Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the May 25, 2001, Norfolk Daily News. The editorial stresses the need to develop a long-range plan to address the nation's energy problems. The Bush administration is to be commended for offering a comprehensive plan with dozens of specific recommendations. it is imperative for Congress to work with the administration to develop a sensible long-term energy policy which will help assure Americans of development of diverse, reliable, affordable energy sources and an emphasis on energy conservation. Clearly, too, development of energy sources must be done in an environmentally responsible manner. No Immediate Relief is Promised With typical impatience, many Americans are disappointed that President Bush's energy plan does not immediately resolve the problems with high gasoline prices and the costs of electricity. Natural gas has escalated as well, and there is nothing in the Bush plan that puts a lid on prices or rations supplies. Instead, he proposes to deal with the problems on a long- term basis. It may well mean he will be a one-term president, but if the plan gains acceptance, it is a small price to pay. The clamoring for the federal government to do something, anything, about California's electric bill, which rose from $7 billion in 1999 to $28 billion last year and is expected to be upward of $50 billion next year, is intense. It seems typical of state or local government blaming Washington first and expecting to be bailed out. The idea that the state is too big and too important to the rest of the nation leads politically to the thought that federal intervention and ``temporary'' price caps are the only solution. Energy policy must be based on the nation's best interests, however, and not those of residents or business enterprises in any one state. The solution is to be found in realistic energy pricing which, in the case of gasoline now pushing upward of $2 a gallon, is not as costly as 20 years ago when inflation is taken into account. Painful as that is, and especially for those in farming where costs are not often passed on, the alternative of price controls, quotas and rationing would be worse. That segment of the oil industry in the United States which finds ways to obtain supplies from old sources thought to be uneconomic is now being revived. There are known reserves, notably including those offshore near California and the Gulf Coast, to be utilized. And there is also the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that offers promise. Some of these developments, inherent in the new plan, are vigorously opposed from an environmental standpoint. It may take even higher prices and more severe winters to convince policymakers that the conflicts between animal habitat and human needs require more compromise and not total bans on exploration and drilling under carefully controlled conditions. While the Bush National Energy Policy is strong on emphasizing the production side, including nuclear sources and cleaner coal technology, it offers important incentives for conservation, for wider development of high-mileage vehicles, wind and solar power. In short, it is a broad plan which can make America less dependent on foreign sources. That it does not solve immediate price and supply problems or establish a new energy czar with dictatorial powers is not a flaw. That it does not immediately solve problems unique to those states which handled deregulation programs poorly is not a weakness. But it will take much political foresight to recognize that.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the Member wishes to commend to his colleagues Mr. Thomas J. Friedman's editorial column, ``One Nation, 3 Lessons,'' which was published in the April 13, 2001, edition of the New York Times. In the column, Mr. Friedman accurately describes the stabilizing and the destabilizing elements currently acting within the People's Republic of China (PRC) and prescribes steady, incremental U.S. engagement with the PRC as a means of encouraging China's growth into an open society, not into a cold war adversary. As this body prepares to vote in the near future on renewing normal trade relations (NTR) with the PRC, this Member asks that his colleagues heed Mr. Friedman's advice to Bridges to China Everywhere Possible. Continuing NTR with the PRC, encouraging its accession to the WTO and other multilateral institutions as appropriate, engaging in dialogue about human rights concerns, and promoting democracy building and rule of law programs within the PRC are among the bridges Congress can and should immediately build. One Nation, 3 Lessons (By Thomas L. Friedman) So what are the lessons from this latest China-U.S. crisis? They are (1) When dealing with China, carry a big stick and a big dictionary. (2) This is an inherently unstable relationship. (3) Get used to it--it's going to be this way for a long time. Let's start with Lesson 2, because it's the crux of the matter. We learn from this incident that the U.S.-China relationship has within it two highly stabilizing and two highly destabilizing elements, and the future will be shaped by the balance between them. The two stabilizing elements are China's economic dependence on U.S. trade, technology transfers and the American market, and China's more general, but steady, integration into the world. When China's foreign minister declared that China was releasing the U.S. surveillance plane's crew for ``humanitarian reasons,'' I burst out laughing. One thing the Chinese are expert at is calculating their interests. And they had clearly calculated that dragging this affair on another day could imperil China's entry into the World Trade Organization, its $100 billion in trade with the U.S., its application to be host to the 2008 Summer Olympics, its 54,000 students studying in American, etc. etc. These things matter. They matter to a regime whose Communist ideology is largely defunct and whose only basis of legitimacy is its ability to keep incomes rising. And they matter deeply to the people of China, who see themselves as a rising power and want to be accepted as such. The more China is integrated with the global economy and international rules-based systems like the W.T.O., the more these will be a source of restraint on the regime. But they are not foolproof, because these stabilizing elements in the relationship are counterbalanced by two highly destabilizing ones: the authoritarian character of the Chinese regime, and China's rising popular nationalism and unquenchable aspiration to absorb Taiwan into one China. Authoritarian regimes, having little legitimacy, can almost never admit a mistake. That's why you need a big stick and big dictionary when dealing with them. The idea that a slow- moving, propeller-driven surveillance plane, flying on auto- pilot, rammed into a Chinese fighter jet is ludicrous. But since China's leaders lacked the self-confidence to admit this, the Bush team wisely found a way to apologize without really apologizing. The same tools need to be applied to Taiwan. Taiwan's character--the fact that it is a country that has built itself in America's image, economically and politically-- mandates that we defend it. We cannot shirk that responsibility. But Taiwan's history and geography mandate that Taiwan find a way to accommodate with mainland China-- without sacrificing its de facto independence or character. China has actually shown a lot of flexibility in proposing different formulas lately, and Taiwan needs to respond. Pass the dictionary. We need to keep our eyes on the prize here, folks. Those voices in the U.S. now calling for America to ``stick it to China'' and to ``teach them a lesson'' sound as silly as the China People's Daily hectoring America. China is a unique problem. It represents one-fifth of humanity. It threatens us as much by its weaknesses as by its strengths. We may be doomed to a cold war with China, but it is not something we should court. A cold war with Russia, a country that made tractors that were more valuable as scrap steel and TV's that blew up when you turned them on, was one thing. A cold war with one-fifth of humanity, with an economy growing at 10 percent a year, is another. At the same time, trying to collapse the Chinese regime overnight would produce a degree of chaos among one- fifth of the world's inhabitants that would affect everything from the air we breathe to the cost of the clothes we wear to the value of our currency. Our strategy toward China needs to remain exactly as it was: Build bridges to China everywhere possible, because they have clearly become a source of restraint on the regime; and draw red lines everywhere necessary, because China's rising nationalism and insecure leadership can produce irrational behavior that overrides all other interests. Do this, and hope that over time China continues, as it slowly has been, becoming a more open, legalized, pluralistic society, with a government more responsive, and less threatening, to its people and neighbors. Lurching to any other extremes with China would be utterly, utterly foolhardy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the editorial following from the May 23, 2001 edition of the Omaha World-Herald raises very important and pertinent questions about the relevancy of the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) upon which the United States recently lost its membership. As this member said to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday during his meeting with the House Committee on International Relations, the UNHCR increasingly seems to have become a haven for some countries with the worst human rights records in order to ward off criticism and further manned by other countries which are all too willing to table the consideration of resolutions concerning countries with such human rights records because their less than courageous vote may avoid the loss of export markets. Mr. Speaker, as this member said to the Secretary General and House colleagues perhaps the major emphasis of the Congress and the United States is to demand a fundamental re-orientation of the UNHCR and to find other ways to use American resources and clout in the advancement of human rights. [From the Omaha World-Herald] U.N. Entity Courts Irrelevance It's been interesting to note the reactions of various groups of Americans to a U.N. committee's vote to remove the Untied States from the United Nations Human Rights Commission. A writer for the liberal Nation magazine used the incident to go off on a riff about America the Arrogant. ``A little more self-criticism and a lot less self-righteousness would go a long way,'' he wrote in a passage the irony of which is compounded by the fact that U.S. reelection hopes were aborted by such humble, self-effacing nations as France and China. Another columnist suggested that maybe America was being punished for its Cold War practice of backing unsavory dictatorships that happened to be anti-communist. If so, that would be a double standard, too, considering what China was up to during some of those same Cold War years. The New York Times editorial page said the Bush Administration was caught by surprise, apparently because it thought it had the votes locked up. The Times appropriately recommended that the administration find out who betrayed it. Knowing who broke promises of support may be useful later, the Times suggested. The Washington Post, forthrightly torpedoing Sen. John Kerry's approving claim that the action was related to U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocols, pointed out that China has been steamed because of American criticism of that country's abysmal human rights record. The Post said the United States was done in by China, Cuba and French diplomats who were trying to curry favor with African dictators. The Arab world also resents the United States for siding with Israel in a number of U.N. confrontations. Additional action by the subcommittee a few days ago provided insight into the prevailing thought process. Having denied continued membership to the United States, some members of the voting panel have turned their attention to private organizations that maintain United Nations accreditation to promote human rights. The Washington Times reported that some of these groups are now in danger of losing their credentials. They include Freedom House, founded by Eleanor Roosevelt to monitor freedom around the world, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks down and exposes perpetrators of the Holocaust who have tried to hide their past. The time is ripe, it seems to us, for the little boy to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. If the likes of Cuba and China, or haters of Israel, are setting the moral tone in the dealings of this commission, there can be no moral tone to speak of, and serious-minded diplomats lower themselves to take its yammerings seriously. Generations of Americans have been raised with the notion that the United States, by failing to get on board the League of Nations in 1920, weakened an institution that might have prevented World War II. Accordingly, active participation in the United Nations, the League's successor, has been regarded a sort of sacred responsibility since 1945, as well it should continue to be. And, indeed, the U.N. has done considerable good, with its peacekeeping and relief operations as well as its provision of a forum for talking about things--including human rights-- that in earlier decades might have ignited conflict. However, Americans shouldn't expect that their interests will always coincide with those of the global organization and all its various commissions, agencies and committees. We and our government should be prepared to accommodate divergences, using whatever means are consistent with our national interest and, secondarily, the interests of the world community. What happened on the Civil Rights Commission, though, was not a divergence of interests, as that term is commonly used. It was more like a wholehearted plunge into irrelevance. This is not a situation that calls for American self-loathing. Until the people who are driving the commission regain their moral bearings, to heck with them.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, while this member enthusiastically votes for H.R. 1836 to give a tax cut to American taxpayers he continues his strong opposition to the total elimination of the estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this opposition has been publicly explained on numerous occasions, including statements in the Congressional Record. On the other hand, this member is strongly in favor of substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates. However, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega-millionaires would be a terrible idea for the American society and for continuing to foster very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy institutions in our country. Fortunately, I believe it will never be eliminated in the year 2010. Relatedly, this member includes the following opinion piece by William H. Gates, Sr. as it appeared in the Washington Post edition of May 25, 2001. A Tax Break's Unfortunate Legacy (By William H. Gates, Sr.) The power of organized money has won another round, as the Senate's vote to repeal the estate tax has demonstrated. The proponents of wholesale repeal were able to wage a campaign based largely on symbolism and distortion of fact. They cited the plight of farmers, but when a reporter asked for living examples of real small farmers who had lost their farms, they couldn't be found. The deliberative tradition of the Senate caved under the pressure of ideology over reality. Missing has been a debate about the potential dangers of eliminating our estate tax. What will it cost in lost federal revenue? How will state treasuries manage without their revenue linked to the federal estate tax? What effect will it have on charitable giving and the nonprofit civic sector? What happens to democracy and equality of opportunity in a society with such great inequities of wealth and power? And more technical questions: Are there ways to reform the tax to address concerns about family enterprises? How would a repeal of the ``stepped up basis,'' which exempts estates from capital gains taxes, be administered? Instead of discerning these vital questions, our elected leaders have punted. By structuring full repeal to take effect 10 years down the road, they have obscured the cost and downside of repeal and shifted the burden onto future generations. A hundred years ago, we did have a rigorous debate about the need to tax large accumulations of wealth. Then, as now, wealthy people took a stand in favor of inheritance taxes. Andrew Carnegie personally testified before Congress in favor of the estate tax. The petition effort that I launched with Responsible Wealth is a similar effort. More than a thousand prominent investors and business leaders--from families that have paid or will pay estate taxes--have called for reform but not repeal of the tax. Many of the signers are owners of small businesses who understand that concentrations of wealth and power are not friendly to small enterprise. The fate of the estate tax goes to the heart of the American experiment. What has made America distinct from Europe is our effort not to create hereditary aristocracies and our suspicion of concentrated wealth and power weakening our democracy. It was understood a century ago that the estate tax was an attempt to balance conflicting American values: on the one hand, our respect for private enterprise and personal wealth, and on the other, our concern for democracy and equality of opportunity. Today's debate is missing this historical concern. In its place, we have come to worship a myth of individual merit and success. But the unspoken little secret is that great wealth is never entirely the result of individual achievement. We underestimate the role of luck, privilege and God's grace in our good fortune. And we dismiss the incredible contribution our society makes to creating the fertile soil for successful private enterprise through public investment. My own perspective celebrates individual achievement and the hard work of entrepreneurs and leaders in our free- enterprise system. But I also recognize that society has played an important role in the creation of wealth. Take anyone of the Forbes 400 and drop them into rural Africa and see how much wealth they would amass. Imagine that two infants are about to be born. God summons their spirits to his office and makes them a proposition. One child will be born in a prosperous industrialized country, the United States. Another child will be born into a country of society-wide abject poverty. God proposes an auction for the privilege of being born into the United States. He asks each new child to pledge a percentage of his earthly accumulation at the end of his life to the treasury of God. The child who writes the highest percentage will be born in the United States. Does anyone think either child would pledge as little as 55 percent, the current top-estate tax rate? This is not a slight of the vibrant community and human qualities that exist in less-developed countries. I have traveled the world in my work on health and am struck by the quality of the human spirit. But our society has facilitated wealth-building by creating order, protecting freedom, creating laws to govern property relations and our marketplace, and investing in an educated work force. What's wrong with the most successful people putting one-quarter of their wealth back into the place that made their wealth and success possible? Many people repay their universities this way. Why not their country? For the sake of our grandchildren, I hope we can revive this vital debate. It may not be happening in the halls of Congress, but perhaps we can take it to the town square.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on May 23, 2001, a visit to the Vice President's residence away from Capital Hill caused me to unavoidably miss rollcall vote no. 146 (motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act). Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member submits this letter he sent on May 17, 2001, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences regarding a meeting of the National Research Council's arsenic review subcommittee. The letter expresses strong concerns about the agenda and participants. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 17, 2001. Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Dear Dr. Alberts: I am writing to express concerns about the meeting scheduled to be held on May 21st by the National Research Council's arsenic review subcommittee. As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asked the National Academy of Sciences to review new studies regarding the health effects of arsenic in drinking water and to review the EPA's risk analysis of arsenic. Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that there are significant concerns about the upcoming review. There is a growing appearance that the process may not be as balanced as it needs to be and questions have been raised about the objectivity of the review. Several specific and troubling concerns have been recently relayed to me. First, it is my understanding that a representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council is on the agenda for the May 21st meeting, but no one representing state or local interests has been invited. Second, I have been informed that certain scientists who expressed concerns about the proposed lower levels of arsenic in drinking water were not invited back to serve on the panel while those supporting a significant decrease were included on the subcommittee. Finally, it has been brought to my attention that the panel will only be hearing from those EPA representatives who favor advocating a lower standard for arsenic in drinking water. Because of the seriousness of this issue, I believe it requires immediate attention and I would appreciate a prompt response addressing these concerns. I strongly support a scientific approach to addressing this issue which is of great interest to many Nebraskans. However, I believe it must be done in an objective manner which takes into account a wide variety of scientific viewpoints. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Additionally, I want you to know I will place this letter in the Congressional Record. Best wishes, Doug Bereuter, Member of Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong opposition to H.R. 1885, the 245(i) Extension Act of 2001. By allowing illegal aliens to buy legal permanent residence for $1,000, Section 245(i) places American lives at risk. Although the current legal immigration structure is by no means perfect, it does provide for crucial health screening and criminal record background checks which determine if potential immigrants will place the well-being and security of American citizens and legal immigrants in danger. To make such determinations is not only the right of the United States as a sovereign country, it should be its foremost responsibility. Madam Speaker, Section 245(i) ultimately rewards those people who have thwarted the legal immigration structure by entering the country illegally or by allowing their legal status to lapse. Simultaneously, the policy penalizes potential immigrants who have patiently waited many years, completed many forms, and undergone appropriate screenings for the privileged opportunity to be reunited with family members and to work in the United States. Madam Speaker, Section 245(i) was a bad policy when it was first enacted in 1994. It was not worthy of being re-instated during the previous 107th Congress, and it should not be further extended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member reluctantly voted against H.R. 1696 in the belief that the Congress should not intervene in the established procedures and legal requirements related to the siting of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall and in a fashion that aborts any judicial proceedings regarding the Memorial's proposed characteristics, the administrative procedures, or the siting. This is especially necessary since the precise proposed location on the Mall and its design are so controversial. We certainly and emphatically do want to honor these veterans who served in World War II, ``the Greatest Generation,'' when as many of them as possible are still alive, but Congress should not have intervened in the instance without appropriate hearings and in such an irregular manner.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the bill, this Member wishes to add his strong support of H.R. 622, the Hope for the Children Act, and would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing this important legislation to the House floor today. As you know, the high cost for adoptions causes many couples to dismiss adoption as too costly. Other families have taken second mortgages on their home or accumulated other debt. Because families spend anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 to adopt a child, these high costs mean that many children do not get adopted and stay in the foster care system permanently. The Hope for Children Act will ease the burden of this expense by increasing the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions. While this credit will not completely cover the often exorbitant costs associated with adoptions, it will provide a healthy start toward ensuring more children find a loving home. This bill will encourage the creation of more families and help more children bypass the foster care system to enter in to a permanent arrangement. This much needed stability will also mean that these children will have better, more stable home environments and that they will be less likely to become future burdens on society either through crime or welfare. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 622.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rise today in support of H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001, a bold and fair tax relief plan that will reduce the inequities of the current tax code and help ensure that America remains prosperous. This measure will reduce taxes for everyone who pays income taxes, and it will encourage enterprise by lowering marginal tax rates. This Member strongly believes that some considerable portions of the Federal budget surplus should be returned to the American taxpayer, especially to middle income Americans. And, this Member also believes it is symbolically and financially important to use part of the surplus to at least make significant reductions in the national debt. Therefore, this Member is pleased to support the President's common sense plan that funds our nation's top priorities, pays down our national debt and gives tax relief to every taxpayer. Over-charged taxpayers deserve some of their own money back. It is interesting to note that in the first four months of fiscal year 2001, the surplus generated $74 billion. Clearly, the American people are being taxed too much. In fact, Federal taxes are at the highest peacetime rate in history. Americans currently pay more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined. This year, it will take most Americans more than four months of paychecks to pay their tax burden. This Member is supportive of this tax cut because George W. Bush is President and we have a Republican Congress to check truly excessive levels of Federal spending. The legislation will help strengthen our economy, create jobs, and put money back in the pockets of those who earned it and need it most. The measure provides immediate tax relief by reducing the current 15 percent tax rate on the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples ($6,000 for singles). A new 12 percent rate would apply retroactively to the beginning of 2001 and also for 2002. The rate would be reduced even further to 10 percent as follows: 11 percent in 2003 through 2005 and 10 percent in 2006. The reduction in the 15 percent bracket alone provides a tax reduction of up to $360 for couples in 2001 ($180 for singles), increasing to as much as $600 for couples in 2006 ($300 for singles). Furthermore, in accordance with President Bush's income tax rate reductions, H.R. 1836 reduces other income tax rates and consolidates rate brackets. By 2006, the present-law structure of five income tax rates (15 percent, 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent and 39.6 percent) gradually would be reduced to four rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. No American will pay over one-third of his or her income in income taxes. This Member supports the reduction in the tax rates provided in H.R. 1836 because the bill reduces taxes for all Americans who pay income taxes, spurs economic and job growth for all Americans and provides an average of $1,600 in tax relief for the average American family (family of four) phased in over a 5-year period. The $1,600 amount represents the average mortgage payment for almost two months, one year's tuition cost at most community colleges, and the average gasoline costs for two cars for one year. The legislation will also begin to address the growing problem of the alternative minimum tax by repealing the current-law provisions that offset the refundable child credit and the earned income credit by the amount of the alternative minimum tax. In addition, it should be remembered that this is only the first element of the Bush tax plan-- additional tax relief is in sight for married couples and others that will benefit from more targeted tax cuts. According to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, savings to taxpayers over ten years would be $958 billion under the provisions of H.R. 1836. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his appreciation to our President, George W. Bush, for his willingness to steadfastly ``demand a refund'' for the American taxpayer. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1836 as an important step toward tax relief for all Americans.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the Member rises to give a brief explanation of H.R. 1705, which will authorize members of National Guard units to use appropriated funds to conduct and participate in athletic competitions and small arms competitions. This Member introduced H.R. 1705 on May 3, 2001. The National Guard Competitive Events Program provides National Guard members with an opportunity to hone their training-related skills, such as running, swimming, and marksmanship, in a competitive atmosphere. As the National Guard actively recruits new members, this can be another feature in recruitment and retention programs for certain members of the National Guard. Through these competitions, National Guard members can qualify for higher level national and international competitions, including the Pan Am Games and the Olympics. Also, National Guard members who compete in athletic and small arms competitions can now do so with members of the Active Duty military. Bringing Active and Reserve components together in this fashion builds better appreciation among the various components and overall force cohesiveness. Additionally, some of the National Guard-sponsored competitions, including the Lincoln Marathon held in this Member's district, are open to participation by the entire civilian community for participation. The high visibility and the community interaction that such events provide is key for continued support for local National Guard units. For the National Guard Competitive Events Program to continue to thrive, greater funding flexibility must be granted to the National Guard units sponsoring competitions and sending members to those competitions. Currently, only non-appropriated funds from post exchanges and other activities and from competition entry fees can be used to cover operating expenses for the events and all health, pay, and personal expenses for participating National Guard members. This funding system places National Guard members at a disadvantage. Unlike Active Duty military personnel who have all health, pay, and personal expenses covered while competing, National Guard members are not on duty while competing and thus are not covered. For example, if National Guard members suffer injuries while competing at the marksmanship competition in North Little Rock, Arkansas, they must pay for the incurred health costs although they were competing with their Guard unit. And, unfortunately, placing National Guard members on orders is not a solution to the coverage issue for National Guard members placed on active duty cannot compete with their National Guard unit's team. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, and this Member introduced H.R. 1705 to provide the necessary funding flexibility. By authorizing the use of appropriated funds in addition to the non-appropriated funds, National Guard units face fewer budget constraints when hosting competitions and when sending teams and individuals into competition. Health, pay, and personal expenses could be covered for participants who otherwise might not be able to afford costs stemming from physical injuries. This bill levels the funding playing field so that National Guard units are not at a financial disadvantage when sponsoring competitions and participating in these valuable competitions. It should be emphasized that the legislation does not create participation incentives for National Guard members which are greater than those incentives for Active Duty military. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to review H.R. 1705 and to favorably consider co-sponsorship and legislative action on the measure.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to read and carefully consider the excellent column of Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, which appears in numerous American newspapers. He has it right in describing the motivation, misguided views, and counterproductive actions of key groups involved in organizing the demonstrations against their perception of globalism at numerous international meetings since the WTO meeting in Seattle. [From the New York Times, Apr. 24, 2001] Foes of Globalism Don't Use Their Heads (By Paul Krugman) There is an old European saying: Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head. Suitably updated, this applies perfectly to the movement against globalization--the movement that made its big splash in Seattle back in 1999 and did its best to disrupt the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City this past weekend. The facts of globalization are not always pretty. If you buy a product made in a Third World country, it was produced by workers who are paid incredibly little by Western standards and probably work under awful conditions. Anyone who is not bothered by those facts, at least some of the time, has no heart. But that doesn't mean the demonstrators are right. On the contrary: Anyone who thinks that the answer to world poverty is simple outrage against global trade has no head--or chooses not to use it. The anti-globalization movement already has a remarkable track record of hurting the very people and causes it claims to champion. Even when political action doesn't backfire, when the movement gets what it wants, the effects are often startlingly malign. For example, could anything be worse than having children work in sweatshops? Alas, yes. In 1993, child workers in Bangladesh were found to be producing clothing for Wal-Mart, and Sen. Tom Harkin proposed legislation banning imports from countries employing underage workers. The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? No according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs or on the streets--and that a significant number were forced into prostitution. The point is that Third World countries aren't poor because their export workers earn low wages; it's the other way around. Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternatives: Millions of Mexicans are migrating to the north of the country to take the low-wage export jobs that outrage opponents of NAFTA. And those jobs wouldn't exist if the wages were much higher: The same factors that make poor countries poor--low productivity, bad infrastructure, general social disorganization--mean that such countries can compete on world markets only if they pay wages much lower than those paid in the West. Of course, opponents of globalization have heard this argument, and they have answers. At a conference this month, I heard paeans to the superiority of traditional rural lifestyles over modern urban life--a claim that not only flies in the face of the clear fact that many peasants flee to urban jobs as soon as they can, but that (it seems to me) has a disagreeable element of cultural condescension, especially given the overwhelming preponderance of white faces in the crowds of demonstrators. (Would you want to live in a pre-industrial village?) I also heard claims that rural poverty in the Third World is mainly the fault of multinational corporations--which is just plain wrong but is a convenient belief if you want to think of globalization as an unmitigated evil. The most sophisticated answer was that the movement doesn't want to stop exports--it just wants better working conditions and higher wages. But it's not a serious position. Third World countries desperately need their export industries--they cannot retreat to an imaginary rural Arcadia. They can't have those export industries unless they are allowed to sell goods produced under conditions that Westerners find appalling and by workers who receive very low wages. And that's a fact the anti-globalization activists refuse to accept. So who are the bad guys? The activists are getting the images they wanted from Quebec City: leaders sitting inside their fortified enclosure, with thousands of police protecting them from the outraged masses outside. But images can deceive. Many of the people inside that chain-link fence are sincerely trying to help the world's poor. And the people outside the fence, whatever their intentions, are doing their best to make the poor even poorer.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of the Budget Conference Report. This Member is especially pleased with the funds proposed for agriculture. Not only does the budget agreement include $26.3 billion for agriculture related programs in FY2001, but it also includes funds for emergency spending of $5.5 billion in FY2001 and $7.35 billion in FY2002. Furthermore, an additional $66.15 billion will be held in reserve for reauthorization of farm support programs between FY2003 and FY2011. This sends a strong signal that there will be money available for farmers this year to meet emergencies and in the coming years as we develop the new farm bill. Farmers and their bankers certainly need assurance that there will be money there and these numbers demonstrate that commitment. This Member strongly regrets that the funds originally in the conference report for the creation of a new natural disaster contingency fund within the budget were eliminated during last minute conference negotiations. Not only were there disagreements about the emergency fund between authorizers and appropriators, but there was a crucial and possibly erroneous ruling by the parliamentarian in the other body that the emergency fund would trigger a requirement for a 60-vote majority. That ruling caused the other body to oppose the creation of the funds in the conference report. While the amount of money in the emergency fund ($5 billion) might end up being an underestimate, depending on the number and severity of natural disasters, it would have been a good start in responsibly addressing the certainty of a need for disaster assistance funding in this big and diverse nation. This Member has been a long-time supporter of the establishment of such a fund and is hopeful that it will be created as soon as possible. The compromise includes $1.35 trillion in tax cuts over the next 11 years including $100 billion in an immediate tax cut ``stimulus'' for the current fiscal year, and it holds overall spending to a four percent increase. While the overall tax cut is less than President Bush proposed, it is still the largest tax reduction in the last 20 years. Furthermore, the budget conference report provides an historic $2.3 trillion in public debt reduction by 2011 (the maximum that can be repaid without penalties). Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget agreement that provides a strong framework for the future of our country. Accordingly this Member is pleased to support this common sense plan that funds our nation's top priorities, provides for the continuation of the retirement of our national debt, and which also gives tax relief to every taxpayer. At a time of actual and projected budget surpluses the American taxpayers deserve ``a refund'' to keep that money from being collected for dramatic increases in spending. Therefore, the tax relief offered by this agreement will help strengthen our economy, create jobs, and leaves more money in the pockets of those who earned it. In closing Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to commend to his colleagues an editorial in the May 3, 2001, edition of the Omaha World- Herald. Of particular note is the editorial's assessment of international reaction to President George W. Bush's May 1, 2001, speech on a national missile defense (NMD) system. In the weeks approaching the speech, many newspaper and magazines ran articles and editorials which criticized President Bush for his strong and vocal support for the development of NMD and for reassessment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Domestic opponents claimed that such views strain relations with key U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. And yet, after a major speech outlining the Administration's proposed approach to national security, U.S. allies appear to have reacted fairly positively by agreeing to talk about the approach, if not entirely support it. The cold war is over, and therefore it is entirely appropriate for the U.S. to re-evaluate the institutions and treaties from that era. It is this Member's hope that our allies will strongly agree and will find upon review that President Bush's initiative to begin the development of a NMD system and to revamp arsenal cuts reflects careful reflection upon the long-term interests of the United States. [From the Omaha World Herald, May 3, 2001] A New Defense Posture Call it Missile Defense III. It's not the largely discredited Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative. It's not the Clinton-nurtured limited shield. In fact, it's not clear at this juncture what it is. But President Bush wants it and is determined to get it if possible. And that may not be bad. The most salient aspect of Bush's freshly stated commitment to a missile defense system is what didn't happen. The international community didn't, for the most part, start screaming to the heavens that the United States has become frighteningly arrogant and is going to get everybody fried. And that was largely because Bush had the good sense to get in front of his Tuesday announcement with pre-emptive and assuring phone calls to the world leaders who might be most concerned. He and Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly made two points: Although Bush finds the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty outmoded and only marginally effective, the United States is not going to simply abrogate it without something to take its place. There will be no change in Washington's international nuclear-weapons understandings until such time as a missile defense can reasonably be called workable. The biggest surprise of all may be that Moscow pronounced itself, though not exactly happy, entirely willing to sit down and discuss the matter rationally. That gets past what could have been a substantial hurdle, because Russia has long seen any sort of missile defense as a direct threat aimed at neutralizing its nuclear strike capability. It has been adamant on the point. But on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said his nation ``is ready for consultations, and we have something to say.'' The biggest question about a missile defense is whether such a bogglingly complex system can, in fact, ever work. Results to date have not been encouraging. Efforts from the Reagan era forward have cost more than $60 billion. Tests in the '80s were spotty, and the few seeming successes were later shown to have been either unrealistically simplistic or just plain fudged. Three tests of a scaled-down system in the '90s yielded two failures. The concept, nonetheless, remains appealing, particularly to those old enough to remember the duck-and-cover classroom drills of the 1950s. The less-stable post-Cold War world, with the addition of such nations as Northern Korea, Iraq and Iran to the list of potential nuclear threats, adds to that. (In fairness, though, The ABM treaty is a sticking point, of sorts, but that doesn't mean a new document can't be crafted to take its place. Contrary, perhaps, to common perception, there is a provision for withdrawing from it. Either Russia or the United States can get out on six months' notice by explaining that its ``supreme interests'' have been jeopardized by events relating to the treaty. Bush, in his remarks on Tuesday, seemed to have been laying the groundwork for such an assertion. In any case, this much is certain: A functioning missile defense is incompatible with the treaty, which forbids it. At least the president chose not to figuratively rip the document up, which some of his campaign rhetoric last fall seemed to suggest. He wants to--at some undetermined point--take the legitimate exit route. The president also wants to give back with one hand at least part of what he proposes to take away with the other. He's convinced (and he's probably right) that the United States doesn't need nearly the nuclear arsenal it now maintains. America has about 7,200 warheads; Russia, about 6,100. Under various START agreements and negotiations, both nations have agreed to a target of 2,000 to 2,500. Bush has said lately that he envisions still lower numbers, and Moscow seems ready to go along. (Not the least of its reasons is the cost savings.) Cost still casts a long shadow on the missile defense idea as well, though. Defense Department sources say even a rudimentary plan could start at $35 billion. One of the proposal's harshest critics, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, has fielded a figure almost 30 times higher; $1 trillion. At such prices (in addition to what already has been spent), the nation certainly deserves a system that works. Bush's commitment to it should include a commitment to eliminating the engineering hanky-panky that marked previous tests. In coming months, Bush and other top officials will be fanning out over Asia and Europe, talking to America's allies and seeking input--views to be taken into account. This has all the earmarks of a rational, reasoned approach far superior to the gunslinger rhetoric of last year's campaign. It just might work. The administration is to be congratulated for being both assertive and constructive.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, like my distinguished colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), this Member comes to the floor to urge his colleagues to look at the facts when it comes to the issue of arsenic in drinking water. The Bush administration's recent actions on this matter have led to heated rhetoric, wild exaggerations and soundbite politics. I suppose that was predictable, since the word ``arsenic'' is so emotion-loaded. It is important, I believe, to get the full story and to listen to those who would be most affected by the proposed changes. Many State and local officials, as well as water system administrators, have expressed concerns about the problems which could be caused by the proposed changes. This Member would begin by firmly stating that, of course, everyone recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking water for all of our Nation's citizens. Also some changes in the arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it makes no sense to base those changes on anything like emotion. Instead, they should be based on sound science. As many of us know now, in the final days of the Clinton administration, a final rule was rushed through which would have reduced the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. However, new EPA administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, later announced that the agency would seek a scientific review of the standard before implementing a new rule. The Bush administration has made it clear that the arsenic level will be significantly reduced. However, it wants the final rule to be based on sound science. It certainly appears that the Clinton administration made an arbitrary decision based upon questionable studies, most of which involve populations in other countries which were exposed to significantly higher levels of arsenic than those found in the United States. On the other hand, the EPA seems to dismiss the most comprehensive U.S. study on this matter. A 1999 study in Utah, which involved more than 5,000 people, failed to find an increased incidence of cancer associated with arsenic in drinking water. It is certainly not the intent of this Member to treat lightly the possible adverse health effects of arsenic. However, this Member believes that accurate and relevant studies should be reviewed before water systems, especially those with limited resources, are forced to make such substantial investments in infrastructure and treatment. Smaller communities would have been especially hard hit by the implementation of the proposed arsenic level. Arsenic levels in York, Nebraska, my birthplace, for example, a community of about 7,500 people, are at 34 parts per billion, and the initial cost to meet the new standard would be $6 million. Gering, Nebraska, with a level of only 13 parts per billion, only 3 points over the arbitrary level set by the rule, would be compelled to spend about $4.4 million. Overall, more than 3,000 community water systems in the United States would have to come into compliance, and the rule would have more than tripled water rates in many small communities. Now, this Member believes that communities will be willing to spend the money necessary to address this matter if they were convinced that they would see actual health benefits by making the changes. According to an April 14, 2001 article in the New York Times, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mayor Jim Baca, a Democrat stated, ``What we would like is some definitive scientific evidence that this would be worth doing. I am a pretty strong environmentalist but I was convinced that the data did not justify the new level.'' It is important to listen to utility superintendents, city administrators, village boards, mayors and other local and State officials, including public health officials, who are concerned about the effect the proposed rule and its associated costs would have on their communities. These are people who have a powerful incentive to provide safe drinking water, since they and their constituents will be drinking that water. These community leaders know where the buck stops. They certainly would not subject themselves and their families and friends to harmful water. Quite simply, these local officials have not been convinced of the need to lower the arsenic to the level proposed by the Clinton administration. It is also helpful to note that any community in the country now has the authority to lower arsenic in its drinking water to whatever level it chooses below 50 parts per billion. The reason communities have not lowered their levels to 10 parts per billion is that the health benefits have not been shown to justify the enormous cost. The American Water Works Association stated in its comment last year, ``At the level of 10 ppb or lower, the health risk reduction benefits become vanishingly small as compared to the costs.'' The costs, however, are real. The American Water Works Association, which supports a reduction in the current arsenic standard, has estimated the proposed rule would cost $600 million annually and require $5 billion in capital outlays. In an ideal world, with unlimited resources, it may make sense to propose changes in the hope that they may provide a benefit. However, the reality is that communities do not have unlimited funds. Everyone deserves safe drinking water and this Member urges his colleagues to listen to State and local officials on how to provide it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security Pension Reform Act of 2001, of which this Member is an original cosponsor. In fact, this Member also cosponsored similar legislation (H.R. 1102) in the prior 106th Congress. Therefore, this Member would like to thank both of the main sponsors of H.R. 10--the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Rob Portman and the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, Ben Cardin--and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Bill Thomas, for their instrumental role in bringing H.R. 10 to the House floor. The pension reform provisions as provided in H.R. 10 are all too necessary as half of the people in the American workforce, 70 million workers, lack access to any sort of pension. Less than 20 percent of small businesses, businesses with 25 or fewer employees, offer any kind of pension coverage today. And, there has been almost no growth in pension coverage over the past 20 years. Between 1982 and 1994, Congress repeatedly reduced the limits on traditional defined benefit pension plans, and costly new regulatory restrictions were added. As a result, the number of these plans dropped from 114,000 to 45,000 between 1987 and 1997. And, contribution limits on pensions and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) are stuck at 1980s levels. You could set more aside in a 401(k) plan in 1986 than you can today. Unfortunately, these cutbacks hurt the workers who need the most help in saving for retirement--those at lower and middle income levels. Since 1990, pension coverage has dropped from 40 to 33 percent among workers who make less than $20,000 per year. To address these concerns H.R. 10 will provide $52 million in tax relief to help Americans save for retirement by making it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans, allowing workers to save more, addressing the needs of an increasingly mobile workforce through portability, making pensions more secure, and cutting the bureaucracy of red tape that has thwarted employers in establishing employee pension plans. The bill will increase the IRA contribution limit from $2,000 to $5,000 over 3 years; subsequently, it will be indexed to inflation in $500 increments. It would increase the maximum annual contribution employees can make to their employer-sponsored 401(k) accounts from $10,500 to $15,000 over 5 years; subsequently, the annual contribution limit will be indexed to inflation in $500 increments. And, it would allow taxpayers age 50 and over to contribute $5,000 immediately beginning in 2001 as ``catch up'' contributions for those people who may have left the workforce for a time period--this is especially important for women as they often have brief or intermittent work histories. This is a fair, balanced, bipartisan plan that will help millions of American workers, including school teachers, union workers, the financial services industry, State officials, and educational institutions. It includes provisions that will make it easier for small businesses to start retirement plans, helping to bring new pension coverage to millions of small business workers. And, H.R. 10 will greatly enhance pension portability, so that workers who change jobs can take their pension benefits with them. Mr. Speaker, for all of these important reasons for comprehensive pension reform and coverage, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to vote for H.R. 10.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition to House Joint Resolution 41, the so-called ``tax limitation'' constitutional amendment. Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply ``go along'' and vote in support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for any tax increases. However, as a matter of principle and conscience, this Member cannot do that. As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the House in the past, there is a great burden of proof to be borne for any deviations from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is consistent or complementary to this important principle. There should be no question of this member's continued and enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring such a balanced budget. In my judgment, tax increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget; balanced budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as appropriate, tax cuts. That is why this Member in the past has supported the inclusion of a supermajority requirement for tax increases in the Rules of the House. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in this Member's opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why this Member will vote against House Joint Resolution 41.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wants to call his colleagues attention to the article by Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post on April 4, 2001. He most assuredly is correct that it is highly unlikely that the collision between a U.S. Navy EP-3E surveillance aircraft and the high performance F-8 fighter interceptor was caused by the American aircraft. That collision, undisputedly, took place in international airspace, so no apology is owed or should be delivered by our Government. The recent harassment of our surveillance aircraft by Chinese interception in the region, as reported by Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander-in-Chief Pacific, in a recent news conference reported that these interceptors have been flying dangerously close to our aircraft and that we had filed a formal protest. Any apology is not the responsibility of the United States. Unfortunately, the immediate comments from the highest level of the Chinese Government informed the Chinese people and the world that the U.S. aircraft invaded Chinese airspace, but it didn't inform them that was the case only after the EP-3E pilot sought the closest landing base for his damaged aircraft on Hainan Island. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 2001] Regarding China, Is It Getting Personal? (By Jim Hoagland) For reasons physical and political, the probability that an American spy plane deliberately rammed a Chinese jet fighter over the South China Sea on Sunday runs as close to a perfect zero as mathematics allows. Imagine a fully loaded moving van trying to ram a Harley-Davidson motorcycle on an open plain and you get the picture. So the official Chinese version of the collision that forced a U.S. Navy EP-3 electronic surveillance warplane into a mayday landing on Hainan Island can be dismissed. The Chinese F-8 pilot who went up to harass American spies at work almost certainly overdid his instructions to be particularly aggressive and accidentally flew into the lumbering propeller-driven craft. But Beijing's false accusation of U.S. responsibility is revealing nonetheless. It tells us much about the air of confrontation that has quickly developed between President George W. Bush's incoming administration and President Jiang Zemin's outgoing leadership team. The Chinese lie is a reflexive act of pride, and pride is a driving force for Jiang as he draws an ever-clearer line in the sand for Bush. The underlying strategic tensions between the two nations are rapidly getting personal: Jiang sees American actions suddenly threatening his legacy. Even the best-laid strategies can be blown off course by stray winds. The spy plane incident is the latest in a series of seemingly unrelated, and unplanned, mishaps in American- Chinese relations since Bush's election. Taken together, these incidents illustrate the force of serendipity in politics and policy. None of their intelligence briefings or position papers would have Both the defection and, to Chinese eyes, the suspicious timing of the leak may have put China's heavy-handed security services even more on edge. They terrorized a Chinese- American family visiting relatives in China by arresting the mother, Gao Zhan, on espionage charges Feb. 11, and have arrested at least one other Chinese American scholar since. Jiang was no more likely to have been consulted on Gao Zhan's arrest than Bush was to have been asked to authorize the specific espionage mission near Hainan that went wrong. But the two leaders must now deal with the consequences of these incidents, and do so at an unsetting moment of dual transition. Jiang, who is due to retire by 2003, is beginning to gradually yield power, while Bush is trying to grab hold of it with a seriously understaffed administration. Add to this the reality that China and the United States have never developed the kind of informal crisis-management framework that Washington and Moscow learned to apply to strategic mishap, and the opportunity for the EP-3 incident to become the first crisis of Bush's presidency is evident. It is a time for caution on both sides. The plane incident comes as Bush moves toward a decision later this month on Taiwan's request to buy new U.S. weapons, including four destroyers equipped with sophisticated Aegis phased radar systems. It was to head off this sale that Jiang dispatched Deputy Prime Minister Qian Qichen to meet with Bush last month. Bush refused to give Qian any assurances on a subject that Jiang has made into the make-or-break issue in Chinese- American relations. Pride dictates this stand more than strategic calculation, since the radar systems would take nearly a decade to deliver. Jiang began his term by promising his colleagues on the Politburo to bring China to the point of reabsorbing Taiwan at a time of Beijing's choosing, according to U.S. intelligence reports. The Aegis sale would be a powerful symbol of failure in Jiang's quest for what he said would be his most ``historic accomplishment.'' Bush must make the decision on the Aegis sale on its own merits and not allow Jiang to gain leverage over the sale through the spy plane incident. There may be other weapons systems that would meet Taiwan's immediate needs as well as the Aegis, but that decision must be made on military and national security criteria, not under the threat of Chinese blackmail. The Pentagon may have acted unwisely in sending the espionage plane so close to China at this particularly sensitive moment. But there can be no American apology based on the false Chinese version of events, as Beijing demands. That is not just a matter of pride. It is one of justice.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his conditional support for H.R. 8, the ``Estate Tax Elimination Act.'' This Member's vote today for H.R. 8 is based only on his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward, for the current legislation is at worst a faulty product and at best only a shadow of what could be beneficially done to reduce the inheritance tax burden on most Americans who now and in the future are actually subject to such taxes. Don't be confused, in its current form H.R. 8 is not the Bush tax cut plan! Supporters will argue it is, but that is emphatically not the case. Many of this Member's small business, farm, and ranch families would be better off with no bill, as if H.R. 8, in its current form, is passed into law, then they would end-up paying more taxes than if H.R. 8 had not been passed into law at all. However, this Member does not support the complete repeal of the Federal inheritance tax. Nor does this Member support the focus of H.R. 8, as amended by the Ways and Means Committee, which is now concentrated initially on eliminating the top estate tax rates above 50 percent and only subsequently on lowering the marginal tax rates by only a few percentage points each year. Rather this Member believes that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small business, farm and ranch families benefit from estate tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level. This Member is a long-term advocate of inheritance tax reduction, especially in regard to protecting small businesses and family farms and ranches. This Member believes that inheritance taxes unfortunately do adversely and inappropriately affect Nebraskan small business and family farmers and ranchers when they attempt to pass this estate from one generation to the next. Accordingly, to demonstrate this Member's very real support for inheritance tax reform, this Member on January 3, 2001, the first day of the 107th Congress, introduced the Estate Tax Relief Act (H.R. 42). This Member introduced this legislation, which currently has 28 cosponsors, after consulting with different Nebraska farm and business groups. This measure would provide immediate, essential Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate tax exclusion to $10 million effective upon enactment. (With some estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, under the current law for year 2001, the estate tax exclusion is only $675,000.) In addition, H.R. 42 would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation thereafter. The legislation would decrease the highest Federal estate tax rate from 55 percent to 39.6 percent effective upon enactment, as 39.6 percent is currently the highest Federal income tax rate. Under the bill, the value of an estate over $10 million would be taxed at the 39.6 percent rate. Under current law, the 55 percent estate tax bracket begins for estates over $3 million. Finally, H.R. 42 would continue to apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is provided in current law. Since this Member believes that H.R. 42 or similar legislation is the only way to provide true estate tax reduction for our nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member is also voting in support of the Rangel Substitute. This Member is supporting the Substitute for the following two reasons: First, the Substitute provides an immediate increase in the exclusion from $675,000 to $2 million, or $4 million per couple with a modicum of estate planning, and phases-in a $2.5 million exclusion by 2002 (in $100,000 increments every other year); Second, and very important, the Substitute retains current law which provides for a ``stepped-up basis,'' whereby the value of property transferred to an heir is based on its fair-market value at the time of the deceased's death, not at the time the deceased acquired the property. This allows an individual who inherits property to avoid paying capital gains taxes on the increased value of inherited property that occurred during the lifetime of the decedent. At this point it should be noted that under H.R. 8, beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is eliminated (with two exceptions) such that the value of inherited assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, H.R. 8 could result in unfortunate tax consequences for some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capitals gains taxes on any increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs-- resulting in a higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under the current ``stepped-up'' basis law. This Member also believes it would be a great political error and controversy to eliminate the inheritance tax on billionaires or mega- millionaires. Also, the very negative impact on the largest of the charitable contributions and the establishment of charitable foundations cannot be underestimated. The benefits of these foundations to American society are invaluable. Our universities and colleges, too, would see a very marked reduction in the gifts they receive if the inheritance tax on the wealthiest Americans was totally eliminated. In a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report to Congress, entitled, Estate and Gift Taxes: Economic Issues, it is noted that ``One group that benefits from the presence of an estate and gift tax is the non-profit sector, since charitable contributions can be given or bequeathed without paying tax.'' Furthermore, the CRS report notes that ``over 6 percent of assets of those filing estate tax returns are left to charities; 15 percent of the assets of the highest wealth class are left to charity.'' The CRS report also cites the results of a study by David Joulfaian, Estate Taxes and Charitable Bequests by the Wealth, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7663, April 2000, which found that charitable bequests are very responsive to the estate tax, and indeed that the charitable deduction is ``target efficient'' in the sense that it induces more charitable contributions than it loses in revenue. Despite the legal talents the super-rich can afford, such an inheritance tax change would have major consequences. The total elimination of the inheritance tax is a bad idea. Again, this Member's vote today for this legislation should be regarded only as a demonstration of his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward and of this Member's strong conviction that only by increasing dramatically and immediately the exemption level to the Federal inheritance tax will real estate tax reform be realized for middle class Americans. Finally, Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 8 passes the House today, it goes to an uncertain future in the Senate. However, if the Senate does indeed pass H.R. 8 in its current form or similarly defective and damaging legislation and subsequently a conference report comes back to the House in that form, my responsibilities to represent my constituents and my moral responsibility will cause this Member to vote against it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I was off the Hill on official business and missed rollcall vote 79 (H. Con. Res. 66, Revising and Updating ``Women in Congress, 1917-1990''). Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for yielding me time to speak on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman and the ranking member, particularly the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), for her effort; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus.) This has been, as was mentioned, 3 years in the making. Much has been said, and I would extend my remarks to cover some of the details that have been covered in part by others or perhaps wholly; but I want to say that the emphasis should be here on the positive effect that this will have on small businesses nationwide, not just banks but their small business customers. I think that is the most important thing for us to consider. Yes, it affects sterile reserves that the Fed holds, and it permits those sterile reserves to bring interest to the banks involved. I think that is only a matter of equity. The most important part, I think, is the fact that the banking laws implemented during the Great Depression are changed. They have prohibited banks and thrifts from paying interest on business checking accounts. What I expect to happen now is that we are going to have a competition among financial institutions to take advantage of this opportunity to pay interest on these checking accounts. This has, in effect, been done, as mentioned, by large banks in a different way. Small banks have not had the technical expertise or the capacity to offer this service by sweeps to small customers, small business customers. This will now be possible. It deserves our support. I urge my colleagues of the whole House to vote yes on this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act, of which this Member is once again an original cosponsor. This bill will have a positive effect, in particular, on middle- and lower-income married couples as H.R. 6 not only provides tax relief to married couples, but also expands the per-child tax credit. This Member would like to thank both the main sponsor of the marriage tax penalty relief portions of H.R. 6, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for their instrumental role in bringing H.R. 6 to the House Floor. This Member appreciates the efforts of these distinguished colleagues as this Member has been an enthusiastic and active proponent of reducing and eliminating the marriage tax penalty as soon as possible. While there are many reasons to support the marriage tax penalty relief provisions of H.R. 6, this Member will specifically address the following two reasons. First, H.R. 6 takes a significant step toward eliminating the current marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code, as H.R. 6 would double the standard deduction, expand the 15 percent bracket so that it is equal to twice that of singles and at the same time this bill would hold down costs by phasing in that change between 2004 and 2009, and provide relief from the alternative minimum tax so that a married couple who gets the tax cut would not be hit subsequently with a tax increase. Second, H.R. 6 takes a step toward reaching the overall goal that the Federal income tax code should be marriage neutral. Currently, many married couples pay more Federal income tax than they would as two unmarried singles. Generally, the more evenly divided the earned income of the two spouses, the more likely they are to have a structural marriage tax penalty. Hence, married couples where each spouse earns approximately 50% of the total earned income have the largest marriage tax penalties. However, the Internal Revenue Code should not be a consideration when individuals discuss their future marital status. The goal for marriage penalty tax relief is that the individual income tax should not influence the choice of individuals with regard to their marital status--that is a guiding principle for this Member in voting for marriage tax penalty relief. Additionally, and quite importantly, H.R. 6 provides additional family tax relief by expanding the per-child tax credit. Specifically, H.R. 6 would gradually double the child tax credit to $1,000 per child under age 17 by 2006. The tax credit would be raised from $500 to $600 effective this year, which would give families a quick tax break in the current 2001 tax year (i.e., retroactive increase to January 1, 2001). Also, H.R. 6 would retain the current income eligibility limits for the child tax credit. This Member supports the expansion of the child tax credit to give more relief to lower-income couples and to those couples with a stay-at-home spouse. Finally, as in current law, the measure would continue to allow the child tax credit to be refundable to families with three or more children that receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today this Member received a letter from the chief executive officer of one of the many rural telephone companies in Nebraska. Great Plains Communications is based in Blair, Nebraska. Great Plains serves 33,600 lines across 13,600 square miles of rural Nebraska. The company's service area includes 76 communities and 63 exchanges. That amounts to about two and one-half customers per square mile. Fifty of those exchanges have 6 or fewer customers per square mile and 20 of the exchanges have 2 or fewer subscribers per square mile. At a recent telecommunications conference at Creighton University in Omaha, Great Plains CEO Mick Jensen noted that most rural telephone companies are experiencing flat growth, that flat growth makes investment difficult, that costs continue to rise, and that these rural telephone companies lack economies of scale and are serving many customers with limited income. Across the United States more than 1,000 small, local telephone companies are facing similar problems as they work to provide good service to rural residents. These telephone companies have more limited financial resources and relatively higher expenses than large telephone companies. Yet, these small companies must function under FCC regulations intended for large carriers. Mr. Speaker, the Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act will help to end ``one-size-fits-all'' regulation of small and rural telecommunications carriers. It will protect these carriers and their customers from unfair and unnecessary regulatory burdens. And, in doing so, it will free resources that can be used to provide advanced telecommunications services to residents of rural areas.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I rise as a Member of the majority of the Committee on Financial Services and on its behalf to support the resolution, H. Con. Res. 41, before us which expresses sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquakes that struck El Salvador on both January 13 and February 13 and to express our support for the ongoing aid efforts. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for introducing this sense of the Congress resolution and for his efforts in bringing this measure to the House floor today. As noted, this expresses sympathy to the people of El Salvador for the tragic losses which they have incurred. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and other Members have referred to the two massive earthquakes and the hundreds of aftershocks, and also the civil war and the hurricane that have been visited upon the people of El Salvador. Those of us who have visited that country over the years have known about the optimism and especially the energy of the Salvadoran people. No one knows it better than the gentleman from North Carolina and his wife; and as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, they have done so much to assist out of their own financial resources and their own time. As a member of the Committee on Financial Services, we are urging the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and U.S. Agency for International Development to accentuate their aid. This Member has been in contact and will further contact the executive directors of the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank, as well as the leadership of the former, to see what we can do to be of assistance. As a member of both the Committee on Financial Services and a member of the Committee on International Relations, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 41, and thank my colleagues for all they have done in their efforts in working with the people of El Salvador.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to call attention to the continuing threat to U.S. national security posed by lax security standards at our national weapons laboratories. As we have learned in recent years, lax security at our Department of Energy national weapons laboratories has resulted in the loss of some of this nation's most important secrets. This Member had the honor to serve on the select committee tasked with investigating the loss of highly sensitive, classified program technology to the People's Republic of China (the Cox Committee), and can testify that security at our national weapons laboratories had been dangerously compromised. Other investigations have come to similar conclusions. In 1999, a Presidential Commission led by former Senator Warren Rudman pointed to a dysfunctional culture that rebelled at the notion of addressing security requirements at the labs. In recent days, yet another commission has issued a devastating critique, noting that ``there is a dissonance within the system'' and that ``security people are not talking to scientists.'' Mr. Speaker, the issues at stake are too important to ignore. This Member urges President Bush to ensure that proper security becomes a priority at Federally funded institutions, such as the national weapons laboratories, which perform classified work. This Member commends to his colleagues an editorial in the February 24, 2001, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. As the editorial notes, ``George W. Bush campaigned last year on a pledge that he would make the security of the nation's nuclear labs a priority. In the wake of these ongoing embarrassments, it is essential that his Department of Energy deliver on that promise.'' Nuclear Security Particularly Urgent One of the Clinton administration's greatest failures was the Department of Energy's bumbling efforts to maintain security at the nation's nuclear weapons labs. Last year, after embarrassing security breaches exposed the department's Keystone Kops approach to security, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said his department had finally set things right. Yet, according to a new press report, in his final days in office, Richardson suspended those security measures pending a review, saying they had harmed morale. Richardson's action was ill-considered and exasperating. If scientists lack the professionalism to accept the security requirements necessary to safeguard the nation's pre-eminent nuclear research labs, those researchers should seek employment elsewhere. This situation did not come about overnight. For many years, well preceding Clinton, scientists at Los Alamos and other labs tended to display an inappropriate elitist attitude, acting as if they were above the common-sense, if inconvenient, security protocols routinely required of everyone else in the defense establishment. The situation worsened during the Clinton administration as top administrative slots at energy were filled by appointees who exhibited far more enthusiasm for ``progressive'' endeavors such as unsealing classified documents about past radiation- exposure scandals than in something as passe as buttressing weapons-lab security. Last week, the chairman of a commission charged with overseeing security at the nuclear labs described ongoing problems. There is ``dissonance within the system,'' he said, and ``security people are not talking to scientists.'' Those are astounding admissions. Even at this late date, after all the scandals and exposes and reviews, the security arrangements for the weapons tabs are still in a shambles? George W. Bush campaigned last year on a pledge that he would make the security of the nation's nuclear labs a priority. In the wake of these ongoing embarrassments, it is essential that his Department of Energy deliver on that promise.