Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). This important legislation permanently extends those provisions in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which relate to the preemption of State laws. These provisions in the FCRA are set to expire on December 31, 2003. The FCRA is the Federal law which governs the furnishing of reports on the credit worthiness of consumers. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for introducing this important legislation. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Ranking Member of this Committee, for their support in bringing this measure to the House floor. This legislation, H.R. 2622, is essential since it ensures the continuity of the nationwide credit system while providing important consumer protections. This Member supports this legislation for many reasons. However, he would like to focus on the following three reasons. First, this legislation provides for a free credit report annually for consumers. Typically, credit reporting agencies charge consumers up to $9 for the disclosure of the information in their credit files. Under current law, a consumer may receive a free consumer report from a reporting agency only under certain circumstances, such as when a consumer receives a notice of an adverse action by a reporting agency. The FACT Act would provide for a free credit report annually for consumers for any reason. This Member believes that this provision will promote consumer awareness of a person's credit history as well as provide an opportunity for the consumer to correct any inaccurate information on one's credit report. Second, this legislation provides important provisions to curb identity theft. To illustrate the need for these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a survey at the beginning of September of this year which showed that a staggering 27.3 million Americans had been victims of identity theft in the last 5 years, including 9.9. million people in the last year alone. This bill provides the following consumer protection tools against identity theft: Allows consumers to place ``fraud alerts'' in their credit reports to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names; allows consumers to block information from being given to a credit reporting agency and from being reported by this agency if such information results from identity theft; and prohibits furnishers of credit information from forwarding to reporting agencies information on a consumer if the furnisher has substantial doubts as to its accuracy. Lastly, this bill continues the Federal preemption of State laws as it relates to the corporate affiliate sharing of financial information. During the consideration of the 1996 amendments to the FCRA, this Member authored a provision, which was signed into law, that required a consumer opt-out nontransactional is shared among corporate affiliates. Examples of nontransaction information include data from a consumer credit report and information on an application such as a consumer's income or assets. This provision on consumer notice is very important as it was the first consumer ``opt out'' on the sharing of financial information that this Member is aware of that was signed into Federal law. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above and many others, this Member encourages his colleagues to support H.R. 2622.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, our good friend and very able U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Zoellick, about to represent America at the WTO trade summit in Cancun this week, should be given a message and a mission. The message comes from this Member of Congress, a strong supporter of trade liberalization, one of the farm-state Members from the Great Plains and Midwest Caucus that together has been a strong and crucial force for trade liberalization over the years. Mr. Speaker, here is the message with which we should arm Ambassador Zoellick on the subject of agricultural trade: First, we must harmonize, we must have harmonization. That is to say, developing countries must agree to sharp reductions in their tariffs on agriculture imports, and developed countries like the European Union countries and Japan must cut their higher production subsidies proportionally more than the U.S. Large agricultural exporters classified as developing countries, like Brazil, also must steeply cut their agricultural subsidy. Second, we must have an end to the large agricultural export subsidies of the European Union; and America can end its small export subsidies, which are used occasionally as a shot across the bow of the EU. Third, we must insist that the European Union dramatically restructure its agriculture support programs by a greater delinking of subsidy programs from production at the same time as the U.S. proportionally makes the same adjustment in our smaller level of subsidy. Mr. Speaker, the large subsidy and tariff barriers of the European Union and Japan, but also the United States, do more damage to the economies and domestic food production efforts of the world's developing countries than the combination of all the foreign aid programs of the developed countries and their NGOs. In the meantime, the American taxpayers and the taxpayers and food consumers of European Union countries pay a huge cost for the direct and hidden agricultural subsidies primarily caused by the EU's common agricultural policy. Mr. Speaker, either we have that kind of dramatic change in foreign farm subsidy and tariff programs matched proportionally by our own, or Ambassador Zoellick should walk away from Cancun until the Europeans get the message. Let them squirm with the cost of their cap under an enlarged EU. American farmers and our small agribusiness firms will accept reform, but they are disgusted with the intransigence of the EU and the big and unfair disadvantage they face from the EU over export markets. Ambassador Zoellick should know we demand a real substantial change from the EU, Japan, and other countries. We need to walk away from any inadequate or lopsided trade deal that is detrimental to the natural competitiveness of our farm sector; or, alternatively, the reliable pro-trade farm state block of Members will walk away from any further multilateral trade agreements Ambassador Zoellick might bring us.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to add his support for the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 (H.R. 2765) and would like to comment on what is probably the most controversial provision of the measure--the appropriation of $10 million in Federal funds for a scholarship program that would allow certain low-income District of Columbia parents to send their children to private schools. Although this Member does not support school vouchers because they have the potential to do great damage to many public school systems, this Member believes that the District of Columbia warrants special consideration. The District of Columbia has one of the most troubled public school systems in the United States. School choice would offer hope to parents and students by giving them the opportunity to select a school that meets their educational needs, while the competition school choice brings would improve the overall educational atmosphere for the parents, teachers, and administrators who continue to work to improve the District of Columbia public school system. School children in the District of Columbia have been trapped in failing schools for too long. Providing funding for a school choice program would provide certain low-income parents residing in the District of Columbia with the financial means needed to enroll their children in higher-performing schools in the District of Columbia. In addition, the funds these students receive could also be used to pay for transportation, fees, and tuition costs. The House of Representatives has used the District of Columbia appropriations bill to provide school choice proposals for District of Columbia students in the past. In fact, both the fiscal year 1996 and 1999 District of Columbia appropriations bills, as passed by the House, contained language permitting the use of funds for a scholarship program (although the language was not enacted into law). This Member has supported these efforts in the past and believes it is essential that this appropriations bill contain similar language allowing for a District of Columbia scholarship program. This legislation would not establish a voucher system; it is a system of scholarships. In a voucher system, the public school money would go with the child to the private or public school that the parents choose for their child. However, under this scholarship program, if a student receives a scholarship and decides to go to a private school, no funds would be taken from the specific public school that the child was attending. Therefore, the Washington, DC, school system would lose no money if low-income children choose to attend private schools with the scholarship money. Opponents of the scholarship program claim that the District of Columbia public school system overall would lose money under this plan. However, the District of Columbia Mayor, Anthony A. Williams, has indicated he will lead to hold District of Columbia schools harmless, meaning that the public school system will keep more than $16 million in local per pupil aid for the 2,000 children they will no longer have to educate. This idea is briefly mentioned in the September 3, 2003, Washington Post editorial, entitled ``Washington's Children Deserve More Choices,'' written by Mayor Williams; Mr. Kevin P. Chavous, a member of the DC Council and Chairman of its Education Committee, and; Ms. Peggy Cooper Cafritz, President of the DC Board of Education. The article says, ``. . . our public schools will not be penalized financially for the loss of students to private or parochial schools.'' This Member has confirmed the Mayor's ``hold harmless'' provision with staff at the Government Reform Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2765.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 2003, this Member unavoidably missed rollcall vote No. 465. Because this was a 5-minute vote, in contrast to the normal practice of 15 minutes employed on the floor when votes are not predicted, this Member returned to Committee and was unaware that the normal practice was not pursued. Several other Members were in the same position. Had this Member been present, this Member would have voted ``aye'' on this procedural vote to table the motion to reconsider the previous vote.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to commend the governments of Greece and Turkey for the agreement that they have reached on confidence-building between their armed forces. On Wednesday, Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, announced that the two NATO member countries have reached agreements on cooperation between their national defense colleges and on exchanges of military personnel for training purposes. This Member is pleased to note that the talks between the two countries are expected to continue, with the aim of reaching further confidence-building measures. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends Secretary General Robertson and the Greek and Turkish governments for this initiative.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member offers his strong support for H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs (VA)/Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Appropriations Act for FY2004. This Member would like to thank the chairman of the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their dedication to crafting this measure. 1. Department of Veterans Administration (VA) This measure provides $60.7 billion for veterans programs including $27.2 billion for veterans health care. Although H.R. 2861 does not provide veterans funding equal to the levels authorized in the FY2004 congressional budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 95), the funding levels in H.R. 2861 exceed not only FY2003 appropriation levels by 5 percent but also the Administration's budget request. (This Member would remind his colleagues what he reminds his constituents about the congressional budget process--the levels in the budget resolution are a framework as Congress determines actual funding levels. Of course, the actual funding levels are determined through the annual appropriations process.) Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true that, as often recently alleged by numerous sources, the Federal Government is cutting back on financial support for veterans' health care or that Congress or recent presidents are not supportive of veterans. Each year, Congress sets new records on the amount of appropriations for veterans' health care, not only because of higher health care costs but also due to a huge bulge of WWII and Korean War veterans who are understandably making larger demands for health care because of their age, plus a very large number of Vietnam War and other veterans who require medical care. During 2002, approximately 4.7 million individual veterans received VA medical care. Outpatient visits are increasing rapidly, with 43.8 million visits last year. Both the general VA inpatient caseload and acute care cases are also increasing, with the daily inpatient caseload projected to be over 57,000 and the acute care up 2,700 over last year. Yet thousands of veterans are on waiting lists for medical care, after waiting months for appointments to see medical staff. Between FY1998 and FY2003, the appropriation has increased 4 percent, an increase nearly six times greater than the average increase of federal domestic programs. The appropriation for VA medical care in fiscal year 2003 jumped to $23.8 billion--$1.1 billion more than the President's request. Each year, the President asks for a far larger increase than in almost any other domestic program, and each year the Congress exceeds that request. In his budget request for FY2004, for example, the President has requested $25.2 billion for VA medical care. Mr. Chairman, the health care needs of military veterans must be met to the fullest extent possible, and this Member is committed to continuing to see that veterans receive the benefits they deserve with the resources available. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way of life. As they served this nation in a time of need, the Federal Government must remember them in their time of need. The people of the U.S. owe veterans a great deal and should keep the promises made to them. Voting for H.R. 2861 is an important step in keeping those promises. 2. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic Development Initiative This Member is pleased and appreciative that $450,000 is appropriated in this bill as a HUD Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for Falls City, Nebraska. This appropriation, which could be used for economic development and job creation, represents a continuation of my efforts for Falls City. In the FY2003 appropriations bill, $526,500 was earmarked as a CDBG EDI for the renovation of a Falls City business industry incubator building which is necessary for job creation. Falls City is a community in extreme Southeast Nebraska, an area of the state with serious economic needs. For example, 51 percent of Falls City's population is categorized as either low or low-moderate income. Moreover, continuing a forty-year trend, the population of the City again has declined by 3.2 percent from 1990 to 2000. In addition, in July of 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated Richardson County, of which Falls City is the county seat, as a county in severe economic distress. As a result, this funding request for infrastructure is needed to help maintain the economic viability of Falls City. This is the largest community and employment center in a four-county region that needs economic stimulation: very recent job losses have accentuated the problems; and this community and area really needs the help. 3. Missouri River Sanitary Sewer Connection Between Nebraska and Iowa-- $400,000 This Member greatly appreciates the inclusion in the bill of $400,000 toward the construction of a sanitary sewer connection across the Missouri River which is the boundary between Nebraska and Iowa. This new connector is a very immediate need for the community of South Sioux City, Nebraska, and a much more cost-effective approach than adding to a separate sewage treatment program in this Nebraska suburb of Sioux City, Iowa. The existing connection is 40 years old and early last year, the trunk sewer carrying sewage between South Sioux City to the treatment plant in Sioux City, Iowa, broke, For several weeks, about 1.6 million gallons of raw sewage each day was dumped into the Missouri River. The sewer connector was eventually replaced, but the incident highlighted the need for a second connector. The new trunk line connector proposed is to be located south of the city. It would provide a more direct link to the regional sewage treatment plant in Sioux City. Since the original sewer pipe was installed in the early 1960s, South Sioux City's population has increased more than 60 percent. Also, the community's industrial base (with difficult treatment requirements) continues to grow, which places an additional burden on the sewer system. In an effort to meet the growing needs for an improved sewer system, the city's residents have seen significant rate increases over the past several years, including a 27 percent jump in 2001 and a 37 percent jump in 2002. It is now clear that Federal assistance is necessary to assist this municipality meet this unusual and expensive infrastructure project. 4. Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program This Member commends the support for the Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program. An amount of $5.3 million is appropriated for FY2004 for the Section 184 program which, it is estimated, would guarantee up to $197.2 million in commercial loans for Indian families who would otherwise be unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. As the author of the Section 184 program, this Member strongly supports this innovative program. This Member is particularly supportive of this funding level in light of the Administration's inadequate request of $1 million for the Section 184 loan guarantee program for FY2004 . Unfortunately, the Administration's request for FY2004 is projected to only guarantee up to $27.5 million of commercial home lands for American Indians. The Administration's inadequate request for the Section 184 program is also inconsistent with the Indian Lands Title Report Commission which was authorized into law in year 2000. In some parts of the country and on some Indian reservations, the Section 184 program is bringing results, while on others it is stymied. This can be attributed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) apparent inability to oversee and track the leases and the rights in trust-held land which continues to inhibit mortgage loans on American Indian reservations. To help solve this problem, the Indian Lands Title Report Commission was authorized to study the system of the BIA for maintaining land ownership records, title documents, and title status reports. Subsequently, Congress or the Executive Branch will be able to use the findings from this one-year commission to eliminate any BIA/HUD national or regional problems or barriers remaining to the use of Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program on American Indian reservations. 5. Rural Housing Efforts by HUD This Member also would note his disappointment with the fact that the $25 million which is appropriated for the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in the Department of Housing and Urban Development in this appropriations bill. This Member testified earlier this year and also last year before the Veterans, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, that HUD should not be the source of funding rural housing and rural economic development projects. Although this Member has been and remains a strong and long-term advocate of rural housing and rural development during my tenure in the House, he believes that we need to avoid inappropriate duplication in the efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. This Member supports the full funding (and even larger funding) of rural housing and economic development programs through the Rural Development offices of the United States Department of Agriculture. This is the agency that has the real interest and expertise to make such programs work in the more rural parts of non-metropolitan America; HUD doesn't. 6. AmeriCorps Funding This Member is concerned about AmeriCorps funding. The bill provides a 25-percent increase in funds over FY2003. Indeed, including the $64 million in the first supplemental appropriation passed in April, there is still a slight increase over last year. However, this amount is still inadequate to deal with the results of the bad management decisions that have occurred possibly since the very beginning of the program. As a long-time AmeriCorps supporter and one of 19 original Republican cosponsors which created this program in 1993, this Member is disappointed to say that the administrative incompetence at the national level of AmeriCorps is largely responsible for creating the current situation. For example, it is amazing and totally unacceptable that AmeriCorps could not even provide an accurate count of the number of participants when asked. Instead, a very faulty and under-estimated count was provided to the Congress which then was used to establish what seemed a reasonable employee cap of 50,000 participants. A basic requirement of proper program administration, at least, is to know the number of people employed by the organization. Another problem is that the AmeriCorps drop-out rate was grossly over-estimated in allocating sufficient educational trust funds. Real reforms must happen in this program that provides such excellent opportunities for thousands of people around the United States. This Member is hopeful that significant improvements can be made in a reauthorization bill before the end of the year. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in support of this important bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, many people will talk about the substance of the bill. I want to talk about what is really at stake here tonight and what is really at stake is the integrity of the legislative process. The gentleman from Ohio just talked about the spending program that has gone on here by the pharmaceutical industry. We are all knee-deep in Washington, D.C., with money being spent on this issue. Extraordinary numbers of groups have been brought to bear on this issue, massive spending, nothing like it that I have ever seen since I have been here. When I went to my town hall meetings, I saw my name, my picture, informing me by the Senior Coalition exactly why counterfeit drugs were so potentially lethal and such a big loss to the protection of consumers. It was funded by the Senior Coalition. Ask AARP how much money from the pharmaceutical industry comes to the Senior Coalition. What is at stake here, I would say, is whether or not this is the people's House, whether or not we have integrity in this House to do what is right for our constituents. Four of my colleagues actually have a Dear Colleague out which says, ``The Canadian-European socialistic price controls already dictate drug prices in the United States because drug-makers and policy-makers are willing to pander to price control systems overseas. We enable protectionism and fixed high prices at home,'' and that is exactly right. What we have is massive cost-shifting on drug costs in this world, and it is all coming on the back of the American consumer. Every developed country on Earth has price controls. We do not. Of course, research and development is important, but it is being paid for primarily by American consumers, and its costs ought to be spread across the world to at least a reasonable degree. I think it will be interesting to compare what the pharmaceutical industry spends on advertising and what it spends on inducing health professionals to prescribe their particular drugs. Compare that with what they are spending on R&D, it would be very interesting for constituents to see that. My constituents understand what is happening there. I think we need to protect the integrity of the House. Vote for the Gutknecht bill. It is the best thing we have, and we ought to proceed with it. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, this Member wishes to add his strong support for the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003 (H.R. 2427). This legislation would provide American consumers with access to markets where they can obtain more affordable prescription drugs. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for sponsoring H.R. 2427 and for his personal interest in providing Americans with access to world class drugs at world market prices. This Member would also like to commend the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for her persistence on this issue and her work to ensure that this measure was debated on the House Floor. Mr. Speaker, this Member recognizes that American consumers pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Canadian and European senior citizens frequently pay half or less of the amount U.S. seniors pay for the same drugs. The same drugs are often even less expensive in Mexico. This anomaly has led some Americans to travel outside of the U.S., particularly to Canada, to purchase prescription drugs. This Member has concluded that drug companies charge Americans what they believe the market will bear and that high pricing probably is abetted by the fact that effectively under current law, only the drug companies themselves can import or reimport prescription drugs into the U.S. In fact, all or nearly all developed countries have imposed price controls on drugs. Thus, there is huge international cost-shifting; pharmaceutical companies are charging what the market will bear in America. American consumers are being forced to subsidize the dramatically lower prices paid by consumers elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act provides a solution to this problem. This legislation would provide individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers in America with access to FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities in industrialized nations abroad. Those countries are limited to: the European Union, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and South Africa. The pharmaceutical industry has spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the concept of market access. The industry claims that H.R. 2427 would undermine the safety of the U.S. drug supply and place American consumers at risk. This is simply hogwash! There have been no reported deaths from Americans taking imported pharmaceuticals. Mr. Speaker, if prescription drugs are not affordable, they are not accessible. American consumers cannot afford to continue to pay excessive prices for prescription drugs so that Canadians, Europeans, and individuals of other countries can pay significantly lower prices for their pharmaceuticals. American citizens should not continue to be held captive from the global marketplace. In closing, this member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2427.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his support for H.R. 2799, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary for FY 2004. In particular, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Chairman of the Subcommittee and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their hard work under difficult budget circumstances. As a member of the House Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, this Member strongly supports the inclusion of $60 million for Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up, otherwise known as the ``hot spots'' program. These funds are critical in State and local efforts to combat the scourge of methamphetamine that is sweeping across our country. This Member also appreciates the Subcommittee's commitment to Nebraska's efforts to fight a growing plague in Nebraska--the manufacture, trafficking and abuse of methamphetamine. The Nebraska State Patrol will continue the work began with the $500,000 appropriation from FY 2003, with an emphasis on funding for the cleanup of clandestine labs. In 1999, approximately 37 labs were discovered in Nebraska. By 2002, the problem had increased exponentially to 372 which in turn has placed a huge burden on Nebraska law enforcement. The Nebraska State Patrol will also use the funds for the State crime lab to investigate methamphetamine cases and to continue a drug treatment program for methamphetamine addicts. Furthermore, this Member is pleased that $615 million is included in the bill for the popular and vital Byrne grant program. This appropriation is a top priority for Nebraska law enforcement. The Byrne grant program is critical in crime fighting efforts--and especially helpful to Nebraska law enforcement in fighting crimes related to drug use. Clearly, methamphetamine alone is the driving force behind the increase in crime in Nebraska. The bill also includes important funds for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants (JAIBG). These funds have been used throughout the State, and specifically assisted Douglas, Sarpy, and Lancaster counties in developing juvenile drug courts. Almost 50 young people have graduated from the drug courts over the last two years. In addition, Douglas and Lancaster counties have also utilized funds to develop computerized information systems and local graduated sanctions programs. An additional program of importance to Nebraska law enforcement is the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) program. This Member is pleased that funds are provided for this program. Nebraska is part of the regional Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC). The RISS program provides Nebraska law enforcement with a secure nationwide state-of-the-art information sharing system that uses web technology, allowing officers to access criminal activity information around the country in real time. Additional services include, but are not limited to, analytical assistance, high-tech surveillance equipment loans, intelligence publications, investigative funds, computer forensics and specialized training. As members of the MOCIC, many law enforcement agencies in Nebraska are able to share critical crime-fighting information that these agencies would otherwise not be able to access. As today's criminals become more mobile and technologically advanced, law enforcement's demands for RISS services continues to grow. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2799.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H. Res. 240, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Community Health Center Week to raise awareness of health services provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, for bringing this important resolution to the House Floor today. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for sponsoring H. Res. 240 and for his personal interest in protecting and strengthening access to health care services for all under-served Americans. On June 18, 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notified this Member that the Peoples' Health Center of Lincoln, Nebraska, has been awarded a $650,000 grant to establish a Federally Qualified Community Health Center. This will be the first Community Health Center in the First Congressional District of Nebraska. This Member's congressional district has not had a Community Health Center for far too long and I believe one is essential as residents of this locality are in great need of access to comprehensive preventive and primary health care services. This Member and his staff have been working for more than one year with the Peoples' Health Center Steering Committee to obtain funding for the Community Health Center, which will serve a significant number of residents of Lincoln and Lancaster County. This Member requested support for the Health Center from the Health Resources and Services Administration and subsequently testified before the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to express his strong support for an appropriation of $830,000 to support the construction of the Peoples' Health Center. Construction of the Peoples' Health Center will take place in two phases: Phase I (a west building) and Phase II (an east building). Phase I is being funded entirely with local funds. The funding this Member requested from the Subcommittee would be used for Phase II which will allow for the construction of an 8,300 square foot building which will be attached to the current Phase I building. Three dental operatories and expanded dental staff areas will be included in Phase II of the building. Space for a small radiology room, expanded offices for mental health and substance abuse counselors, as well as expanded conference and training space for health education and promotion is also planned for the Phase II building. Expanded medical services will be provided by moving existing administrative staff from the Phase I building into the Phase II building. This will result in approximately 2,500 new dental patients, 1,800 new behavioral health patients, and 2,500 primary medical patients. The People's Health Center would not have happened without the leadership of the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department under the direction of Mr. Bruce Dart. Mrs. Judy Halstead, of the Lincoln- Lancaster County Health Department, has been instrumental in leading the `Peoples' Health Center Steering Committee. Additionally, Ms. Charlotte Liggett from St. Elizabeth Regional Medical Center and Mr. Brad Sher of BryanLGH HealthSystem have served on the Peoples' Health Center Executive Committee and helped secure the significant hospital contributions for the Health Center. Numerous other individuals and organizations spent a significant amount of time and energy on the project. This Member commends all involved in the project for their extraordinary efforts and dedication to providing uninsured and underinsured with access to health care services. This Member has met with the Steering Committee several times in the past year to discuss their plans. Certain members of the Steering Committee also visited his Washington office to show him the plans, and accompanied this Member's staff to an urban Community Health Center in Washington, DC. Mr. Craig Kennedy and Ms. Lisa Cox of the National Association of Community Health Centers were most helpful in planning this visit. A staff member of this Member's Washington, DC. office, Ms. Michelle Spence, has played a very important role in assisting the Lincoln effort and in promoting their case successfully within the Federal agency, and this Member commends her for her outstanding effort. The Peoples' Health Center will be built on 27th and Y streets in Lincoln. The buildings that existed on that land have been demolished and a shell for the health center currently exists. Construction and dry walling has just begun. It is expected that the Health Center will open on September 30, 2003. The proposed target population will include approximately 47,000 Lincoln and Lancaster County residents, including more than 50 percent with incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, 36 percent uninsured, and 24 percent minority residents. It is anticipated that the patients using the health center will include 40 percent Medicaid eligible, 40 percent uninsured/sliding fee, 10 percent Medicare, and 10 percent other third party pay. The resolution before us today expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Community Health Center Week to raise awareness of health services provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers; and the President should issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States and interested organizations to observe such a week with appropriate programs and activities. It is this Member's hope that the establishment of the Peoples' Health Center of Lincoln will raise awareness of the Health Centers program to Nebraska residents and that this Center would participate in National Community Health Center Week if one were established. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H. Res. 240.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to rise today as an original cosponsor in strong support of H. Con. Res. 230, a resolution honoring the 10 U.S. communities selected to receive the All-America City Award. This Member is proud to note that South Sioux City, which is located in the First Congressional District of Nebraska, received this impressive designation. South Sioux City is located on the banks of the Missouri River in northeast Nebraska. It is the home of many recent immigrants and refugees in addition to a population that has been there 4, 5, or 6 generations. It is a growing community with a population of almost 12,000, which is a 23 percent increase over the last census. It is part of the Sioux City metropolitan area, otherwise known as Siouxland, which is well known here on Capitol Hill for the annual steak dinner they host for all Members. They have been doing that for some 20 or 30 years. South Sioux City has many accomplishments. Some interesting things the city has done recently include guaranteeing that all fifth through eighth grade students have a home computer; creating a youth council aimed at building youth leaders; creating a county-wide economic development committee; constructing a 15-field soccer complex that is very popular with their Hispanic American population, of course; and building the world's first ecopath using recyclables versus aggregate surfaces. All of the citizens of South Sioux City are to be congratulated on this designation. The mayor, William McClarty; the city administrator, Lance Headquist, who always has a new effort for us to support; other city and school district employees, the chamber of commerce and many others played a role in this achievement. South Sioux City is a progressive community. It has had problems but, it has always tackled them straight on and been successful. I am very pleased that they have cooperated so well cross-culturally in their achievements. The leadership of South Sioux City is very proactive and skilled in pursuing opportunities for the city. As a result, they have been very successful. Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) for his initiative in bringing this resolution to the floor. With respect to the community that is in my district, I know that they are not going to rest on their laurels; they will continue to grow and excel in the future. This Member urges his colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 230.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a number of glowing remarks about Congressman Robert Borski. They are not exaggerations. He was an excellent Member of this House. My experience with him came in two areas: the first, serving on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure where he was a very senior member. He did perform on that Committee in an outstanding way. He was very much bipartisan in his approach even though, of course, he was a confirmed member of the Democratic Party. I would say also in this respect that he went out of his way to find a consensus whenever possible. It is often said that there are show horses and workhorses in this Congress. Definitely Mr. Borski was a workhorse and a very, very effective one. The second place I knew him was in my role as the chairman of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly where Mr. Borski was one among many Members that do not come from the Committee on International Relations or from the Committee on Armed Services or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; he came from one of the authorizing committees that does not have that much involvement in international affairs under most circumstances. But he played a very valuable role in this respect. We missed him this past Congress in his role in that respect. I want to commend him and thank his wife for all of her patience and his family for all of their patience in giving Robert's time for working on these international issues as well. I strongly support the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the floor. This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. This Member greatly appreciates the $18 million funding level provided for the four-State Missouri River Mitigation Project and hopes that the final funding for FY2004 will be closer to the $22 million included in the Administration's budget. The funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in predevelopment days. In addition, this measure provides additional funding for flood- related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased that H.R. 2754 continues funding in the amount of $191,000, the full amount thought necessary, for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and tributaries. This Member recognizes that this bill includes $546,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE, and $318,000 for the Western Sarpy-Clear Creek. However, this funding is to be used for preconstruction engineering and design work. This Member believes that it is very important that the final version of the FY2004 Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation include funding for construction of these projects. Funding for the Sand Creek project is particularly urgent. There is a cooperative effort in Nebraska between the State highway agency and water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead of a bridge as part of the new State expressway in the immediate vicinity of Wahoo, NE. Immediate funding would help ensure that this cost-effective, coordinated effort could continue so that the construction of the expressway will not be further delayed. Mr. Chairman, this Member very much appreciates the report language which ``directs the Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on the Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting advance funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the sponsor, including work performed in connection with the design and construction of seven upstream detention storage structures.'' Another project, the Western-Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Reduction Project is designed to provide protection to the city of Lincoln's water supply, Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 6, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad/Amtrak line, telecommunication lines and other public facilities. The project completes and strengthens a levee system, most of which is already in place, to channel water and ice downstream away from the confluence of the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers, which is where major flood problems begin. On still another important project, this Member is pleased that $1.5 million in additional construction funding is included for the Antelope Creek project in Lincoln, NE, and also hopes that this funding level will be increased in the final version. The purpose of the project is to implement solutions to multifaceted problems involving the flood control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in the project since he was responsible for stimulating the city of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control system for downtown Lincoln. The Antelope Creek Flood Control Project is a large project and will have a number of phases of right-of-way acquisition and construction. Finally, this Member notes regrettably that the bill does not include the usual $260,000 in funding requested for operations and management related to the Missouri National Recreational River Project. This project addresses a serious problem by protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous work on the river by the Federal Government. This Member believes that the final venison of the legislation should include this funding and would appreciate the committee's assistance with the other body on this issue. Again Mr. Chairman, this Member gratefully commends the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as the people living in the Missouri River Basin in the four-state region.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the Floor. This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the Subcommittee much more difficult this year. Therefore, the Subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to all the members of the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 includes funding for two projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. This Member is very pleased that the bill includes $400,000 from the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Division for the new fish and wildlife cooperative research unit established in FY2003 at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This Member had been requesting funding for this cooperative research unit each year since 1990! The University of Nebraska and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission have already committed funds and facilities for the unit, but the Federal funding is needed to make it a reality. Nebraska's strategic location presents several very special research opportunities, particularly relating to the large number of migratory birds that visit our state each year via the Central Flyway. However, Nebraska is one of the few states without a fish and wildlife cooperative research unit within the state. Locating a cooperative research unit in Nebraska to develop useful information relating to these issues upon which to base critical management decisions is an urgent need. This Member is also pleased that Homestead National Monument of America receives $350,000 to continue planning for a visitor facility. This project received $300,000 in planning funds in FY2003. Homestead National Monument of America commemorates the lives and accomplishments of all pioneers and the changes to the land and the people as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862, which is recognized as one of the most important laws in U.S. history. This Monument was authorized by legislation enacted in 1936. The fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations legislation directed the National Park Service to complete a General Management Plan to begin planning for improvements at Homestead. The General Management Plan, which was completed last year, made recommendations for improvements that are needed to help ensure that Homestead is able to reach its full potential as a place where Americans can more effectively appreciate the Homestead Act and its effects upon this nation. Homestead National Monument of America is truly a unique treasure among the National Park Service jewels. The authorizing legislation makes it clear that Homestead was intended to have a special place among Park Service units. According to the original legislation: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to lay out said land in a suitable and enduring manner so that the same may be maintained as an appropriate monument to retain for posterity a proper memorial emblematic of the hardships and the pioneer life through which the early settlers passed in the settlement, cultivation, and civilization of the great West. It shall be his duty to erect suitable buildings to be used as a museum in which shall be preserved literature applying to such settlement and agricultural implements used in bringing the western plains to its present state of high civilization, and to use the said tract of land for such other objects and purposes as in his judgment may perpetuate the history of this country mainly developed by the homestead law. Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. The funding included in this bill will begin the process of realizing these goals. In addition, Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased that funding was allocated for the National Endowment for the Humanities program entitled, ``We the People.'' This initiative is designed to promote a broad understanding of the ideas and events that have shaped our nation. The ``We the People'' program will support the study of our nation's history, institutions and culture. The state humanities councils will play a large role in this effort and receive substantial resources from it. A number of the programs undertaken by the Nebraska Humanities Council are examples of the programs which are expected to be included in ``We the People.'' These include the Great Plains Chatauqua on Lewis and Clark, the Capitol Forum, and their Speaker's Bureau. Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2691.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and that he may be allowed to manage that 5 minutes.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I have in my hands an article from The Washington Post of July 15 that says, ``Archeologists on the Block? Park Service May Ax Its Experts on `OutSourcing' Initiative.'' And that is what this is all about. I have no complaints with the committee. I have come with this amendment as a last resort in stopping something that is mindless and not well considered. I am going to speak about two centers, one located in Tallahassee, Florida, in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), and one in my district, the Midwest Archeological Center. This center in the Nebraska location is a center which has been in existence for 60-plus years. I have had intimate knowledge of it for more than 30 years. It has 12 FTE, but it has 30 temporary positions, undergraduates and graduate students from universities in five States. The center has developed an excellent reputation of providing professional and technical archeological services for the management of cultural heritage sites in the 13-State NPS Midwest region and to other Federal agencies. I am rather certain that the persons in OMB and the Department of the Interior that determined the process with this out- sourcing activity were not fully aware of the center's mission and history. Mr. Chairman, if you read a study from the National Park Service, it clearly shows that no feasibility study or mission of the center was considered in the decisions made by the Department of the Interior. Secondly, it states that in 2003, the National Park Service group had hoped OMB would consider excluding what are called ``curatorial series'' as ``inherently governmental.'' That would have meant that they would have been exempt from A-76. But OMB did not agree. Now, I do not resist A-76. I have consented and gone along with A-76 for other Federal employment in my district. But this process is flawed from the beginning. Mr. Chairman, the consultants hired by the National Park Service, and thus far they have spent $412,766, they are about to spend another $872,000 to examine these two centers, nearly $1.3 million. They had no latitude to suggest that the activities should not be considered for outsourcing. In fact, I have been told by my staff that the consultants have been instructed not to answer any questions that might be asked by congressional staff. These instructions came following the consultants' statements that the centers should not have been chosen for outsourcing study. I ask Members, would it be appropriate to ask whether the whistleblowers protection afforded government employees should also be afforded to these Federal government contractors? Accordingly, I have good reason to assume the consultants operated under an imperative to find a rationale for outsourcing the activities of these centers. The Park Service was given a quota by the Department of Interior. They looked at the seven regions and the three centers, looked at another center in Washington, and said you have to find so many jobs for outsourcing study. They said, ``we do not want to take them all out of blue collar workers; we also have to take some jobs for outsourcing study out of the upper end,'' and so that is what they did. They chose the curatorial category--archaeological person--to study, and they chose them despite the fact that they should have been exempt as ``inherently governmental. I will have more to say on this issue in a few minutes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his generous offer, but this is so important that I cannot withdraw this amendment. This is my last resort. The gentleman's amendment handles those studies that are underway. Unfortunately, we are told that this study has moved too far along for it to be stopped by the gentleman's more general language in the bill. So our only hope is to resist it at this point. I am not able to withdraw this amendment. I need to push this to a vote, and I need to win this vote. This is an important issue. I have never used this word on the floor before in 25 years, but this process has been not only flawed, but it has been stupidly proceeded with.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am reluctant to oppose the gentleman, but I am counseled that I must take this course, and I cannot withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's advice. I have great respect for the chairman. In this instance, I have fought this process for over a year. The first letters I received from the Department of Interior were, shall I say, nonresponsive and also condescending. There are only three such centers in the United States. We are dealing with two of them here, the majority of the archaeological capability. It is mentioned that they frequently do things for other parts of the Federal Government. They have been involved in looking for the remains of the POWs and MIAs in Vietnam. They were involved in examining the sites of the war crimes in the Balkans. This is a particular expertise that will never, ever, be put back in place again if it is destroyed. These employees and centers should never have been categorized this way. It is a mistake. They do not want to admit it. Their consultants say it was a mistake, and they have been hushed up as a result with pressure from the National Park Service, pressure which ultimately does come, as the distinguished gentleman from Alaska suggested, from OMB. It is a bean-counter that is doing something that is senseless. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member agrees with the sentiments expressed in a July 11, 2003, Omaha World-Herald editorial entitled ``Courting foreign ideas.'' In the recent Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas sodomy law (Lawrence v. Texas), the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy cites a 1981 European Court of Human Rights decision as evidence that state sodomy laws are not founded in Western tradition. Regardless of what one's position is on state sodomy laws, Supreme Court decisions should be (and, of course, generally are) based on the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal precedent. This citation contributes to a damaging and dangerous precedent; this practice should end. While this Member is a long-time supporter of a strong transAtlantic relationship, European or other foreign court actions, laws or traditions should not be cited in U.S. court cases. This Member requests that the Omaha World-Herald editorial be included in the Congressional Record. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 11, 2003] Courting Foreign Ideas The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence vs. Texas has stirred political controversy, and not just for what it may or may not mean for gay marriage. Its reference to a European Court of Human Rights decision has spawned a furor over whether the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties. We welcomed the outcome of the case, which overturned a Texas sodomy law. But we're taken aback that a U.S. court, particularly the highest one, could so boldly open itself to foreign precedents. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the Texas case, cited the European courts 1981 decision as evidence that state sodomy laws are not founded in Western tradition. Past U.S. laws and traditions are referenced heavily in many court decisions. American laws are certainly founded on the nation's Western heritage, especially that of the British legal system. But the U.S. Supreme Court is charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal precedent. In the 227 years of this nation's history, American laws and norms have developed apart from those of other nations, even those with similar concepts of liberty and rights. The death penalty and gun control are important issues on which U.S. and European laws, for instance, differ. Are U.S. citizens now to be bound by other countries' laws and constitutions? Who will choose which countries' laws are fit and applicable and which are not? In his dissent to the Texas ruling, Justice Antonio Scalia. decried the foreign citation. ``Constitutional elements do not spring into existence . . . as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct,'' Scalia wrote. We agree. It's a course several justices seem inclined to pursue, unfortunately. ``Our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think, will be a challenge for the next generations,'' Justice Stephen Breyer said on a Sunday morning talk show. Foreign laws and ideals that become broadly accepted by the U.S. populace certainly can be adopted into U.S. law--by their elected representatives, in Congress. That's a legislative function, not a judicial one. The guardians of our Constitution should know that and abide by it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1950, and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for crafting and presenting this important legislation to the House for action. Of course, a key goal of foreign relations authorization bills are to provide the best and most secure service to American citizens traveling and working overseas. Indeed, when lax security and dilapidation at U.S. overseas facilities contribute to U.S. vulnerability to attacks and subsequent American deaths, this country suffers. Please recall the reaction to the tragic 1998 embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Saalam. All Americans shared a sense of pain, grief and outrage at these senseless acts of terrorism. While not all attacks on U.S. overseas missions can be averted, Congress must provide the appropriate tools to improve the ability of the State Department to guard against disasters like these. On many occasions, Secretary of State Colin Powell has articulated embassy security as a key priority for the State Department. Additionally, this Member is a long-time supporter of increased embassy security. In fact, in this legislation the funding level reflects a commitment to embassy security by allocating over $1.653 billion in fiscal year 2004 and $1.784 billion in fiscal year 2005 for ongoing embassy security construction and maintenance. This is an important additional step for both the administration and for Congress which now must work together to ease restrictions which for many years have significantly slowed the construction of new embassies and consulates. Furthermore, this Member is particularly pleased that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will offer an amendment to provide the initial authorization for the Millennium Challenge Account. On March 14, 2002, President Bush proposed the MCA, which would provide additional U.S. aid for fiscal year 2006 to poor countries to be used for social sector improvements such as agriculture, health, education, and the environment. The President's concept underlying these proposals is clear. Countries that rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom will receive U.S. assistance. The amendment which the chairman will offer is nearly identical to H.R. 2441, the free-standing legislation offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This Member is a cosponsor of that legislation. Secondly, an amendment he will offer today will establish a Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, an entity which would be authorized to provide development assistance grants to eligible countries. Also, the MCC would work with national local organizations, government and nongovernment organizations within eligible countries to develop specific multi-year development goals. Finally, the amendment includes a provision which this Member requested to ensure that agricultural development would be among the areas on which the MCA focuses. Madam Chairman, this Member has had a long-standing interest and experience in seeking to construct efficient, innovative ways to deliver humanitarian assistance, especially in agriculture. I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and the legislation and urge all Members to support it. Indeed, if a country cannot feed itself, that country's prospects for political, economic, and societal stability are greatly endangered. Educating children and treating adults for communicable diseases simply produces few results if the efforts are directed people who do not have to eat. Agricultural development programs which gather supplies of good seed, build breeding livestock herds, construct basic irrigation systems and viable roads to markets, provide microcredit, and establish rural electric infrastructure do not require vast resources. However, such programs to build subsistence farming capacity do require a clear commitment from the U.S. Government and technical assistance gleaned from the incredible human resources found within American land grant colleges and universities, the NGO and cooperative communities, and the private sector. Previously, in 1985, this Member drafted a successful amendment to the 1986 Farm Bill which required that, for the first time, a small portion of 1 percent of the funds from the Food for Peace program could be directed toward what is now the Farmer-to-Farmer program. Originally implemented as a pilot program operating only in Central America and the Caribbean, Farmer-to-Farmer has gained support from skeptics, including the USAID, who believed that the concept was too simply to be effective. The simple approach has worked and, in fact, has been extended to Africa, Asia, South America, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (NIS). Madam Chairman, some people within the Washington Beltway have expressed similar concerns about the MCA. This Member sincerely hopes that 18 years from today, the MCA proves to be as successful as the Farmer-to-Farmer program in assisting the world's poor people. In conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for the Hyde amendment regarding the MCA and for final passage of H.R. 1950.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and we hope he will take yes for an answer.