Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman can be assured that all of us in this House share in his concern, his grief, and his pride in the courage and relentless efforts of New Yorkers and others who have come to their aid. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it has been an extraordinary afternoon and evening here in the House, and I am moved to comment upon the sentiments that have been expressed: strong comments, high-minded comments, and deeply felt sentiments. I can and do associate myself with all those remarks. I know we are all very proud of the individual examples of heroism and bravery on the part of so many Americans, and we certainly I think all sense a degree of unity and resolve that we have not seen perhaps since 1941. As a member of the Committee on Intelligence 6 years previous and now again as vice chairman since January, I can tell, Mr. Speaker, we have had in the intelligence community many examples of successes against terrorism directed at our homeland. But the inadequacies and the failures of our intelligence are available for all to see. The successes we do not talk about. I recall when I visited General Schwarzkopf's headquarters 4 days after the end of the Persian Gulf war, he reminded us there is never enough intelligence for our field commanders and for our civilian leaders. We face a whole new range of asymmetrical threats against the United States, including terrorism directed at our civilian population. So now we have reached the point where all of our great rhetoric must be matched by actions. Many Members here this afternoon and evening have ended their comments with the words ``God bless America.'' That is most assuredly appropriate, but I think we might also ask God for the wisdom collectively to know what is best for our country and then the resolve and courage to do it. We certainly must match the qualities and the expectations of the people we represent.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member calls to his colleagues' attention the exceptionally perceptive editorials of Nebraska's two metropolitan newspapers--the Lincoln Journal Star and the Omaha World- Herald. The editorial advice of the former newspaper that ``now is the time for Americans to unite, to draw together'' is certainly evident in abundance in Nebraska today, and throughout this Nation. All of us in Congress and in other national leadership need to consider, and lead by our example and our actions in the Congress, the advice of the Omaha paper that while ``this is a time for anger, to be sure, and grief and compassion toward those whose family and friends are among the victims. But it's also a time for a clear-eyed assessment of what Americans can do to make our society less vulnerable to this kind of warfare.'' [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Sept. 12, 2001] Attacks Mark Bloody End to Complacency Life in America will be forever altered by the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Life will change because Americans not only will accommodate it, they will welcome it. Aren't you willing this morning to tolerate ultra-strict precautions the next time you board an airline? A message was driven home in the thunder of exploding airplanes and collapsing skyscrapers. The greatest threat to American security may be from shadowy forces using guile, deception and stealth--not from recognizable foes wielding batteries of missiles and the recognizable implements of war. Aircraft carriers, satellites, ballistic missiles, tanks, and helicopters were of little use against the foe who struck Tuesday morning in the deadliest attack ever mounted against Americans on American soil. Apt comparisons were quickly drawn between the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. This day, too, shall live in infamy. The toll of dead and injured, however, apparently will surpass the 2,388 deaths and 1,178 wounded at Pearl Harbor. In World War II the enemy struck at what was then a far- flung outpost of American military might. But on Sept. 11, 2001, the enemy struck at the very heart and nerve center of the American military--the Pentagon in the nation's capital. Despite the distinctions between Tuesday's terrorism and Pearl Harbor, Americans of today would do well to emulate the response of Americans to that surprise attack in the last century. Now is a time for Americans to unite, to draw together. Terrorism is effective when it drives a wedge between a government and its citizens. Terrorism is effective when it can create chaos, when it can disrupt a society's productive routines. Now is a time for Americans to remain calm. There were reports Tuesday afternoon of gas price spikes, and lines forming at gas stations. That's overreaction. Tuesday's blasts will have less effect on America's gas supply than the accidental refinery explosion earlier this summer in Illinois. Americans can help each other. One way is to donate blood. The nation's blood supply, already at perilously low levels, was drained by Tuesday's catastrophe. Call the Community Blood Bank at 474-1781. Americans should hold to their traditions of fairness and religious tolerance, even as they turn to prayer in accordance with their own faiths. If the attacks prove to be the work of Muslim extremists, those of different beliefs should remember that many Muslims abhor such violence. And surely Americans have learned enough about race not to hold every individual of Mideastern descent responsible in this time of rampant suspicion. Most of America's response to Tuesday's suicide hijackings will be directed from Washington. This is no time for rhetoric as usual. Americans are sick of Republicans and Democrats who spend more energy fighting for partisan advantage than in actually addressing problems. Focus on ridding the globe of terrorists--not angling to pick up seats in the next election. Certainly the nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities need to be scrutinized. Perhaps there has been too much reliance on satellite surveillance. Perhaps it's time to re- emphasize human operatives. Tuesday's attack also should remind Washington that America, despite its status as the world's sole superpower, needs allies. And it especially needs allies if anti- terrorism efforts are to succeed. In the past several months the Bush administration too often has acted unilaterally. Now is an opportune time to mobilize the international community against terrorism. The bloody devastation in New York and Washington just as easily could happened in Moscow, Berlin or Paris. The deadliest attack ever made on American soil marks the start of a new era in this country. Complacency is now a thing of the past. As America grids for sustained battle against terrorism, may it be granted the wisdom to choose wisely as it balances the needs of liberty and security.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Floyd Spence was a good, a valued, and valuable Member of this House. He will be missed greatly. I want his family to know and all of his friends and constituents what a tremendous contribution he has made to the country. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) just outlined in brief form the contributions he made to our armed services. Floyd Spence was a living, breathing, walking miracle and he knew it. It affected his life, and it affected all of us who knew Floyd. I had a friendship with him my entire 23 years here. He began service earlier than that. We shared a passion for planting trees on our respective acreage in South Carolina and Nebraska. We are members of the same religious denomination. We talked about religion and its importance to us many times. Mostly, I knew Floyd Spence because of his involvement with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, formerly known as the North Atlantic Assembly. I chair that delegation and have since 1995. Floyd, much senior to me, was a very valuable member of that delegation. All of us on that delegation, Republicans, Democrats and our spouses and staff, miss the tremendous contributions that he has made. We miss them already. He was a member of the Defense and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and, of course, as a chairman and then former chairman of our House Committee on Armed Services, his word was greatly respected and sought after in that assembly. Floyd did not speak often; but when he did, people listened. At our last meeting he was an important contributor on a discussion about national missile defense. Regardless of how one feels about that subject, he made us proud that he was a Member of the House of Representatives. So to Debbie and their four sons, whom he talked about all the time, and their families, we offer our most sincere condolences. Floyd made a major contribution to this country. We thank him, we thank you, his family, for sharing his talent and his courageous character with this House.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the August 2, 2001, Lincoln Journal Star. The editorial highlights the need to move beyond the rhetoric and examine the arsenic issue in a rational manner. Clearly, it is important to get the full story and listen to those who would be most affected by the proposed changes. Many State and local officials as well as water system administrators have expressed concern about the problems which could be caused by the proposed changes. Everyone recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking water for all of our Nation's citizens. Also, some changes in the arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it makes sense to base these changes on sound science rather than emotion. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Aug. 2, 2001] Of Arsenic, and Art of Governing President George Bush is getting a bum rap on the arsenic issue. New EPA chief Christine Whitman was neither wacko nor callous when she withdrew new standards for arsenic in drinking water proposed by the Clinton administration that slashed the previous limit by 80 percent. Neither was Nebraska's entire House delegation oblivious to health concerns when it voted shoulder-to-shoulder-- unsuccessfully--against a proposal to force the administration to restore the new standards. The real reason Bush is undergoing such a bludgeoning on arsenic is because it's so easy for his political enemies to portray him as a heartless boob. Arsenic is nasty. Who could possibly be against removing this poison from our drinking water? Real life, however, is often complicated, involving tradeoffs in which the costs and payoffs are matters of speculation. As a New York Times story put it, ``. . . the setting of environmental risks is as much art as science, one that entails innumerable assumptions about risks, costs and benefits.'' The Clinton administration proposed to cut the allowed level for arsenic from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. Earlier the administration had toyed with the idea of setting the limit at 5 parts per billion, but decided that would be too expensive. So it upped the new limit to 10 parts per billion. That's still too low for many of Nebraska's communities. The city of York will have to ante up $12 million to meet the new regulation. The city of Alliance will have to spend $6.5 million, or $650 per person. In all, the new water regulations would cost 51 Nebraska communities $97 million. One may notice that folks in those communities have not been perishing in huge numbers of arsenic-related diseases during the past 50 years. The health benefits of change in arsenic standards involve relatively small numbers in comparison with the nation's 281 million residents. The reduction in the arsenic level is estimated to prevent 37 to 56 cases of bladder and lung cancer and 21 to 30 deaths annually throughout the nation, according to The New York Times. If the standard were set at 20 parts per billion, the benefit would diminish to preventing an estimated 19 to 20 cases of bladder and lung cancer, and 10 to 11 deaths per year nationally. Most European countries have set arsenic levels at 20 parts per billions. The World Health Organization recommends 10 parts per billion. Often unnoticed in the rhetoric over arsenic is that fact that the new regulation was not scheduled to take effect until 2006. Whitman's withdrawal of the new regulation allowed for nine months more study on the ``art'' of setting environmental standards. Her action hardly deserves the contempt it unleashed.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 2603, which implements the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Agreement. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, for introducing this legislation and for his efforts in bringing this measure to the House Floor. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by President Clinton on October 24, 2000, will eliminate commercial barriers and duties to bilateral trade in goods and services originating in Jordan and the United states. The agreement will eliminate virtually all tariffs on trade between Jordan and the U.S. within ten years. The U.S.-Jordan Agreement is part of the broader U.S. effort to encourage free trade in the Middle East. For example, in 1985, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement was signed and it was extended to areas administered by the Palestinian Authority in 1996. In addition, the U.S. has also signed Trade and Investment Framework Agreements with Egypt in 1999 and Turkey in 2000. It should also be noted Jordan joined the World Trade Organization in April of 2000. This Member would like to focus on the following three aspects of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement: the agriculture sector, the services sector, and the environmental and labor provisions. First, with regard to agriculture, the top U.S. exports to Jordan include wheat and corn. In 1999, the U.S. exported $26 million of wheat and $10 million of corn to Jordan. With low prices and higher supplies of agricultural commodities, this free trade agreement is a step in the right direction. Second, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement opens the Jordanian service markets to U.S. companies, which includes engineering, architecture, financial services, and courier services to name just a few. Some U.S. companies should directly benefit from this opening of the service markets in Jordan. Services trade is becoming a bigger part of the overall trade picture. In fact, worldwide services trade totaled $309 billion in 1998, which resulted in an $84 billion positive balance for the U.S. in services for 1998. This positive trade balance for services is in stark contrast to the U.S. merchandise trade deficit. As the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, this Member has focused on the importance of financial services trade. My Subcommittee conducted a hearing in June 2001 on financial services trade with insurance, securities, and banking witnesses testifying. At this hearing, the Subcommittee learned that U.S. trade in financial services equaled $20.5 billion. This is a 26.7 percent increase from the U.S.'s 1999 financial services trade data. Unlike the current overall U.S. trade deficit, the U.S. financial services trade had a positive balance of $8.8 billion in 2000. Third, the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement also includes labor and environment provisions. This is the first time that these types of provisions have been included in the main text of a U.S. free trade agreement. This Member would like to note that these labor and environment provisions focus on Jordan and the U.S. enforcing its own labor and environmental laws. This agreement does not impose any labor and environment standards on Jordan or the U.S. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2603, the implementation of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Frelinghuysen amendment, for the third year in a row. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Unfortunately this has turned into a regional legislative battle between northeastern states and especially low-population Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states' delegations on one hand, and on the other hand the Sunbelt states with their larger numbers of veterans retirees. Those of us representing the former see our veterans left out in the cold while the money flows to the populace Sunbelt states. Once again, we may be out- voted but it certainly isn't fair to veterans in our states. From the time the Clinton Administration announced this new system, this Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA because of its inherent flaws in inequitable distribution of funds, and has supported funding levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the Clinton Administration recommended. This Member is proud to have supported the increases in funding which Congress has provided for veterans health care recent years. However, the veterans health care system in Nebraska continues to experience growing service and funding shortfalls each year even after the forced closing of two of our three in-patient facilities, reducing the number of full time employees fourteen percent and completing integration of all three VA Medical centers. In fiscal year 1999, the VISN 14 area-- consisting of Nebraska and Iowa experienced a $6 million shortfall. In fiscal year 2000, the shortfall was $17 million. In fiscal year 2001, the shortfall was $48 million. For the short-term, the VA Central Office has provided VISN 14 with a $32 million loan, which it will be required to repay, and a $16 million grant. While VISN 14 continues to experience growing shortfalls in funding, the number of patients continues to increase. Clearly the VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska and other sparsely populated areas of the country. All members of Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, that the VA must provide adequate services and facilities for veterans all across the country regardless of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals. The funding distribution unfairly reallocates the VA's health care budget based strictly on a per capita veterans usage of facilities. There must be at least a basic level of acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel, and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our veterans wherever they live. There must be a threshold funding level for VA medical services in each state and region before any per-capita funding formula is applied. That is only common sense, but the Clinton Administration had too little of that valuable commodity when it comes to treating veterans in our part of the country humanely and equitably. In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Frelinghuysen amendment and fulfill the obligation to provide care to those who have so honorably served our country--no matter where they live in these United States of America.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. This Member urges his colleagues to look at the facts when it comes to the issue of arsenic in drinking water. The Bush administration's re-examination of this matter has led to heated rhetoric, wild exaggerations, and sound-bite politics. It is important to get the full story and to listen to those who would have been most affected by the proposed changes. Many State and local officials as well as water system administrators have expressed concerns about the unnecessary and extraordinary costs which could be caused by the proposed change to 10 parts per billion. Unlike what the gentleman from Minnesota said or implied, no one is suggesting arsenic in drinking water is good. It is a matter of how much we reduce the standards to what the costs and benefits are. This Member would begin by clearly stating the obvious. Everyone recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking water to all of our Nation's citizens. Also, I will say this. Some change in the arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it makes sense, it is rational, to base these changes on sound science rather than on emotion. The sound science is simply not there to justify a change from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. Mr. Chairman, as many of us now know, in the last-minute flurry of activism in the final days of the Clinton administration, a final rule was rushed through which would have reduced the acceptable arsenic level in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. However, new EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman quite rationally later announced that the Agency would seek a scientific review of this standard before implementing a new rule. I think everybody understands that arsenic standard is going to come down, and it should. The Bush administration has made it clear that the arsenic level will be significantly reduced, in fact. However, it wants the final rule to be based upon sound science. It certainly appears that the Clinton administration made a very arbitrary decision based upon questionable studies. The EPA seems to dismiss the most comprehensive U.S. study on this matter. In 1999, a study in Utah involving more than 5,000 people failed to find an increased incidence of cancer associated with arsenic in drinking water. I think it is helpful to note that any community in the country now has the authority to lower arsenic in drinking water if they wish. The reason communities have not lowered their levels to 10 parts per billion is that the health benefits have not been shown to justify the enormous costs. The American Waterworks Association stated in comments last year, ``At a level of 10 parts per billion or lower, the health risk reduction benefits become vanishingly small as compared to the costs.'' The costs, however, are very real. The Association, which supports a reduction in the current arsenic standard, has estimated that the proposed rule would cost $600 million annually and require $5 billion in capital outlays. The gentlewoman from New Mexico made the case about what had happened to her constituents in the State of New Mexico. My State is the most groundwater-dependent State in the Nation by a wide margin. Of 1,395 public water systems, only six or seven get any of their water from surface water sources. All the rest comes from groundwater. The result is that we put wells down that are not interconnected for treatment. Basically, our water is so good, with a few exceptions, we do not treat. We have no central point of treatment for groundwater that we use in our public water supplies. The costs to us are astronomical. The smaller the community, the larger the cost proportionally by a wide measure. If there is a justification for moving to a lower standard, our communities will have to bite the bullet; and we will have to help them find a way to do that. But right now just to arbitrarily suggest money cannot be spent with respect to EPA's current examination when there is no sound science to suggest that it is reasonable to reduce it to 10 parts per billion does not make sense. One of the claims that has been made about the arsenic problem is it is a result of mining. The arsenic in my State's water supply where it is found has nothing to do with mining. We basically have no mining. It is naturally occurring in our soils. Until lately, people in my district lived longer than any part of the country. La Jollans have passed us now, but we still, despite drinking some water that has arsenic levels relatively low in most areas and in other cases not quite as low as 10 parts per billion, it has not had an effect. The standards that have been proposed here are not based upon good, sound science. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in opposition to the H.J. Res. 55, which would disapprove the Bush Administration's extension of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Vietnam. Therefore, in voicing this opposition to the resolution, it is important for us to recognize what the Jackson-Vanik waiver does and does not do. By law, the underlying issue here is about emigration. Based on Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and its continued cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over the past year, renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver will continue to promote greater freedom of emigration. Disapproval would, undoubtedly, result in the opposite. The Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and established diplomatic relations five years ago, the United States has tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral political, economic and consular relationship. This is in America's own short-term and long-term national interest. It builds on Vietnam's own policy of political and economic re-integration into the world. This will be a lengthy and challenging process. However, now is not the time to reverse course on gradually normalizing our relations with Vietnam. Vietnam now continues to cooperate fully with our priority efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of American POW-MIAs. The Jackson-Vanik waiver contributes to this process. The Jackson-Vanik waiver certainly does not constitute an endorsement of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a regime that places severe restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. On many occasions, with this Member's support, this body passed resolutions condemning just such violations of civil and human rights. The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any new trade benefits, including Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. With the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to successfully negotiate and sign a new bilateral commercial trade agreement with Vietnam. Congress will have an opportunity to decide in the future whether to approve it or not and whether to grant NTR to Vietnam. But, that is a separate process. The renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver only keeps this process going--nothing more. Also it is important to note that the renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not aututomatically make American exports to Vietnam eligible for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs. The waiver only allows American exports to Vietnam to be eligible for such coverage. Mr. Speaker, the Vietnam War is over and we have embarked on a new, though cautious and expanding, relationship with Vietnam. Now is not the time to reverse course. Accordingly, this Member urges a ``no'' vote on the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 2620, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2002. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, the ranking member of the subcommittee (Mr. Mollohan), and all members of the subcommittee for the work they did under the tight 302(b) allocation. This Member would like to focus his remarks on the following four areas: Section 8 housing, Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program, and the Community Development Fund-Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. section 8 housing First, this Member is supportive of the treatment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 housing contracts. The legislation provides $15.7 billion to fully fund the renewal of all Section 8 housing assistance contracts and it provides $197.2 million to fund 34,000 new Section 8 vouchers. section 184 indian housing loan guarantee fund program Second, this Member supports the $6 million appropriation for the (HUD) Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which is the same as the Administration's request. This Member created the Section 184 program in consultation with a range of Indian housing specialists. The Section 184 program appears to be an excellent new program which is providing privately financed homes through a Government guarantee program for Indian families who are otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. The above appropriations should support loan guarantees totaling approximately $72 million which should assist an estimated 20,000 families. office of rural housing and economic development Third, this Member would like to specifically commend the Subcommittee for eliminating duplicative efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. Unlike FY2002 and FY2001, this bill does not fund the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development within the Department of Housing and Urban Development for FY2002. In fact, this Member testified before the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in opposition to HUD's duplicative efforts in rural housing. As a long-term advocate of rural housing during his tenure in the House, this Member believes that we need to be careful of duplication in the efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. In the past, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through their Rural Development offices has successfully implemented numerous rural housing and economic development programs. As a result, this Member disagrees with HUD's efforts to duplicate USDA Rural Development staff. community development fund (CDBG) Lastly, this Member would like to emphasize a concern about the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill which in large part results from budgetary restraints. The Community Development Fund, which includes the CDBG program, is provided $4.8 billion, which is $255.6 million less than the fiscal year 2001 level. This reduction is of substantial concern to this Member. Indeed the CDBG program has been a model of local-Federal partnership. The CDBG program not only is valuable to the larger entitlement cities, but it also gives assistance to those communities under 50,000 through state administering agencies. It is a Federal Government program with minimal overhead and bureaucracy. Moreover, CDBG has provided invaluable dollars to cities and rural communities for such things as affordable housing, public infrastructure, and economic development. In conclusion, because of the necessity to fund important housing and community development programs, this Member would encourage his colleagues to support H.R. 2620, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I think the record probably should be set straight on what the Export-Import Bank does with respect to fossil fuel plants. They are the only export credit agency in the world that calculates and records the carbon dioxide emissions for fossil fuel power plants. Of the major export credit agencies, Ex-Im Bank is the only one that has World Bank- equivalent environmental standards which includes or covers all of the emissions out of a power plant. Beginning in 1997, the Ex-Im Bank assumed a leadership role among international export credit agencies on environmental issues. Ex-Im Bank stands as the only major export credit agency of the G-7 willing to decline support for a foreign project whose environmental effects cannot be adequately mitigated. Ex-Im Bank is recognized internationally for its progressive environmental policy. Ex-Im Bank spearheaded U.S. Government efforts at recent G-8 summits to encourage leaders of other nations to require that their export credit agencies adopt effective environmental guidelines. The Ex-Im Bank offers enhanced financial support with its environmental export credit insurance and under its loan guarantee and medium-term insurance programs. Since 1995, the Export-Import Bank has supported $3 billion for environmentally beneficial U.S. exports and environmentally beneficial projects. In addition to proactively encouraging U.S. companies to export environmentally friendly goods, Export-Import Bank has environmental review procedures to ensure that the projects that it supports are environmentally responsible. The Export-Import Bank provides environmental guidelines for industries ranging from logging to mining to hydropower to oil and gas development. If a project does not meet all Ex-Im environmental measures, the bank will work with the exporter to implement mitigation efforts. Projects proposed are evaluated on the basis of air quality, water use and quality, waste management, natural hazards, ecology, socioeconomic and sociocultural framework, and noise. In short, the Export-Import Bank's environmental guidelines add significant value to the projects it finances. Emissions of project pollutants and effluents have been reduced, and ecological effects of the Bank-supported projects have been mitigated extensively. Mr. Chairman, this agency is doing its job; it is setting the standard for the world. Therefore, I think this amendment is not needed. I urge its opposition.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if I may say, I commend the gentleman. It was a bad decision that needs to be reassessed. I appreciate his effort.

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman. Section 16 of H.R. 2507 requires the Export-Import Bank to reassess its adverse economic impact test as a result of the $18 million Ex-Im Bank loan guarantee to the Benxi Iron & Steel Company and specifically references this bank transaction. Currently the Ex-Im Bank has economic impact procedures which consider the potential negative impact on the U.S. economy of goods manufactured by the purchasers of the U.S. exports. However, it does not adequately consider indirect impacts.

Mr. BEREUTER. Again, if the gentleman will yield further, within 1 year after the date of enactment, the Export-Import Bank will have to submit a report on this reassessment to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's question, and I would say this, and I would make this commitment as the subcommittee chairman during this Congress. If we find that what the Export-Import Bank is doing is not giving proper assessment to fossil fuel power plants, then we could seek a legislative alternative, and we would examine the record on this in this respect. I would say as a way of trying to do that, this gentleman would certainly entertain as I think about it the possibility of a GAO study to see if, in fact, as an outside source, if the Export-Import Bank is exercising proper environmental procedures and review of fossil fuel plants.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the Export-Import Bank's authorization expires on September 30 of this year. The Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade and the Committee on Financial Services expect to mark up the bill and consider it on the floor before then.