and especially women, receive technical training never before available to them. Such training in accounting, marketing, entrepreneurialship and strategic planning prepares them to effectively compete for the first time in their country's economy. For example, agricultural cooperatives in El Salvador helped to rebuild the once war-ravaged country by providing a venue for farmers to pool their scarce resources and scarce experience in capitalism so that they can market and sell the fruits and vegetables they grow. In rural Macedonia, a small country whose neighbors are immersed in ethnic conflict, credit unions provide their members a way to build lines of credit and savings for the future. In rural Bangladesh during the early 1990s, cooperative members bought equipment for an electrification project which now supplies 5 million people with electrical power. Cooperatives lay the foundation then for future economic stability. Mr. Speaker, when reviewing the impact of overseas cooperatives, one simply cannot ignore the impact they have had in assisting people in transitional countries to build democratic habits and traditions. In supporting cooperatives, people who have had no previous experience with democracy create an opportunity to routinely vote for leadership, to set goals, to write policies and to implement those policies. Cooperative members learn to expect results from their decisions and that their decisions can and do, in fact, have an impact on their lives. In conclusion, this Member would like to thank the Overseas Cooperative Development Council, the OCDC, for its contributions to this measure. The OCDC represents eight cooperative development organizations which have been very active in building cooperatives worldwide. The Credit Union National Association, CUNA, has been very supportive of this legislation and, as a member of the World Council on Credit Unions, has contributed technical assistance to aid the growth of credit unions in key transitional countries such as the former Yugoslav, Republic of Macedonia and Bolivia. Again, Mr. Speaker, overseas cooperative projects are simply a good investment towards building good economic stability and democratic habits in developing countries, and this Member urges his colleagues in this body to support H.R. 4673. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to again express my appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his outstanding cooperation, his assistance, and for being a full partner in drafting this legislation. I appreciate his effort. With that said, I urge support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) for yielding me this time and for his kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Homeowners Financing Protection Act which is being considered under suspension of the rules. First this Member would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the distinguished chairman of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for their collective role in bringing this legislation to the floor today. In addition, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for their efforts on this measure. Furthermore, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) deserves particular attention, commendation and congratulations for introducing this important legislation. It is important to American homeowners of modest or average income. The gentleman from New Jersey has just given us, very specifically, some of the reasons why it is important to the homeowners and how it affects their pocketbook. Among other important provisions, this legislation amends section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 to allow borrowers of the Rural Housing Service single-family loans to refinance either an existing section 502 direct or guaranteed loan to a new section 502 guaranteed loan, provided the interest rate is at least equal or lower than the current interest rate being refinanced and the same house is used as security. This Member supports the legislation because it facilitates the use of the RHS section 502 single family loan guarantee program. In fact, this loan program, which was first authorized with this Member's initiative, with the strong support of now the chairman of the Banking Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), some years ago and with the support of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), has been very effective in nonmetropolitan communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to low- moderate to moderate-income households. The program provides a guarantee for 30-year fixed rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home or construction of a new home. It has been very good news for the taxpayer. Further the program operates with a minimum of red tape. The examples from my home State of Nebraska, where the program was slow to start, are illustrative of how popular and how important it is for low-moderate and moderate-income Americans. Mr. Speaker, in closing, for the aforementioned reasons and many others, this Member would encourage support for H.R. 3834 which is being considered today.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for my colleagues the following editorial, from the September 7, 2000, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. This editorial highlights the letter sent by House Speaker Dennis Hastert to the President both on the minimum wage and on small business tax cuts. In particular, this editorial recognizes the Speaker's efforts towards compromise on this. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Sept. 7, 2000] A Compromise--House Speaker Hastert Offers Method To Reach Deal on Minimum Wages House Speaker Dennis Hastert says he believes it possible for congressional Republicans and the Clinton administration to reach agreement on the minimum wage issue. The White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill had sought a minimum wage increase of more than the dollar over a two-year period that many Republicans believed acceptable. Mr. Hastert's colleagues wanted that spread over a three-year period. They have relented. The compromise outlined by Mr. Hastert includes a tax package that would benefit the small businesses most affected by changes in the minimum wage scale. Therefore, its risks of broader adverse economic effects are reduced. Given the fact that current employment conditions mean the minimum wage is less frequently the starting wage today, the impact may be limited. There is still the risk, though, that the figure is high enough that employers can be discouraged from hiring the unskilled and marginal workers most in need of job opportunities. Raising mandatory minimums is a dangerous political exercise. Politicians cannot create jobs on a lasting basis, but they can easily destroy them and harm the economy by trying to fix wages in the private sector. So it is important that their perennial tendency to raise them be moderated. Mr. Hastert's effort is in that spirit, and it is a test of President Clinton's willingness to reach a reasonable compromise. >

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for my colleagues the August 16, 2000, Norfork Daily News editorial entitled ``Chavez travels: Venezuela's new president provides incentive to emphasize energy search.'' As the editorial correctly notes, Venezuela's new president, Hugo Chavez, is not winning friends here in America. At the request of the Speaker, this Member accompanied him on President Clinton's one-day trip to Colombia to view first hand the efforts within that country and its neighbors to reduce or eliminate the coca and poppy production, which are the basis of cocaine and heroin. It is clear that Mr. Chavez considers himself, with a significant degree of grandiosity and self-assuredness, as the emerging political power in the region. This appears to have dangerous implications, and such actions by President Chavez, as noted in the editorial to include known belligerents to our national security, must be closely watched and, if necessary, responded to immediately. Venezuela is the United States' leading supplier of imported crude and refined petroleum products. The United States accounts for 53 percent of Venezuela's exports. Venezuela's activities and cooperation within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) under the Chavez Government was one factor in doubling oil prices. Mr. Speaker, it is time we let Mr. Chavez know that we are concerned about his actions as a hemispheric neighbor. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Aug. 16, 2000] Chavez Travels--Venezuela's New President Provides Incentive to Emphasize Energy Search Venezuela's new president, Hugo Chavez, was not winning friends among America's policymakers by cozying up to Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro or suggesting that Libya was a model of ``participatory democracy.'' Now he has taken a step further in that direction by traveling to Iraq as part of a visit to OPEC nations that make up the cartel of oil producers. It is the first visit of any foreign leader to Iraq since Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait 10 years ago, bringing on the Gulf War. America cannot dictate who Chavez's friends can be, though it is cause for alarm that he embraces such firm enemies. Those friendships, however, indicate to Americans that Venezuela's oil supplies, important to the United States, cannot be taken for granted. That is no reason to waste time denouncing Chavez, but an incentive to re-emphasize the importance of developing new energy sources within the U.S.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support to override the President's veto of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination Reconciliation Act. This bill will have a positive effect, in particular, on middle and lower income married couples. At the outset, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from Texas (Mr. Archer), for introducing this legislation. It is important to note that H.R. 4810 passed the House on July 20, 2000, by a vote of 271 to 156, with this Member's support. The Senate also passed the same reconciliation measure. In turn, the President vetoed H.R. 4810 on August 5, 2000. While there are many reasons to support overriding the President's veto of H.R. 4810, this Member will enumerate two specific reasons. First, H.R. 4810 takes a significant step toward eliminating the current marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. Second, H.R. 4810 follows the principle that the Federal income tax code should be marriage-neutral. First, this legislation, H.R. 4180, will help eliminate the marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code In the following significant ways: standard deduction It will increase the standard deduction for married couples who file jointly to double the standard deduction for singles beginning in 2001. For example, in 2000, the standard deduction equals $4,400 for single taxpayers but $7,350 for married couples who file jointly. If this legislation was effective in 2000, the standard deduction for married couples who file jointly would be $8,800 which would be double the standard deduction for single taxpayers. the 15-percent tax bracket It will increase the amount of married couples' income (who file jointly) subject to the lowest 15 percent marginal tax rate to twice that of single taxpayers beginning in 2003, phased in over six years. Under the current tax law, the 15 percent bracket covers taxpayers with income up to $26,250 for singles and $43,850 for married couples who file jointly. If this legislation was effective in 2000, married couples would pay the 15 percent tax rate on their first $52,500 of taxable income, which would be double the aforementioned current income amount for singles. Second, H.R. 4810 will help the Internal Revenue Code become more marriage-neutral. Currently, many married couples who file jointly pay more Federal income tax than they would as two unmarried singles. The Internal Revenue Code should not be a consideration when individuals discuss their future marital status. Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination Reconciliation Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for my colleagues this editorial from the August 23, 2000, Omaha World-Herald regarding the effectiveness of bilingual education. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Aug. 23, 2000] Bilingual Ed Takes a Hit Ken Noonan, a California public school principal, has an interesting story to tell. It begins: I was wrong. Noonan, whose story was related in The New York Times on Sunday, spent many years as a leading proponent of bilingual education. That's a way of educating students who enter school not knowing the English language. The theory is that these students can learn best by taking their math, science, history and other subjects in their native tongue. Over time, they make a gradual transition into English, partly as a result of studying it on the side as a second language. Or so the theory goes. So enamored of bilingual education was Noonan that, 30 years ago, he founded the California Association of Bilingual Educators. In the 1990s, when opponents of bilingual education proposed a ballot initiative to discontinue its use, he was one of the leaders in the fight to preserve the status quo. ``I thought it would hurt kids,'' he said of the ballot initiative. But the initiative passed. In effect, students who don't speak English are required to plunge in and do their best. In the two years since the initiative took effect, test scores in the target group have risen sharply. Kids are learning English. And Noonan, who predicted that children would be hurt, now says: ``The exact reverse occurred, totally unexpected.'' He said children are learning formal and written English ``far more quickly than I ever thought they would.'' Research, he said, says it takes seven years for students to learn English. In practice, they showed considerable progress in 9 to 12 months. The Times, in its story about the higher test scores, noted that some educators are still reserving judgment. For one thing, it's uncertain how many schools made a complete break from bilingualism. Other improvements, including a reduction in class sizes, may account for some of the progress. And the overall scores, even though they rose, are still embarrassingly low. From the experience of Noonan and others in California, however, it's possible to draw a few conclusions about the way society educates its children: Too often the educational establishment trusts in theories, such as the theory Noonan thought justified giving students seven years to learn English, when common sense cries out for more documentation. No one knows how much damage has been done by the various new maths and watered-down histories that have come along over the years in the name of making education more ``progressive.'' One of the worst ways to harm children is to expect too little of them. That bores them and teaches that school is of little consequence. These feelings are compounded by artificial esteem-boosting, such as the praise of accomplishments that aren't really accomplishments. This makes them feel sheepish. Challenging them with real work makes them feel the pride that can come only from growing, stretching, maturing and mastering a difficult task. Immigrants, for the most part, want to learn English. Critics who accuse them of the contrary are generally basing their opinions on assumed or incomplete information. Bilingual education, The Times said, took root because of strong support in Congress. Extra money was provided for bilingual programs, following the idea that government knows best. Of course, government doesn't always know best. Just ask the founder of the California Association of Bilingual Educators. He has a story that's worth listening to in any other place where bilingual education is producing less-than- satisfactory results.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) called my office yesterday to inform me of the passing from this life of our colleague Herbert Bateman, my wife Louise and I were shocked and profoundly saddened by his departure from this life, and we want to convey to Laura Bateman and to the family of the Batemans and their close friends our most sincere condolences. Herbert Bateman is one of those colleagues that I had great pleasure to serve with. He was, in the modern sense of the word, a patriot. He took great pride in representing the people of the First Congressional District of Virginia. So much profound historical importance, so many important personalities came from that part of Virginia that our friend Herb never tired of citing the examples for us to live up to as a result of the heritage of the District that he represented. It is true, as mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) that, in fact, Herbert Bateman was a very active, a very involved Member of the delegation that met with the North Atlantic Assembly, now called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He represented the House very well in that capacity, as I am sure he did in all of his activities, especially the Committee on Armed Services, which was very important to Herb, very important to his District. I admired Herb Bateman for many, many reasons, but among them is the fact that he would, after examining an issue, be true to his commitments. Herb could be the only person voting for an issue if he felt that was the right way to vote. When one says integrity, when one says conviction, with respect to Herb Bateman, that is not an exaggeration. He provided great service to his District. He provided an example for all of us to live up to in the course of our service here in the U.S. House of Representatives. We will miss greatly Herb Bateman. I wish he had had a chance to enjoy his retirement which was upcoming. I know he thought he spent his time well here, and so did all of us.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to note that Hispanic Heritage Month begins next week on September 15th. Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated nationally and in this Member's home state of Nebraska from September 15th to October 15th. For Nebraskans, this is a time for us to learn more about an ethnic group which currently comprises 4 percent of our state's population. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau has noted that Hispanics are the largest minority group in Nebraska. As this member's colleagues know, individuals throughout this country were involved in the celebration of the Library of Congress Bicentennial and America's richly diverse culture through the Local Legacies Project. One of the projects selected in Nebraska as a ``local legacy'' was Nuestros Tesoros, translated as Our Treasures: A Celebration of Nebraska's Mexican Heritage. This project resulted in a soft-cover book that was the culmination of a partnership between the Nebraska Mexican American Commission and the Nebraska State Historical Society. The goal of this was to explore and document the traditional arts, beliefs, and histories of Mexican Americans of Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island, and Scottsbluff. As a result of this project, it was discovered that Hispanics now live in each of Nebraska's 93 counties. It was also noted that while many are recent immigrants working in many of Nebraska's food processing plants, still others are third- and fourth-generation Nebraskans--descendants of those who came to work on the railroads throughout Nebraska or in the sugar beet fields in western Nebraska. We celebrate each and every one of these individuals who sought the ``good life'' that Nebraska offers its residents. Therefore, while many events are planned throughout the nation to celebrate Hispanic heritage, this Member would like to note that the following events are a few of those scheduled in Nebraska: --September 14th, fundraiser in Omaha at El Museo Latino, featuring speaker Jose Cuevas, Counsel-General of the new Mexican consulate in Omaha; --September 16th, celebration in Omaha sponsored by the City of Omaha; --September 16th, festival in Scottsbluff sponsored by the Our Lady Of Guadalupe Church; --September 29th to 30th, festival in Lincoln sponsored by the Hispanic Center; and --throughout the month, performances by a dance group from Mexico that will tour various communities in Nebraska. Again, this Member urges his colleagues to join the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month by recognizing and participating in the events that are taking place in their congressional districts and states in honor of those Americans of Hispanic descent.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to oppose the veto override of H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000. This Member does not support the complete repeal of the Federal inheritance tax for the wealthiest Americans--billionaires and mega-millionaires. On June 9, 2000, this Member voted for H.R. 8 based on his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward by dramatically increasing the Federal inheritance tax exemption level. In this Member's statement in the Congressional Record on June 9, 2000, he indicated that if a conference report did not change from the House- passed bill, this Member would vote no. But, of course, the Senate passed the House bill, and there was no conference report. Accordingly, this Member has given his word in writing that he would not vote for such a bill to become law. This Member cannot break his promise to his constituents. If the Presidential veto is sustained, it is this Member's hope that meaningful legislation could be passed this year which would increase dramatically the exemption level to the Federal inheritance tax and would also provide a reduction in Federal inheritance tax rates for all those who pay this tax whether they are subject to the highest inheritance tax rate (55%) or the lowest inheritance tax rate (18%). This Member is a long-term advocate of inheritance tax reduction, especially in regard to protecting small businesses and family farms and ranches. This Member believes that inheritance taxes unfortunately do adversely and inappropriately affect Nebraskan small business and family farms and ranches when they attempt to pass this estate from one generation to the next. Accordingly, to demonstrate this Member's very real support for inheritance tax reform, this Member supported the Taxpayer Relief Act if 1997 which passed on July 31, 1997. This Act phased-in an increase in the unified credit exemption from the current level of $675,000 to $1.0 million in 2006. Also, it provided an immediate exclusion of $1.3 million (not in addition to the broader exclusion) for a limited variety of eligible closely-held family farms and businesses. At the current time, this Member does not support the complete elimination of inheritance taxes. It would be a great political error and controversy to eliminate the inheritance tax on people like Steve Forbes or other billionaires or mega-millionaires. Also, it would discourage some of the largest of the charitable contributions and the establishment of charitable foundations. The benefits of these foundations to American society are invaluable. Our universities and colleges, too, would see a very marked reduction in the gifts they receive if the inheritance tax on the wealthiest Americans was totally eliminated. Despite the legal talents the super-rich can afford, such an inheritance tax change would have major consequence. The total elimination of the inheritance tax is a bad idea. This Member's past vote for this legislation was a demonstration of his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward by increasing dramatically the exemption level to the Federal inheritance tax. There is overwhelming support among his constituents for this kind of reform. It is important to remind constituents that Congress did pass into law the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, with this Member's support. This Act phased-in an increase in the unified credit exemption from the current 2000 level of $675,000 to $1.0 million in 2006. Also, it provided an immediate exclusion of $1.3 million (not in addition to the broader exclusion) for a limited variety of eligible closely-held family farms and businesses. Specifically, this Member does not support repealing the inheritance tax, with the final step completed in this legislation to zero percent inheritance tax from the year 2009 to the year 2010 as proposed. Instead, this Member prefers the Ewing approach which he enthusiastically supports. This Member is an original cosponsor of H.R. 4112 which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) on March 29, 2000. This measure (H.R. 4112) would immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption from a rate of $675,000 to $5 million and would then increase this exemption annually over the next three years until it reaches a total of $10 million in 2003. After reaching the $10 million level in 2003, the exemption would be indexed annually thereafter to account for inflation. Essential inheritance tax relief is provided by H.R. 4112 for even wealthy business and farm families. This Member is even willing to raise the exemption level beyond $10 million to, for example, $15 million. By the way, most Nebraskans pay more state inheritance taxes than Federal inheritance or estate taxes so Nebraskans should also consider pushing for reductions or reforms in their state taxes. Again, Mr. Speaker, for the aforementioned reasons, this Member rises today to oppose the veto override of H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it was 10 years ago that the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Kuwait was invaded by Saddam Hussein's ruthless regime in Iraq. As a result of the exceptional leadership of President George Bush, the United States led a coalition of forces that soundly defeated the aggressor, and restored legitimate rule to Kuwait. At the time, the President's decision was heavily criticized by some; but the intervening decade has demonstrated that the decision to oppose Saddam Hussein was correct. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate for Members of this body to reflect on the risks that were involved in Operation Desert Storm. It was a remarkable achievement, made possible by the professionalism and dedication of our armed forces and those of our allies. In an era when politicians motives are cynically dissected by self-appointed pundits, we should be grateful that 10 years ago America stood against tyranny and barbarism. Mr. Speaker, this Member would commend to his colleagues an editorial in the August 12, 2000, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. As this editorial correctly notes; ``Operation Desert Storm prevented Iraq's dictator from spreading instability throughout the Middle East. Stopping that threat was an honorable cause of which Americans can be proud.'' [From the Omaha World-Herald, Aug. 12, 2000] Gulf War Stands the Test This month marks the 10-year anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which set the stage for the Persian Gulf War. That war has been dismissed in some circles as either a selfish and misguided attempt by the United States to maintain its dependence on foreign oil or, more cynically, as a chance for then-President George Bush to prove he was a tough guy. It was neither. In the first place, maintaining access to gulf oil is a perfectly justifiable goal. Maintaining international access to any fundamental economic resource, and ensuring that the sea lanes remain open in one of the world's busiest maritime corridors, are legitimate security interests for the United States. What many discussions of the Gulf War ignore is that by conquering Kuwait, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was working toward dominating the entire Middle East. His next step would probably have been to threaten war against Israel or Saudi Arabia. The outcome of such a regional war could have been catastrophic. Has Saddam been allowed to retain control of Kuwait--which was a sovereign country, after all--he would have reaped an enormous financial windfall by expropriating that nation's oil. With those funds, he could have strengthened his army, which was already the fourth-largest in the world, as well as his offensive missile program, which we now know included ambitious efforts to produce chemical and biological weapons. Even before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Saddam made clear in a speech that he intended to rain down ``fire'' on Israel--a reference widely interpreted at the time as a threat to bombard Israel with missiles. That threat became reality, of course, during the Gulf War. The abuses perpetrated by Iraqi forces in Kuwait also demonstrated the ruthlessness of Saddam's regime. Iraqi soldiers killed at least 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians and operated at least two dozen torture sites in Kuwait City, David Scheffer, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, said this week. The Iraqis took thousands of hostages and used many of them as human shields. Saddam's forces, in other words, routinely and openly violated the Geneva Convention. Additional evidence of Saddam's recklessness came in the final stages of the war, when he ordered his troops to set more than 500 Kuwait well heads on fire and open dozens of others so that more than 7 million gallons of oil spilled into the Persian Gulf. It's true that, a decade later, Saddam's power is greatly reduced and it's increasingly hard to ignore the suffering of Iraqi civilians due to Saddam's manipulation of the international embargo. But when it comes to the allies' action against Saddam during 1990-91, the expulsion of his forces from Kuwait was fully justified. Operation Desert Storm prevented Iraq's dictator from spreading instability throughout the Middle East. Stopping that threat was an honorable cause of which Americans can be proud.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, because the House passed H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act, by a vote of 265-159, this Member encourages his colleagues to read the following editorial, from the August 5, 2000, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. This editorial highlights why the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4865. In particular, this editorial correctly states that the taxation of Social Security benefits was not within the original intent of those who created this system. [From the Daily News, Aug. 5, 2000] ``Contract'' Not Now Mentioned Tax reduction for Social Security benefits would aid elderly payers A modest tax cut proposal that would benefit some 9 million Social Security recipients is apparently going nowhere because of a threatened presidential veto. Under the plan, which won a 265-159 vote in the House, with 52 Democrats joining the Republican majority, the amount of benefits subject to taxation could drop from 85 percent to 50 percent. That change would restore a tax level in effect until the 1993 increase urged by President Clinton and for which Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote. Given current surplus levels, the change is easily affordable from Uncle Sam's standpoint. More than that, however, the change is in keeping with the original philosophy of the program. That is, to provide an old-age benefit to workers from earnings on which taxes had already been paid. It was much later that these benefits became an important new source of tax revenue for the U.S. Treasury. It is of special interest that the same partisans who now protest a reduction in this tax, since it might help individual elderly people now earning as much as $34,000 annually or married couples at a $44,000 level, are the ones who have long berated opponents as ``breaking a contract'' on Social Security with any proposed alteration of benefits. They were silent when the benefits were effectively reduced with higher taxation. Taxing those benefits was not the original intent of those who devised the system. Whatever implied contract existed was long ago violated by the decision to lump the benefits with other income and make it subject to regular taxation. The system long discriminated against Social Security beneficiaries who worked for income rather than acquiring their extra money from interest payments or dividends. The imposition of the greater tax load--argued as necessary in 1993 in order to overcome deficits--did nothing to restore equity. Much can and must be done to simplify the tax system, including that applicable to the Social Security beneficiaries, but such action must not preclude a simple reduction in rates to reflect the fact that excessive federal surpluses amount to a government taking of private wealth.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member wants to express strong support for H.R. 4884, which would name a United States Postal Service facility in Royal Oak, Michigan, as the ``William S. Broomfield Post Office Building.'' This Member became well acquainted and impressed with the decency, convictions, and leadership of Representative Bill Broomfield. A Member of this body from 1956-1992, Bill Broomfield served the state of Michigan with extraordinary distinction. When this Member joined the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the beginning of his 3rd term, Representative Broomfield, the senior Republican member of the Committee, gave this member great advice when requested, support and encouragement, and most importantly an outstanding example of how a Representative can so capably represent their constituency and state, while pursuing the national interest on matters of foreign policy. During his time as a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, this nation faced numerous crises--the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, turmoil in Latin America, and the collapse of the Soviet empire. In each instance, Bill Broomfield's first thought was toward the U.S. national interest. Thus the designation of this Post Office Building with his name in his home town is certainly one way his colleagues and newer Members of Congress can appropriately recognize the outstanding contributions he made to America while a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, obviously, this Member encourages his colleagues to support this legislation and hereby extend this Member's appreciation of his service to Bill Broomfield and his family.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member rises in opposition to the resolution. It is important for us, I think, to recognize what the Jackson-Vanik waiver does and what it does not do. By law, the underlying issue here is about immigration. Based on Vietnam's record of progress on immigration and its continued cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over the past year, renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver will continue to promote freedom of immigration. Disapproval would undoubtedly result in the opposite. The Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and established diplomatic relations 5 years ago, the United States has tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral, political, economic, and consular relationships. This is in America's own short-term and long-term national interests. It builds on Vietnam's own policy of political and economic reintegration into the world. This will be a lengthy and challenging process. However, now is not the time to reverse course on Vietnam. Vietnam continues to cooperate fully with our priority efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of American POW-MIAs. The Jackson-Vanik waiver supports this process. The Jackson-Vanik waiver certainly does not constitute an endorsement of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a regime that places restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. On May 4, however, this body passed a resolution condemning just such violations of human rights. The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with new trade benefits, including Normal Trade Relations, NTR, status. With the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to successfully negotiate and sign a new bilateral commercial trades agreement with Vietnam. Congress will have an opportunity in the future whether to approve it or not, and whether to grant NTR or not, but that is a separate process. The renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver only keeps this process going, nothing more. Renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not automatically make American exports to Vietnam eligible for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs. The waiver only allows American exports to Vietnam to be eligible for such coverage. Mr. Speaker, the war with Vietnam is over, and we have embarked upon a new, although cautious, expanded relationship with Vietnam. Now is not the time to reverse this constructive course. Accordingly, this Member urges a ``no'' vote on the resolution. Having summarized the key reasons to oppose the resolution, this Member would like to expand on a few of these points. First, the issue of emigration, which indeed, is what the Jackson-Vanik provision is all about. Since March of 1998, the United States has granted Vietnam a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik emigration provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. As this is only an annual waiver, the President decided on June 2, 2000, the renew this extension because he determined that doing so would substantially promote greater freedom of emigration from that country in the future. This determination was based on Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and on Vietnam's continued cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over the past year. As a result, we are approaching the completion of many refugee admissions categories under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP), including the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees, Former Re-education Camp Detainees, ``McCain Amendment'' sub-programs and Montagnards. The Vietnamese Government has also agreed to help implement our decision to resume the ODP program for former U.S. Government employees, which was suspended in 1996. The renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is an acknowledgment of that progress. Disapproval of the waiver would, undoubtedly, result in Vietnam's immediate cessation of cooperation. Second, the Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and established diplomatic relations five years ago, the United States has tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral political, economic and consular relationship. This policy is in America's own short- and long-term national interest. It builds on Vietnam's own policy of political and economic reintegration into the world. In the judgment of this Member, this will be a lengthy and challenging process. However, he suggests that now is not the time to reverse course on Vietnam. Third, over the past five years, Vietnam has increasingly cooperated on a wide range of issues. The most important of these is the progress and cooperation in obtaining the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing from the Vietnam War. Those members who attended the briefing by the distinguished Ambassador to Vietnam, a former Prisoner of War and former Member of this body, the Honorable ``Pete'' Peterson, learned of the significant efforts to which Vietnam is now extending to address our concerns regarding the POW/MIA issue, including their participation in remains recovery efforts which are physically very dangerous. Fourth, the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not constitute an endorsement of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a regime that places restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. However, our experience has been that isolation and disengagement does not promote progress on human rights. New sanctions, including the symbolic disapproval of the Jackson-Vanik waiver, only strengthens the position of the Communist hard-liners at the expense of those in Vietnam's leadership who are inclined to support more openness. Engagement with Vietnam has resulted in some improvements in Vietnam's human rights practices, though we still remain disappointed at the very limited pace and scope of such reforms. As this Member mentioned, on May 4, 2000, this body adopted a resolution condemning Vietnam's human rights record. Given the strong reaction to our resolution by Hanoi, it is evident that our actions and concerns did not go unnoticed. Fifth, the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any new trade benefits, including Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. However, with the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to successfully negotiate a new bilateral commercial trade agreement with Vietnam. This agreement was signed two weeks ago in Washington. In the opinion of this Member, this agreement is in our own short and long term national interest. Vietnam remains a very difficult place for American firms to do business. Vietnam needs to undertake additional fundamental economic reforms. This new bilateral trade agreement will require Vietnam to make these reforms and will result in increased American exports supporting jobs here at home. In a separate process with a separate vote Congress will have to decide whether to approve or reject this new trade agreement and to grant NTR status to Vietnam. Given that the agreement has yet to even be transmitted to Congress and there are only a limited number of legislative days before the body's scheduled adjournment, this Member believes that these decisions will not be made until the 107th Congress meets next year. Thus, the Jackson-Vanik waiver simply ensures that the modest trade opportunities currently available to American businesses will continue until Congress considers the agreement. Sixth, contrary to the claims of some opponents of the Jackson-Vanik waiver, renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not automatically make American investment in and exports to Vietnam eligible for coverage by U.S. trade financing programs such as those administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The waiver only allows American exports and investments to be eligible for such coverage. Each must still face separate individual reviews against each program's relevant criteria. Mr. Speaker, Americans must conclusively recognize that the war with Vietnam is over. With the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1995, the United States and Vietnam embarked on a new relationship for the future. It will not be an easy or quick process. Vietnam today remains a Communist country with very limited freedoms for its citizens. Significant reforms must occur before relations can be truly normal. The emotional scars of the Vietnam war remain with many Americans. In the mid-1960's, this Member was an infantry officer and intelligence officer with the First Infantry Division. Within a month of completing my service, members of my tight-knit detachment of that division were in Vietnam and taking casualties the first night after arrival. Like other Vietnam-era veterans, this Member has emotional baggage. A great many Americans have emotional baggage about Vietnam, but this Member would suggest that it is time to get on with our bilateral relationship and not reverse course on Vietnam. Passing this resolution of disapproval of the Jackson-Vanik waiver would represent yet another reflection of animosities of the past at a time when Vietnam is finally looking ahead and making changes towards its integration into the international community. A retrenchment on our part by this disapproval resolution is not in America's short and long term national interests. Accordingly, this Member strongly urges the rejection of House Joint Resolution 99.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 232.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, this Member rises in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 232. This resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the safety and well-being of United States citizens who are traveling in Mexico, was introduced by our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). It is the result of a particularly unfortunate incident involving a California resident caught in a conflict between Mexican law and sound medical treatment provided to U.S. citizens as well as to other foreign citizens while traveling in Mexico. Last August, California resident Donald Craft, his wife, and three children were vacationing in Baja, Mexico, when they were involved in a serious automobile incident. Mr. Craft broke his neck and was in critical condition when he was taken to a local Mexican hospital where doctors advised his family that he be immediately transported to a trauma center in San Diego for more intensive life-saving medical care. There was, however, one problem. Under Mexican law, foreigners involved in traffic accidents being investigated for possible criminal action or who do not have Mexican automobile insurance cannot leave Mexico until a bond is posted. Mrs. Melody Craft, the victim's wife, was required to find and pay $7,000 before her critically injured husband would be allowed to leave the country. After what must have been a very confusing and unbelievably excruciating period of almost 18 hours, the bond was raised and Mr. Craft was released and sent back to the United States. Regrettably, on September 6, 1999, Mr. Craft died of complications reportedly associated with that accident and the delay in providing him adequate medical attention. Sadly, this tragedy has been repeated on several additional occasions since Mr. Craft's death, including a case involving a Florida constituent of our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Madam Speaker, I would also like to indicate that in 1998, one of my constituents, Gregg Gahan, the adult son of Mr. and Mrs. Duane Gahan of Oakland, Nebraska, Mr. Gahan being the editor of the Oakland Independent, a newspaper serving that area, was also involved in a similar accident with also extraordinary things that happened that really defy a rational explanation and amount to an abuse of the legal or ethical process by Mexican officials. Grave concerns arose as a result of the treatment of his son by law enforcement officials, health care officials, and the driver of the car who hit him. There are legitimate questions about the judicial process that was implemented, how culpability was determined, the punitive actions taken, and the damage settlement. Madam Speaker, we know and appreciate the fact that Mexico has its own laws and procedures and that those should be known and respected by foreign visitors. However, in these kinds of very serious accident cases, flexibility and accommodation of the special circumstances ought to be in order. Since the Craft incident, this Member has been told that the U.S. and Mexican Governments have initiated a dialogue on how to address this issue. This resolution is designed to support these efforts to seek a reasonable solution to a situation under Mexican law which places the health and well-being of Americans and other foreign visitors to Mexico in question. The State Department has been consulted on this legislation and has no objection to it. The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations and, subsequently, the full committee, reported the legislation by voice vote. Madam Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to join him in supporting adoption of H. Con. Res. 232. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Request to be Added as Cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 232, S. Con. Res. 81, H.R. 4002, and H.R. 4919

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 232) expressing the sense of Congress concerning the safety and well-being of United States citizens injured while traveling in Mexico, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4002) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to revise and improve provisions relating to famine prevention and freedom from hunger, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4919, the Defense and Security Assistance Act of 2000. This legislation modifies authorities with respect to the provision of security assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act. It is authored by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who was unavoidably detained and could not be here today for this legislation. Most of the provisions have been requested by the administration. Specifically, these provisions address the transfer of excess defense articles, notification requirements for arms sales and authorities to provide for the stockpiling of defense articles in foreign countries. The bill also includes an important bipartisan provision to address the administration's initiative regarding exemptions for defense export licenses to foreign countries. This Member wishes to thank the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for his cooperation on these provisions, as well as the NGO community for their hard work. In addition, this bill authorizes the transfer of two Naval vessels to Chile and provides authority to the President to convert existing leases for 10 ships which have already been transferred to Brazil, Greece, and Turkey. This Member is pleased to note that this body has successfully enacted into law, over the past 4 years, each of our bills addressing security assistance matters. It is the hope of this Member that the legislative branch is able to continue this record with approval of this measure, H.R. 4919. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in closing I want to recognize the fact this legislation includes two important priorities of this Member as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. The first is section 103 which relates to excess defense articles to be provided to Mongolia. Additionally, there is a sense of the Congress expressed in section 104 related to our work with the Republic of the Philippines with respect to the procurement of military equipment, and I am pleased to see those provisions included. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.

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

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