Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I must hedge my answer. As I told the gentleman, I am not at all reluctant to have that issue voted on, as the gentleman suggested, and as we had originally described it. I am concerned about a wide-open rule. So perhaps the gentleman, if we do not bring this on the suspension calendar, would assist me in making our case to the Committee on Rules to avoid some things that I think would be very detrimental in general to the public interests were it to be offered under a completely open rule.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2019) to extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Member rises today in support of S. 2019, which is being considered under the suspension of the rules. This legislation extends the authorization of the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002. This Member would also note that he introduced identical House companion legislation, H.R. 3987. Under current law, the authorization of the Export-Import Bank expires on March 31, 2002. If this short-term authorization extension is not signed into law, the Export-Import Bank could engage in no new transactions and would have to wind down its current operations as of the expiration date. On March 14, 2002, the Senate passed this Ex-Im extension bill and a separate Ex-Im authorization bill. It is important that the House debate and approve the Senate extension bill today so that the President can sign this into law before the March 31 expiration date. At the outset, this Member would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his leadership on Ex-Im Bank issues and for that of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for their help and assistance and for their support of this legislation in general. This Member has, of course, a special interest since he chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, which has jurisdiction over the Ex-Im Bank. The Export-Import Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that provides direct loans to buyers of U.S. exports, guarantees to commercial loans to buyers of U.S. products and insurance products which greatly benefit short-term small business sales. To illustrate the importance of the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2000 the Bank invested over $15 billion in exports through loans, guarantees and insurance by which the Ex-Im Bank financed exports such as civilian aircraft, electronics, engineering services, vehicles, agricultural products, et cetera, for businesses of all sizes. The Export-Import Bank, I stress, is intended to be only the lender of last resort and is not intended to compete with private lenders. On October 31, 2001, the House Committee on Financial Services passed H.R. 2871, a more comprehensive and 4-year authorization bill, by voice vote. That legislation, among other things, would require that the Export-Import Bank earmark at least 20 percent of its total financing for small businesses. Under current law, the Ex-Im Bank is required to use only 10 percent of its total financing for small businesses. This authorization bill also would require the Export-Import Bank to continue to increase its investment in Africa. Moreover, an amendment was accepted at the full committee markup, which was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), that would address Ex-Im Bank's transaction with a Chinese steel producer. This legislation would also make a clarification in the administration of the Tied Aid War Chest which finances tied aid transactions. However, a veto threat by the Treasury Department over the relationships and disputed powers of the Treasury and the Export- Import Bank and lost time in sporadic negotiations between the committee and the executive branch have delayed the committee in bringing H.R. 2871 to the House floor for action. Thus, the need for this extension. In conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to support this short-term extension for the Export-Import Bank until April 30, 2002. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), who represents an area with a wide and important export base.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2509) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to produce currency, postage stamps, and other security documents at the request of foreign governments, and security documents at the request of the individual States of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, on a reimbursable basis, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2009, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Amendments Act of 2002. The bill allows the Treasury Department's currency printer, under certain well-defined circumstances, to print currency and other security documents for foreign countries. One of the bedrocks of a strong, modern economy is a currency in which a country's citizens have faith. Unfortunately for every currency, strong or otherwise, there are people who seek to create counterfeits, either to enrich themselves or to shake faith in the economy and the government, or both. Counterfeiters have existed as long as there has been money. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the United States Secret Service, which does such a good job of protecting the President and senior government officials, originally was formed as an anticounterfeiting squad. The Secret Service is so impressive at this task that few of us ever look at our paper money to check its authenticity. Sadly, that is not the case in many other countries. Today, with the increasingly global economy and the advances in technology, the temptation to counterfeit and the means to do so are ever more available. It is difficult enough for the Secret Service and our currency printer, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, or the BEP, to stay ahead of this threat. That is why, as we know, the Treasury Department is expected to start issuing a newly designed set of currency beginning sometime next year, a mere 6 years after the last redesign. But if it is hard for us to outwit counterfeiters, imagine the difficulties facing smaller countries, even if they are not in a state of war or undergoing the stress of massive corruption, or are being subjected to an out-of-control drug business. Good currency security takes constant research and development, and it takes sophisticated printing techniques. This is why smaller countries typically approach other, larger governments instead of private printers to have their currency printed. Australia, England, the United Kingdom, and some of the European countries have been doing this for decades. While our Mint has the authority to make coins for other countries, the Bureau of Printing does not, and it has always had to send the business elsewhere, overseas. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that has been a loss to this country for several reasons. While under no circumstances would the printing contemplated in this bill be a money-maker, there are some clear foreign policy advantages to being able to accommodate such a request from a friendly nation, especially when there would be no cost to the taxpayers. There also are advantages to having our topnotch printers and engravers be able to become familiar with cutting-edge currency and security techniques that may be requested by countries, but which may not reasonably be suitable for the massive printing runs that our own country's currency demands. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), a member of the committee, has pointed out, many of the techniques that first appeared in another country's currency printed by the BEP might appear later in a more advanced form in our currency, because the Treasury has estimated the need to redesign our paper money every 6 to 7 years from here on out to keep it secure. This bill is essentially the same language as that originally introduced last year at the request of the administration by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), with the strong support of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). In turn, that language was itself similar to language introduced in the previous Congress, at the previous administration's request, by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and passed by the subcommittee, the committee, and the full House. The only changes are limitations on the authority to print for foreign governments only. The original bill also authorizes the printing of security documents for the States of the United States, and the addition of a ``buy America'' clause. With the exception of the latter, the House passed this language as part of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 last fall. Three conditions are required before the BEP could print currency for another country: The Secretary of State has to certify that such an effort is consistent with the foreign policy goals of the United States; the job must not interfere with the BEP's main job of printing currency for the U.S.; and all real and imputed costs, administration and capital investments as well as paper, ink, and labor, must be recovered. Mr. Speaker, in the last decade the BEP has had to turn away requests from Kuwait and more recently Mexico for the U.S. to bid on printing their currency. Without this bill, it would be impossible for the Bureau to print, if asked, new currency for Afghanistan, which desperately needs a secure currency, as at least two different versions of the Afghani now circulate, in addition to suspected counterfeits. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will include an opinion from the Secret Service on H.R. 2509. I believe we already have that consent. It concludes, ``The Secret Service supports the passage of this legislation, as it would serve as a proactive tool against the counterfeiting of U.S. currency.'' Mr. Speaker, this country demonstrably benefits by the strengthening of other countries' currency regimes. Plainly said, making counterfeiting harder leads to fewer counterfeiters. Especially if there is no cost to the United States taxpayer, I can think of no reason not to advance the bill immediately, sending it to the other body as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I ask for its immediate Passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong opposition to specific portions of H.R. 1885, the 245(i) Extension Act. As you know, a House amendment to H.R. 1885 added the text of H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, that the House passed by voice vote on December 19, 2001. While this Member strongly supports the provisions of H.R. 3525 that would include establishing a government-wide electronic data base on persons with terrorist ties, installing a new high-tech visa system to reduce fraud and counterfeiting, increasing the number of full-time Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees and requiring a system to electronically track all foreign visa students in the United States; this Member, however, remains strongly opposed to the original provisions of H.R. 1885 regarding the extension of Section 245(i). This Member's opposition relates to the provisions whereby Section 245(i) allows illegal aliens to buy legal permanent residence for $1,000. Ironically, on September 11, 2001, the House was scheduled to debate H.R. 1885 on the Floor. Of course, all House action for that day was pre-empted by the horrific and unspeakable terrorists act committed, in part, by illegal aliens. In light of those events, this Member remains amazed that some of his colleagues continue to seek a policy which permits paying for citizenship by persons who entered this country illegally; that simply is not in the best interest or principles of the United States or in U.S. national security interests. Although the current legal immigration structure is by no means perfect, it does provide for crucial health screening and criminal record background checks which determine if potential immigrants will place the well-being and security of American citizens and legal immigrants in danger. To make such determinations is not only the right of the United States as a sovereign country it should be among our foremost responsibilities, especially in light of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, Section 245(i) ultimately rewards those people who have thwarted the legal immigration structure by entering the country illegally or by allowing their legal status to lapse. Simultaneously, the policy penalizes potential immigrants who have patiently waited many years, completed many forms, and undergone appropriate screenings for the privileged opportunity to be reunited with family members and to work in the United States. The amendments by the other body only worsened the bill by extending the time illegal aliens have to apply. Mr. Speaker, Section 245(i) was a bad policy when it was first enacted in 1994. It most assuredly was not worthy of being re-instated during the previous 106th Congress, and it should not be further extended. Furthermore, since H.R. 3525 has already passed the House, a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1885 would not impede the progress of those important border security and visa entry reform provisions. Extending Section 245(i) is certainly a grave mistake that we should not make at this critical juncture in our country's war on terrorism.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to state for the Record that had there been a recorded vote on H. Con. Res. 275, he would have voted ``nay'' based on the concerns expressed by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. According to the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, dove populations have been declining and biologists are concerned that lengthening the hunting season could be detrimental. Also, many fledgling doves are still in nets around the time of the opening of the current annual hunting season. Extension of the hunting season could have an adverse effect on fledgling survival rates. It appears that further study is needed before a change such as this is made.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the February 12, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial emphasizes the importance of reviewing the purpose of farm programs. It also expresses support for limiting farm payments, which would benefit family farmers and restore public confidence in farm programs. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 12, 2001] Why a Farm Bill? To Evaluate Subsidy Cap, We Need To Revisit Fundamental Questions A U.S. Senate amendment aimed at lowering the cap on farm subsidies to $275,000 a year for the biggest farms is a move in the right direction, although it may not be the revolutionary step its backers have portrayed. The new limit is designed for a worthy purpose. It would prevent huge corporate farms from receiving multimillion- dollar payments, thereby removing a factor that has tarnished the subsidy program in the eyes of many Americans. This isn't a major issue in the Midlands, where most farms are family-operated and where federal payments are much more modest. But in the South, where large corporate operations exist, the amendment is bitterly opposed. Currently the farm program has a theoretical limit of $460,000. Corporate farmers with platoons of lawyers and accountants have found many options, including the breaking up of one operation into separate units, at least on paper. In effect, there is no limit. One Arkansas operation harvested $49 million in federal funds from 1996 to 2000. Some observers say that Southern opposition to the cap will be enough to sidetrack the farm bill. If debate must be extended, it would be useful if some members of both houses of Congress addressed the underlying philosophy. America has had a subsidy program for so long that its purpose is sometimes forgotten. It originated in the 1930s as a way to help small and medium-sized farms survive a period of surplus-depressed prices. But in recent years it has morphed into a safety net for an ever-widening array of food and fiber producers, whether or not they were family farmers. In effect, it subsidizes surpluses, perpetuating a cycle of low returns and pressure for more subsidies. Congress might start by putting up the fundamental questions for review: Why do we have a farm program? To help the little guys or the big guys? To encourage surplus production or discourage it? To ensure raw materials for processors? To protect all elements of the agricultural industry from the perils of weather and market? Is the farm bill corporate welfare or community stabilization? Once the philosophy is established, perhaps a rational debate can take place. With or without it, the lower cap backed by Nebraska's delegation and others seems sound. Nothing in this amendment reduces the overall cost of the farm bill, which in its present form would add about $74 billion in spending over the next 10 years. But it does aim at keeping the program from being increasingly a form of income-protection for mega-farmers. In that context, the amendment deserves respect and the sponsors are right to give it a try.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to take this opportunity to explain his ``present'' vote on the Hyde amendment to H.R. 2356, the Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This Member voted ``present'' on the amendment as he believes that there is nothing Congress can do through such an amendment itself to assure that the language of this measure is constitutional. As to the matter of the constitutionality of any such legislation, that determination is within the power and authority given to our judicial branch--not the Congress. The language offered in the Hyde amendment is irrelevant. It is the nature of the language itself which will be judged to be constitutional by the courts and ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. That fact is one reason why the ``Severability Clause'' is essential to foster some advancement of campaign finance reform legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the February 5, 2002, Norfolk Daily News. The editorial stresses the need to move forward on the construction of a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As the editorial indicates, the Yucca Mountain location has been thoroughly studied and reviewed. Now that it has been chosen as the preferred location, Congress should approve the decision and facilitate the development of this site. Such an action would greatly enhance national safety and security. Further Delay Not an Option--Yucca Mountain Now Officially Declared Best Nuclear Waste Site Nearly 40 years after the federal effort began to find a permanent place to store high-level nuclear waste, a suitable site has been identified. It is now 20 years after Congress promised to have such a facility opened; five years after Congress named the preferred location--Yucca Mountain 90 miles northwest of Law Vegas, Nev. Exhaustive scientific review has affirmed that site's suitability. The federal Department of Energy has now officially declared that the Nevada site meets the stringent standards prescribed for storing 70,000 tons of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste. It does not mean transfer of such materials from 130 separate sites across the nation, much of it from nuclear power plants, will occur soon. The next step in the process is for President Bush to approve the recommended site and apply for a federal license. Nevada officials aim to derail the project, and a 1987 law gives that state veto power. Congress can then override the veto. The process will still consume years, rather than months. And so will design work and construction once an irreversible decision is made. While it is projected now that the repository could be ready to accept waste by 2010, experience proves that is an optimistic timeline. Opponents lack a key argument, however: that there surely are other, better sites available in the continental United States. Those were weighed long ago, and the sparsely-settled mountainous desert terrain in Nevada, already probed, tunneled and extensively surveyed for its stability, was chosen on justifiable scientific grounds. That the state has a small population might have been a political plus, but determined opposition on the part of its leadership has kept the issue in doubt long after the site should have been ready. Now it is up to Congress once again to reaffirm its earlier decision, and to offer the best protection against future risks from nuclear waste by proceeding with deliberate speed to store the nuclear waste where it can be monitored carefully for the safety of generations of Americans yet to come. The sensible majority of today's national political leaders must recognize that the greater good for the greater number is the issue. One state cannot have veto power over 49 others in a matter of vital national importance. Further delay only increases the risks and makes the nation more vulnerable to terrorists and the hazards that nuclear waste represents.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, following his visit to Hong Kong in April 1997, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich tasked this Member with the responsibility of creating the House Task Force on Hong Kong's Transition, and of observing and reporting on Hong Kong's status following its return to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Former Speaker Gingrich asked the Task Force to provide the House of Representatives with quarterly reports which was done through the fifth report of February 2, 1999. Following that report Speaker Dennis Hastert concurred with this Member's recommendation that the reports be issued on a periodic basis. The Task Force has been bipartisan in nature, with four members chosen from each party. All members of the Task Force were drawn from what was then the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. They included Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), Representative Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Representative Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS), then-Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ), and Representative Don Manzullo (R-IL). On behalf of the Task Force, this Member would like to inform his colleagues that the ninth report of the Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition has been filed. It follows eight previous reports, the most recent of which was dated August 1, 2000. The report focuses on events and developments relevant to U.S. interests in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) between August 2000 and December 31, 2001. In August 2001, this Member traveled to Hong Kong to meet with senior political officials and routinely meets with delegations from Hong Kong when they visit Washington, D.C. From these meetings, the Task Force has gleaned that the transition continues to progress satisfactorily. Mr. Speaker, a copy of the Task Force's ninth report is available on this Member's internet website: http://www.house.gov/bereuter/press.htm under the ``Speeches'' section.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I am very pleased to participate in this commemorative tribute for Larry, Lawrence, Coughlin, Jr., a terrific person, outstanding Congressman, and a real patriot. And I have to say that I am objective about that despite the fact that Larry Coughlin was one of my best friends in the Congress. He provided a tremendous amount of leadership in this Congress in so many ways, but of course I guess the area in which he is best known is his leadership for the whole Congress on urban and mass transit issues. Larry had a great set of priorities: family, the U.S. House of Representatives, and Marine Corps. He was such a courteous, cordial individual. He absolutely deserved and lived up to the title of ``the gentleman from Pennsylvania.'' We had great respect for him, a tremendous sense of humor, we all enjoyed his company, but his contributions in the Congress, of course, were only part of the contributions he made to the country. He provided incredible service to Chesty Puller, one of the most famous marines of all. And I have a hard time saying this as a former Army officer, but in fact he did remarkable things. He provided real work, hard labor to put himself through law school, and he had an inspirational impact on his family. He motivated those children to bring out the best in their capabilities; a high value on education and patriotism, and it shows when you meet them today, and his grandchildren as well. One of the things that most people do not know about Larry Coughlin is his love for plants, trees, bushes, all kinds of plants. Larry worked in the soil. He loved it, and he provided some real leadership to organizations like the Friends of the National Arboretum, where he served as the president for a number of years, and he was an inspiration to all of us. He actually is responsible for involving a significant number of Members of Congress and their spouses in the work of the National Arboretum. It was one of his loves. But he took that love and you could see it on his own properties in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. He grew up in that agricultural vein. He tells stories about working with his father from the youngest years of his life, and he made a tremendous contribution in that area, and it is something that most people do not know about. I think there could be an opportunity for us to make a fitting tribute to Larry Coughlin by doing something in the future for the National Arboretum, one of his real joys in life. We are going to miss him very, very much, and I in particular. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), for yielding to me. It is hard to itemize all the things in which Larry made contributions throughout his life, and even here in the House of Representatives. It is hard to list them all because this was a man who reflected the best in the House of Representatives.

Mr. BEREUTER. He not only wore them, he defended them; did he not?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the February 4, 2002, editorial from the Omaha World-Herald entitled ``Loosey Goosey Borders IV.'' This editorial is one in a series of editorials published by the Omaha World-Herald which illuminate why it is entirely appropriate for the U.S. to enact strict immigration laws and, subsequently, to actively enforce those laws. Specifically, this editorial focuses upon the student visa system. Indeed, the U.S. should be pleased that its higher education system attracts many foreign students, and, while it is important to continue the student visa system to bring vibrancy and diversity to universities and colleges, those interests must continuously and consistently be balanced against U.S. security interests. Failure to do so could place American lives at risk to terrorist attacks--among other threats-- committed by those in the U.S. fraudulently under the guise of educational purposes. Even with the strictest possible enforcement of visa controls, the system will always be susceptible to visa fraud. However, that does not mean that the U.S. should throw up its hands in surrender and throw open its borders. [Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 4, 2002] Loosey goosey borders IV Slow progress is made in controlling foreign student visas. Progress on tightening up the United States' free-and-easy borders has been slow but steady since Sept. 11--not spectacular, but at least things are moving. Before the terrorist attack, student visas were issued to foreign nationals, some of whom came to this country and, in essence, disappeared into the general population. The Immigration and Naturalization Service didn't check whether they actually went to school or whether they left after their education was done. Things changed on Sept. 11. Security became a greater concern. The INS is setting up a computer system to track student visa holders. The agency has been struggling with a system for years, but it appears that it will be in place, INS officials said, by 2003. The tracking system is not without its critics. A group dealing with foreign students withdrew its opposition after the September attack, but many individual schools have expressed the concern that a tracking system will discourage foreign students. Security trumps that concern. So long as a student visa is the gateway to an easy and unmonitored existence in the United States for people whose motives might be other than scholarship, this is a security matter. If keeping tabs on foreign students discourages a few from coming to the United States or inconveniences a college's administration, too bad. Besides the INS system, the Senate is expected to join the House soon in passing legislation that, among other things, would forbid the issuance of student visas to anyone from a country that sponsors terrorism unless the State Department investigates and approves the individual. Some local INS offices are on the ball, too. Omaha-based INS officials, for instance, have been in contact with colleges and universities within their jurisdiction. But not all INS offices across the country have been as aggressive. Better monitoring of guests to discourage those who would abuse the privilege is not onerous or unreasonable. Rather, these precautions are sensible and understandable in light of the credible threat terrorism poses to Americans. The faster security can be improved, the better for the nation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the January 20, 2002, editorial from the Omaha World-Herald entitled ``The Seriousness of War.'' The current war on terrorism is the appropriate response to horrific and unspeakable terrorist attacks on U.S. soil which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Under no sadder circumstances could the United States have launched a war. Let us not forget the pain of those circumstances and thus use our incredible capabilities to ensure that the likelihood of similar attacks is greatly diminished for not only future Americans, but also for others around the world. [From the Sunday World-Herald, Jan. 20, 2002] The Seriousness of War Pacifism is a legitimate point of view, but its principles seem a woefully impractical response to terrorists who are unmoved by moral arguments. This thought is prompted by writings from readers who are uncomfortable with the American government's response to the Sept. 11 Osama bin Laden attacks. One such writing by Robert Williams, an Iowa farmer and retired minister, included a bitter denunciation. He said Americans ``seek and improve ever more lethal weapons, and we use them now with barely restrained excitement and pride.'' Williams is right about one thing--weapons improvement. But in many cases the result has been a dramatic increase in precision, making civilian deaths less likely. That is a reason for some of the pride. Certainly the nation is not romanticizing war. Not as Americans did in 1861, for example, when picnickers lightheartedly camped near Bull Run with the soon-to-be dashed expectation of enjoying a quick rout of Confederate forces. Europeans cheered during parades at the start of World War I, mistakenly anticipating that the conflict would be brief and glorious. In 2001, most Americans approached the war in Afghanistan with a commendable seriousness of purpose. They have not cheered the deaths of innocent Afghans (in contrast to Osama bin Laden, whose cackling over the murder of the Sept. 11 victims was captured on videotape). They have supported the enormous humanitarian effort with which America extended its hand to the Afghan people while liberating them from their Taliban and al-Qaida tormentors. American armed forces, moreover, have carried out their duties honorably. Perhaps no military operation in history has gone to greater lengths to use technology to minimize civilian casualties. An Afghanistan-based correspondent for USA Today recent noted that ``despite their popular image as modern-day Rambos, Green Berets are, in fact, a remarkably low-key and cerebral group.'' One Green Beret told the reporter: ``Our mission is not necessarily to outfight the enemy, although we can do that if we have to. We would rather outthink them.'' Americans can be proud that our defense lies in the capable hands of level-headed individuals. And that our nation has responded to the assault against us with commendable maturity.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the January 3, 2002, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News entitled ``Rights of aliens more limited.'' As the editorial correctly notes, people who have overstayed their visas or illegally entered the United States are in direct violation of U.S. immigration laws, and therefore their detention is well within the bounds of U.S. law. Whether the United States is fighting a war on terrorism or is at peace, this is the case. [From the Daily News, Jan. 3, 2002] Rights of Aliens More Limited Investigators within bounds to detain those with doubtful status The war against terrorism has unearthed some not-so- innocent immigrants. They are not yet accused of being part of Osama bin Laden's network, or proven to have been involved in terrorist activities. Rather, they have overstayed their visas or entered the country illegally. Now some of their American friends join civil rights activists in believing these individuals are being mistreated by longer-than-usual detention. Some 1,100 men (no women) in this category, having been detained as possible material witnesses. But so far, only one has been charged with a terror-related crime. In the view of some critics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that one in 1,100 ratio proves overzealous federal authorities are acting improperly. Overlooked is the fact that the individuals being held for further questioning violated the terms of their entry into the United States. Those who maintain that immigration charges are being used because it is not now possible to charge the detainees with more serious crimes may be accurate. But the point they fail to acknowledge is that breaking the immigration laws should have consequences whether one is a terrorist or simply a more benign violator. Failure to meet conditions of entry is a crime. That Uncle Sam has been slow to enforce immigration laws and forgiving of the sins of illegal aliens in the past is no excuse for softness now. Using immigration law violations to hold those who might be considered suspects, and fit a profile similar to those known to be guilty of terrorism, is a sensible way to conduct investigations. Fortunately, it is also legal. America may be moved by this war on terrorism to get better control of its borders. Entry into the United States by foreigners is nothing guaranteed in the Constitution. Immigrants and visitors are to be welcomed, but the terms have been dictated by Congress and should be enforced. One of those terms must be to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the resolution, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H. Res. 330, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that a National Mentoring Month should be established. In addition to raising awareness, a key goal of the effort is to encourage more individuals to become mentors. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for bringing this important resolution to the House floor today. This Member would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for sponsoring H. Res. 330 and for his personal interest in establishing mentoring relationships nationwide. Many children throughout the United States face difficult situations--and when matched with a caring and responsible adult, positive results ensue. Research has shown that mentoring benefits young people in a positive manner by increasing school attendance, improving rates of secondary school graduation and college attendance, decreasing involvement with drugs and alcohol, and reducing violent behavior. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H. Res. 330.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, we have people here who make a very major contribution. There are partisan differences in this body, too many to my judgment, but when a person here is retiring from an important post and still going to make some contributions here, no doubt, I think he ought to be recognized for the extraordinary public service that he has provided here. I admire Dave Bonior for the kind of person he is as well as for his effectiveness. I was thinking just yesterday, if I might say to the gentleman from Michigan, about you and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Evans, because to your credit some years ago, you helped Mr. Cavanaugh and I, two Nebraskans, deauthorize the O'Neill project, which made it possible for us to subsequently declare the Niobrara River as a scenic river. It is the most appreciated ecological feature in the State of Nebraska by its citizens today. So we actually owe you a debt of gratitude in Nebraska. You stepped up and helped John Cavanaugh and this Member at that time, along with Mr. Evans. I want to commend you for your public service, but also thank you, as a Nebraskan, for what you did to preserve part of our natural heritage. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I advise Members that today I am introducing the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act, a bill that will address the difference in reimbursement levels between urban and rural physicians and other health professionals. The formulas presently used by the Medicare program to reimburse these health professionals for beneficiaries' medical care do not accurately measure the cost of providing services; and, consequently, Medicare currently pays rural providers less than it should for equal work. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ``physician work'' is the amount of time, skill and intensity a physician puts into patients' visits. Physicians and other health care providers in rural areas put in as much or even more time, skill and intensity into a patient visit as do physicians in urban areas. Yet, rural physicians are paid less for their work. This is not only unfair, it is discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation. We do not take it away from the urban health care providers. We do adjust upward the formula for rural areas.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced four bills for consideration during the next year and I want to call them at least briefly to the attention of the House for the Members and staff who will be watching or reading the Congressional Record. The first of them is entitled the Lewis and Clark Voyage of Scientific Discovery Act, and it really is a comprehensive effort to foster the better management of the biological and physical health of the Missouri River. The second and third bills relate to Afghanistan and Central Asian republics and the ability and assistance and authorization for that part of the world to produce food sufficient to feed themselves, at least on a sustainable or subsistence basis. The second of the bills relates to a multi-lateral approach we would participate through the Treasury Department with cooperation and assistance with the State Department. It has 15 bipartisan cosponsors already, and it would utilize a trust fund with the fiduciary responsibility placed in the World Bank. The third is a bilateral authorization program involving the State and USAID, and I will come back to those two bills briefly. The fourth bill is a Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act, and I had a chance to briefly mention that in a 1 minute address several hours ago. This bill will address a significant differential and reimbursement levels to urban and rural health care providers. The formulas used by Medicare programs to reimburse health care providers for beneficiaries' medical care, are not accurately measuring the cost of the providing services and are reimbursing physicians and other health care providers in a manner that disadvantages rural providers and, therefore, rural citizens. Many rural communities have had great difficulty retaining physicians and other skilled health care professionals. Recruitment difficulties for primary and tertiary care remain more severe in areas with lower costs of living indices. It makes little sense, therefore, to pay physicians less in lower costs of living areas when these areas usually have the physician shortages. The Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act will lessen the disparity which currently exists between urban and rural areas. Specifically, the legislation would guarantee that we would have a gradual phase-in of a floor of 1.000 for the Medicare physician work adjuster, thereby gradually raising all localities with a work adjuster below 1.000 to that level. Since it would be politically impossible to lower the work adjuster levels for health care providers in urban areas, the adjustment upward to the 1.000 floor would be enacted without regard to budget neutrality agreement in the present law, thereby requiring Congress to change law to authorize an increase in program expenditures. While Congress has attempted to correct the inequities for hospitals, it has not addressed parallel problems with the physician component of our country's rural health infrastructure. The Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 addressed inadequate payment for Medicare+Choice organizations, and took steps to stabilize and improve rural hospital payment. Nothing substantive in the legislation, however, addressed the underlying issues of inadequate reimbursement of the costs of providing physician services under Medicare Part B. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ``physician work'' is the amount of time, skill and intensity a physician puts into a patient visit. Physicians and other health care providers in rural areas put in as much or even more time, skill and intensity into a patient visit as do physicians in urban areas. Yet, rural physicians are paid less for their work under the Medicare program than those who practice in urban areas! This is not only unfair, but discriminatory against rural areas! The amount Medicare spends on its beneficiaries varies substantially across the country, far more than can be accounted for by differences in the cost of living or differences in health status. Since beneficiaries and others pay into the program on the basis of income and wages and beneficiaries pay the same premium for Part B services, the geographic disparity results in substantial cross-subsidies from people living in low payment states with conservative practice styles or beneficiary preferences to people living in higher payment states with aggressive practice styles or beneficiary preferences. Physician work should be valued equally, irrespective of the geographic location of the physician. The work geographic practice costs index for Nebraska is currently 0.949. According to this Member's calculations, establishing a floor of 1.000 would translate into a $7,562,772 annual increase in Medicare payments to Nebraska physicians. We have information of the current index levels for other states that we can make available to interested Members. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Afghanistan bills, the two that I have introduced, I would say it is important that Members understand that as Afghanistan moves towards developing a new government, it is important for the U.S. to provide incentives for the people of Afghanistan to create a new national government which will move towards increased stability in the region. I would like to thank the distinguished Members from both sides of the aisle who have agreed to serve as original co-sponsors of the measure, and, in particular, the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). Her commitment to assistant people in the U.S. and the rest of the world feed themselves through the Farmer-to-Farmer program and other technical education programs will truly be missed in this Body during the next Congress. Mr. Speaker a very special note of appreciation is extended to Dr. Fred Starr of the School for Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University for the concepts that undergird this legislation and for his generous amount of time and advice to this member and my staff Alicia O'Donnell, as we drafted this legislation. The distinguished Dr. Starr first explained his views and proposal at an Aspen institute breakfast sponsored by the distinguished former senator from Iowa, Rich Clark. One important incentive which the U.S. can extend is assistance to address one of its most immediate needs, the need to rebuild Afghanistan's capability to feed itself. Indeed, nearly all of the indigenous tools for food production and rural development in the Afghanistan area have been destroyed. The people of Afghanistan, necessarily, have eaten their seed stocks and most have slaughtered all of their breeding livestock to meet their immediate food requirements. Additionally, over 20 years of civil war and political unrest in Afghanistan have resulted in the destruction of the country's limited basic irrigation systems. Unfortunately, the food production capabilities in the mountainous regions of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Pakistan have reached abject levels, too, thus results in a regional crisis. Mr. Speaker, the Afghanistan and Central Asia Republics Sustainable Food Production Trust Fund Act that I have introduced directs the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations for the creation of a multilateral global trust fund to address the food production crisis in Afghanistan and the surrounding Central Asian Republics. Through the trust fund, nongovernmental organizations, working in conjunction with local and regional entities, would receive grants to conduct food production in rural development projects, including microenterprise loan programs, in Afghanistan and in the impoverished mountainous regions of the countries I previously mentioned. Upon the creation of the trust fund, the NGOs would be immediately eligible to receive grants to execute projects in the countries of the Central Asian Republics. This is a model laid out for us by Dr. Fred Starr, a very distinguished member of SAIS at Johns Hopkins University, in a breakfast for the Aspen Institute held in this Capitol building several months ago. In order to provide the important incentive during critical stages of state-building, Afghanistan would not be eligible for programming until the Secretary of State certifies that the people of Afghanistan have made substantial progress towards creating a national government which meets four criteria: one, has diverse ethnic and religious representation; two, does not sponsor terrorism or harbor terrorists; three, demonstrates a strong commitment to eliminating poppy production use for opium production; and, four, meets internationally recognized human rights standards. Mr. Speaker, helping the people in the region feed themselves is not only benefits which we are creating for them, it is important to us and to other countries. It would provide an opportunity to build good will in a region which has been neglected by U.S. policymakers and U.S. assistance programs. We cannot leave a vacuum there like the one that was left behind after the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan. U.S. leadership, in creating a long-term trust fund, can be a critical step towards rebuilding confidence in the USA. When funds from public and private sources are gathered and distributed through a multilateral mechanism, it becomes much more difficult for governments in the region to dismiss the projects as ephemeral U.S. foreign policy initiatives. Additionally, providing programming funds for the Central Asian Republics and not solely to Afghanistan, which will certainly become the recipient of massive bilateral and multilateral human assistance programs, will further demonstrate the U.S. commitment to the entire region. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will look at this legislation. I think it begins the process of seeking a long-term solution to the region's dire food production challenges; and, furthermore, it is a real incentive for them to move the kind of government which will bring peace and stability to the region. Mr. Speaker, this Member would note that the Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics Sustainable Food Production Trust Fund is not intended to replace similar bilateral projects which USAID has begun to conduct in the region. Furthermore, the trust fund is not intended to supplant the very necessary emergency food assistance programs in Afghanistan and the surrounding Central Asian Republics. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the U.S. and the rest of the global community begin to seek long-term solutions to the region's dire food production challenges. Through the creation of the Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics Sustainable Food Production Trust Fund, the U.S. can take an important step toward that end.