Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Visclosky- Mollohan amendment as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on the Committee on Financial Services. The ranking member of that subcommittee is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). While I have served for 21 years on the Banking Committee, now the Financial Services Committee, this is the first year that I have been the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee that relates to the Export- Import Bank. I would say to the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Indiana that the authorization for the Export-Import Bank expires on September 30, 2001 and there is broad and bipartisan concern with the case that the gentlemen have brought to our attention. It has also been brought to our attention by all of the members of the Steel Caucus. In fact, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I introduced legislation last week at this time, H.R. 2517 and we have a section in that legislation specifically related to Benxi Steel and the transaction approved by the Export-Import Bank in December of 2000. I would tell the gentlemen that the Export-Import Bank and Treasury, which has exercised veto authority over the transactions of the Export- Import Bank, also has this Member's attention, and I want to make changes. If the Banks think they are going to have a straight, clean reauthorization bill, they are not going to do it with my approval or my active involvement. I very much think we need to give some very specific direction to the Export-Import Bank in many areas, and I will welcome these gentlemen and other Members' concerns about this specific transaction and on other issues. I also think it is crucial that the industries that uses the export credit guarantee programs of the Bank understand we need to build a base of support for the Bank within the small business community. Currently the small business community has about 18 percent of the transactions in dollars allocated. That is probably only because Congress pushed the Bank to move ahead in its 1996 authorization legislation. Furthermore, the Export-Import Bank has this Member's attention because the Treasury stepped in earlier this year and vetoed two transactions, one of which is in my home State, on the use of the tied aid war chest. An Austrian firm got that contract for $7-9 million; and we lost $100 million worth of follow-up sales annually in irrigation equipment--all for no good reason. So the Export-Import Bank deserves plenty of scrutiny. We need to give them very specific directions. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I have begun that effort with section 16 in the legislation we introduced. If after examining it you do not think it is strong enough, we will listen to your ideas in a further way. I also would say this, that you have had an impact already--at least potentially. As already pointed out, the Export-Import Bank is now going through a process of enlarging and clarifying and getting it right in terms of the Ex-Im Bank's impact procedures that they will consider. In short, and this is a quote from the Bank's statement of objectives, they want to make sure they have more information on the following: one, indicators of oversupply that could impact the long-term economic health of the potentially affected U.S. industries. They go on to clarify that objective. Secondly, to consider the broad competitive impact to U.S. industries. Here they are proposing to consider both direct and indirect impacts. And, third, to consider the views of interested parties, including the affected U.S. industry, labor organizations, U.S. manufacturers, Congress, nongovernment organizations and other U.S. Government agencies, to allow each group's view to be weighed in Export-Import Bank's deliberative process. I cannot under House rules specifically speak about what the other body is going to do about this steel case, but let me just say it has their attention as well, and I think it should. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to think long and hard about what you are asking the House to do in addressing what is an appropriate redress of a very real grievance. Right now, the Export- Import Bank is dramatically underfunded, under-resourced as compared to our competitors. The rationale escapes me, but this administration proposed to further cut the Bank's resources by 25 percent. The Committee on Appropriations has made up some of that difference. One of the concerns I have is about the limit on the administrative budget of the Bank, not the transaction budget. The authorizing limitations are too skimpy. By this amendment you are cutting back the administrative accounty by $3 million. It should be going the other way. In fact, in our legislation, I would establish a sub-line item for funds for the administrative activities and boost such an authorization.

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, our economic health relies on a lot of things, but we cannot confuse cause and effect. If we lost our export sector, we would be in deep trouble. Take my own home State, for example, agriculture being one of the two major largest exporters. One-third, maybe even more, of everything we grow, like the rest of this country, is export. If we lose that base, if we would write off 95 percent of the world's people, we are in a hopeless condition. I would say to the gentleman, I understand his ideological reasons for offering this. I happen to dramatically disagree. I think American citizens do not support the unilateral disarmament.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman knows that a 201 case has been filed on steel, and Benxi Steel is one of the companies named in that pending International Trade Commission case on steel products being imported into the U.S. from a variety of countries. So I think there is another potential area where redress can be pursued. A ruling is to be made on August 17, 2001.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York has just given some of the reasons, with data, to oppose this amendment. This is a draconian amendment. It eliminates the Export-Import Bank's transaction program altogether. It ends it. It is abject, total, unilateral disarmament. Mr. Chairman, the American Export Credit and Guarantee Agency of the Export-Import Bank is already underfunded as compared to the similar institutions from other major export countries of Europe, Japan, and even elsewhere. We are outstripped as it is. In a perfect world, we would not have to have subsidy, but we are dependent to a major extent in our economy on our job base, on being able to export. We have negotiated, with some success, rules for the use of subsidies by the major export countries through the OECD. We have not completely tied that down, if I may use that down, on tied aid. We still have to have a war chest the administration is about to use. But this is not a perfect world. If our exporters are to compete, if we are to build and sustain a job base in this country, we must have an effective, properly funded Export-Import Bank in this country. This would totally eliminate it. I would say that the gentleman is not guilty of doing things halfway. He goes all the way on a proposal.

Mr. BEREUTER. I think the gentleman is accurately describing the language that is there. I think it does not go far enough. I think a clarification or elaboration or additional kind of limitations are appropriate. Now, they itemize in their proposed review process some of the things that might be considered. I hope that that gentleman, like this gentleman, will make his comments known to the Export-Import Bank during the comment period now underway. Is there a cut in the resources of the Export-Import Bank? There is a dramatic cut in the resources proposed for the next fiscal year, despite the fact that the appropriators have restored some of that cut. A 25 percent cut was the original figure that came with the administration's budget. That would dramatically reduce our ability to compete with the export credit and guarantee agencies of other countries. It is the wrong direction. I can understand why these gentlemen want to see a change. I do, too.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.

Mr. BEREUTER. We have this deadline coming up on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, September 30. This is an issue that has to be resolved. It is a time for us to make the kind of changes, not to do something which punishes the Bank and not some changes which they can ignore, anyway. We need to give very specific guidelines and make sure that in fact acting in a fashion which is beneficial to American industry. We need to assure that the Bank does creates jobs in this country and that it does not have the opposite effect. We need to assure that the Bank is particularly attractive for the use of small business as well as for some of the largest firms in the United States. I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject this amendment and work with us when the authorizing legislation comes to the floor.

Mr. BEREUTER. I would say to the gentleman, it does not totally cut off exports, but it does cut off a very significant base if we unilaterally disarm. Because in many areas, of course, we are competing for third-country markets where the subsidy from the French or the Germans or Japanese or some other major export company make the difference. Without us being there, we certainly do not have a chance to effectively compete for those jobs, for those products to be exported abroad. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to read the following editorial, from the June 27, 2001, edition of the Omaha World Herald. This editorial takes the position that both debtors and lenders of credit are responsible for the record rates of bankruptcy filings in Nebraska and Iowa. Lenders Share the Blame Nebraskans and Iowans are filing for personal bankruptcy at a higher rate than ever before, a fact that has roots not only in unwise personal spending but also in the explosion of easy credit available in recent years. Nationally, personal debt is at an all-time high. Americans put a trillion dollars on their credit cards last year. The Federal Reserve reported that the amount owed on credit cards, auto loans and similar consumer-type loans rose to $1.58 trillion in April. Americans spend 14 percent of their take-home pay paying off these debts. In Nebraska, 33 percent more bankruptcies were filed during the first five months of the year compared with 2000. The rate in Iowa increased significantly, too. Many factors may play into the rise--a weaker economy, higher unemployment, the threat of a stronger and less-friendly bankruptcy law being considered in Congress. People should, of course, take responsibility for their own spending. No one forces them to apply for the credit that is offered. No one forces them to use that credit, running up debts to a crippling level until one small change in circumstances--an illness, perhaps, or a lay-off--causes their financial downfall. However, the other component of the problem, the credit industry, bears a portion of the responsibility for the situation and has not received enough attention. The Consumer Federation of America and other organizations have accused big banks of overly aggressive credit card marketing and excessive credit extension, leading to growing numbers of bankruptcies and credit problems. Mailings offering bank cards--particularly to low- and moderate-income households--have increased substantially. In 1998, an estimated 3.2 billion mailings went out, compared with 2.4 billion in 1996. Up to 85 percent of college students have one or more credit cards in their own name, and a significant number are in credit trouble. Many of them got the cards by signing up at tables set up on campus, applying for the card to get a free gift--a T-shirt, candy, long-distance minutes. Aggressive promotion of credit, particularly to people with a poor record of repayment, can be blamed for a lot of financial troubles. It's not hard to see why the companies are doing it: money. They slap on what two Maryland consumer organizations recently called ``deceptive conditions'' that bolster their profits at the expense of people who can't pay their bills. Interest as high as 30 percent, covering the entire balance and lasting until it is paid off, can be imposed on people who are late or miss a payment. High late fees, a shorter period in which to pay the bill and brief or no grace periods contribute to people's difficulties. Thus, people with poor credit histories and poor performance are penalized further with the extra fees. There are far too many gullible souls in this country who, for whatever reason, don't have enough financial sense or self-discipline to use credit cards wisely. They fall into the traps set by the banks that issue credit cards. The temptation for instant gratification overwhelms some people. Their difficulties are, ultimately, their own fault. Nevertheless, lenders shouldn't be exploiting the vulnerable unless they accept the risk involved. When they bombard people of modest means with offers of credit-- thousands of dollars worth of easy credit, at a low! low! low! (introductory) interest rate; when they target college students who often don't have jobs or the means to pay back credit card debt; when they work hard to entice people who have just gone through a bankruptcy to re-enter the credit whirlwind, they need to recognize that many of these people will not be able to handle the debt they have been enticed to assume. They will default. People should have the common sense to handle their credit cards cautiously and manage their finances wisely. But too many do not. When the credit card industry takes advantage of their weaknesses to increase its bottom line, it should not be surprised when problems occur.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider carefully the following Op-Ed from the July 7, 2001, edition of the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``Change in Estate Tax Would Hurt Many,'' as this Op-Ed raises some of the very concerns raised by this Member. [From the Omaha World Herald, July 7, 2001] Change in Estate Tax Would Hurt Many (By Gary L. Maydew) The new tax bill gradually raises the exemption from estate taxes from the current $675,000 to $3.5 million by the year 2009. The estate tax is then scheduled to be repealed for the year 2010 (through only for one year). So the new law is much better for estate holders in Nebraska and Iowa who hold a lot of appreciated farmland, right? Not so fast. Accompanying the repeal of estate taxes will be a change in the income tax basis for inherited assets that will be much worse for all but a handful of estates than is the current estate tax. Under current law, the income tax basis of property inherited is ``stepped up'' to fair market value at death. This means that the unrealized capital gains existing at death are never taxed. The new law will, effective in 2010, change the basis to what is known as a carry-over basis. Result: The seller of the property will have a whopping capital gains tax bill. Example 1: Assume that I.B. Widow dies in 2001 holding farmland with a value of $1 million. The land was purchased many years ago at a cost of $200,000. After deducting various expenses, her taxable estate before the exemption is $675,000. Therefore the unified credit (which has an exemption equivalency of $675,000) results in zero tax. Shortly thereafter, her heirs sell the land. Because their income tax basis is stepped up to $1 million, they will have little or no taxable gain on the sale. Example 2: Assume the same facts except that she dies in 2010. Again there is no estate tax: But now when her heirs sell the farmland, her tax basis of $200,000 carries over to them. Result: They have an $800,000 capital gain and could owe as much as $160,000 of tax. Congress must have a short memory. The stepped-up basis rule was briefly repealed in 1976. The resulting outcry from tax practitioners who had the difficult (often impossible) job of determining the tax basis of decedents' property was so loud that Congress retroactively repealed the law change. Under current law, only a tiny percentage of decedents even have to file federal estate tax returns (3.4 percent for those who died in 1995). Only 668 estate tax returns of Nebraska residents were filed in 1997. Those decedents had an average gross estate of about $1,480,000 and paid an average estate tax of slightly more than $94,000. So in return for exempting a very small number of wealthy decedents from estate tax, we will be subjecting millions of heirs to a capital gains tax on property they inherit, and further subjecting them to the difficulty of providing the tax basis of property that may have been acquired decades earlier. This is not a good trade-off.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to engage in this colloquy regarding the Congressional Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China. As the chairman knows, the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China is being created pursuant to P.L. No. 106- 286. This Member is pleased to note the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is also a member of this important commission designed to report on human rights development and the rule of law in the People's Republic of China. Because it was expected to take considerable time to bring the commission's operations into being, including the actual naming of the congressional and executive branch members, the fiscal year 2001 appropriation was set at only $.5 million. We expect the commission will begin functioning in the coming weeks. Therefore, in anticipation of a full active commission, this Member had earlier suggested an amount of $1.5 million to cover the commission's operations for the full fiscal year of 2002. This Member would ask the chairman about his willingness to seek adequate funding for the commission, as we would certainly trust the chairman's judgment in seeking such adequate funding in conference.

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the July 4, 2001, editorial from the Omaha World-Herald entitled ``Americans All.'' It ran exactly 225 years after America's forefathers declared independence from England. At that time, no one could have envisioned how the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence would continue to attract immigrants from around the world. Mr. Speaker, immigrants who legally traverse the U.S. immigration system should be highly lauded. Indeed, they have made incredible sacrifices to attain freedom and the chance to pursue their dreams. Therefore, it is incumbent upon this body to continue to support legal immigration and the efforts of immigrants to become U.S. citizens for only through citizenship can immigrants, who contribute so much to other aspects of American society, fully participate in our unique political process. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 4, 2001] Americans All We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--Declaration of Independence As Midlanders celebrate the 225th anniversary of America's decision to end its status as a collection of colonies, it is instructive and heartening to note that this region is in a real sense a showcase for the degree to which the Declaration remains a living document. Nebraska and Iowa in particular are increasingly becoming a focus not just of immigration but of immigrants who take the important and self-affirming step of becoming U.S. citizens. Those who do so are immersing themselves in the old, yet ever young, quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which often were not available in their native lands. The numbers are not yet huge, but the math involved is impressive. Naturalizations--mostly of people from Latin America but also from Lithuania and Asia and points all over--have grown impressively in the last decade. Many come for jobs, often in this region's meatpacking plants. But it is noteworthy that increasingly they are coming here, rather than to more traditional venues like California, Texas and the East Coast. Many believe that economic prospects are brighter in this part of the country, and for the most part they find easy acceptance. Last year, 4,245 people became U.S. citizens in Iowa and Nebraska. Contrast that with the figure of 897 as recently as 1992--almost a fourfold increase. (this Friday, at least 250 new citizens will be sworn at Lexington, Neb.) He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither. . . . It is worth remembering that one of the complaints the authors of the Declaration fielded against England's King George III was that his policies sharply restricted immigration. George correctly saw burgeoning population as a threat to his hold on the colonies. And while he could do nothing about population growth in America due to the natural margin of births over deaths, he could and did try to strangle further influx. Today, although immigration and naturalization still present some roadblocks, the picture is much brighter. Among those who want to plant their futures here, for the most part they do better if they become citizens. They then have more of a stake, more of a say. And, to their credit, the process requires work. It's not like signing up for a supermarket discount card or acquiring a driver's license. The procedure usually takes about a year. There's a standard $250 processing fee, and along the way there's an FBI background check, an interview and a civics test. So it's not easy, but at least it's achievable and the process is regularized and fair. Completing it is, and ought to be, a source of pride. Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. . . . We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. . . . As has been often noted, this is a nation of immigrants. In the Midlands, that immigration has to a great degree meant Germans and Irish, and in lesser numbers Poles, English, Scandinavians, Czechs and the descendants of freed slaves. Today, Latinos and, to a lesser degrees, those of Asian origins are changing the face of society here--figuratively and literally. It is, we believe, incumbent on those who got here first to extend a welcome to those who are making their own trips and taking up citizenship as the 20th century fades into the 21st. For the most part, this is happening seamlessly. For the most part, this is happening seamlessly. The newest arrivals are being assimilated and recognized for their strengths. To be candid, Iowa and Nebraska would have difficulty sustaining population growth without them. The process feeds on itself. Newcomers who become citizens (or legal residents) are in turn entitled to serve as sponsors for relatives' applications. And so it goes. The faces change somewhat. The goals and dreams do not. Nearly everyone who comes here and becomes a part of the American matrix is seeking essentially the same things the Founders were taking about 225 years ago. Americans are all in this together. They draw strength for new blood, new ideas. That's the indisputable past, and it is the inevitable future.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. It has been very well explained by many of my colleagues, including the distinguished primary sponsor of this legislation and the original act, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). So I will not have to go over the details, that is for sure; but I do want to mention and reemphasize one thing the gentleman from Ohio said and, that is, that the program builds upon former President George Bush's innovative Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and is another creative example of how our country can address developing-country debt while helping to protect the environment. The act gives the President the authority to reduce certain forms of development assistance and food aid debt owed to the United States in exchange for the deposit by eligible developing countries of local currencies in a tropical forest fund to preserve, restore and maintain tropical forests. These funds are used by qualified nongovernmental organizations working to preserve the world's most endangered tropical forests. A board of directors in the United States comprised of U.S. public and private officials oversees this program and annually reports to Congress on progress made to implement the program. The gentleman from Ohio was gracious in mentioning at the time the House International Relations Committee proceeded to mark up the original act. Frankly, I was interested in Bangladesh because when it has come to debt forgiveness or debt reduction in the past, by a strange set of circumstances, Bangladesh has fallen through the cracks and they needed some assistance. I wanted to make sure that they were not neglected. It turns out they are the first beneficiary of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. Before I offered my amendment to assure eligibility for Bangladesh I had to look to see if it had a tropical forest to be saved in that country of such huge population density with all of its drought and flooding problems. They do. As mentioned in terms of square miles, I will put it in square kilometers, 14,000 square kilometers of tropical forest areas in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and in the Sunderbans. As mentioned by the gentleman from Ohio, this is one of the few remaining refuges for the Bengal tiger. Currently, the Bangladeshi board of directors, which will disburse the trust funds, is reviewing how similar boards operate in establishing its procedures for implementing the agreement. There are only 11 countries considering it right now on three different continents, but I have no doubt the number will expand dramatically when interested people and their governments understand the benefits. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to very specifically commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the sponsor of this legislation and the original act; and the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their leadership and support for conservation efforts in the developing world and for their work to reauthorize this program. Of course, the expedited treatment of this legislation by our chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), is also to be commended; and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges all of our colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, as it provides direct benefits to both developing and developed countries.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2330, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important projects of interest to the State of Nebraska. First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 2330 provides $461,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The alliance is an association of 12 leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing technologies. The MAFMA awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching funds. During the seventh year of competition, MAFMA received 39 proposals requesting a total of $1,382,555. Eleven proposals were funded for a total of $348,147. Matching funds from industry for these funded projects total $605,601 with an additional $57,115 from in-kind funds. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing and processing industries. Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing worldwide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing worldwide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link between universities and industries for the development of competitive food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure that the U.S. agricultural industry remains competitive in an increasingly competitive global economy. This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and has assisted numerous States and cities in developing drought plans and developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented levels of drought in several parts of our country, this effort is obviously important. Furthermore, this Member is also pleased that the measure provides $700,000 for efforts at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to improve biomass for feedstocks. The research will benefit the environment and the agricultural economy. It also holds the potential to greatly reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and the University of Georgia. The mission of this alliance is to assist the development and modification of food processing and preservation technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue to receive the safest and highest quality food possible. This Member is also pleased that the legislation funds the following ongoing Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Food Processing Center: $42,000; non-food agricultural products: $64,000; sustainable agricultural systems: $59,000; Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) (a joint effort with Iowa State University and the University of Missouri): $1,300,000. In addition, this Member is pleased that the bill directs the Agriculture Research Service to collect and focus $300,000 at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to address sorghum fungal plant pathology concerns. This funding will fill a critical need for fungal pathology research for sorghum in the central Great Plains and the United States. This Member would also note that H.R. 2330 includes $99.77 million for the section 538, the rural rental multifamily housing loan guarantee program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring 10 percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100 percent Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current section 515 direct loan program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly appreciates the $3.1 billion appropriation for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program. The program has been very effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in nonmetropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 2330 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the House prepares to consider the next Farm Bill, this Member commends to his colleagues the following analysis by Roy Frederick, a highly respected public policy specialist in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Dr. Frederick's analysis examines the pros and cons of production controls for agriculture and provides helpful insights on this difficult issue. [From the Nebraska State Paper] Are Production Controls Desirable for Agriculture? (By Roy Frederick) LINCOLN--You can count on it. One of the more contentious items in the upcoming farm bill debate will be whether we should return to production controls in a new law. Set-asides and other land-idling schemes were a part of most every farm bill from 1933 through 1990. But passage of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act in 1996 broke the mold. Under current law, farmers are not required to take land out of production as a precondition to receiving supports from the federal government. Critics say that the lack of a supply-adjustment mechanism in the 1996 act is a serious flaw. Prices for all the major crops grown in Nebraska have been lackluster since mid-1998. Why not spur prices higher by restricting bushels offered to the marketplace? It seems like a logical question that deserves an answer. Supporters of the current system respond that commodities are produced and marketed around the world. Any attempt to reduce U.S. production might be met by increased production elsewhere. Some livestock feeders also wouldn't be happy with the prospect of higher feed costs. Then there's the matter of how agribusinesses feel about it. Many survive on the basis of volume; the more acres in production, the better it is for farm-related businesses. Recently, formal studies by agricultural economists at the University of Maryland and Iowa State University examined the land-idling question in greater depth. In the first study, the focus was on inefficiencies caused by taking land out of production. That is, not only may land be taken out of its highest and best use, but other inputs, such as machinery and equipment, may be underused as well. The estimated cost to producers and consumers of a modest land retirement scheme is $2 billion to $4 billion a year, the study found. The Iowa State study assumed that land planted to all major crops in the United States was reduced by 10 percent. Moreover, that reduction remained in place for eight years. At the end of the period, prices for corn and soybeans would be 13 percent higher and 6 percent higher, respectively, than if the idling had not occurred. So far, so good. However, the authors of the latter study point out two big caveats. First, with 10 percent fewer acres, total revenue declines by whatever the revenue would have been on acres taken out of production. More importantly, if producers do what they've done in the past, they will attempt to increase production on the remaining 90 percent of land left in production. To the extent they are successful, price increases of the magnitude suggested above may not be realized. The authors conclude that the price impact of a 10 percent reduction in planted acreage is probably overstated.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Calahan), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the Floor. This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the Subcommittee much more difficult this year. Therefore, the Subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. This Member greatly appreciates the $11 million funding level provided for the four-state Missouri River Mitigation Project. The funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. This islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days. In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri River Mitigation project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan. In addition, this measure provides additional funding for flood- related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 1st Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this member is extremely pleased that H.R. 2311 continues funding in the amount of $350,000 for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and tributaries. This Member is also pleases that this bill includes $100,000 in funding requested by this member for the feasibility phase of a Section 206 wetlands restoration project in Butler County, Nebraska. The key element of the plan is the incorporation of a wetlands restoration project northwest of David City, Nebraska. This restoration was supported by a Natural Resources Conservation Service preliminary determination of wetlands potential for a 160-acre tract northwest of David City, Nebraska. Under the proposed project, storm water that currently travels northwest of David City will be diverted west before reaching the city, and then channeled south along a county road before being detained in the proposed wetlands area. The storm water will then slowly be released from the wetlands area so that there are no negative impacts to downstream landowners. It is also important to note that this legislation includes $200,000 requested by this Member which would be implemented through the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District on behalf of the Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance. This amount represents the 50% Federal share under Section 503 of the Water Resources Development of 1996, to assess and plan for water quality infrastructure and improvements in the Lower Platte River Watershed concentrating on dire drinking water and wastewater needs within the Lower Platte River Corridor, between and including the communities of Ashland and Louisville, in Saunders and Cass counties, Nebraska. This Member is also pleased that H.R. 2311 includes $1,800,000 for the Missouri National Recreational River, which could be used for projects such as the Missouri River Research and Education Center at Ponca State Park in Nebraska. This center is located at the terminus of the last stretch of natural (unchannelized) river below the mainstem reservoirs and a 59-mile stretch of the Missouri River, which was designated as a Recreational River in 1978 under the Wild and Scenic River Act. It is one of the few stretches of the Missouri River that is like the beautiful untamed river seen by Lewis and Clark. The Missouri River is one of the most historic, scenic and biologically diverse rivers in North America. The proposed research and education center will serve as a ``working'' interpretive center for the river and include interactive displays and exhibits. It will provide a timeline for the vast riverine ecosystem as well as an upstream view of the beginning of the Missouri National Recreation River. When completed the center will also include a classroom/ conference room facility. This Member recognizes that this bill includes $656,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, Nebraska, and $400,000 for the Antelope Creek project in Lincoln, Nebraska. However, this funding is to be used for preconstruction engineering and design work. This Member believes that it is critically important that the final version of the FY2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation include some funding for construction of these projects. Funding for these projects is particularly urgent. There is a cooperative effort in Nebraska between the state highway agency and water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead of a bridge as part of the new state expressway in the immediate vicinity of Wahoo, Nebraska. Immediate funding would help ensure that this coordinated effort could continue. Construction funding is also needed for the Antelope Creek project. It would be a significant setback to the project timetable if the Corps does not receive construction funding the project in FY2002. Delays in other components of the project would also likely result. Finally, this Member is also pleased that H.R. 2311 provides $275,000 in funding for the Missouri National Recreational River Project. This project addresses a serious problem by protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous work on the river by the Federal Government. Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District, as well as to the people living in the Missouri River Basin.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2299, the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee for their hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important projects of interest to the State of Nebraska. This Member is particularly pleased that this appropriations bill includes $1,517,000 for preliminary work leading to the construction of bridges in Plattsmouth and Sarpy County to replace two obsolete and deteriorating bridges. The request for these funds was made by this Member as well as the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the distinguished gentlemen from Iowa (Mr. Ganske and Mr. Boswell). The agreement leading to the funding was the result of intensive discussions and represents the consensus of city, county and state officials as well as the affected Members of Congress. The construction of these replacement bridges (a Plattsmouth U.S. 34 bridge and State Highway 370 bridge in Bellevue) will result in increased safety and improved economic development in the area. Clearly, the bridge projects would benefit both counties and the surrounding region. This Member is also pleased that the bill includes $325,000 requested by this Member for the construction of a 1.7-mile bicycle and pedestrian trail on State Spur 26E right-of-way, which connects Ponca State Park and the Missouri National Recreational River Corridor to the City of Ponca. This trail will play an important role as the area prepares for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition and the significant increase in tourism which it will help generate. The approaching bicentennial represents a significant national opportunity and it is crucial that communities such as Ponca have the resources necessary to prepare for this significant commemoration. The trail will provide the infrastructure necessary to improve the quality of life by providing pedestrian and bicycle access between Ponca and the Ponca State Park and increases the potential for economic benefits in the surrounding region. The trail addresses serious safety issues by providing a separate off-road facility for bicyclists and pedestrians. This member would also like to mention that this bill provides more than $2.6 million in Section 5307 urban area formula funding for mass transit in Lincoln, Nebraska. This represents an increase of $230,753 over the FY2001 level. Finally, this bill includes $1,976,000 for Nebraska's Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). This funding, which was requested by this Member and the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), is to be used to facilitate travel efficiencies and increased safety within the state. The Nebraska Department of Roads has identified numerous opportunities where ITS could be used to assist urban and rural transportation. For instance, the proposed Statewide Joint Operations Center would provide a unifying element allowing ITS components to share information and function as an intermodal transportation system. Among its many functions, the Joint Operations Center will facilitate rural and statewide maintenance vehicle fleet management, roadway management and roadway maintenance conditions. Overall, the practical effect will be to save lives, time and money. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this member supports H.R. 2299 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). The amendment would increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) by $10 million, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) by $3 million and the Institute for Museums and Library Services by $2 million. The funds would be taken from the Clean Coal Technology Program and which would not be available until September 29, 2002. Nebraska is extremely well-served by the Nebraska Arts Council. For FY2001, the Council received a total of $522,600, from the formula NEA grant and additional competitive grants. This Member has been particularly supportive of the Nebraska Arts Council efforts to provide arts education and artists visits to rural schools, where there would be little or no access to arts education without the Council's involvement. Additionally, as part of a state-wide effort, the Nebraska Arts Council is hoping to have sufficient resources to provide funding for a series of murals in Nebraska City to commemorate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. This effort will contribute to the success of the Lewis and Clark events scheduled in Nebraska City and will enhance the experience of those visiting for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial. Federal funding for the arts allows small towns and communities across Nebraska to bring dancers and poets to schools, and lectures on Impressionist painting to town halls in the Sandhills. Federal support of the arts means that Lincoln, Nebraska, has a Civic Symphony and Omaha, Nebraska, a children's theater. These programs and institutions enrich all Nebraskans and are deserving of our wholehearted and enthusiastic support. In addition, this Member is strongly supportive of the excellent work done by the Nebraska Council on the Humanities. In an earlier statement today, this Member mentioned, as an example, the Humanities involvement in the Lewis and Clark bicentennial. In addition to the Teacher Institute, which will be held over the next few years, the Nebraska Humanities Council has many other programs that are related to the Lewis and Clark commemorations in Nebraska. There is a scholar-in-residence program, in which a nationally known expert share his knowledge and enthusiasm with students in six to ten schools over several years. Several annual Chautauquas will be devoted to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial through 2005. There will be teacher seminars and lectures in addition to the continuing availability of the existing speakers bureau. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Slaughter/Dicks amendment.