Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the Interior appropriations bill. This Member is pleased that the funding requested by the Bush Administration for construction of the Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, is included in this measure. It appears an amendment will be offered to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The National Endowment of the Humanities serves my constituents and the state of Nebraska through the programs of the Nebraska Humanities Council. The Nebraska Humanities Council consistently provides high-quality humanities programming at very little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my state. The Nebraska Council has been quite active in promoting the commemoration of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. For example, the Nebraska Council has instituted a six-year Lewis and Clark Educational Initiative. The Council held the first of several Lewis and Clark Teacher Institutes earlier this month. Each institute will be taught by a leading Lewis and Clark scholar. There were almost 200 applicants for 25 available slots. The teachers attending the first institute sincerely appreciated the opportunity and are exited about sharing what they learned with their students, schools, and communities. The Nebraska Council uses the Federal dollars to leverage private grants and funds. These efforts to promote the Lewis and Clark expedition will greatly enrich the lives of Nebraskans and certainly go to the heart of the mission of the state councils of the National Endowment of the Humanities.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises to express support for H. Con. Res. 154, recognizing the role of Army National Guard combat units operating in Bosnia. The distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is to be commended for introducing this legislation which also recognizes the sacrifices of reservists' families during arduous deployments. Additionally, this Member wishes to use this occasion to recognize the crucial role Army National Guard support units play in NATO peacekeeping missions. Simply, the Army National Guard combat units cannot perform their overseas duties without the assistance of support units. For example, the 24th Medical Company, which is based in this Member's district and is comprised of reservists from Nebraska and Kansas, deployed to Bosnia in 1999. During its deployment, the company provided key medical assistance for NATO forces. In one instance, the company even found itself rescuing a combat unit which found itself trapped in a minefield. To avoid detonation of the mines, the combat unit stood on the hood of its vehicle as the 24th Medical Company lowered its helicopter and whisked the other unit to safety. Support units often are placed into precarious situations and are deserving of recognition for their efforts beyond their routine duties. Madam Speaker, legislation such as H. Con. Res. 154 offers Congress an opportunity to reaffirm the important role of all National Guard combat and support such units in each of the armed services.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank my colleague from New York for his outstanding statement. It is obvious he has gained a lot and made a major contribution by his comments here tonight. But I am also impressed by the fact that both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) made major contributions to the defense committee in one case and the political committee in the other case during our meetings in Vilnius. I think maybe as we look ahead as to what our role is as a Congress, as the United States, we ought to recognize and I think emphasize to our colleagues that leadership from the United States is going to be required to expand NATO, appropriately expand it, to countries that meet the criteria. President Bush is in Europe at this moment. He is about to make an address in Warsaw. It will be, as I understand it, a major address on NATO. It is my strong desire and hope that the President will clearly indicate that there are no new barriers or any old barriers to NATO membership and that no part of Europe would be excluded because of history or geography. In short, there is no veto. We are going to look appropriately at the northern part of eastern and central Europe, the Baltic region, and countries like Slovenia and Slovakia in the center. And I would hope there will be one or more countries in southeastern Europe, in the Balkan region, that will qualify in our judgment and the judgment of the other 18 members of NATO for membership. It seems to me if one or more of those countries in the Balkans meets the criteria and can be brought in, it is an outstanding example to the other countries and ethnic groups in that troubled part of Europe that there is an opportunity for them to have a higher degree of security through NATO membership and perhaps to successfully aspire to membership in the European Union as well. I do want to say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that I recognize the contribution he has made by resolution that he has introduced before the Congress. It calls for the admission of new members to NATO, including the Baltic states, when the criteria for membership is fulfilled. And that is what it should come down to. So I heartily endorse and am pleased to be a cosponsor of the gentleman's legislation. It is the kind of initiative we had some time ago when we moved the country, moved the NATO alliance, towards expansion to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. I look to my colleagues for any concluding comments they might make in the last 5 minutes or so. I will yield to the gentleman from Florida, and then I will go to the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And on a practical side, of course foreign investors, which are so important in that region, look to NATO membership as something that will bring security to their investments. We heard that in Bulgaria. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Including the Baltic Brigade, and elements of Lithuania and Poland are there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I hope he will make contributions any time he feels the urge to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Russians have benefited economically from Poland's emergence as a market-oriented economy and as a part of the West. I have every expectation that this would happen with the Baltic nations as well. Russia uses those ports. The Baltic people are very entrepreneurial in their outlook. There is no doubt that there would be benefits to their next-door neighbor Russia as well in my judgment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to relate the experience I saw, at a little booth there with the jeweler working and displaying his ware, and he had NATO, yes. My family was sent to Siberia. His entire family never came back from Siberia, so he wanted to make sure that does not reoccur in some fashion in the future. There was this artisan who has a very strong commitment to NATO membership for Lithuania.

Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman from New York has any concluding remarks, I yield to him.

Mr. BEREUTER. Surprisingly, I have been accused of working the delegation too hard. I cannot understand that, but I yield back.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I have taken this hour under the leadership's prerogatives this evening in order to address three related subjects. I will be joined, I am sure, by some of my colleagues who also have something to say about these subjects because of their recent involvement in a meeting. First of all, I would like to spend some time talking about the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; second, relatedly, about the subject of NATO expansion, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion; and third, about two of nine applicant countries, Lithuania and Bulgaria. It has been my privilege to participate in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, formerly known as the North Atlantic Assembly, since 1984 on a rather regular basis. Since 1995, I have had the opportunity to chair the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This organization, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, has now been in existence and operating efficiently and I think quite effectively for more than 40 years, first for the 12 countries of the NATO Alliance, later expanded to 16, and now 19 members. Congress participates as a result of a statutory decision which provides for participation for both the House and Senate and bipartisan delegations that meet with our European and Canadian allies in NATO, their parliamentarians semi-annually, and in fact a third meeting that involves part of the assembly which takes place in Brussels in February, where we meet not only with our colleagues from the NATO countries but also with officials of NATO, the North Atlantic Council, the Secretary General of NATO, and more recently, with the European Union and some of its components, like the European Commission and the European Parliament. Without a doubt, the NATO organization, NATO, has been the most effective collective defense alliance in the history of the world. It has provided the collective security to those nations of Western Europe, and it is no surprise that many countries of the former Warsaw Pact now aspire to membership not only to the European Union but to NATO itself. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has provided a forum for discussion, for dialogue, for research by the parliamentarians of the 16, now 19, NATO countries. It is by, all accounts, the most substantive of all of the interparliamentary efforts in which the House and Senate are involved. The members of the delegation from the House and from the Senate are chosen by the leadership on both sides of the aisle to participate in this assembly, and we have always proceeded in a bipartisan fashion. Our comments tonight are prompted by the fact that we have recently returned from one of our semiannual meetings. This one was in Vilnius, Lithuania. Lithuania is not a member of NATO, but as the Soviet Union collapsed, as the Iron Curtain came down, as Yugoslavia began to disintegrate, we had a substantial concern and interest in assuring that these nations of the former Warsaw Pact and indeed parts of the Soviet Union were given an opportunity to benefit from participation in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly as associate members, because it was our view that if we could help them, particularly in their parliamentary bodies, move towards democratic institutions and practices, this would be a major service to those countries. In fact, we had a very successful and very organized effort to reach out to these countries' parliamentarians and to the parliaments themselves. We called it the Rose-Ross Seminar. They were financed in significant part by the United States, through the U.S. Agency for International Development funds, but now they are supported by the assembly itself, with contributions from other countries. The U.S. no longer has a predominant role in financing these seminars, but they were meant to help these parliamentarians and the leaders of those governments, civilian, military, to understand what it was like to participate and work in a democracy; to build democratic institutions; and, in fact, to try to provide transparency in budgeting, civilian control of the military, and eventually, of course, interoperability with NATO forces, if that is the course they chose. Nine of those countries have chosen to aspire to and formally request membership in NATO. They range across the face of Central and Eastern Europe from the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania down to Bulgaria in southeastern Europe. They are known today as the Vilnius Nine, from a meeting of the nine that recently took place in Vilnius. I notice that we are joined by one of my colleagues, who is the vice- chairman of the Political Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly here in the House. My colleagues know him as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I think as my colleagues appear, since they have busy schedules, we will just let them speak to any of the three subjects that are related that we wish to discuss tonight. We will talk about the assembly itself and how it operates, about the fact that we visited two of the aspiring members, and about the subject of NATO expansion. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss).

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. At the Lithuania meeting, I think the controversial elements on our agenda included the Albanian ethnic conflict in Macedonia or the former Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonia. We always talk about burden-sharing. We are concerned and interested as constructive critics over what the European Union will be doing on creating a European security and defense policy, or ESDI, some would say. They wanted to know our views on missile defense, a limited missile defense that the President is addressing now at various points in Europe. But I think ultimately it always comes back to, as one element in our discussion, the subject of NATO enlargement. I think it is appropriate for the gentleman and for this delegation to talk to our colleagues in the House and to the Congress in front of the American people about the U.S. role in enlargement and the advantages that brings to the Alliance, and the responsibilities we have to assure that worthy applicants, countries that have met some of the criteria that the gentleman mentioned, have an opportunity to bring the NATO umbrella over them and to make a contribution to the collective security. The first enlargement of NATO was an easy one when the Federal Republic of Germany took into its arms the German Democratic Republic, East Germany. As a result of the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Iron Curtain, that was an easy addition. But then we may remember, and I am sure the gentleman does because he was involved in it, along with this Member, that it was the House of Representatives that really took the lead in pushing for the enlargement of NATO. The Senate followed us, and then the Clinton administration, in recognizing and supporting the Congress of the United States, took the leadership role within the North Atlantic Council in the meeting of our Secretary of State with their foreign ministers and our Ministers of Defense, and pushed for NATO enlargement. For us, we have always said the doors are open, as long as these countries are willing to move towards democratic institutions and to assure civilian control of their military and to have no aspirations for the territory of their neighbors, to make the kind of commitments necessary for providing an adequate defense, to contribute to the NATO alliance, they ought to be eligible for membership. So we have as a result of that, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland as the first round of members by a decision in 1999. I think the only disappointment in the Congress is that one other country, Slovenia, which most of us had considered to be quite worthy of membership at that time and, indeed, that was the expression of the Congress, was not taken in. But they are certainly a leading candidate for the next round. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) mentioned that this decision will come before us again as a group of 19 NATO countries in Prague in 2002. My estimate is that unless the United States takes the leadership, expansion will not proceed at that time. And I think we have that responsibility. We have, within the U.S. government, I think, a leading role. I only regret that votes on the tax cut bill kept us from visiting one other country, because Slovakia, among the first four considered for membership that took a different turn in its politics, now has made dramatic advances; and we were planning to visit Slovakia, as well as Lithuania and Bulgaria. I might explain to my colleagues that we solicit advice from a number of sources, our State Department, people outside government, the supreme commander of Europe, General Joseph Ralston, as to the countries we might visit now as being among the front runners for NATO membership and countries that needed to have recognition for the advances that they have taken. That is how we selected our visitation as a result of the trip to Vilnius. I wonder if the gentleman has any reaction to the demonstrations that we saw in Vilnius, Lithuania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, one of the surprises to me has been the reluctance in the past, and I think today, of some of our European NATO allies to embrace expansion. They have been very slow to expand the European Union east when that is an important element of bringing economic prosperity and stability to Europe, to make Europe, as we say, one, whole in one, and safe for democracy and for people to pursue their dreams and their aspirations. We have, I suppose, some reluctance on the part of some of the European countries because they see their economic relationship, perhaps the debt that they have with Russia as a point of concern. I should say their creditors have debt, that the Russian government owes those banks. I think it will take American leadership once more. Perhaps that leadership will come from this House when we insist that the door remains open. It is not a matter of whether or not NATO is going to expand, it is when, and when the countries make the necessary steps. The GNP contributions of Bulgaria, for example, are 3 percent. We are pushing hard for some of our existing NATO membership to reach 2 percent because the quality of the forces has deteriorated in some of our NATO member countries. And we look at this in sort of amazement and concern when they are actually creating an ESDP, another entity, a rapid reaction force within the European Union. I know the President is going to be pushed hard to be explicit about what direction, which countries should be brought in, and in my judgment at least that is not appropriate for him to make that kind of explicit statement at this point. But we want to encourage all of those members to meet the requirements, the criteria listed or otherwise, that will qualify them for membership. So I hope that, in fact, the President gets an opportunity in Warsaw, where he is expected to make comments about this, to give every encouragement to the nine aspirant countries.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. They are exactly right. It should bring some additional stability to the region, and the Russians really should have nothing really to fear. Let me go back briefly to give a history of what has happened to the Baltic Nations. Back in the late 1930s, we had the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop which ceded those three Baltic nations to the Soviet Union, and then they were forcibly annexed, and thousands of people were killed or sent to Siberia and then we had the Nazi invasion of the region, and they come under Nazi control before they fell back under the control of the Soviet Union. Now, to the resounding credit and resounding yet today, the United States never recognized the annexation of these three nations into the Soviet Union. In fact, you could go up 16th Street and see some of the embassies, free Lithuania and free Estonia and free Latvia operating, and the diplomats actually got to be old men and women here waiting for freedom which finally came with their way with great difficulty. One of our colleagues who has taken a very special interest in the NATO parliamentary assembly, participating only since the February meeting, but an even greater and longer-term interest in the Baltic Nations is our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for any comments he would like to make about NATO enlargement or Lithuania or whatever subject he would like to discuss.

Mr. BEREUTER. Those rallies in support of NATO membership?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to Bulgaria in a minute. But I want to comment briefly again on the Baltics because those three countries have not had it easy. There has been a significant Russian population from some of them, particularly Latvia, not so much in Lithuania. So the tensions have been there as they have moved to an independent status. The language issues. But I think they have done an admirable job of addressing those and trying to permit full participation of Russian and other non-Baltic nation ethnics into their society. I also think it is interesting how much they look to the United States as a role model and how much we have to live up to to meet their expectations. Well, for example, there is a big American connection in so many ways and in the government of those three Baltic states. One finds U.S. citizens who have dual citizenships in the parliaments of all three countries. The President of Lithuania is a former resident of Chicago, I believe was the EPA Regional Administrator. The very impressive President of Latvia, indeed, spent much of her career as a scientist and as a teacher in Canada and had many connections with the United States. I know as I have gone in the past to the Baltic States, first in 1996, I think, as a part of our outreach to their parliaments with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and our former colleague Congressman Solomon, the Omaha Lithuanian community was very interested in discussing my upcoming trip and then having to report back because they have a sister city relationship with one of the communities in Lithuania. Indeed, I have a large Latvian active community in my own major city of Lincoln. So we have had this American association. The Scandinavian countries have provided some assistance, particularly Denmark. It has been an effort to bring them along through the Partnership for Peace Program and to participate, as the gentleman says, in peacekeeping activities in the Balkan region. I visited Bulgaria for the first time, I think, in about 1983, and what a different place that was compared to today. They had a very different and more positive relationship with Russia, the Soviet Union, than with any other of the so-called satellite countries in the Warsaw Pact, probably because they shared more closely a religion, language, and they had no common border with the Soviet Union, perhaps the important distinction. In fact, the czar had been in there twice to in their view rescue them from the Ottoman Empire. But in any case, I think what has happened in Bulgaria has also been equally impressive because they have embraced democracy. They have taken an interesting turn or two in the process. But their elections have been free and fair by international observers' unanimous view. They are facing another one on June 17. So the American delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly will perhaps pay more attention to that than most Americans. But it is every expectation it is going to be a free and fair election. Perhaps the government party will have to share power. But when they went through that election in 1997, they took a different course even more emphatically, and they became very concerned about embracing ethnic differences in their own country, about being a good neighbor to Macedonia. They have a positive relationship with two of our NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, that sometimes have their differences. Bulgaria, in fact, has become an element of peace and stability in that region. We watched their changes there, their suffering difficulties. Their people are impatient for more economic progress. They have the problems of the mafia from other countries that plague them. But I think they are striving in a very direct fashion, and it is going to give them the kind of results that those citizens of Bulgaria want, if they have enough patience, if we help them and give them every opportunity to justify their applicant status in NATO. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his bringing that up. It has always been bipartisan. In fact, we have had presidents of the assembly itself that are Democratic colleagues on the House side; and more recently, our former senior Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, was the president. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), who made his first visit to a NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Vilnius, and we welcome him to the delegation. I am interested in what a newcomer's attitudes and outlook would be about what he saw in Vilnius.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. I thank all my colleagues. And I want to say that I appreciate the written remarks submitted by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our Democratic senior member of the Committee on International Relations, who is very supportive for NATO expansion. His views are very consistent with those I think we expressed here tonight.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and commend him for taking the important initiative on this important subject tonight and am pleased to be here with my colleagues from Illinois, Nebraska and Iowa. We have had some discussion about the problems brought on by MTBEs and I am glad the gentleman brought that to the forefront with his colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). I would begin by strongly commending President Bush for his decision to deny California's request for a waiver of the reformulated gasoline, the RFG oxygenation requirement. I think this is a huge victory for the American farmers and it is a huge victory for our environment. One of the problems, of course, with the additives used in California and in other States, the MTBE, is that we know now it causes cancer. It is highly soluble in water. It does not biodegrade. Indeed, the problem of MTBE, of course, is not limited to California. It is estimated that about 21 percent of the drinking water wells in RFG areas are contaminated nationwide, and the proper solution to California's problem is to switch to using ethanol to meet the Federal oxygen standards. Now, the impact, of course, on agriculture is particularly important. We will be the first to admit that because we have low commodity prices. Using my State as an example, Nebraska produces about 20 percent of our country's ethanol. The State estimates that its seven ethanol plants would have generated $1 billion in investment and 1,300 jobs. So the decision by President Bush on the California request creates outstanding expansion opportunities for our State just as it does for other ethanol-producing areas of the country. Our governor is Mike Johanns. He is currently the Chairman of the National Governors Association Ethanol Coalition. We are proud of the leadership that he and other governors are bringing to this issue. Their estimate, the coalition's estimate, is that the ethanol industry has the capacity of doubling in size by 2004 and tripling by 2010 without disruption in supply or increasing consumer prices. I want to quote also an analysis released earlier this year by the renowned economist John M. Urbanchuk. He is Executive Vice President of AUS Consultants. He found that greater ethanol use has positive implications for our Nation's economy. The study found that quadrupling the use of ethanol over the next 15 years would save American consumers $57.5 million in 1996 dollars, so it would be more today. This is the equivalent of nearly $540 per household in the U.S. In the process, more than 156,000 new jobs would be created throughout the economy by 2015. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency now projects a figure of imported oil, 60 percent now, would grow to 70 percent unless we take some changes. Ethanol deserves to be a part of a national energy policy and we have just seen a step forward with the President's decision, and we are ready to meet the challenges. So I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and I look forward to hearing what the rest of my colleagues have to say and perhaps engaging further with my colleagues, but I thank the gentleman for the initiative.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, there was a range of interesting reactions to the Bush administration's statements last week that they were willing to resume talks with the government of North Korea, the DPRK, some suggesting this was a reversal of policy, perhaps a return to the North Korean foreign policy of the Clinton administration. Rather, the last 4- to 5-month period should be recognized as an appropriate pause in our intensive contacts with North Korea to reexamine the goals, tactics, achievements, and failures of American policy toward North Korea. During the last few years, there have been substantial and growing congressional concerns, especially among Republicans, over the Clinton administration's North Korea policy. North Korea is arguably the most dangerous and erratic nation in Asia, perhaps the world, with a ruling clique that is intent on surviving even at any cost to its people. Indeed, their policies have killed huge numbers of their people through starvation. I believe it remains the place where there is the greatest chance of U.S. troops becoming militarily engaged in a terrible conflict. The DPRK continues to forward-deploy a 1.2 million-man army. While finally agreeing to an indefinitely defined moratorium on missile flight tests, North Korea continues to develop and produce ballistic missiles, some of which are now capable of reaching the United States. In addition, there are certain indications that the DPRK may be maintaining a covert nuclear program. Economically and socially, the ``Hermit Kingdom'' has come to the crossroads and must decide whether it continues on its path towards oblivion or whether it wants to dramatically reform its conduct and join the community of responsible nations. Logically, the United States should be in a position to significantly influence the DPRK's behavior. Instead, however, we find ourselves in a position where over the last few years North Korea has consistently been rewarded for outrageous behavior or for threatening such conduct. North Korean behavior resembles that of the 18th century Barbary pirates, demanding ever-increasing levels of tribute from America, and some of its neighbors, in return for marginally tolerable behavior. Overall, the preceding administration seemed too willing to tolerate North Korean misbehavior and demands for tribute. The United States has provided heavy fuel oil and humanitarian food aid in increasing quantities. Quietly, escaping the notice of the American people, North Korea became the largest recipient of foreign aid in Asia, although humanitarian aid was given through indirect means. Despite that level of assistance, we are prevented now from adequately monitoring the distribution of that assistance, even though there is a very high probability of aid diversions to the North Korean military. Mr. Speaker, as the Bush administration stands poised and ready to reengage North Korea in discussions, if there is any sign such talks would be productive, it needs to be mindful of the need to let the North Koreans know in no uncertain terms that the cycle of extortion for their good behavior is over. Pay tribute or extortion is an outrageous violation of the American heritage, and we will not continue it. We will not pay, directly or indirectly, for what the North Koreans should do to improve their own plight: live on the Korean Peninsula peacefully with their neighbors to the south; end its tactics of terrorism, weapons proliferation, and blackmail; sign a peace treaty to finally end the Korean War; and give evidence that it wants to build a positive relationship with the United States and the international community. Finally, Bush administration contacts with North Korea should be much more careful than the Clinton administration to closely involve the South Koreans, the Republic of Korea, in those talks directly or as closely as possible. We must not succumb to the old North Korean strategy to drive a wedge between the United States and South Korea or to denigrate the legitimacy of the government of South Korea. Mr. Speaker, that is my advice, gratuitous though it is, to the Bush administration. We need to change our policy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the June 6, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial emphasizes that there is a role for the Federal Government in addressing concerns, but it highlights the problems which could result from improper government involvement. Price Caps Make It Worse With the Democrats back in administrative control of the U.S. Senate, a move is in the works to push for federal price caps on admittedly burdensome electricity costs in California and some other Western states. If that happens, it will be a quick and nifty short-term solution. It will also, we're convinced, be a calamity in the long run. It shouldn't be done. When President Bush met with California Gov. Gray Davis last week, he made it plain that he wasn't going to mandate any such solution through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has such authority under some circumstances. Now, Davis' state is crafting a lawsuit to compel such caps--if Congress doesn't get to it first and legislatively require the FERC to impose controls. (Of course, such efforts might die in the GOP-controlled House.) Nobody wants to make light of the agony of California or some of its neighbors, where electricity prices in some locales are 10 times what they were a year and a half ago. But California, which made its own mess by shunning in-state electrical generation and neglecting its power grid, is finding its way out of the difficulties with due speed. Four new plants are being built now and four more are scheduled to come on line next year. The state has enacted an $800 million conservation program and within a couple more years hopes to have 15 new power plants in place. President Bush has pledged $150 million in emergency aid to help low- income consumers in California keep the lights on. And both Congress and the FERC still have perfectly legitimate and possibly useful roles to play in this energy drama. There are questions about how well the agency has exercised its existing authority. That's because while private power companies may under some circumstances charge market-based wholesale rates for electricity (far higher than cost-based rates), they're required to apply to the FERC for authority to do so. But the agency is supposed to deny reauthorization if it determines that companies have raised prices above competitive levels for a significant period of time. The commission may well have been asleep, figuratively and almost literally, at the switch. Congress would do well to inquire into this. In addition, Congress may have some sharp questions to ask about whether Texas natural gas sellers have manipulated the market in California. Davis said Bush agreed with him that it seems suspicious for Texas-originated gas to cost nearly three times in California what it does in New York. Both states are about the same distance from Texas. There may be some difference in transmission costs--but triple? A FERC administrative law judge is already at work on the question, but a Senate inquiry in addition would do no harm. Such efforts are within the normal workings of the regulatory matrix. Price caps are not. Historically, over time they have dried up supply and either halted plant construction or slowed it to a crawl. If caps are to be tried, they should at least be brief in duration, with a defined beginning and end. But it would be best not to head that direction at all.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends a May 25, 2001, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, regarding the firing of the U.S. Geological Survey contract cartographer who posted an Alaskan caribou map on the Internet, causing an uproar in the environmental community. There was more to this story than originally reported. The information in the map was outdated and inaccurate, and the cartographer had no expertise or responsibility for caribou studies. The cartographer since has become a martyr for environmentalists opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), albeit under false pretenses. The Purge That Wasn't [From the Omaha World-Herald, May 25, 2001] Members of Congress have railed about it. More than 80 environmental and other groups sent Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton an angry letter in response to it. Foreign newspapers featured breathless coverage of it. An article in a British newspaper concluded that, because of it, the Bush administration ``actually appears to be bear a grudge against the natural world.'' The hubbub is over Ian Thomas, a cartographer for the U.S. Geological Survey who was fired in March after he posted a map of caribou migrations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a portion of which the Bush administration has proposed for oil drilling. The geological survey also had the map removed from the Web. In their letter to Norton, the 88 environmental and other groups claimed that the firing of Thomas indicated a disturbing politicizing of government research and sent ``a chilling message to all government scientists.'' The day after he was fired, Thomas accepted a job with the World Wildlife Fund and is now hailed as a martyr to the environmental cause. It seems a straightforward story, a tale of nefarious Republican misdeeds and shameless toadying to oil interests. Certainly that was the impression one got from following Garry Trudeau's version of it in ``Doonesbury.'' But, as a Washington Post article explained this week, that now- familiar version of events ``isn't the whole story.'' Examine all the facts, and a host of surprising details pop up. Details, that is, that undercut many of the main accusations against the administration. Thomas, for example, was a contract worker, not a full-time civil servant. The caribou map, which Thomas created in 15 minutes, was far removed from the scope of his contract and was based on obsolete data. Thomas had no expertise in Alaska wildlife matters and had been reprimanded earlier for posting sensitive Pentagon data on the geological survey's Web site. As described by The Washington Post, ``the decision to cancel his contract was made not by Norton or any other bush appointee, but by the top biologist at his research center, a self-described liberal Democrat who opposes drilling in the Arctic refuge. Another career bureaucrat--the chief USGS biologist, also a Democrat and a conservationist--made the call to pull the caribou map off the Web.'' No evidence has surfaced, the article said, ``that Norton or her aides played any role in his termination.'' The geological survey's main experts on Alaskan wildlife are its Alaska-based biologists. When they saw Thomas' map, they expressed consternation that a Maryland-based contract worker, with no expertise in caribou studies, was posting inaccurate, albeit official-looking, material on that topic. A geological-survey caribou biologist inquired about the map and subsequently sent Thomas a pointed e-mail message: ``The material you posted is terribly out of date. It is inconceivable that you have posted this outdated material in view of the recent and intense interest in'' the refuge. Not that such details appear to matter as far as the episode's actual political fallout. As the Post observed, regardless of the facts, ``the notion that the Bush administration ousted Thomas for political reasons has taken root around the world, thanks to the power of the Internet and the tenacity of environmentalists.'' This episode, now help up by Bush critics as a cause celebre, illustrates the ability of politics to trample the truth. It is regrettable, but revealing, that so many have rushed to warp the facts.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member, of course, is in strong support of H.R. 37, a bill this Member introduced on January 3 of this year. This Member also introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress. I would begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands; the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Committee on Resources; and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, for their work in bringing this legislation to the floor. I might say to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), I thank him for managing this legislation. The bill is necessary and should be noncontroversial. It is a straightforward effort to provide a one-time feasibility study updating the background for the four national historic trails, the Oregon, the California, Mormon and Pony Express trails. The measure simply recognizes the fact that there are additional routes and cutoffs which may deserve inclusion in the National Trails System. During the update period, the National Park Service will work with the appropriate trails groups and other interested parties to develop information on any new segment of trail in an effort to determine if it meets the criteria for addition to the system. No condemnation of private lands, as indicated by the gentleman North Carolina (Mr. Jones), or Federal leases is to be contemplated to add any of these routes to the trails. Although the National Park Service is supportive of efforts to examine additional routes, it has determined that legislation is needed to be provided to it, such as this authorization legislation, and that is the purpose of H.R. 37. All four trails covered in this legislation were instrumental in opening the American West, but each has its own unique story to tell. The California Trail enabled 70,000 people to follow their dream to the Golden State. In 1848 and 1850, the Oregon Trail made it possible for fur traders, settlers and others to reach the Pacific Northwest; and although it lasted only 18 months, the Pony Express achieved a cherished role in American lure. Its daring riders, which included Buffalo Bill Cody and Wild Bill Hickok, were able to deliver the mail from St. Joseph, Missouri, to Sacramento, California, in 10 days. The Mormon Pioneer Trail allowed the church members an opportunity to head West in search of religious freedom. These trails all follow at least part of the Platte River and Nebraska is proud to have as one of its nicknames the Historic Trail State. Many used the route through Nebraska to reach their goal further West. Those with more foresight decided to settle in Nebraska. This Member is pleased to note that during the 102nd Congress, he introduced the legislation which was enacted to designate the California National Historic Trail and the Pony Express National Historic Trail as components of the National Trails System. The bill being discussed today will build on that effort and enable even greater recognition of the contributions made by these bold and courageous pioneers. Those that used the trails endured hardships that are difficult to imagine. They survived hazards such as wild animals, blizzards and floods, as well as scarcity and disease. To those who bravely made it to their destination but those who died along the way, we owe a debt of gratitude. This Member believes that H.R. 37 will help to give the proper recognition to the many historic and heroic individuals who played such an important role in settling the American West. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to take this opportunity to express his appreciation to the many dedicated volunteers who have been so supportive of these national trails. Particularly, this Member would like to thank Bill and Jeanne Watson with the Oregon-California Trail Association; Pat Hearty with the Pony Express Trail Association; Ron Anderson with the Mormon Trail Association; and Loren Horton with the Iowa Mormon Trail Association. The efforts to preserve and provide recognition of these trails is truly a grass-roots labor of love involving thousands of individuals. By the way, they are also involved in some of the upkeep responsibilities as volunteers. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 37.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 1914, which retroactively extends chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches to September 30, 2001. Chapter 12 bankruptcy expired on May 31, 2001. This legislation, which this Member agreed to cosponsor on June 5, 2001, is very important to the nation's agriculture sector. This Member would express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] for introducing H.R. 1914. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts in getting this measure to the House Floor for consideration. This extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy is supported by this Member as it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. The use of the chapter 12 bankruptcy provision has been an important and necessary option for family farmers throughout the nation. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, it will be another very painful blow to an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have no viable option other than to end their operations, but it will also cause land values to likely plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will negatively affect the ability of family farmers to earn a living. In addition, the resulting decrease in farmland value will impact the manner in which banks conduct their agricultural lending activities. Furthermore, this Member has received many contacts from his constituents supporting the extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--it is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting. In closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1914.