Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment points to an important subject, the need for prompt implementation of the Act, and we certainly think that the Committee on International Relations and other relevant committees ought to receive periodic reports and hold hearings and briefings, if necessary. The reporting provisions in the legislation require the Secretary of Treasury to inform the Congress of his progress in implementing the Act, but we have no objection to the amendment of the gentlewoman at this point. Unless we figure something differently, we are entirely supportive.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. The gentlewoman has explained adequately the very limited number of circumstances under which licensing would not be required. In fact, they have to require such licensing now. That is the point of this amendment. But the U.S. market share in the commercial satellite industry generally has fallen from around 75 percent of the market now to 50. As U.S. sales have dropped, European commercial satellites have dramatically increased. Among the key concerns which commercial satellite customers cite as a concern when working with U.S. satellite producers is the delay frequently associated with licensing requirements. In some cases, a simple license to release unclassified information takes up to 60 days. Furthermore, exempting from licensing the sharing of very limited type of nonclassified marketing information does in no way jeopardize the security interests of the United States. Amazingly, the competitiveness of U.S. satellite processors, however, if we damage it by continuing this unnecessary licensing, does damage the security interest of the United States. I was a member of the Cox Commission which generated the concern about licensing information. I am very concerned about the transfer of classified information or something that would jeopardize our national security. This in no way does. There is no good argument why this nonclassified marketing information should not be shared, and I urge support for this amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendments and appreciate the fact that it includes amendment No. 22, so I thank the chairman and the ranking member. This amendment offered by this Member begins with a set of findings concerning the liberation of Iraq by U.S. coalition forces, the current situation on the ground and the challenges and demands facing American military forces and American taxpayers in bringing stability to Iraq. Included in the findings is a statement by President Bush that, ``The rise of Iraq as an example of moderation and democracy and prosperity is a massive and long-term undertaking,'' and testimony by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that, ``We certainly want assistance from NATO and from NATO countries.'' This amendment exactly parallels the amendment offered by Senator Biden, endorsed by Senator Lugar which passed the Senate recently by a 97-0 vote. In the operative section, the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that it is in the national security interest of the United States to remain engaged in Iraq in order to ensure a peaceful, stable, unified Iraq with a representative government. The amendment goes on to suggest that the President should consider a formal request for NATO to assume a greater role in Iraq and that other NATO allies and other nations should provide troops and police to coalition efforts in Iraq. Finally, the amendment again, a sense of Congress amendment, asks the President to consider calling on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide personnel and resources to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. Let me emphasize that the amendment text makes clear that sovereign member states should provide military forces and civilian police to promote security, not the U.N. itself. The situation in Iraq is far too dangerous for a U.N. peacekeeping operation. It deserves to have the first-rate one, NATO. Mr. Chairman, this Member believes we have no option but to remain engaged in Iraq, but this Member believes that we should seek as much assistance in this effort as possible.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I did claim the time in opposition, although I recognize the efforts and interests on the part of the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from California, and I respect the contribution just made by the ranking member of the committee. They want to focus more attention on HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean region. That is understandable. Actually, the authorizing legislation focuses not just on Africa, not sub-Saharan Africa only, but also specifically mentions the Caribbean, the only other part of the world mentioned beyond sub-Saharan Africa. It is a growing problem in the island nations and the coastal countries of the Caribbean, no doubt about it; and this would add 13 countries to the list of two Caribbean countries already identified by the President as focus countries. Under PL 180-25, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act, it provides the President with the authority to add additional countries to the list of countries under the purview of the coordinator. I would have to say to the gentleman from New York that this does not expand the coverage because there are no limits on the number of countries that may be assisted; but it does place those countries listed, illustrative countries, as being under the purview of the coordinator to give special attention. It actually puts more control by the White House through the coordinator on any of those that are listed. And if the gentleman expands that list, then we run the danger, I think, of diluting the focus of the HIV/AIDS. China could just as well be listed soon, unfortunately; Southeast Asia, certainly countries there. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that since we have no adverse and negative, or very negative reaction from the White House, and since I think it does no damage, although we may well be adding all of the countries eventually we are going to work under this kind of theory, I would not express opposition to the gentleman and gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an outstanding amendment, and we support it, and we are pleased the gentleman has offered it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, I was chairing a meeting with the Commissioner of External Affairs, Chris Patton, of the European Union; and we were not able to conclude it in time. Therefore, I missed the vote on the Kolbe amendment to the Hyde amendment. Had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on the Kolbe amendment. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hyde, as Amended

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important projects of interest to the state of Nebraska. First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 2673 provides $477,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The Alliance is an association of twelve leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing technologies. The MAFMA award grants for research projects on a peer review basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching funds. In 2002, MAFMA had a total of 22 requests for funds seeking $789,995 with matching funds of $916,596. Thirteen proposals were funded with the total award of $387,688. Matching funds for the funded proposals were $416,702 in addition to an in-kind total of $97,550. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing and processing industries. Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link between universities and industries for the development of competitive food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive in a increasingly competitive global economy. This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $224,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project has assisted numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented levels of drought in several parts of our country in recent years, this effort is obviously important. Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist the development and modification of food processing and preservation technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue to receive the safest and highest quality food possible. This Member is also pleased that the Committee Report expresses support for a number of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations projects, including the Aowa Creek Watershed in Dixon County, Nebraska. When completed, the project will significantly reduce the risk of flooding to farms, roads, and community of Ponca, Nebraska. This important flood control project is nearing completion, but lacks sufficient funding to reimburse the local sponsor. This Member would also note that H.R. 2673 includes a loan level of $100 million for the Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan subsidy of $5.95 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The Section 538 program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100 percent Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly appreciates the $2.725 billion loan level for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan subsidy of $39.9 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The Section 502 program has been very effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non- metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 2673 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Furthermore, this Member, as a co-sponsor of the legislation, would like to thank the Ranking Member of the House International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for writing and introducing this timely legislation which enjoys bipartisan support. Also, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is to be commended for his efforts to bring this bill to the Floor. This bill would impose sanctions upon companies associated with Burma's current ruling party, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). If the President would certify that the SPDC has made ``substantial and measurable progress'' toward ending human rights violations and implementing democratic reform, the sanctions could be lifted. Generally, this Member is opposed to bilateral sanctions because they frequently prove to be ineffective and, indeed, counterproductive to the policy consequence sought. However, the ruling junta's arrest and subsequent detention of Burmese democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was such an egregious affront to democracy and rule of law that the government deserves swift and harsh punishment from the international community. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to vote for H.R. 2330.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to spend $12 million for the conduct of research on the comparative effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and safety of drugs, biological products and devices under their existing authorization. This is a priority-setting amendment that is intended to ensure that objective scientific research on prescription drugs continues or is accelerated in fiscal year 2004. This, unfortunately, may not be an increase in spending for this purpose, but the $12 million figure is the amount the agency estimates it currently spends on this effort to assess the efficacy of drugs. This amendment does not require new money to be spent. Instead, the amendment earmarks $12 million for the total amount yielded to what is called the AHRQ for such research. This Member wishes it could be more; and in fiscal year 2005, it should, pending good results, be dramatically increased. The amendment also demands accountability by requiring the agency to actually and productively spend such funds on this initiative. Mr. Chairman, while the Food and Drug Administration is charged with assuring the safety of pharmaceuticals that are approved for the marketing, clinicians, patients, health plans, insurers, and those financing health care services need additional help in making informed choices among pharmaceuticals. They need objective scientific information regarding the effectiveness, quality, and cost effectiveness of new drugs in comparison with existing alternatives, especially when the new drugs cost much more than those that are now on the market. While the responsibility for developing this type of scientific research was assigned to AHRQ and reinforced by two different authorizing acts, the Congress has never provided AHRQ with the adequate resources necessary to carry out that important mission. Additional pharmaceutical research conducted by the AHRQ would also be beneficial, for example, to the Medicaid program. Specifically, AHRQ's research can help State Medicaid programs better target their health care dollars. By a research initiative, for example, the AHRQ recently demonstrated that children with a common ailment, middle ear infection, recovered just as effectively after treatment by one of several antibiotics as they do from treatment by more expensive brand-name products. This is precisely the type of information that State Medicaid programs need to guide coverage decisions on a whole range of medical conditions, but by and large such objective research findings do not exist for most health conditions. Additional research on anti-inflammatory drugs, cholesterol treatment drugs, and drugs to treat other medical conditions would also be beneficial in the development of Medicare prescription drug benefits. Perhaps the AHRQ should conduct research on the clinical appropriateness and cost effectiveness of the 50 drugs most frequently prescribed for senior citizens. The findings would certainly be interesting; and this Member believes that, overall, it would result in greater cost effectiveness, greater drug efficacy, and, therefore, lower cost to the patients and the American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, Americans deserve the best health care for their dollar. The goal of this amendment is to provide clinicians, patients, health plans, insurers, and others financing health care with the credible, objective information on the benefits, risks, and costs of prescription drugs so they can make informed decisions about the prescriptions they consume and prescribe. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to, first of all, thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I also thank the chairman for his comments and his remarks regarding securing information about the impact. I do believe that the research estimate of $12 million probably includes not only contract services but also direct grants. I want to make sure that we have not too specifically prescribed the authorizing subsections so that we cover all the contracting and the grants that are made for this purpose. So it would be good to look at that, because last-minute information coming to us may have provided that when we were actually too very specific by specifying the subsections. With that information, Mr. Chairman, I ask Members for their support on the amendment.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on the Toomey-Chocola Amendment, I voted present as I have a conflict of interest on research project RD01HD039789, a project of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today this city is the site of the annual U.S.-EU summit. Leaders of the European Union are here meeting with President Bush and members of his administration in order to strengthen transatlantic relations and to work on a common agenda which seeks solutions to issues within this relationship. A balanced and well-defined U.S.-EU relationship is critical to global peace and stability. Although the difficult debate over Iraq presented yet another challenge to the relationship between the United States and Europe, it remains clear to this Member that a strong, mature transatlantic relationship is critical to the long-term economic, political and security interests of both the United States and Europe. And one of the central ingredients to a successful partnership with Europe is a stable and integrated European Union. It is important that the EU has evolved to become, along with NATO, one of the two critical international organizations to achieve these objectives. Summits such as the one today along with legislative exchanges can serve to reinvigorate transatlantic relations in order that we, the United States and the Europeans, can together meet the global challenges we face.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the legislation. This Member would like to commend the exemplary bipartisan efforts of the chairman and the distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). Often when people in Washington talk about the need for bipartisanship, what they really mean is that the other side should agree with them. In the case of the Committee on Intelligence, however, there has been true bipartisanship and genuine cooperation towards the goal of serving the Nation's interest. Although this bipartisanship is a tradition on the Committee on Intelligence, it is commendably reinforced by the leadership style and the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). Under the chairman's leadership, and in this bill, the legislative branch will be moving rapidly to address a number of long-standing concerns in our collection and analysis of intelligence. This Member would mention just a few. First, it should be recognized that in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of September 11, President Bush declared war on terrorist financing. There is, however, no single office in the Federal government that is responsible for ensuring that all elements of law enforcement and intelligence share terrorist information in a timely fashion. As a result, our counterterrorist financing efforts to date have not been as effective as they could be. The committee concluded that the Department of the Treasury needs to be more effective in implementing its counterterrorist financing mission from an intelligence sharing perspective. By elevating the intelligence function within the Treasury Department, this bill ensures that the coordination and information sharing between the Treasury and the rest of the Intelligence Community can be more effective. This Member recognizes that the assistance and the cooperation of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), will be required to achieve this important policy change. The Select Committee on Intelligence will continue to work with him and his committee, on which this Member also serves, to ensure that we get this correct. Mr. Chairman, secondly, it should be noted that Americans have become painfully aware of the threats to the homeland and the risk that terrorist cells and their support networks may be operating in the United States. Several suspected cells already have been cracked. Indeed, an individual has just been convicted last week of conducting surveillance operations for possible al Qaeda attacks. The presence of this new and very real threat has compelled the FBI to transform the way it conducts investigations. No longer does the FBI solely pursue investigations in order to build criminal cases. Now they are also actively at work to disrupt and destroy terrorist cells before they launch attacks. This is nothing less than revolutionary in the way that the FBI does its business. It is a very necessary transformation that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is following closely through careful oversight. We in the legislative branch are attempting to ensure that the information flow between the FBI and the intelligence community is done effectively, but also within the confines of the law. The committee intends to continue aggressive oversight. I want to assure our colleagues of this evolving relationship between this intelligence and law enforcement. Third, and finally, this Member would remind his colleagues of the enormity of the challenge now faced by the intelligence community. The war on terrorism has required an unprecedented commitment requiring timely, actionable intelligence on a truly global scale. In addition, our intelligence services are devoting significant resources to the effort to Iraq, not only to identify and to apprehend the remaining elements of Saddam Hussein's regime but also to locate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. More on that subject later. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment. The gentleman from Ohio has woven an interesting story and made a number of bald and bold assertions, but I think it is important to look at what the amendment says. The amendment calls for the Inspector General of the CIA to conduct an audit of all telephone electronic communications between the CIA and the Office of the Vice President relating to Iraq and WMD. The amendment is unusual and frankly a bit confusing. It purports to address what is allegedly a very serious issue, the altering or shading of intelligence for political, perhaps for strategic, purposes, but then it focuses only on the Vice President and only on his phone and e- mail communications. If there was a real problem, one would expect a comprehensive review, but the amendment targets only one individual, the Vice President, and this is an individual who has the right, indeed he has the obligation, to receive information related to, for example, Iraq WMD and a run-up to a war. However, the Vice President's telephone conversations are not recorded. Thus, the information that is sought in this amendment does not exist when it comes to telephone calls. Perhaps a record of the number of telephone conversations between the Vice President and the CIA could be compiled, but this would tell us only how many calls were made and when they occurred. Frankly, this is not useful information. Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Vice President was in contact with the Intelligence Community should not be surprising. Frankly, it would be very upsetting if there was insufficient contact. These are sensitive communications, of course, on important matters. We should all expect the Vice President's office to talk regularly with the CIA, to visit the CIA for that matter, and the rest of the Intelligence Community. So should not the Vice President and the President be avid consumers of intelligence in order to be well-informed in the decisions that they make? Remember what the amendment says. It is targeting the telephone calls between the Vice President, only the Vice President, and the CIA, only that component of the Intelligence Community, and the electronic communications that took place between that individual and that agency. So it seems very clear to me that it is not a comprehensive review. It is targeted at the Vice President, and one simply has to realize that it is going to be unsuccessful in really revealing any information that it purports to have as an interest of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment should be defeated.