Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on July 17, 2002, an event at the White House to which this Member was invited caused this Member to unavoidably miss 4 roll call votes on H.R. 5093, a bill to provide FY2003 appropriations for the Department of the Interior. Had this Member been present, he would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall vote number 315--``no'' (the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps); Rollcall vote number 316-- ``aye'' (the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer); Rollcall vote number 317--``aye'' (the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg); and Rollcall vote number 3 18--``aye'' (final passage of H.R. 5093).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the July 15, 2002, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial offers insightful comments on the issue of transporting nuclear waste and highlights the impressive safety record of shipments which have been made over the years. For instance, 3,000 shipments of high-level nuclear waste have been safely completed over the past three decades. The containers for the waste have been subjected to numerous tests to ensure their strength and durability even in the most extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, many opponents of the Yucca Mountain site have tried to use emotional scare tactics about the transportation of nuclear waste in hopes of derailing the entire project. However, as the editorial makes clear, central depository would greatly enhance safety. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 15, 2002] How Safe Is It? Now that the Senate has voted to allow the construction of a national high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Department of Energy officials will have to confront a key issue: Transportation. Officials expect up to 77,000 tons of dangerous radioactive material such as spent nuclear plant fuel rods to be transported to the remote Nevada desert for indefinite storage. That waste will come from all 39 states, encompassing 131 sites, that currently store the material in mostly above-ground facilities. The sites include not only nuclear power plants but also military weapons facilities and research institutions. The waste will travel by truck and rail. It will have to pass through some of the nation's most populous areas. Some will come through the Midlands, on its Interstate highways and its many rail lines. The government has projected that as many as 100 truck or rail accidents might occur over the 25- year life of the project. The question of safety is key. Opponents of the project tried to attack transport of the waste before the Senate decision because methods and routes had not yet been specified. But they were premature. It's only now, as DOE applies for a license for the facility from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that such issues can be addressed. Many critics of Yucca Mountain, by the way, aren't necessarily being open about their motives. Some may honestly believe approval of the site is potentially dangerous. Others, however, are simply anti-nuclear. They realize that without a disposal site, nuclear power in this country will likely die--``choking on its own waste,'' as one senator put it. When critics raise their objections, they will have to overcome this fact; In the past 30 years, about 3,000 shipments of high-level waste have traveled around the United States safely. Not without accidents--trucks and trains are always vulnerable to accidents--but without any radiation leaks. The Nuclear Energy Institute says that the waste transport containers used thus far, with their multiple layers of lead and other shielding, are built to withstand severe accidents. They have been tested: hit by a locomotive traveling at 60 miles per hour, driven into a concrete wall at 80 miles an hour, burned, submerged. They have withstood the worst flung at them without failure, whether in testing or in actual transportation-accident situations. The presence of so many above-ground storage facilities for nuclear waste, in so many locations, near so many people--160 million by one estimate--amounts to an open invitation to accidents or terrorism. The chilling security uncertainties alone should predispose Americans toward a central, safe waste site. Getting the waste materials there is a technical problem, not a reason to kill the construction of Yucca Mountain. If current methods of transportation aren't adequate--and such assertions are still far from proved--then federal officials and nuclear plant operators should find other ways to protect the shipments. A single national repository is the only reasonable way to go. If Yucca Mountain is as desirable a site as its supporters say, then questions about transportation of the waste should not hold it back.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 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 2003 includes funding for several 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 establishment of a new fish and wildlife cooperative research unit at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This Member has requested funding for this cooperative research unit each year since 1990! The University of Nebraska and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has already committed funds and facilities for the unit, but a Federal earmark of $400,000 is needed to make it a reality. Nebraska's strategic location presents several very special research opportunities, particularly relating to migratory birds. 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 $300,000 under this legislation to begin implementing the recommendations of the recently completed General Management Plan. This level of funding is needed for planning of a visitors center and for design of exhibits. 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 the 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: I 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. I believe that the funding included in this bill will begin the process of realizing these goals. Also, this Member is most pleased that this bill contains an appropriation of $8,241,000 to complete construction of the replacement facility for the Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska. It has certainly been a long process and this Member would like to thank the Subcommittee for its invaluable assistance over the years in obtaining funding for this new hospital, which is much needed and will greatly benefit Native Americans in Nebraska and the adjacent states of Iowa and South Dakota. Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 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.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the June 25, 2002, edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star entitled ``Culture Change Is Needed in Corporate Crisis.'' The editorial suggests that changing America's business culture is the best long-term solution to the current crisis of business scandal after business scandal. These scandals have caused a distrust of corporate America and decimated investor confidence. Ethical CEO's are needed to change the dishonest precedent set by some business leaders. Corporate culture needs to revert back to decisions based on American values, rather than greed. Culture Change Is Needed in Corporate Crisis The business pages of U.S. newspapers continue to read more like police blotters than the usual financial news. In fact, the average American may have simply given up trying to keep track of who has committed what wrongdoing. The list of those indicted, arrested or resigning in disgrace is indeed far too long, suggesting that the post- Enron business world is in worse shape than feared. The result: a stock market in the tank, distrust of corporate America at an all-time high and employees turned out on the streets. Naturally, the breadth and scale of the business scandals have prompted lots of discussion about reform. But what seems to be at the root of the unprecedented wave of abuses is something that can't be regulated: an out-of-control corporate culture that embraces the Dark Side. As the current cases illustrate, dishonesty reigned in the boardrooms of many publicly held companies. The allegations include questionable accounting, insider trading and tax fraud. Everyone seemed in cahoots: CEOs, accountants, corporate attorneys, investment bankers, stock analysts and boards of directors. In the end, many corporate chieftains walked away from wrecked or tainted companies--scot free and millions of dollars richer. But because accountability and ethics are so difficult to legislate and enforce, changing the business culture is perhaps the most enduring solution--although it is not necessarily easy or quick. That requires change from within. It requires, as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggests, that ethical CEOs set the tone by denouncing the abusive practices. It requires the gatekeepers--the boards of directors, accountants, corporate lawyers and investment bankers--to vigorously uphold their fiduciary and moral responsibilities by providing oversight and leadership. Shareholders, too, need to take a more active role. Some of the most potent reform efforts are coming from the business world. One money manager has put together a hefty group, including Warren Buffett, that intends to challenge companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index on corporate-governance and executive-compensation issues. Among the requirements discussed by the New York Stock Exchange is that boards have a majority of independent directors, those without a business or family tie to the companies. Whether it is pressure from prosecutors, the markets or shareholders, the current corporate culture, bred in the boom of the '90s, undoubtedly will have to change to salvage the shaky stock market. The question at hand is whether the transformation will be complete and long-lasting.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member will vote for H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002. There are elements in this Medicare reform legislation which improve the access of health care services in rural areas. For example, not only does this legislation continue an effort to address some of this Member's concerns regarding the significant difference in reimbursement levels for urban and rural health care providers, it would also provide a 3-year fix for the Medicare physician payment formula, resulting in a 6 percent increase in Medicare payments over the next 3 years rather than the 14.2 percent projected cut under current law. For some time now, this Member has been aggressively pursuing an issue related to the formula used in the Medicare program to reimburse physicians and other health care providers for beneficiaries' medical care. The problem is that it does not accurately measure the cost of providing such services. The program reimburses physicians and other health care providers in a manner that favors urban providers in a manner that favors urban providers over rural providers. Instead, Medicare payment formulas should more accurately compensate physicians and providers who deliver high-quality, cost-effective services to Medicare beneficiaries in all areas of the country. Accordingly, this Member is pleased that the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002 contains a compromise agreement that would establish a floor of 9.985 for the physician work adjuster in 2004 (only), thereby raising all localities with a work adjuster below 9.985 to that level. This change would be dependent upon the outcome of a General Accounting Office (GAO) study and secretarial discretion. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services would determine, after taking into account the GAO report, if there is ``a sound economic rationale for the implementation'' of such a change. If so, the new floor would go into effect. The change would thereby allow 34 Medicare localities across the county, including this Member's home state of Nebraska, to receive a higher reimbursement rate without harming other localities. This language is a modified version of this Member's legislation, the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Act (H.R. 3569), which is currently co-sponsored on a bipartisan basis by 60 Members of the House. The language included in the House Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act is also a result of efforts by the distinguished gentlelady from New Mexico [Mrs. Wilson], and pushed hard to ensure such language was and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], who pursued this issue in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This Member joined his colleagues, especially the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and pushed hard to ensure such language was included in the final Medicare bill brought to the House Floor for consideration today. Establishing a floor of 0.985 to the Medicare physician work adjuster would translate into approximately a $4 million annual increase in Medicare payments to Nebraska physician and skilled health care professionals in 2004. This is an important first step toward achieving much needed Medicare reform. This Member is also pleased that the bill would avert a series of projected cuts of nearly 15 percent in Medicare payments. On November 1, 2001, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announces that it would lower payment rates for 2002 under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Estimates indicate that this change would result in a $2.0 billion reduction in payments for 2002. Reductions of this magnitude were completely unexpected and stemmed from two major factors: the downturn of the economy and the related reduction in the Gross Domestic Product that is used to establish the sustainable growth rate for physician spending, and an error on the part of the CMS in collecting physician payment information. This legislation addresses this serious health care issue. The Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002 also takes an important step forward in addressing the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act, as well as improving payments for hospitals, particularly rural hospitals. For example, the bill provides increased payment rates for hospitals in rural areas or in metropolitan areas with a population of less than one million. Under current law, Medicare pays for inpatient services in acute care hospitals in large urban areas using a standardized payment amount that is 1.6 percent larger than the standardized amount used to reimburse hospitals in rural areas and smaller urban areas. This legislation, over a 2-year period, would increase the standardized amount for hospitals in rural and small urban areas to the standardized amount paid to hospitals in large urban areas. According to the Nebraska Hospital Association, for example, this could mean an additional $6 million annually for hospitals in Nebraska. Additionally, the bill increases payments to non-teaching rural and urban hospitals in states whose aggregate inpatient operating medical margins are negative for rural hospitals or less than three percent for urban hospitals. The Nebraska Hospital Association estimates that this could result in an additional $8 million annually for Nebraska's hospitals. This Member will record two concerns about the initiation of any Medicare prescription drug plan and that is, first, the rather extraordinary cost of this new entitlement program which would have to be paid for employers, employees, and the self-employed, recognizing the high probability that these costs will be under-estimated in this or any alternative proposals put before the Congress. That is the track record for all past Medicare and Medicaid initiatives. However, the major concern this Member has is the near certainty that the cost of prescription drugs for Americans not eligible for the proposed Medicare prescription drug benefits will increase because of the Medicare prescription drug coverage offered to eligible senior citizens under this or other proposals. When, for example, Medicaid costs for nursing home care soared, cost restraints were imposed and the operators cost-shifted to the private-pay and insurance-pay residents. The same cost-shifting occurred when cost-restraints had to be established on Medicare costs for hospitalization and health professional fees. It is certain that some cost-shifting will occur in short order when restraints inevitably will be placed on Medicare prescription drug costs. The result will surely be that pharmaceutical costs will be cost-shifted by the drug industry to everyone else in America. This legislation, in this crucial deficiency, does nothing to restrain pharmaceutical costs and domestic cost-shifting. However, after extensive consultation, House leadership has promised a vote to those of us demanding some method to directly keep Medicare prescription drug benefits of eligible senior citizens from causing prescription drug costs to resultantly increase for other Americans. One such vote could be on an implementable drug re-importation program of FDA approved drugs for individual, wholesale, or retail uses. Turn loose the American entrepreneurial proclivities on this approach, and it will moderate the outrageously unacceptable level of international cost-shifting that now falls onto the backs of American consumers. Most other developed countries have imposed cost constraints on the prescription drug costs borne by their consumers; therefore, American and foreign-owned pharmaceutical firms are charging what the market and tolerance of the American people will bear. This legislation thus far does not address this huge problem-- ultimately providing Medicare drug benefits to eligible senior citizens will make the cost of prescription drugs more expensive for most Americans directly and indirectly through Medicare deductions from their paychecks and through its effects on their employer's bottom line. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, on balance, this Member supports H.R. 4954 because of the progress made in providing better access to quality health care in non-metropolitan areas through the Medicare finance reforms and because of the promised opportunity for a clear opportunity for the House to soon cast votes on legislation which can restrain or lower prescription drug costs for those Americans not eligible for prospective Medicare prescription drug benefits. This Member will support the advancement of H.R. 4954 to a stage where conferees can craft what this Member would hope to be better legislation if the other body passes its version of a Medicare reform and prescription drug bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support for H.R. 5010, the Defense appropriations bill for FY 2003. This Member would like to offer particular thanks to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the Ranking Minority Member on the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for their work on this important bill. This Member sincerely thanks the Committee on Appropriations for including $2.75 million in fiscal year 2003 for the Air National Guard's Project ALERT. Currently, Project ALERT serves as an on-line training tool developed and used by the Nebraska National Guard in collaboration with the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the University of Nebraska, and Nebraska Educational Television. The $2.75 million appropriated in H.R. 5010 will assist with the development of the new courses and the modification of existing courses. Indeed, the implications of Project ALERT extend nationwide and to components of both the active and reserve military forces. Allowing military forces to complete some training courses on their own time, as Project ALERT does, provides an opportunity to cut on-site training costs and time and to maximize exercise time. For the U.S. military to meet the challenges it will face during the current war on terrorism and throughout the 21st Century, it is crucial that Congress invest in innovative and flexible training tools such as Project ALERT. Furthermore, this Member is very appreciative that the Committee has approved the appropriation of $4 million for a bioprocessing facility at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, giving (UNL). These funds will be used for the third phase of the project to establish and validate a current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) processing facility with the capability to make vaccines as therapeutic countermeasures against biological warfare agents. Two cGMP pilot plants, one dedicated to yeast/bacterial culture and the other dedicated to mammalian cell culture will be built within the new Chemical Engineering building on the UNL campus. The funds will be used to build and equip the laboratories. This will be a commercial-grade facility, giving UNL the capability, if required by the Department of Defense (DoD), to make vaccines against biological warfare agents and products that can be used as therapeutic countermeasures to treat people who have been exposed to biological agents. UNL is currently doing this on a smaller level and is well suited to pursue this expansion. These facilities certainly will enhance our nation's ability to respond to biological warfare. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 5010.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the June 21, 2002, edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled ``The Fire This Time.'' The editorial argues that the Clinton Administration's misguided environmental policy and forest management left our Nation's forests filled with fuel conducive to catastrophic forest fires such as we are seeing with the Hayman fire in Colorado. The editorial stresses that proper forest management can prevent catastrophic fires, which are neither good for the environment or our economy. The editorial also mentions that forests owned by private timber companies rarely burn, let alone at catastrophic levels. These companies employ sound forest management practices to prevent forest fires because they see their trees as an investment. This editorial makes the case that Americans should protect their investment in our public forests and protect them by allowing the Forest Service to utilize forest management principles and practice selective logging to remove the dead wood and underbrush that fuel these cataclysmic fires. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2002] The Fire This Time In December 1995, a storm hit the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California, tossing dead trees across 35,000 acres and creating dangerous fire conditions. For three years local U.S. Forest Service officials labored to clean it up, but they were blocked by environmental groups and federal policy. In 1999 the time bomb blew: A fire roared over the untreated land and 90,000 more acres. Bear this anecdote in mind as you watch the 135,000-acre Hayman fire now roasting close to Denver. And bear it in mind the rest of this summer, in what could be the biggest marshmallow-toasting season in half a century. Because despite the Sierra Club spin, catastrophic fires like the Hayman are not inevitable, or good. They stem from bad forest management--which found a happy home in the Clinton Administration. In a briefing to Congress last week, U.S. Forest chief Dale Bosworth finally sorted the forest from the tree-huggers. He said that if proper forest-management had been implemented 10 years ago, and if the agency weren't in the grip of ``analysis paralysis'' from environmental regulation and lawsuits, the Hayman fire wouldn't be raging like an inferno. Mr. Bosworth also presented Congress with a sobering report on our national forest. Of the 192 million acres the Forest Service administers, 73 million are at risk from severe fire. Tens of millions of acres are dying from insects and diseases. Thousands of miles of roads, critical to fighting fires, are unusable. Those facts back up a General Accounting Office report, which estimates that one in three forest acres is dead or dying. So much for the green mantra of ``healthy ecosystems.'' How did one of America's great resources come to such a pass? Look no further than the greens who trouped into power with the last Administration. Senior officials adopted an untested philosophy known as ``ecosystem management,'' a bourgeois bohemian plan to return forests to their ``natural'' state. The Clintonnites cut back timber harvesting by 80% and used laws and lawsuits to put swathes of land off-limits to commercial use. We now see the results. Millions of acres are choked with dead wood, infected trees and underbrush. Many areas have more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre--10 times the manageable level. This is tinder that turns small fires into infernos, outrunning fire control and killing every fuzzy endangered animal in sight. In 2000 alone fires destroyed 8.4 million acres, the worst fire year since the 1950s. Some 800 structures were destroyed--many as a fire swept across Los Alamos, New Mexico--and control and recovery costs neared $3 billion. The Forest Service's entire budget is $4.9 billion. That number, too, is important. Before the Clinton Administration limited timber sales, U.S. forests helped pay for their own upkeep. Selective logging cleaned up grounds and paid for staff, forestry stations, cleanup and roads. Today, with green groups blocking timber sales at every turn, the GAO says taxpayers will have to spend $12 billion to cart off dead wood. It's no accident that two of the main Clinton culprits-- former director of Fish & Wildlife Jamie Rappaport Clark and former Forest Service boss Michael Dombeck--have both landed at the National Wildlife Federation, which broadcasts across its Internet homepage, ``Fires Are Good.'' Fixing all of this won't be easy. After 30 years of environmental regulation, the Forest Service now spends 40% of its time in ``planning and assessment.'' Even the smallest project takes years. Mr. Bosworth has identified the problems, but fixing them will require White House leadership and Congressional cooperation. One solution would be to follow the lead of private timber companies, whose forests don't tend to suffer such catastrophic fires. Their trees are an investment; they can't afford to let them burn. Americans should feel the same way about theirs.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues an editorial from the June 18, 2002, edition of the Omaha World Herald entitled ``Honest Accounting of Casualties.'' While Americans certainly have the right to express their views on the current war on terrorism, they also have a responsibility to use accurate facts when conveying their positions. Honest Accounting of Casualties The Los Angeles Times has performed an extensive study of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and concluded that the dead numbered between 1,067 and 1,201. Every such death is uniquely regrettable, but that's significantly below numbers offered by critics of the U.S. military action last year, such as the 3,700 figure cited in one much-ballyhooed report last winter. During the U.S. bombing campaign, at least one anti-war Web site included a graph that showed the alleged number of Afghan civilian dead climbing day by day to equal and then surpass the 3,000-plus casualties of 9/11. Analyses by the L.A. Times and other news organizations have now exposed that claim as baseless. Even worse was the claim of 10,000 casualties put forward by cartoonist/commentator Ted Rall in an April 17 opinion column. Matt Welch, a Los Angeles-based commentator, is on the mark when he says, ``This continues to be an interesting litmus test for the anti-war movement's sense of peer review and fidelity to facts.'' The analysis by the Los Angeles Times underscores how the U.S. military went to enormous lengths last year to minimize harm to Afghan civilians. That fact illustrates the vast moral difference that separated the American bomber pilots from the al-Qaida hijackers of 9/11. A minority of Nebraskans and Americans continues to voice sincere opposition to action by the U.S. military. Room should be made for their dissenting voices. Some of their colleagues in the anti-war camp, however, have discredited themselves on the issue of civilian casualties. It is appropriate that their demagoguery-by-numbers has been revealed for the sham it was.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend the Bush Administration for its recent decision to open a U.S. Embassy in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea. Indeed, the investment of Federal funds and State Department personnel for representation in the small African country may pay huge dividends in the form of American lives saved and U.S. national interests protected. According to the State Department, over 1,500 Americans live and work in Equatorial Guinea--primarily in the oil industry. Additionally, U.S. investment in Equatorial Guinea is over $5 billion. As the U.S. presence increases, it is critical that the U.S. provide services and assistance to our citizens. For example, in the case of a natural disaster, access to American embassy officials who can serve as liaisons between Americans and the local hospital could mean the difference between life and death for those Americans caught in the country during the emergency. Also, maintaining a U.S. embassy in Equatorial Guinea would allow U.S. businesses to explore future investment opportunities in the country. Such investments would be important for a region which is struggling to build economic stability for the long term.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 4019, the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act, of which he is a cosponsor. This legislation would make permanent the various provisions in the tax cut law enacted last year that reduced the so-called ``marriage penalty.'' Without the passage of H.R. 4019, the marriage penalty relief provisions, which are currently set to be implemented beginning in 2005, will expire at the end of 2010. At the outset, this Member would like to thank both the main sponsor of H.R. 4019, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman fro California (Mr. Thomas) for their instrumental role in bringing H.R. 4019 to the House floor today. This member supports the passage of H.R. 4019 because this legislation will at long last permanently reduce the current marriage penalty inherent in the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus H.R. 4019 will make a major step toward meeting the principle that the Federal income Tax Code should be marriage neutral. It would be a sad situation if the Internal Revenue Code is a factor for consideration when individuals discuss their future marital status. Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled and strong opposition to H.J. Res. 96, the so-called ``tax limitation amendment.'' Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for any tax increase. However, as a matter of principle and conscience, this Member cannot do that. As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the House in the past, there must be a very great burden of proof to deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution meets that standard. This Member has too much respect for the Constitution, majority rule, and for deficit reduction to vote for this transparently political maneuver. A better answer is to elect more people who make the maximum effort to vote against tax increase and, where appropriate, vote for tax cuts. That's real tax relief, not phony gamesmanship. This Member would ask that the attached two editorials, from the Omaha World Herald, and the Washington Post, be included with this statement in the Congressional Record. These editorials support this Member's position on the same legislation which was introduced in the previous 104th Congress. The Washington Post editorial noted that this amendment is likely ``to add to future deficits while disturbing the balance of powers and undercutting the democratic process by enshrining minority rule.'' While this Member could not support this bill (H.J. Res. 96), there should be no question of his continued and enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring it. Tax increase should not routinely be employed to achieve a balanced budget. That is why this Member supported the inclusion of a provision in the House Rules requiring a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase during the previous 105th and the 104th Congresses and would do so again. This supermajority requirement was adopted on January 7, 1997. However, to go beyond such a rule change and amend the Constitution as proposed in the so-called Tax Limitation Amendment, is, in this Member's opinion, an unreasonable and dangerous action. A change in house rules, of course, is not the permanent straight-jacket that a constitutional change would be. In conclusion, this Member will vote against H.J. Res. 96, the so- called ``tax limitation amendment,'' as he has done in the past when this same legislation was debated on the House Floor. [From the Omaha World Herald, Apr. 17, 1996] Grandstanding in Lieu of Leadership The Republican push to make passage of tax increases more difficult was a shameless bit of election-year grandstanding. GOP House members proposed adding to the Constitution an amendment requiring two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate in order to raise tax rates. An exception was built in for military emergencies. In theory, the plan was to get the amendment through Congress with the required two-thirds majorities and then send it to the states. The amendment would be enacted if three-fourths of the state legislatures ratified it within seven years. Supporters acknowledged that the measure was not likely to pass. But the vote--purposely scheduled for April 15, tax day--allowed them to classify congressmen as wimps or zealots on keeping tax rates down. The amendment deserved to fail. It promoted a ``save us from ourselves'' gimmick as a replacement for leadership. It also would have allowed a majority of both houses to be overruled by one-third of the members, plus one, of either house. The Founders reserved such a supermajority requirement for rare instances, such as impeaching the president, overriding vetoes and ratifying treaties. But the raising of tax rates is a policy decision that should continue to be handled the way things ordinarily are in a representative democracy--that is, by majority rule. This is not to say that raising tax rates should be easy. Indeed, when the House last year wrote a supermajority requirement into its rules, a World-Herald editorial acknowledged that there is room for reasonable disagreement on the question. We expressed the hope that the rule would lead to greater deliberation if a rate increase were proposed. But changes in the Constitution shouldn't be necessary to get control of tax rates and spending levels. What is needed is more leadership from Congress and, in the current situation particularly, the White House. The job should be done by the people whom the voters have entrusted with making the tough calls on a bill-by-bill, program-by-program basis.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as stated on the record many times, this Member continues his strong opposition to the total elimination of the estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this Member's opposition to this terrible idea have been publicly explained on numerous occasions, including past statements in the Congressional Record. This Member has every expectation that this legislation is going nowhere in the other body. Furthermore, on March 18, 2002, this Member noted in his statement on the House Floor for H.R. 536 that he had every reasonable assurance in this unpredictable place that eventually there would be a straight up-and-down vote specifically on the total elimination of the inheritance tax. This Member further noted that at that time that he will most assuredly vote ``no'' on the total repeal of the inheritance tax. Therefore, this Member rises today to express his strong opposition to H.R. 2143, which would make permanent the repeal of the Federal estate tax. It must also be noted, however, that this Member is strongly in favor of substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and that he has introduced legislation, H.R. 42, to this effect. This Member believes that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small business, farm and ranch families and individuals benefit from estate tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level, such as provided in H.R. 42. This Member's bill (H.R. 42) would provide immediate, essential Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate tax exclusion of $10 million effective upon enactment. (With some estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, under the current law for year 2001, the estate tax exclusion is only $675,000.) In addition, H.R. 42 would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation thereafter. The legislation would decrease the highest Federal estate tax rate from 55% to 39.6% effective upon enactment, as 39.6% is currently the highest Federal income tax rate. Under the bill, the value of an estate over $10 million would be taxed at the 30.6% rate. Under current law, the 55% estate tax bracket begins for estates over $3 million. Finally, H.R. 42 would continue to apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is provided in current law. In fact, this Member has said on many is provided in current law. In fact, this Member has said on many occasions that he would be willing to raise the estate tax exclusion level to $15 million. Since this Member believes that H.R. 42 or similar legislation is the only responsible way to provide true estate tax reduction for our nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member must use this opportunity to reiterate the following reasons for his opposition to the total elimination of the Federal estate tax. First, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega-millionaires would be very much contrary to the national interest. Second, the elimination of the estate tax also would have a very negative impact upon the continuance of very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy institutions in our country. Finally, and fortunately, this Member believes that actually it will never be eliminated in the year 2010. At this point it should be noted that under the previously enacted estate tax legislation (e.g., the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act), beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is eliminated (with two exceptions) such that the value of inherited assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, as noted previously by this Member, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act could result in unfortunate tax consequences for some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on any increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs--resulting in a higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under the current ``stepped-up'' basis law. Unfortunately, the bill before us today (H.R. 2143) apparently would also make the stepped-up basis elimination permanent resulting in a continuation of the problems just noted by this Member--higher capital gains and larger tax liability for heirs. In closing, Mr. Speaker, while this Member is strongly supportive of legislation to substantially raise the estate tax exemption level and to reduce the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and as such introduced legislation to this effect (H.R. 42), this Member cannot in good conscience support the total elimination of the inheritance tax on the super-rich.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Yes, indeed, this agency focuses exclusively on exports, despite the name. I want to say definitively that now, when we have a 201 determination or a final order under Title VII, no American exporters may export products to those sectors abroad that are in violation of those two parts of our trade law. That is a major advance offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). There was no retreat from that; in fact, in conference it was actually strengthened. We traded a very important procedure for a report; a very big advance. Another point here: Ten percent of the resources of the Export-Import Bank do not go to small business, as suggested; 18 percent. Over 90 percent of all the tax credits are for small business, and we are pushing them to go even much further by the mandate here. I do not like American exports of jobs, jobs going abroad; but this legislation actually keeps American exporters producing products here, products, manufactured goods and services, and helps our exporters compete, sometimes against subsidized tax credits transactions, by other foreign export credit agencies. Yet, only 2 percent of all of the loans ever go into default. The Export-Import Bank has a net return of resources year after year after year to the U.S. Treasury. Why? Because we charge risk-based insurance and fees. So the idea of this being a large corporate giveaway or a huge subsidy is just not the case. I would say to the gentleman from California, for example, or the gentleman from Texas, California is number two in terms of exports abroad coming out of that State because of the Export-Import Bank, and Texas is number three. Think about those aerospace workers and what it means to California, Washington State, and other States involved. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the conference report.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. This is important legislation. Furthermore, the conference report makes very important, very substantial, highly desirable changes and reforms to the transaction ability of the Export-Import Bank. I am pleased to see that so many Members have made contributions. The gentleman from New York has mentioned a number, appropriately, on his side of the aisle that have specific provisions which resulted in this legislation being advanced and improved; and I would like to also mention, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who will be speaking shortly about his provisions that are extremely important and make sure that we are not helping by providing assistance to American exporters to increase steel production abroad, for example. He will enlarge on that issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for his effort on behalf of small business. If we have problems for our workers because of what some people deem to be inadequacies in our trade law, or because of the competition we face from foreign export credit agencies, well, we should not cut off the hand of one of our workers in the process and expect we are going to do better. If we would defeat this legislation to disarm the Export- Import Bank, that is exactly what we would do. This legislation, indeed, as the chairman said, is about jobs. It has created an extraordinary number of jobs; and it turns a profit for the American Treasury on top of it, last year over $1 billion of net income to the United States. Why? Because not only did we expand our exports, and that results in revenue, but this bank charges risk-based transaction fees and costs. Overall, of course, we want the private sector to provide the credit, and they have. Only 2 percent of our exports are financed with the loans or loan guarantees of this entity. We have made important reforms and clarifications in the relationship between the Treasury and the Export-Import Bank that will assure that in those small number of cases, but very important cases, where we face unfair competition, subsidies from export credit agencies of other major exporting companies, that we have a chance to assist our exporters. That is about 2 percent of the total provisions. Actually, we have only used it two or three times a year and probably underutilized the so-called ``war chest.'' I would like to address specifically the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I remember well that colloquy, and in fact section 19 addresses important information to be considered by the Export-Import Bank in considering their transactions. While it is true that we rely to some extent upon the information provided to the Export-Import Bank for their determinations, section 21 also enlarges the Chafee amendment to ensure that we have enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Export Administration Act. All of these are new reforms, additions to the Chafee language. And I will say there are a very small number of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that are pursued in our country, and we know which ones they are. So it is not just that we are relying on the information provided by the applicant for a transaction. That information is readily available. There are not that many, fortunately, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I wish we could say the same for other countries whose export credit agencies we face in competition. I would say that the resources we make available focus to a major extent on small businesses, and we are trying to improve that, are really very inadequate compared to our gross national product. In fact, in absolute terms, six countries, major export countries, including our neighbor Canada, provide much more in the way of resources for assistance to their exporters than we do. But this is a step forward, a big step forward. The advisory committee on sub-Saharan Africa is reauthorized. We provided additional assistance to try to make sure American exporters do focus on exports to Africa. We have made a number of other initiatives that make sure that minority-owned businesses are given special consideration. And those things are due to a bipartisan effort on the part of the subcommittee and committee members. So Members of the House, this is good legislation. We have worked out our difficulties in a conference with the Senate. It creates an IG at the insistence of the Senate. We welcome that kind of addition. We want to make sure that the resources of the Federal Government, even though they are repaid and redoubled, are spent well and in a manner that Members can feel good about. And that is what this legislation does. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in support of the conference report for S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization (Ex-Im Bank) Act of 2001, which is being considered under a Rule. This important legislation extends the authorization of the Ex-Im Bank until September 30, 2006, and makes other appropriate changes to the charter of the Ex- Im Bank. The authorization of the Ex-Im Bank is set to expire on June 14, 2002. This Member, as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, has a special interest in the Ex-Im Bank, which has jurisdiction over this subject. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, (Mr. Oxley) for his leadership on Ex-Im Bank issues. This Member would also like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from New York, the Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, (Mr. LaFalce) and the distinguished gentleman from New York, the Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, (Mr. Sanders) for their efforts in bringing this conference report to the House Floor. This Member would also like to thank all the other conferees of this legislation, including the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, (Mr. Sarbanes) and the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee (Mr. Gramm). As this Member mentioned earlier during the discussion of the rule for this conference report, the Ex-Im Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that creates and sustains American jobs by providing 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. It is also important to note that the Ex-Im Bank charges risk-based interest and fees on the users of its products. As a result, last year, the Ex-Im Bank generated $1 billion of net income to the Treasury of the U.S. Government. On September 10, 2001, this Member introduced the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 2871). On October 31, 2002, the House Financial Services Committee passed this legislation by a voice vote. Thereafter, on May 1, 2002, this legislation was passed by the House Floor by voice vote. Furthermore, a conference committee was then convened with the Senate on their version of the Ex-Im Bank legislation. On May 21, 2002, the conferees met and resolved the remaining outstanding issues in the conference report. On May 24, 2002, the conference report for the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001 was filed with the signatures of 15 of the 16 conferees. This Member would like to briefly summarize the following seven provisions of this conference report: 1. Reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank; 2. Reauthorization of Sub-Saharan Africa-Advisory Committee and added emphasis on Africa; 3. Small business; 4. Increase in statutory Ex-Im Bank statutory ceiling for loans, grants, and insurance; 5. The Ex-Im Bank/Treasury relationship over the Tied Aid War Chest becoming explicit; 6. The $18 million guarantee approved by the Ex-Im Bank to support the sale of computer software by American exporters to Benxi Iron and Steel Co. in China; and 7. The inspector general. First, the conference report of S. 1372 reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank until September 30, 2006. As a result of this provision, the program budget, which supports the loans, guarantees, and insurance products of the Ex-Im Bank, and the administrative budget, which pays for all salary and overhead expenses, are both effectively authorized for such sums as are appropriated through FY2006. Moreover, during the Subcommittee's first hearing on this subject, the Ex-Im Bank personnel testified that they were in desperate need of a technology upgrade which would particularly benefit small business users of the Ex-Im Bank. As a result, this conference report creates a technology budget subcategory within the Administrative budget. Second, this conference report focuses on the efforts of the Ex-Im Bank in Sub-Saharan Africa. For example, the 1997 Ex-Im Authorization Act required the expansion of its financial commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa and reauthorized an advisory committee on this subject to make recommendations to the Board of Directors on how the Ex-Im Bank can encourage and facilitate greater support for American trade with Africa. This conference report would reauthorize the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee until September 30, 2006. Third, this conference report makes very important changes which will encourage additional small business transactions with the Ex-Im Bank. It would require that the Ex-Im 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. As of FY2000, the Ex-Im Bank provided about 18 percent of its total financing for small business. In addition, this conference report requires the Ex-Im Bank to focus on technology improvements, including allowing customers to use the Internet to apply for the Ex-Im Bank's small business programs. These efforts will greatly improve small business outreach. Fourth, the Ex-Im Bank has a current $75 billion statutory ceiling on its portfolio of loans, guarantees, and insurance that are outstanding at any one time. Under this conference report, this statutory ceiling would be increased to $100 billion by FY2006. Increasing the Ex-Im statutory portfolio ceiling is one of the remedies needed to authorize the financial resources for the Ex-Im Bank to enable it to protect American exporters against unfair competition from the much more generous resources of our major export competitors. For example, according to the latest available data, the U.S. Export-Import Bank has a substantially lower level of export credit resources than the following seven countries: Japan, France, Korea, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Fifth, you will be interested to know that this legislation also would make very important clarifications in the administration of the Tied Aid War Chest which finances tied aid transactions. The Tied Aid War Chest was intended to be used by the Ex-Im Bank to protect American exporters by matching the concessionary financing of foreign export credit agencies. Unfortunately, the Tied Aid War Chest has been grossly under-utilized, which is due in part to the disagreements between the Ex-Im Bank and the Department of Treasury on how to use the Fund. In recent applications for the Tied Aid War Chest, there has been an obvious communication and organizational breakdown between the Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury Department. Moreover, the Ex-Im Bank and the Department of Treasury have had different legal interpretations as to their current statutory role over the use of the Tied Aid War Chest. The Conference Report resolves that issue. Therefore, this legislation would address these past problems by creating a new definitive step-by-step process to be followed by the Ex-Im Bank and the Treasury Department regarding how the Tied Aid War Chest is to be administered. This conference report requires the Department of Treasury and the Ex-Im Bank to set the principles, process and standards on how the Tied Aid War Chest is used. It requires Ex-Im Bank, not the Treasury Department, to make case-by- decisions on the use of the Tied Aid War Chest. This conference report strikes the current language in the Ex-Im charter which states that the use of the Tied Aid War Chest ``must be in accordance with the Secretary of the Treasury's recommendations . . .'' It is important to note that an addition was made to the Tied Aid War Chest section. The conference report explicitly states that the Ex-Im Bank will not approve a use of the Tied Aid War Chest if the President determines, after consulting with the Ex-Im Bank and the Secretary of the Treasury, that the extension of tied aid would materially impede the enforcement of existing Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) arrangements or future negotiations within the OECD. Giving the President an opportunity to stop any transaction is entirely appropriate and only makes explicit powers the President already has. This Member was pleased to endorse this change as were the House and Senate conferees who accepted it. The legislative language in the conference report is clear that such presidential power is not transferable to the Treasury Department or any other agency. The industry groups continue to be in strong support of this tied aid clarification. U.S. exporters have a vested interest in the tied war chest becoming a viable tool in fighting and deterring concessionary financing by foreign export credit agencies. Sixth, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) successfully offered an amendment at the House full Committee markup of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001, which passed by voice vote, that addressed the $18 million guarantee approved by the Ex-Im Bank on December 19, 2000, to support the sale of computer software by American exporters to Benxi Iron & Steel Co. in Benxi, Liaoning, China. The Toomey amendment conforms Ex-Im lending to current U.S. trade laws by barring any Ex-Im loan or guarantee to an entity for the production of substantially the same product that is the subject of a countervailing duty or anti-dumping order or a Section 201 determination by the International Trade Commission. In addition, this conference report also requires the Ex-Im Bank to develop procedures and set up a comment period for loans or loan guarantees to a business which is subject to a preliminary countervailing trade duty or anti- dumping determination of material injury. The conference report includes the exact language of the Toomey amendment with one addition which was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania and accepted by the conferees. This addition requires the Ex-Im Bank to consider, for transactions over $10 million, Section 201 investigations that have been initiated at the request of the President, the USTR, the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or by the International Trade Commission. Also, the conference agreement requires the Ex-Im Bank to conduct a comment period for these types of transactions. Lastly, it is important to note that the House conferees did accept the provision from the Senate Ex-Im bill which creates a Presidentially appointed inspector general for the Ex-Im Bank. According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on this subject dated September 6, 2001, the Ex-Im Bank has the largest budget authority of any Federal entity currently that does not have an inspector general. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, over the last sixty years, the Ex-Im Bank has supported more than $300 billion in U.S. exports. Because the Ex-Im Bank creates and sustains American jobs, it needs to be reauthorized. Moreover, this Member fully expects the President to sign this conference report into law when it is presented to him. For the reasons stated and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to pass the conference report to the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. One more thing I might say. We found that the technology in the office of the Export-Import Bank was very obsolete. They recognized that fact but they have not spent enough money to improve it. If we make that situation better, small business is going to have better access to the Bank. Currently small businesses do not have the capacity to work the Ex-Im Bank process as easily as some of the larger firms. So we think by mandating improvement in this area, setting aside a separate budget category for updating the technology in the office, the Ex-Im Bank will be more accessible to small business. That, too, I think is an advance.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her statement. She has described some of the very important new reforms in the legislation, and I would just say to the gentlewoman that I, too, and the whole subcommittee and committee and the conferees of both Houses would like to see more small business involvement in the Ex-Im Bank. I would say this. Over half the transactions of the Export-Import Bank do involve small business. We would like to see more than 18 percent of total resources going to small business, and that is why we are pushing them a little higher to a figure of 20 percent. We started out, at the gentleman from Vermont's (Mr. Sanders) initiative, aiming for an even higher level. I would like to see that at a higher level, but over half the transactions do involve small businesses.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H. Res. 433, the rule under which the conference report of the Export- Import Bank or Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization Act of 2001, S. 1372, will be considered. As is customary for conference reports under this privileged rule, there will be an hour of debate divided between the majority and minority with no amendments being made in order, of course. As the chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade of the Committee on Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over this effort, the Member, of course, has a special interest in the Ex-Im Bank legislation. And, therefore, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the House Committee on Rules; the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the House Committee on Rules; and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who is managing the time on our side of the aisle, for their efforts in bringing this rule before the House floor. In addition, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, for his leadership on the Ex-Im issues, and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, and the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who he and I worked together on this legislation in compatible fashion, for their efforts on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. In contrast to what we have just heard, this is legislation which actually creates jobs in America, a great number of jobs. The Ex-Im Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that creates and sustains American jobs by providing 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. So we are talking about American exports going abroad, things that are produced here by our American workers or farmers. The Ex-Im Bank finances exports such as civilian aircraft, electronics, engineering services, vehicles, agricultural products; and the list is just as broad as you can possibly imagine. To illustrate the importance of the Ex-Im Bank, in fiscal year 2000 the bank supported over $15.5 billion in U.S. exports through an appropriation of $759 million. It is important, however, to remember that the loans and loan guarantees that the bank issues, the transactions, are risk-based costs and insurance fees, so no Export- Import Bank is charging for the money loaned or loans guaranteed. And in almost every year in its 60-year existence, Ex-Im has produced a net profit for the Treasury over the appropriations given. Last year that net profit was over $1 billion. Madam Speaker, in the past 60 years, the Ex-Im Bank has supported more than $300 billion in U.S. exports. Of course the Export-Import Bank is only intended to be a lender of last resort and not intended to compete with private lenders. Therefore, only about 2 percent of our exports use Ex-Im Bank transactions. For example, the Ex-Im Bank supports U.S. exporters in risky markets, and private financial institutions sometimes are unwilling or unable to do that. Yet the net default rate is less than 2 percent. In fact, over the last 20 years, the Ex-Im Bank has an average loan default rate, as I said, of less than 2 percent of its total authorization. This bank was last reauthorized in 1997 for a 4-year period that initially expired on September 30. By extension, it will now expire on June 14 of this year. And the legislation which will be brought to this floor under the rule will be for a 5-year reauthorization. When drafting the Export-Import Bank, the Member utilized the suggestions and recommendations of the distinguished chairman of the full committee and the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee and those of other members of the committee. We had a very democratic process in the subcommittee which extended into the committee deliberations. And many items in this important reform legislation, in many respects, came from the Members on both sides of the aisle. Madam Speaker, on May 1, we passed this House legislation by voice vote; but we are now at the point where we are prepared to take up the conference report. After a conference of only about 4\1/2\ hours, we reached numerous important decisions to bring the Congress this conference report. Importantly, we also clarified and resolved the dispute between the Export-Import Bank and the Treasury Department. I have every indication that the President will sign this legislation, and I thank the Committee on Rules and the House leadership for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, that is good advice, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3994. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and for crafting, along with the distinguished ranking member, very important bipartisan legislation. Specifically, I would also express my appreciation that the modest Bereuter amendment will be included in the en bloc manager's amendment. Specifically, this Member's amendment encourages the administration to maximize the use of the research capacity and technical expertise of U.S. land grant colleges and universities as it provides U.S. humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Madam Chairman, this legislation includes important provisions which would authorize assistance to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild the capability to feed themselves. Indeed, the long-term stability of Afghanistan greatly depends on the country's ability to at least restore the subsistence level of agriculture in the area of food production. Unfortunately, over 20 years of civil war and political unrest have destroyed nearly all of the indigenous tools and infrastructure for food production and rural development in Afghanistan. The people of this country have eaten their feedstocks, and most have slaughtered all of their livestock to meet their immediate food needs. Additionally, the country's limited basic irrigation systems largely have been destroyed. Until these very basic components are restored, the people of Afghanistan will turn to other endeavors to survive, including the cultivation of poppies for producing drugs. Madam Chairman, many land grant institutions have conducted very relevant world-class research in agricultural and rural development. Therefore, the following represents only a few of the areas in which the highly trained professions at these institutions could contribute to the assistance programs for Afghanistan: soil rehabilitation, water conservation, livestock breeding and herd maintenance, irrigation, and basic rural infrastructure constructions. Furthermore, these professionals will have strong incentives to find innovative solutions for the massive challenges facing Afghanistan, and to continue their research if these land grant institutions are given a substantial opportunity to contribute to the reconstruction efforts. Additionally, the use of land grant colleges and universities in assistance will serve, by experience, various similar projects in communities across our country. Too frequently, USAID grants are distributed among contractors based within the Beltway, or with those entities that have the best connections within the Beltway. Madam Chairman, this legislation makes a very important contribution in so many areas, but I think it also helps provide the basis for the people of Afghanistan to begin to feed themselves again and avoid drug production. I urge support of the legislation. Madam Chairman, it is clear that using U.S. land grant colleges and universities to implement U.S. assistance projects in Afghanistan would benefit the people of Afghanistan as they would be advised and trained by some of the world's leading experts in the fields of agriculture and rural development. In turn, land grant colleges and universities would benefit from participation in these projects, as they would have an opportunity to share their expertise and to encourage their professors and researchers to pursue creative projects. Finally, U.S. foreign policy certainly would benefit when U.S. land grant colleges and universities implementing assistance projects, as Americans from across the country would be contributing to the programs and subsequently feel a higher interest and satisfaction in the success of those programs. Madam Chairman, before concluding this statement, this Member would like to bring to the attention of his colleagues other provisions within H.R. 3994 which would authorize the use of overseas cooperatives and microenterprise systems as development mechanisms in Afghanistan. For several decades, United States cooperative development organizations which operate overseas as well as microenterprise institutions, have served as effective grassroots mechanisms to promote democratic development and build economies in underserved areas. Certainly, rural areas of Afghanistan would benefit from experience with Americans from community-owned, member-controlled cooperative and microenterprise programs, particularly those which focus on micro- savings and credit, village infrastructure, and such community services as rural electrification and rural telecommunications. Indeed, these projects also would serve to complement the agriculture and other rural reconstruction activities which would involve America's land grant colleges and universities. Madam Chairman, in conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for H.R. 3994.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the sponsors of this legislation for bringing it to us here today. We do commend and congratulate East Timor on their independence. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) reminded me of the time when we met Mr. Gusmao in prison; he was very obviously a very calm, and distinguished man. We knew that, given an opportunity, he could lead his home region of East Timor when it became a nation. East Timor is not a wealthy country, and that is stating the obvious. They have very few developed resources. The devastation that was brought to the infrastructure of the country means they have an even worse condition. Therefore, the international community, with the United States playing a significant part, does need to assist East Timor in these early days of its nationhood. Hopefully, the agreement now concluded between Australia and East Timor with respect to potential offshore oil will be a source of revenue that is very important to that country's continued prosperity. We certainly hope that is the case. In any case, I believe that the independence of East Timor can now lead us to improved relations with Indonesia. The East Timor problem certainly had a negative effect upon our relationship, and understandably so. But I would suggest that we have taken a step in the right direction by supporting independence for East Timor. Certainly we wish them the very best in their independence.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Member of the Committee, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor. With 317 cosponsors, it is clear that the vast majority of House Members recognize the importance of H.R. 3694. Mr. Speaker, Americans who pay the gas tax at the pump expect those dollars to be used for roads and other transportation expenses, and they expect that the money will be made available promptly. Any budget decision to spend less on road construction and maintenance would be a bad fiscal decision as we attempt to move from an economic recession. It would be a serious mistake to cut infrastructure spending at this critical time. The bill would restore a minimum of $4.4 billion for highway programs in the budget. This would bring highway funding back to the level anticipated when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted. For the State of Nebraska, this legislation would result in the restoration of $32 million. The Highway Trust Fund contains a surplus of about $20 billion--money already paid in gas taxes. Motorists deserve to have these funds used expeditiously for transportation purposes, rather than to accumulate huge trust fund surpluses. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this bill, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3694.