Doug Bereuter

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.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member today is introducing legislation entitled the Stabilization and Pacification of Southern Serbia Act. This bill is a response to the ongoing violence in southern Serbia and in Macedonia that has been fomented by Albanian extremists seeking to create a greater Kosovo by annexing areas of Macedonia and southern Serbia that also contain large concentrations of Albanians. This legislation would terminate U.S. economic assistance for Kosovo on June 30, 2001, unless the President certifies that citizens or residents of Kosovo are no longer providing assistance to the extremists that are responsible for the worsening situation in both southern Serbia and Macedonia and that leaders of the three main ethnic Albanian political parties of Kosovo are taking positive measures to halt the ethnically motivated violence against non-Albanians residing in Kosovo. It does contain a waiver for the President to continue U.S. assistance if he deems it in the national interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I do rise in strong support of H.R. 834, the Willing Seller amendments act. I would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for his introduction of this legislation; and I also commend the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) the subcommittee chairman, and the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) the chairman, for their assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as cochairman of the House Trails Caucus this Member is keenly aware of the many benefits which the trails provide. Sections of the National Trails System cross nearly every congressional district throughout the country. The willing seller legislation being considered today will help to correct a shortcoming in the National Trails System that has developed over a period of time. Currently, the managers of nine National Scenic and Historic Trails are prohibited from using Federal funds to acquire land from willing sellers. The other 13 National Scenic and Historic Trails do not have such restrictions placed upon them. This bill would correct the inequity by placing all of the Scenic and National Historic Trails in the system on an equal footing when it comes to the acquisition of land from willing sellers. Quite simply, H.R. 834 will provide more alternatives for protecting irreplaceable national resources. The current prohibition often prevents the protection of historic sites and trails corridors. It also limits the options of landowners who may want to sell to the Federal Government; and, of course, that is the restriction. It is a willing seller arrangement. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this bill, I urge my colleagues to support it in order to help ensure that future generations can enjoy all the benefits of our National Trails System.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the European Court of Justice, the supreme judicial body of the European Union, ruled that a former employee of the European Commission (EC), Mr. Bernard Connolly, was legitimately fired by the Commission after he published a book critical of the European Monetary Union. Although the court, in ruling against Mr. Connolly's appeal of his sacking, attempted to cloak its decision in the right of the EC to take disciplinary action when an employee's behavior undermined the trust and confidence that needs to exist between employee and employer (Connolly had published his book without prior permission from the EC), it went on to ascribe to the EC the right to curb dissent and punish individuals who ``damaged the institutions image and reputation.'' In making this kind of argument, the Court comes disturbingly close to harkening back to the discredited concept of seditious libel. The European Union is already under fire because of the lack of democracy in the way many of its institutions, particularly the European Commission, has operated. There is a lack of transparency in the manner in which regulations are established and promulgated, there is said to be a significant lack of accountability on the part of certain important categories of senior EU officials, there is said to be too little oversight exercised by institutions representing the citizens of Europe, and the legislative branch, the European Parliament, which under a regular democracy would fulfill such functions, is still in only the initial stages of asserting such prerogatives more than a quarter of a century after its establishment. In the light of this remaining democratic deficit, the European Court of Justice's ruling against Mr. Connolly is not so much surprising as it is alarming. Mr. Speaker, it has been longstanding policy of the United States to support the creation of first, the European Economic Community, which became the European Community, and then in 1992, the European Union. It made sense from the standpoint of our own interests to have an overarching institution which could serve as a brake upon the possible resurgence of nationalism and conflict on the European continent, and to have our closest trading partners organized as a single market with a single set of regulations for us to do business on the other side of the Atlantic. Now, however, we are seeing much more ambitious and far reaching efforts aimed at creating, if not a ``United States of Europe,'' then a federated Europe with as many of the attributes of a single state as can be agreed upon by its member nations. The European Security and Defense Policy is one manifestation of these efforts, and it has certainly caused a great deal of concern because of the potential to weaken NATO and undermine the solidarity of the North Atlantic Alliance. Another manifestation is the emergence within the European Commission of much more strident economic and trade policies which have fostered increasingly bitter and divisive disputes between the U.S. and our European trading partners. The ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Connolly case strikes at the heart of our common traditions and institutions which are pinned upon basic precepts of human rights. None of which is more fundamental than freedom of speech. If the EU truly believes that it can set itself up to be beyond the reach of spoken or written criticism of its policies, then Mr. Connolly's statement, ``The Court is acting as the sinister organ of a tyranny in the making'' is completely accurate, and those of us who value the trans-Atlantic relationship need vigorously to speak out against it. Our relationship with our friends in Europe will only ensure so long as we continue to hold in common our belief that human rights are fundamental in our society, and our faith in the traditions and institutions that underpin our democratic form of governance.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 3, 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 would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Representative Bill Thomas) the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for his efforts in bringing H.R. 3 to the House Floor as it provides tax relief to all hardworking taxpayers. However, this Member must lament the fact that, in what appears to be a partisan decision, none of the Minority Members of the Committee were willing to support refunding these surplus tax dollars back to the people who paid the taxes--our constituents. 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. 3 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) 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. 3 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. 3. 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. 3 as an important step toward tax relief for all Americans.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, since late last year, we have received a spate of reports indicating that violence is on the rise once again in the southern parts of Yugoslavia, Macedonia, and especially in the Kosovo region. These reports are of special concern because the regions involved in this new outbreak of conflict lie immediately adjacent to the sector of Kosovo which is termed the ``area of responsibility'' for United States troops participating in KFOR, the NATO-led Kosovo peacekeeping operation. Responsibility for most of the increased violence lies with the hard- line Albanian Kosovar nationalists, some of whom quite clearly participated in the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, which is supposed to be disbanded. They are now pushing their extreme agenda through violence in the Presevo Valley, lying across the internal boundary that separates Kosovo from Serbia. As part of the agreement that ended the NATO military air operations against Yugoslavia in June of 1999, a 5-kilometer ground safety zone, GSZ, was established along the internal boundary between Kosovo and Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian military and special police forces were prohibited from entering without expressed authorization by NATO. The Presevo Valley contains several small cities and villages that are home to ethnic Albanians? Unlike their brethren in Kosovo, however, the Albanians of the Presevo Valley chose to remain outside the conflict which wracked Kosovo during 1998 and 1999. Although they certainly had legitimate grievances against the brutal regime of the former Yugoslavian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, the ethnic Albanians in the Presevo Valley rather than overwhelmingly seemed to prefer to settle their problems peacefully rather than through the violent means ultimately employed by the KLA. Beginning in 1999, following the formal disbanding of the KLA, KFOR began receiving reports of the existence of a guerilla force calling itself by the initials UCPMB, the Liberation Army of Presevo, which was infiltrating across the Kosovo boundary into the GSZ in order to harass Serb police officers and intimidate some of the Serb residents of the Presevo Valley and thus caused them to leave the region. In February of 2000, this Member led our House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on a visit to Kosovo, and the commander of U.S. forces briefed us on the situation in the Presevo Valley. In fact, this Member climbed the heights of Kosovo to see the Presevo Valley below. At that time, he said to us that the situation with the so-called UCPMB was his single largest worry insofar as the safety of U.S. troops and other forces under his command were concerned. Since last December, incidents in the Presevo Valley increased with several Serbian police officers reported to have been assassinated, and a joint U.S.-Russian patrol attempting to seal off the boundary came under fire by ethnic Albanians attempting to infiltrate from Kosovo. Last week, we learned of fighting in Macedonia along the border with Kosovo. Reports implicated a shadowy body calling itself the Liberation Army of Macedonia as being behind this most recent violence. What is particularly disturbing about the involvement of Macedonian territory in what seems to be a new onset of a major conflict is that, in addition to Macedonia's enormous strategic significance, the Government of Macedonia, democratically elected last year, includes ethnic Albanians in its governing coalition; and Macedonia recently normalized its relations with Kosovo. Apparently, these democratic and popularly supported measures are unacceptable to the radical Albanian ethnics behind the renewed violence, because these progressive democratic steps undermine their goal of creating a ``greater Albania.'' They continue to have as their goal unification of all ethnic Albanians who inhabit Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania itself into a greater Albania. The numbers of radical Albanian participants in these incidents in southern Serbia and Macedonia is, at present, small. What is of most concern, however, is that they seem to be receiving support and assistance from Kosovo and they have not been repudiated by the ethnic Albanian leadership in Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, this Member is of the opinion that those supporting an extremist agenda within Kosovo are known to some of the leadership within Kosovo; and thereby, they could be denied the support that they are apparently receiving to use Kosovo as a base of operations. The implications of a ``greater Albania'' for the region and for the United States and its allies in Europe are extremely grave. A wider war involving Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey ultimately would be very serious. Our earlier intervention of Kosovo was aimed at stopping that problem. Mr. Speaker, this deserves our attention. We need to make it clear to the Albanian extremists that we will no longer tolerate their efforts to foment violent and ethnic discord in the region. Mr. Speaker, NATO is at present considering measures to stabilize the situation, both in Macedonia and in the Presevo Valley. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson is visiting the Capitol today and tomorrow to meet with Members. This Member is inclined to support suggestions that, given the gravity of the current situation in Macedonia and on its border, Yugoslavian military forces be permitted to operate within the 5 kilometer ground safety zone in southern Serbia. Additionally, this Member strongly believes that we need to return an international preventive peacekeeping force to Macedonia similar to that which helped protect Macedonia from attack and destabilization several years ago. The governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Republic of Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia need to agree to a complete demarcation of the border between Macedonia and Serbia, and to measures to ensure its sanctity and security.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes today to express his support for the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 333. It is important to note that this Member is an original cosponsor of H.R. 333. First, this Member would thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), for introducing the House bankruptcy legislation, H.R. 333. This Member would also 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 Member supports the Bankruptcy Reform Act for numerous reasons; however, the most important reasons include the following: First, this Member supports the provision in H.R. 333 which provides for a means testing--needs-based--formula when determining whether an individual should file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy allows a debtor to be discharged of his or her personal liability for many unsecured debts. In addition, there is no requirement that a Chapter 7 filer repay many of his or her debts. However, Chapter 13 bankruptcy filers commit to repay some portion of his or her debts under a repayment plan. Some Chapter 7 filers actually have the capacity to repay some of what they owe, but they choose Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are able to walk away from these debts. For example, the stories in which an individual filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and then proceeds to take a nice vacation and/or buys a new car are too common. Moreover, the status quo is costing the average American individual and family increased costs for consumer goods and credit because of the amount of debt which is never repaid to creditors. As a response to these concerns, the needs-based test of H.R. 333 will help ensure that high income filers, who could repay some of what they owe, are required to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy as compared to Chapter 7. This needs-based system takes a debtor's income, expenses, obligations and any special circumstances into account to determine whether he or she has the capacity to repay a portion of their debts. Second, this Member supports the additional monthly expense items that are exempted from consideration under the needs-based test which determines, under H.R. 333, whether a person can file either a Chapter 7 or 13 version of bankruptcy. These expenses include the following: reasonable expenses incurred to maintain the safety of the debtor and debtor's family from domestic violence; an additional food and clothing allowance if demonstrated to be reasonable and necessary; and reasonable and necessary expenses for the care and support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled member of the debtor's household or immediate family. Lastly, this Member supports the permanent extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy in H.R. 333 since it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. Using 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 permanently extended for family farmers, its expiration would 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 but to end their operations, it likely will also cause land values to plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will affect the ability of family farmers to obtain adequate credit to maintain a viable farm operation. It 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 and by a permanent extension of the Chapter 12 authorization, Congress can avoid one more negative possibility. In closing, for these aforementioned reasons and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 333.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 256, which extends chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farms and ranches until June 1, 2001. In fact, this legislation makes chapter 12 retroactively effective as of July 1, 2000, which is the previous expiration date. This legislation is very important to the nation's agriculture sector. It should have been enacted last year. First, this Member would thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for introducing this legislation (H.R. 256). This Member would also 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 Member supports this extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy since it allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets. Using 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 but to end their operations, it will also cause land values to likely plunge. Such a decrease in value of farmland will affect the ability of family farmers to earn a living. In addition, it 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, for these aforementioned reasons and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 256.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the February 2, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial highlights the challenges in developing a workable agriculture policy which maintains flexibility while providing farmers with assistance when needed. ``Freedom'' Not in Farm Law The time is at hand for the U.S. government and the Americans involved in production agriculture to decide how they're going to coexist for the next few years. For farmers, in addition, there is the matter of how to survive in a world in which their product is often available in income- depressing surplus. Freedom to farm, the tag line given to the 1996 federal farm policy, came along at an inopportune time. The original plan--an end to federal crop subsidies as of next year-- turned out to be impractical. Something else is needed. The underlying philosophy was worth a try. Agriculture was stagnating under the old system, in which farmers received subsidies for planting a specified number of acres to a specified crop. The 1996 idea was to de-link subsidies from planting decisions for a half-dozen years while continuing the flow of cash in the form of transition payments. This was ``freedom to farm.'' At the end of the transition period, the subsidies would theoretically dry up. Farmers, having tailored their production to maximize their income from the marketplace, would theoretically be ready for financial independence. Now, with the transition period nearing an end, agriculture's ability to take that next step is more than a little doubtful. It turned out that even a relatively deregulated grain-producing industry couldn't respond in time to take advantage of fast-changing market conditions. As the Asian currency crisis worsened in the late 1990s, American farmers were stuck with huge piles of grain they had produced on the theory that the Pacific Rim boom would be sustained into the new century. From planning to planting to harvest takes many months. When conditions change, it's too late if the crop is in the ground. The transition payments, instead of descending as planned, have skyrocketed. Since 1996, when the total was $7 billion, the amount quadrupled. This year's $28 billion constituted half of all the revenues that farmers received from their operations. This isn't healthy. But the best idea to come out of a federal panel, created to monitor the outcome of the 1996 approach, is a new variety of subsidy to provide income maintenance for farmers when hit by sagging market demand for their products. Subsidies have a downside. They keep inefficient operations from being squeezed out by efficient competitors. This creates a self-fulfilling cycle. Inefficiency intensifies the demand for subsidies, leading to more inefficiency. Subsidies, in addition, sometimes undermine the political support for agriculture in parts of the country where the Midwestern corn-wheat-cattle-hogs economy is not well understood. Eastern commentators include farms among the recipients of corporate welfare. They seem to forget that subsidies have been part of a cheap-food policy under which Americans pay a lower percentage of their income for food than is possible in nearly any other part of the world. So the aid the government has given to agriculture is not necessarily bad. Indeed, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman said the alternative would have been chaos in rural America last year. And the current secretary, Ann Veneman, says a ``safety net'' of some sort has to be kept in place, although she has not been more specific. Few farmers and ranchers, given a choice, would accept the subsidized way of life as opposed to an economic system in which they had an even chance to get a fair return on their labor and investment. On the other hand, survival would be difficult, with conditions as they currently are, without what Veneman calls a safety net. Accordingly, designing a system that makes sense financially, politically and socially is a task for the sharpest economic minds. As they proceed, some thought should be given to what returns--such as habitat restoration, wetlands preservation and the safeguarding of productive land in the form of conservation reserves--might be secured, in the process, for the tax-payers.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the January 23, 2001, Lincoln Journal Star. The editorial emphasizes the need to maintain strict standards and take aggressive actions in the United States so that our country does not have to confront the serious effects associated with mad cow disease. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Jan. 23, 2001] Get Tougher on Mad Cow Disease Rules Much has been done in the United States to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. But not enough. More needs to be done. One major need is for a strict prohibition against production of animal feed made from the parts of dead animals. More than 80 people in Britain have already died from mad cow disease. The degenerative brain disease has been detected in one European country after another. France, Germany and Spain have all reported mad cow disease. Earlier this month Italy was added to the list. Needless to say, the effects have been drastic. More than 2 million British cattle were killed in order to stop the spread of the disease. In Germany beef sales have dropped by more than 40 percent. The European Commission estimates that beef consumption among its members dropped by 27 percent between October and December, before the revelation the disease had been detected in Italy. The costs of coping with the new disease are immense. The European Union has set aside almost $1 billion to help its member nations establish new measures to prevent the disease from spreading. Experts believe that bovine spongiform encephalopathy is caused by a twisted protein. The disease destroys brain cells, eventually leaving the brain riddled with spongy holes. The disease is spread when cattle consume feed that includes protein rendered from slaughtered cattle. Since 1997 it has been illegal under Food and Drug Administration regulations to feed mammal proteins to cattle. It is still legal, however, to feed mammal proteins to pigs and poultry. The FDA announced earlier this month that some feed producers frequently fail to use proper warning labels and that some producers have no system to avoid commingling protein from rendered cattle with other products. In other words, the system is flawed. A total ban against using rendered cattle for animal feed admittedly would hurt the rendering industry and perhaps contribute to a rise in the price of feed. But those negative effects should be measured against the need to protect consumers from the human variant to mad cow disease and the economic devastation that would quickly follow discovery of the disease in the United States. In Nebraska, the cattle industry contributes more than $4 billion a year to the state's economy. With mad cow disease continuing to spread in Europe, aggressive measures should be used to keep the disease outside U.S. borders. Legislative has been introduced in North Dakota to prohibit production and use of feed containing animal parts. Nebraska should consider the same approach. Even better would be a ban that is nationwide.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H. Con. Res. 15, which expresses sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck India on January 26, 2001, and provides support for ongoing aid efforts. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for introducing this sense of the Congress resolution and for his efforts in bringing this measure to the House floor today. As is well known, on the morning of January 26, 2001, a deadly earthquake shook the state of Gujarat in western India, which injured and killed untold thousands of people and has left the building infrastructure in ruin. India has appealed to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the international community for the economic assistance to meet the relief needs facing India. It is important to note that the Asian Development Bank promotes development in the Asia-Pacific region through project investment lending, policy reform lending and advice, and technical assistance. As the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, which has jurisdiction over the World Bank and the regional development banks such as the Asian Development Bank, this Member wants to convey his strong support for these aid efforts for India. This sense of the Congress resolution was referred to both the House Financial Services and House International Relations Committee. As a member of both of these committees, this Member would like to encourage his colleagues to vote in support of H. Con. Res. 15.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider carefully the following editorial from the December 27, 2000, edition of the Norfolk Daily News, entitled ``Peltier Pardon Would Be Wrong.'' Peltier Pardon Would Be Wrong--Pine Ridge Murderer of Two FBI Agents Not Deserving of Clemency Not since Gerald Ford ascended to the presidency and promptly pardoned former President Richard Nixon for any Watergrate crimes has an American president been faced with as important a test of the unique constitutional powers of clemency. The U.S. Constitution makes it possible for a president to forgive otherwise unpardonable acts. The power is absolute with the exception of impeachment: ``He shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.'' That makes it possible for President Clinton to follow his pardoning decisions in 62 cases announced recently and provide clemency for Leonard Peltier, 56. Peltier is serving two life sentences in federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan., for the murder of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1975. The agents, Ron Williams and Jack Coler, were attempting to arrest robbery suspects on the Pine Ridge reservation. The agents were injured, then shot in the head repeatedly, at point blank range. The guilty verdict, rendered in 1977 after Peltier had been returned from Canada where he fled after the crime, has withstood multiple appeals. His time in prison has found him playing the role of a victim, innocent not by reason of having no association with the crime but because of the injustice done American Indians. Injustices of the past, however, should not be allowed to excuse vicious crimes of the present. There is now the possibility that President Clinton might agree to the demand of today's activists. They claim (1) that Peltier was a victim of overzealous agents of the federal government, (2) that if he, in fact, committed the crimes for which he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, mistreatment of American Indians justified the slayings and (3) that he has become a changed man in prison, and written useful books about the plight of reservation Indians. There is no question that for many, and especially on the Pine Ridge, conditions were harsh and still are. Murder is still not justified, however, and that must apply especially to those responsible for law enforcement. While we do not believe in the propriety of demonstration-- either against Peltier's incarceration as have taken place repeatedly over the years, or against clemency as the FBI agents did in an orderly way in Washington several days ago-- they have served to highlight this unusual and tragic case. In reaching his last-minute decision, Mr. Clinton needs to look especially at what are the incontrovertible facts of a vicious crime, and the importance to the American system of justice of not treating lightly the cold-blooded murder of federal agents acting to uphold the law.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider carefully and submit the following editorial from the December 30, 2000, edition of the Omaha World- Herald, entitled ``No to a World Court'' into the Congressional Record. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 20, 2000] No to a World Court America's political leaders are being wooed with a siren song they would do well to resist. Foreign governments, political activists and academics are sounding that song with the aim of enticing the United States into ratifying a treaty to create an International Criminal Court. The song goes something like this: Turn away from old notions. Turn away from your antiquated allegiance to national sovereignty. Embrace a higher moral order. Recognize that if nations are to promote true justice, they must swallow their pride and bow to a higher authority, a court, that will decide questions of war crimes and genocide and see that wrongdoers receive the punishment they deserve. If a treaty establishing the court is approved by 60 nations, the world would finally have a permanent international forum with the authority to prosecute masterminds of genocide and war crimes. It is superficially appealing. But behind the high-minded sentiments lies an agenda hostile to U.S. interests. Foreign governments and activists organizations have sent strong indications that they envision the court largely as a tool for reining in the assertion of U.S. power. Through its ability to prosecute American officials and military people, the court would give anti-American critics a powerful new instrument for undermining U.S. military operations and intimidating U.S. leaders from launching future ones. Creation of the court would also aid its boosters in their efforts to create a new standard for military operations, an ``enlightened'' standard that would, in effect, severely restrict U.S. military options under threat of international prosecution. The eagerness of international activists to promote such extravagant legal claims was demonstrated this year when human rights groups tried unsuccessfully to haul NATO officials before an international tribunal investigating war crimes from the Yugoslav civil war. The activists claimed, without foundation, that NATO's 1999 bombing campaign violated international law in reckless disregard for civilians. That air campaign, ironically, was marked not be callousness on the part of NATO officials but by the extraordinary lengths to which they sought to minimize casualties, civilian as well as military. Regrettable losses of civilian life occurred nonetheless, fanning the criticism of such interventions. As if all this weren't enough, the proposed procedures for the International Criminal Court would place it in direct opposition to civil liberties guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Proceedings before the court would allow no trial by jury, no right to a trial without long delays, no right of the defendant to confront witnesses, no prohibition against extensive hearsay evidence and no appeals. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, two American attorneys with extensive experience in international law, note that the court would serve as ``police, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer,'' with no countervailing authority to check its power. Rivkin and Casey also point out that trying Americans under such conditions was precisely the sort of injustice that Thomas Jefferson warned against in the Declaration of Independence more than 200 years ago. In listing the injustices committed by the British government, the Declaration heaped particular scorn on the way Americans had been abused by British vice-admiralty courts. Such courts, the Declaration said, had subjected American defendants ``to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.'' The courts denied people ``the benefits of Trial by Jury'' and involved transporting them ``beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.'' When the U.S. Constitution was drafted in the late 1780s, it specifically required that criminal trials be by jury and held in the state and district where the crime was committed. The appropriate course for the United States would be to continue supporting international courts on an ad hoc basis, such as the Yugoslav tribunal, to meet the needs of particular situations. Such bodies have powers far more modest than that of the proposed court. A chorus of foreign governments, advocacy groups and commentators has a far different agenda, however. They are urging the United States to sign and ratify the treaty creating the International Criminal Court. To hinder the court's creation, they say, would be the opposite of progressive. But the siren song ought to be resisted. Otherwise, by bowing to foolhardy legal restrictions, the United States would be handing its clever critics the very chains with which they would bind this country. And so we would lose some of our ability to defend not only our own interests but the freedoms of others.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac, ``Don't throw stones at your neighbors', if your own windows are glass.'' This sage advice written in 1736 is still current today and certainly applicable to those across the Atlantic who have focused on the problems in Florida and mocked the United States electoral system. While the closeness of the vote in Florida resulted in exercise of a constitutional process in the U.S. that has not had to have been used before, the challenges ahead for the European Union as it tries to integrate new members and address its own internal voting system are just beginning and may be far more difficult to resolve. In that regard, this Member recommends to his colleagues I submit the following editorial published by the Omaha World Herald on December 9, 2000, on this subject into the Congressional Record. If the Shoe Fits, EU Should Wear It The Florida vote-could mess has triggered a month-long eruption of contemptuous tut-tutting from European leaders and commentators. Finger-wagging scolds from London, Paris and other centers of European enlightenment have taken particular aim at the Electoral College. One columnist grumped in The Times of London: ``What moral authority would a man have to hold his finger over the nuclear trigger when he owed his office not to a majority but the byproduct of a bankrupt electoral college?'' A German writer made do by simply calling the Electoral College ``idiotic.'' Scratch those European criticisms hard enough, however, and you uncover what could be called, at best, inconsistency and at worst hypocrisy. It turns out that one of Europe's most revered institutions, the European Union, has long governed itself by the very principles associated with the Electoral College. That is, the decision-making process for the EU, an association of 15 European countries linked by close economic and political ties, is structured so that small countries are given tremendous added weight and, thus, influence. The best illustration is shown by comparing the EU's largest member, Germany, to its smallest, Luxembourg. Germany, with 82 million inhabitants, has a population some 205 times that of Luxembourg's of 400,000 (which, coincidentally, is about the size of Omaha's municipal population). If the seats that Luxembourg and Germany have on the Council of Ministers, one of the EU's governing bodies, were assigned in proportion to the two countries' actual populations, Luxembourg would control two seats and Germany would control 410. Instead, Luxembourg has two seats and Germany has 10. The advantage given to smaller states is even greater in another EU institution, the European Commission. There, the five largest countries each have two seats, while the rest have one. That arrangement resembles the situation in the U.S. Senate, where small states are each accorded precisely the same number of seats as big states. The EU gives its smallest members one more advantage, allowing any country, regardless of its size, to exercise a veto on decisions involving taxation and foreign policy. In short, if Europeans deride the Electoral College's rules as ``idiotic,'' they should say the same about those of the European Union. In recent days the EU's governing rules have been under negotiation as part of the organization's plans to expand its membership to former members of the Soviet bloc and other candidate nations. Representatives from the EU's smallest members have put up quite a fight to defend the prerogatives they've traditionally enjoyed, and protesters have demonstrated on behalf of the same cause, although it appears some watering down of the small-state advantages will ultimately result. If European commentators want to understand many of the arguments behind the Electoral College, they don't have to look to America. The debate over those principles is taking place in their own back yard.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 4577, the FY 2001 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. This Member strongly supports the funding level for the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) givebacks, the increase in spending for education, and the tax assistance for affordable housing. First, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, cuts were made that put a great deal of stress on many Medicare and Medicaid providers, particularly in rural areas. In a predominately rural state, such as Nebraska, a growing elderly population greatly relies upon the services Medicare and Medicaid reimburse. Hospitals and other health service providers throughout my district have been in constant communication with my office describing the financial stress that they have been put under as a result of these cuts. This Member strongly supports the ``givebacks'' provided in the bill that will not only shore up the financial stability of our health service providers but also extend the benefits that Medicare will be able to provide our senior population as a result of its enactment. Second, this Member supports the $44.5 billion that the bill provides for education spending. This is a $6.5 billion increase over last year's education funding level and is $2 billion more than the President's request. Specifically, this Member supports the $1.34 billion increase in special education grants, the $994 million allocated for Impact Aid, and the increase in the funding level for Pell grants. However, the Member believes we are setting a bad precedent by beginning grant programs for school modernization. Obviously, this money can be well used by a number of school districts; however, funding public school buildings and renovation is a responsibility of states and local school districts and not the Federal Government. Once we start funding school renovation, this effort could possibly extend to construction of new schools with no end expected. The Federal Government thus would provide a reward for those states who have not kept up with their responsibilities for their school buildings; sometimes because they lack the will to raise the revenue locally. The school districts in my state and many others have generally met their responsibilities and should not be expected to have resources from their Federal income taxes subsidize states and school districts that are not meeting their responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, the funding of public elementary and secondary schools, under the U.S. Constitution, is primarily the responsibilities of the states. We should not start this Federal grant program. Lastly, this Member supports the essential tax assistance for affordable housing in this legislation. In particular, the measure increases the highly successful Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit from $1.25 per capita to $1.75 per capita in 2002. This tax credit provides an essential incentive to developers to construct affordable housing. In addition, this legislation increases the Private Activity Bond Cap from the current $50 per capita to $75 per capita and it increases the small state bond cap limit from $150 million to $225 million in 2002. The private activity bond cap in Nebraska provides tax exempt financing for, among other things, single and multifamily housing. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others, this Member encourages his colleagues to support H.R. 4577. The measure provides a necessary increase in the essential services upon which so many Nebraskans and others throughout the country rely.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes today to express his support for H.R. 3594, the Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000, of which this Member is a cosponsor. This bill, which is being considered under suspension of the rules, will have a positive effect on small businesses nationwide. At the outset, this Member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] for introducing this legislation and the distinguished Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from Texas [Mr. Archer] for his efforts in bringing this measure to the House Floor. This legislation, H.R. 3594, eliminates the provision of the tax code which repealed the use of the installment method of accounting for accrual method taxpayers. This bill is necessary because of a provision in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (P.L. 106- 170), which was signed into law in 1999. Unfortunately, this Act included a prohibition on the use of the installment method by accrual method taxpayers. As a result of this provision, these type of taxpayers are currently required to pay tax on all capital gains in the first year of an installment sale, regardless of when cash payment is received. This provision is particularly onerous for small businesses. For example, installment sales methods are common for situations where the seller continues to stay involved in the transferred small business or when a family business transfers from one generation to the next. Furthermore, this Member has been told that neither the Administration nor the Ways and Means Committee anticipated nor understood the effect the inclusion of this prohibition in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act would have on small businesses. Fortunately, H.R. 3594 remedies this by situation by repealing the prohibition on using the installment method of accounting for accrual method taxpayers. Therefore, for these reasons, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3594, the Installment Tax Correction Act of 2000. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends this December 14, 2000, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News expressing strong concern regarding the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation on ergonomics. Ergo-nonsense New OSHA workplace regulation isn't based on a completed study The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration calls its new regulation the ``Ergonomics Program Standard.'' The National Federation of Independent Businesses has a different description: ``Ergo-nonsense.'' ``Scheduled to take effect on Jan. 16, 2001, it is, without question, the most burdensome, expensive and intrusive regulation ever to be imposed on the small-business community,'' said Jack Faris, federation president. We would have to agree. Ostensibly designed to help prevent repetitive motion injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome, the new regulation will require employers to alter the workplace in order to do so. It's a noble intent. But the regulation assumes that employers aren't already doing everything possible to take care of the health and well-being of employees. The regulation also doesn't have a scientific basis, seeing as how the National Academy of Science's study on ergonomics isn't even completed yet. It's also curious how this 1,688-page regulation was able to be introduced and published in about a year's time, when, on average, it takes OSHA four years to do so with other regulations. Because President Clinton allowed the regulation to move forward, it now will take legal action to stop it. That's not a sure thing, so business owners everywhere had better start preparing for their own version of ``ergo-nonsense.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this Member wants to express my appreciation and my commendations to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema); as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); and to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and others who have made important contributions in this legislation. This legislation does, through a number of provisions, advance the cause of homeownership across the United States, as well as improving the housing opportunities for those Americans who rent their homes. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that among the most poorly housed Americans are those that live on Indian reservations. In most cases, they live in housing that is public housing, but by the permanent extension of a demonstration program, section 184, we provide for the first time through this legislation a continuing opportunity for Native Americans living on Indian reservations to own their own homes. This Member believes that is a major contribution. Additionally, as a part of that effort, through the establishment of an Indian Lands Title Report Commission, with a sunset, we will see direction and consistency given to the Bureau of Indian Affairs so that their procedures are standard and have a positive effect across the whole country for the use of section 184. In the area of the housing programs of USDA, this legislation makes a number of very important advances. Among other things, it makes it possible for us to extend the provisions of the so-called ``Norfolk amendment'' to those medium-sized cities that are nonmetropolitan for the next decade. These are important provisions of USDA's housing programs for those of us Americans who live in smaller cities and villages and on farms. Through this method and others, as we modernize and make it more likely that these USDA programs will be beneficially used by the USDA's clients across the country. This legislation, H.R. 5640, contains many of the same provisions included in the earlier American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act, H.R. 1776, which passed the House by a vote of 417-8, on April 6, 2000, with this Member's support. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to act on H.R. 1776. In addition, many of these provisions also were included in S. 1452, which passed the House on October 24, 2000, by a voice vote. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on S. 1452. For many Americans, the most important investment they make is to purchase a home. Homeownership gives an individual or family a sense of pride in themselves, their home, as well as in their community. This legislation goes to great lengths to promote homeownership for Americans across the entire country. The following are, in this Member's opinion, six significant provisions, among many others, of the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. First, this legislation allows families to use their Federal monthly assistance for down payment assistance. Second, this legislation amends Section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 to allow borrowers of the Rural Housing Service (RHS) single- family loans to refinance either an existing Section 502 direct or guaranteed loan to a new Section 502 guaranteed loan, provided the interest rate is at least equal or lower than the current interest rate being refinanced and the same home is used as security. This Member supports this legislation as it utilizes the RHS Section 502 Single Family Loan Guarantee Program. In particular, this loan guarantee program, which was first authorized because of my initiative, has been very effective in non-metropolitan communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to low to moderate income households. In particular, since its inception as a pilot program in 1991, the Section 502 Single-Family Loan Guarantee Program has facilitated over $10.2 billion in lending in non-metropolitan areas. This translates into 151,000 loans to families who now own homes which they otherwise may not have been able to purchase. Third, this measure extends the grandfather status until the 2010 census for similarly situated cities nationwide like Norfolk, Nebraska, to continue to be able to use the USDA Rural Housing Service program. The current grandfather is until the 2000 census, which is currently under way. This Member introduced a bill earlier in the 106th Congress which would accomplish the furtherance of this grandfather provision until 2010. Fourth, this legislation also includes a permanent authorization of Section 184, the Native American Loan Guarantee program, which this Member authored. Under current law, the Section 184 program is authorized through 2001. A very conservative estimate would suggest that the Section 184 program should annually facilitate over $72 million in guaranteed loans for privately financed homes for Indian families who are otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. Fifth, a provision is included in this legislation which would create a short term Indian Lands Title Report Commission to improve the procedure by which the Bureau of Indian Affairs conducts title reviews in connection with the sale of Indian lands. This provision is identical to a bill that this Member introduced previously in the current 106th Congress. Moreover, this Commission should facilitate the Section 184 program to benefit additional Native Americans in purchasing homes. Sixth, this Member is pleased that as a matter of equity, this legislation extends Native American housing assistance to Native Hawaiians. In particular, it applies the Section 184 Loan Guarantee program to the unique legal status of the Hawaiian home lands. Lastly, it is important to note that this bill no longer contains the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reduced downpayment provisions for municipal employees. This provision resulted in opposition to the bill by some in the Senate. Hopefully, the Senate will now finally act on the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. In closing, this Member, because of the above provisions, and for other reasons, would encourage his colleagues to vote for H.R. 5640.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, recently the Chief of Staff of the Army took it upon himself to permit all members of the Army, including all reservists and National Guardsmen, to wear a black beret. Traditionally, this honor has only been conferred upon Army Rangers, with Airborne units being permitted to wear maroon berets and Special Forces the well-known green beret. While the Army chief's motive of enhancing morale may have been laudable, the decision to permit all Army personnel to wear the prized beret diminishes its significance. A nation does not create crack troops by giving everyone the insignia that previously had been reserved only for the elite. Mr. Speaker, symbols often have meaning. The symbolism and mystique of the black beret was earned on the battlefield, and in countless thankless peacekeeping operations. Making the prized black beret common headgear diminishes the efforts and the sacrifices of those who have earned the right to wear the beret. This Member urges the Army to reconsider this decision, and submits into the Congressional Record an article in the November 4, 2000 edition of the Omaha-World Herald entitled ``Still Time to Save the Black Beret.'' Still Time To Save the Black Beret The black beret is a symbol of the mighty effort that U.S. Army Rangers put into training, readiness and service. An effort in the brass to usurp that badge of honor must feel like a bayonet in the gut. Gen. Eric Shinseki, the new Army chief of staff, came up with the idea personally and unilaterally, apparently after giving a talk to an audience of black-bereted Rangers, maroon-bereted Airborne and green-bereted Special Forces. His thought: Give every member of the Army, including reservist, the right to wear a black beret. National Guard, too. His reasoning: If the black beret is good for the elite Rangers, it would be good for everyone else, too. The Army must ``accept the challenge of excellence,'' he said in announcing the change. The black beret ``will be symbolic of our commitment to transform this magnificent Army into a new force.'' Oh, and it's also a fashion statement, too, according to an Army spokesman. Black is the only color beret that would go with every Army uniform. So black it must be. What is Shinseki thinking? These guys are the Rangers, the Army's least unconventional warriors. They do 15-mile runs just to get warmed up. With full pack. They are known for being able to survive off the land--on rats, snakes and insects if necessary. Their kind of combat is called, with good if understated reason, ``extreme prejudice.'' They often remain Rangers, in spirit at least, for the rest of their lives. They have active and up-front veterans organizations. And it is these organizations that stepped up to lead the objections to Shinseki's fashion statement. (Active-duty Rangers will, of course, obey any order fully and promptly, no matter how much the order might sear the soul.) Shinseki offered to give the Rangers an alternative--a group of senior noncommissioned officers is going to come up with a substitute Ranger symbol. An alternative, whatever it might be, is not good enough, the veterans groups said. Amen to that. Receiving the black beret is an honor earned by hard work, courage and commitment. Handing it out willy- nilly to every soldier who passes basic training is something akin to awarding the Medal of Honor to anyone who reaches the rank of private first-class. But, hey, they'll come up with some alternative or other to give to Medal-of-Honor winners. No prob. The idea was ill-conceived from the start. Thankfully, there is time to get Shinseki's idea overturned. If veterans organizations can't do the job through official channels, they have said they will go to the new president, whoever he might be, and ask for an executive order. President Kennedy, after all, gave exclusive rights to green berets to the Special Forces. President Bush or President Gore could easily do the same for the Rangers. And should.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to bring the following insightful opinion piece from the November 1, 2000, edition of the Financial Times to the attention of his colleagues. Written by Mr. Jagdish Bhagwati, the Andre Meyer senior fellow in international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, this commentary accurately describes the weak record of the current Administration over the past eight years in achieving needed comprehensive trade liberalization. It then forcefully identifies the disturbing consequences for further liberalization, which is beneficial to the United States and the international trading system, should Mr. Gore win the presidency. I submit the following article into the Record. Discrimination Disguised as Free Trade A Democratic Victory in the Presidential Election Would Bring Disturbing Consequences for Liberalization, Argues Jagdish Bhagwati Many card-carrying Democrats among America's trade experts are unable to make up their minds as the day approaches when they must cast their vote for George W. Bush or Al Gore. When they think of social issues, the Supreme Court vacancies to be filled and spending on liberal programmes, they turn to Mr. Gore. But when they think of the Clinton- Gore administration's record on trade policy and of what Mr. Gore promises to do, they sit up and shudder. The unpleasant reality is that the outcome of the election has huge implications--disturbing under Mr. Gore and comforting under Mr. Bush--for trade liberalisation and the trading system. Start with the current administration's record. True, the White House saw through both the Uruguay round of trade talks and the North American Free Trade Agreement. But while the administration fought hard and well--as indeed a Republican administration would have done--both were Republican initiatives that the present administration inherited when they were already at an advanced stage. Furthermore, the real heroes who delivered the majority votes were Republicans. The Democratic administration's only home-grown success has been with Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. But the deal was entirely one-sided, with China giving the U.S. everything on market access and the U.S. giving China nothing but entry into the World Trade Organization. The Democratic team passed off these deals as a great victory for the US and for free trade. But no amount of spin can hide the ineptitude that led to the first ever failure in 1997 by a US administration to get fast-track authority renewed by Congress: Bill Clinton managed to bring only a fifth of House Democrats on board to vote for renewal. Nor can one forget or forgive the debacle in Seattle last year when a deadly mix of mismanagement and calculated cynicism--pandering to the labour unions with an eye to the elections--dashed hopes of launching a new round of multilateral trade negotiations and brought the WTO into unmerited disrepute. Underlying these failures, and prospective problems under a Gore presidency, are two legacies of this administration: surrender to the notion that free trade requires ``fair trade''; and a capitulation to labour unions that fair trade requires market access to be conditional on a social clause at the WTO on fulfilment of labour standards, now tactically defined as ``workers' rights''. The rise of fair trade owes much to the first Clinton-Gore administration's fixation with Japan. Bent on branding Japan as an ``unfair trader'' and going for high-profile but fruitless confrontations such as the car dispute, the administration made ``unfair trade'' a favoured tactic in the political domain. The labour lobbies have been smart enough to adapt their demands accordingly. For decades they have worried about foreign competition and outflow of investment, especially in labour-intensive goods such as apparel and shoes. Now, they have a great new argument: unless labour standards elsewhere are similar to those in the US, trade is unfair and must be stopped. This way, you get on to higher moral ground. You also do so in the battle over markets. If poor countries accept the demands, their costs should rise and the competition will be reduced. By contrast, if they do not their exports will be cut off. This is a cynical game where governments that badly need support from the labour unions even as they turn to the ``third way'' see domestic political gain in caving in to these demands. The Clinton-Gore team-- unlikely Tony Blair's British government--is no stranger to this tactic. Last week's announcement of a free trade agreement with Jordan--with labour and environmental standards stipulated in the text--left John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO trade union jubilant and fired up for the election. Charlene Barshefsky, the US trade representative, has called it a ``template'' for all trade treaties by the US. Only a significant power would have the hubris or the chutzpah to present a trade agreement with a monarchy essentially dependent on the US, with a minuscule trade volume, as a model for the rest of the world to emulate. But that Al Gore thinks so is certain. Indeed, his policy statements and the Democratic platform are unambiguous: no trade liberalisation without such preconditions. If so, we can forget the WTO where nothing but a big north-south divide will follow, as it did in Seattle largely as a result of this issue. And so, under Mr. Gore, Washington will contemplate more templates with inconsequential performers, multilateral trade liberalisation will languish, and the WTO will atrophy as the world is plagued by yet more inherently preferential free trade agreements masquerading as genuine non-discriminatory free trade. Is this what we deserve?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of the S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) conference report. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Shuster), Chairman of the Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), Ranking Member on the Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee for all their hard work in bringing this important conference report to the Floor. This Member is especially appreciative that he has had the opportunity in the 106th Congress to serve on the Transportation Committee and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Clearly, it has been a highlight of the 106th Congress for this Member. This important legislation presents a tremendous opportunity to improve flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental protection. This Member is pleased that the conference report we are considering today includes contingent approval for the sand Creek watershed project in Saunders County, Nebraska. This proposed project, which is a result of the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study, is designed to meet Federal environmental restoration goals, help provide state recreation needs, solve local flooding problems and preserve water quality. It is sponsored jointly by the Lower Platte North NRD, the City of Wahoo and Saunders County. The plans for the project include a nearly 640-acre reservoir, known as Lake Wanahoo, wetlands restoration and seven upstream sediment nutrient traps. The Sand Creek watershed project would result in important environmental and recreational benefits for the area and has attracted widespread support. It is especially crucial that the Sand Creek project is included in WRDA this year as the Nebraska Department of Roads is ready to begin design of an expressway in that area that will be routed across the top of a dam if the project is approved. If the Sand Creek project is not included in WRDA, a new bridge will have to be planned and built, which probably would make the project not economically feasible. This Member is also very pleased that contingent authorization of the Antelope Creek flood control project is included in WRDA 2000. Antelope Creek runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city of Lincoln. The purpose of the project is to solve multi-faceted problems involving the flood control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in this project since he was responsible for stimulating the City of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control system for Antelope Creek in the downtown area of Lincoln. Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream, became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and created an unstable situation. A ten-foot by twenty-foot (height and width) closed underground conduit that was constructed between 1911 and 1916 now requires significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A dangerous flood threat to adjacent public and private facilities exists. The goals of the project are to construct a flood overflow conveyance channel which would narrow the flood plain from up to seven blocks wide to the 150-foot wide channel. The project will include trails and bridges and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems. Another Nebraska project was included on the contingent authorization list for Western Sarpy and Clear Creek for flood damage reduction. Frankly, this Member must say he has reservations about the Clear Creek project in light of comments from his constituents in adjacent Saunders County. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support this important conference report. In the short time left in the 106th Congress, we must work to ensure WRDA becomes law this year.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I know that Bill Barrett and Elsie appreciate them as well. The gentleman mentioned his service on the Committee on Agriculture. The other committee on which Bill served, as he has from the beginning, is now called the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and the chairman of that committee is here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and I yield to him.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his remarks regarding our colleague, Bill Barrett. I know that they will be very well received by Bill. Mr. Speaker, he is exactly right, and I can imagine that he would be bringing up the interest of rural, not metropolitan, America in practically everything he did on the gentleman's committee. In fact, I asked for examples from his staff on three of the things that Bill was most pleased or proud of in recent times, and two of the things the gentleman mentions are indeed among them. His staff said, well, certainly one of the things is the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. Secondly, I know that he was involved in some issues that relate to schools and giving rural schools a better opportunity to use their funds more flexibly. I think it is called the Rural School Initiative, whereby included in the appropriations conference report it would allow rural schools to combine formula grants and apply for supplemental funds to offer extra flexibility and funding for locally determined education needs. Also, the passage of a bill, the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvements Acts of 2000, which is extremely important to his district and to rural America generally. It is true that Bill Barrett is one of the nicest people you will ever run into. He regards everybody that he meets as a potential friend; and I think, as you walk with him through the halls of the House of Representatives, it is very interesting and complimentary to him that he is on a first-name basis with so many of the people on the staff who do exceptional work for us here in the House of Representatives. This is a special place to Bill, and the people that work here with us are special to him. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that my other colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) may not be able to join us tonight. I know he had, in effect, I believe baby-sitting duties for his three young sons, but I will submit his statement certainly for the Record here. I wanted to just read a couple of excerpts from the letter of our colleague from the second district in his first term, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). He has this to say about Bill Barrett: ``He has spearheaded efforts to maintain alcohol fuels tax credit and in 1998, succeeded in extending a program vital to Nebraska's corn growers and a nation in need of renewable energy resources. He is a distinguished gentleman who is always well informed and insightful. Congressman Bill Barrett, even though I was in my first term,'' Mr. Terry goes on to say, ``never pushed his advice on me; he was always available when I sought his sage advice on policy and procedure. Without exception, it was well grounded and rooted in his love for our State. There is no doubt his counsel made me a better representative for Nebraska, as the wonderful public servant that he is, Congressman Barrett is an even more remarkable man for his devout faith, spirituality, and his unending love of his family.'' I think in light of that last remark, it is not surprising to know that Bill Barrett was, in fact, the chairman of the House Bipartisan Nondenominational Prayer Breakfast, which meets every Thursday here at 8 a.m. Bill Barrett is without a doubt the colleague that I have served with who is the most cooperative and friendly and totally dedicated person in his performance that I have had the pleasure to serve with. He has many friends here. He was elected as the president of his class, and I think continued to serve in that throughout his career here. Among his classmates are two gentlemen that are alleged to look exactly like him. I know when the three of them are sitting together, as not only good friends, but they look alike, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). They oftentimes will sit right over there, and they make sure that they have their glasses on at the same time so that they are almost indistinguishable, and sometimes I think they take great care in what they deliver in the way of comments on the House Floor because they might be mistaken for the other. In any case, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) is also leaving. He is also a distinguished member of the Committee on Agriculture that has been very helpful to Bill and to me and to our constituents. But I know that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), in particular, asked me to express their extraordinary fondness and appreciation for the service that Bill Barrett has rendered here as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. Those of my colleagues that watch the proceedings of the floor will oftentimes find Bill Barrett as the presiding officer of this body. Again and again, throughout the day and into the evenings, he is a person you could rely upon to give fair kinds of decisions and good council and dignity to the Chamber as a presiding officer. So Bill Barrett and Elsie, we are going to miss Bill here very much. We know that you are going to be happy to have more of his time. But we look forward to the last few days of service here with Bill Barrett, and then I look forward to continuing to work with him as a citizen of our State of Nebraska.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 5540, which extends Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to June 1, 2001. Chapter 12 bankruptcy, which allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets, was scheduled to expire last year, but it has been extended through enactment of separate legislation. This Member would thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nick Smith) for introducing H.R. 5540. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), and the distinguished ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee from Michigan (Mr. John Conyers, Jr.) for their efforts in expediting this measure to the House floor today. Chapter 12 bankruptcy has been a viable option for family farmers nationwide. 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, this will have a drastic impact on an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have to end their operations, but also land values will likely plunge downward. Such a decrease in land values will affect both the ability of family farmers to earn a living and the manner in which banks, making agricultural loans, conduct their lending activities. This Member has received many contacts from his constituents regarding the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the serious situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--although the U.S. economy is generally healthy, it is clear that agricultural sector is hurting. The gravity of this situation for family farmers nationwide makes it imperative that Chapter 12 bankruptcy is extended. Moreover, it is this Member's hope that Chapter 12 bankruptcy is extended permanently as provided in the conference report of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, which passed the House by a vote of 237-174, with this Member's support, on October 26, 2000. Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to pass this conference report. Furthermore, this Member is an original cosponsor of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, that was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law from Pennsylvania (Mr. George Gekas). In closing, this Member would encourage his colleagues support for H.R. 5540, which extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy until June 1, 2001.