Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his support for the Rohrabacher amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Rohrabacher amendment to prohibit aid from going to the corrupt murderous government of Cambodia.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher amendment, and I am pleased to support it. As my colleagues know, as I was listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), he spoke movingly about the conditions in Cambodia, and I have no doubt that he and the gentleman from California have both seen the same deplorable conditions that exist there, but there seems to be something missing here. It seems we are talking beyond each other. There is no intent of the gentleman from California, I am sure, there is no intent of this gentleman to stop any funds from going to assist the people in Cambodia. In fact, I think the three of us might agree we ought to be giving more resources to help the people in Cambodia. What the gentleman from California is attempting to do is assure that no U.S. taxpayers funds goes to the government of Cambodia, and that is what this Congress did last year in the appropriation measure, because this gentleman offered the amendment. We eliminated the possibility of money going to the Cambodian government. We want it to go through those NGOs where my colleagues saw the good work being done, and there is nothing to keep AID or any other institution of American government from providing authorized funds which are appropriated to nongovernmental organizations for valid purposes in Cambodia. And in fact, the authorizing committee has taken this step as well. Now I would like to say the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is exactly right in the way he has characterized the outrageous people that run that government. We ought not be putting one cent of the taxpayers' money into that government. When we do, we send exactly the wrong message, that we tolerate the kind of murderous people that are running that country. That is something I tell my colleagues as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific this government ought not do, and that is the direction we have given to the Executive Branch. Now let me give my colleagues one example of how the government of Cambodia is using some of the funds today. Let us talk about the Cambodian Mine Action Center. About one out of every 250 people in Cambodia have been injured or killed by mines, and it is a serious problem, there is no doubt about that. Well, according to reports in the Australian, the newspaper, one of the most prestigious newspapers in Australia, according to the South China Morning Post, the most important newspaper in Hong Kong, the nepotism, the corruption that has existed in this mining program where the leaders of that government are directing funds to go to demine the land of their cronies, of their political people from the Pol Pot regime is outrageous. Of the $12 million that are spent so far, at least 1 million, 1.3 million, has been spent corruptly. In fact, the executive director of that agency admitted in a press release that at least a half a million dollars of it had been spent in that fashion. And we have colleagues in the most prestigious academic institutions in this country with specialists on Cambodia which will verify that a minimum of one-tenth of the money on that government-run program to demine is being misused for the advantage of the cronies of the government. Now that is the way the Cambodian government uses their money. That is the way they take the international funds. Fortunately, it is not involving U.S. funds because we have acted. Now both of these newspapers have reported that we have held up $1 million. Our ambassador in Phnom Penh held up $1 million plus to keep it from going to this corrupt entity of the Cambodian government. Mr. Chairman, my colleague's instincts were right last Congress, they are right in the authorizing committee. We stripped, eliminate, prohibit any funds from going to Cambodian government, and, if my colleagues will, send a lot more to help the people of Cambodia through NGOs. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment but, again, the proposed use of funds by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is entirely salutary and commendable. I spoke a few minutes ago against the Brown-Morella amendment because it was taking money out of the IMET program, the same IMET program that provides training to the military officers and men of the reserves that the gentlewoman from Texas mentioned and to South Africa where they are trying to encourage promotion of black officers in the South African military. I just want my colleagues to know that the IMET fund is a not a slush fund that can be drawn down or slashed from for every good purpose. I will energetically do what I can to keep the conference from reducing the IMET funds because it is so valuable. I stipulate all my arguments that I gave on the Morella-Brown amendment to also apply as here on the amendment by the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is right, this is pure propaganda. Never has there been such a misguided, concerted propaganda effort against an organ of the United States government. What bothers me, what saddens me, is the emotion, obviously deep emotion, because of the atrocities that affected the Maryknoll nuns, the Jesuit priests, the Archbishop Romero. This emotion would cause us to do irrational things. It is time to leave behind this debate. I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman who just spoke, nothing will bring back the gentleman's friends. Those people were killed by men who did not receive their training to kill at the School of the Americas. He is on a mission from the 1980s. That mission today is misguided. Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues are aware, there is this concerted effort to discredit the U.S. Army School of the Americas, the persistent use of outdated arguments of what the members consider to be a misreading of the record of outstanding service of nearly all of the school's graduates. The School of the Americas, of course, is a key foreign policy tool for the United States in Latin America and the Caribbean. It helps to shape the region's leadership and environment in ways that are favorable to American interests. The school is also an integral part of the U.S. Southern Command's engagement strategy for the region. At the end of the Cold War the attendant shift in U.S. national security strategy from containment to engagement and enlargement, and the emergence of new challenges to U.S. security interests, clearly has transformed many of America's institutions. Like most military institutions, the U.S. School of the Americas has undergone substantial changes. I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, this organization is not a mistake. It leads for democracy, not against it. It has emerged over the Cold War period with a revitalized and strengthened mission that promotes democracy, civilian control of the military, and respect for human rights. The change in mission has driven a corrresponding shift in the school's curriculum. Today the School of the Americas emphasizes drug interdiction and eradication, humanitarian assistance and demining operations, civil- military relations, ethical, legal, and operational perspectives pertaining to human rights, democratic issues sustainment, and the conduct of peacekeeping and broader operations. With that as the kind of curriculum, it is no wonder that the officers and men involved in the School of the Americas, members of the United States Army, are insulted when they are charged with leading to the kind of abuses that are suggested as coming from their graduates. Opponents of the school have indicted it is responsible for or complicit in many of the human rights abuses committed in Latin American countries. The facts are that in the School of the Americas 53-year tenure, during which it has graduated over 60,000 students, a small fraction of 1 percent of those students have ever been linked to human rights violations. The lessons of the school did not take for these people, but probably nothing would have changed those evil and illegal inclinations. Do all the graduates of our leading religious universities and colleges lead exemplary lives when they graduate? Of course they do not. The students of the School of the Americas committed violence in spite of, not because of what they learned at the School of the Americas. Recent retired military officers trained at the school have included ten Latin American heads of State, 37 cabinet members, and over 100 chiefs of the Armed Forces and Chiefs of Staff of the services. General Jaime Guzman, a graduate, the minister of defense of El Salvador, has made heroic strides toward the elimination of human rights abuses by that Nation's military forces, a force that during the 1980s numbered abuses in the range of 2,000 per month. Ironically, a direct benefit of the scrutiny of the school, including the scrutiny of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I commend him for it, has resulted in very positive changes. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I ask my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, as the vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). These are people that I truly respect and appreciate, and nothing could detract from the value of what they are trying to do, except from where they are taking the money. Not one word was said about the reduction of the $10 million, now $5 million, in the IMET fund. I am surprised, actually, at my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on the Committee on International Relations, because I know that he understands how important this money is. I would say that this is the best money that the Defense Department spends when it comes to foreign policy, and it probably ranks up there on the top of what we spend in any department for impacting foreign policy favorable to the United States of America. I really hate to see the money taken from this account. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us actually freezes the IMET account at last year's level of $50 million, which of course in real dollars represents a cut. The administration had requested a $2 million increase. Secretary Perry, our former Secretary, felt so strongly about the impact of IMET he came up to the Hill and devoted an entire breakfast speech before Members of the House supporting additional funds for IMET, and certainly Secretary Cohen feels the same way about it. I just think this is a very, very unfortunate place to take the money. As I said, not one word is mentioned where the money is being taken from for a very valuable purpose that our colleagues are suggesting. IMET encourages mutually beneficial relations and increases the understanding between the United States and foreign countries in furtherance of the goals of peace and security. Furthermore, IMET increases the awareness of nationals of foreign countries through courses that foster greater respect for and understanding of the principles of civilian control of the military, and contributes to improved military justice systems and procedures in accordance with internationally recognized human rights. Indeed, we are fortunate that so many formerly authoritarian countries are transitioning to democracies. As a result, there is an even greater need for IMET type programs which help support and accelerate positive military forms. Unfortunately, due to our own budgetary constraints, we cannot expand IMET to meet the demand. We certainly should not cut it further. IMET programs are modest. For example, the United States provided $425,000 in IMET funding to Mongolia last year. Mongolia is an often overlooked success story. Less than a decade ago it was a closed Soviet satellite with its military directly linked to Soviet command structure. Today Mongolia is a successful democracy and partner of the United States. However, just as the Mongolian political system has undergone radical positive changes in its transformation from a Communist Soviet satellite, so, too, must Mongolia's military. IMET is a very modest but successful program that, for example, aids the Mongolian military in this challenging transition. The effectiveness of this program would be severely undercut if it were to incur the kinds of cuts, even small by some people's indication, but it is one-tenth of the money that is proposed by the Brown-Morella amendment. Mr. Chairman, this Member is sympathetic, of course, to the concerns and the places where they would spend the money. However, given the budget allocations for the bill, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations has done a very responsible and commendable job of carefully balancing the allocation of scarce funds. Given the needs and successes of the IMET program, this Member is opposed to any further cuts like this one, especially this 10 percent cut, and supports the careful balance of the bill. I urge rejection of the Brown-Morella amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is today introducing a House Resolution titled the Kosovo Burdensharing Resolution. Since the United States bore the disproportionately large share of the cost of the air war against Yugoslavia, my resolution expresses the sense of the House that the United States should pay no more than 18 percent of the aggregate total costs associated with the military air operations, reconstruction in Kosovo, and in Yugoslavia when Milosevic no longer controls the governments of Serbia or Yugoslavia or the Socialist Party, except there is no limitation against Montenegro. This limitation on burdensharing is consistent with the earlier statements by the President, but we need to remind him and reinforce his bargaining power on burdensharing when he negotiates with the European and other allied countries. This resolution is particularly timely as President Clinton leaves today for the Balkans Reconstruction Conference on Friday in Sarajevo. The resolution also recognizes that Macedonia and Albania bore a significant economic and refugee burden and that these roles should make them priority recipients of aid. Members should contact my office today if they wish to be an original cosponsor.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following portions of an editorial ``Assessing HMO Curbs,'' which appeared in the July 21, 1999, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 21, 1999] Assessing HMO Curbs A lot of hot air accompanies the debate over whether Congress ought to provide a ``bill of rights'' for people who obtain their health care from health maintenance organizations. But one thing is reasonably clear. The debate so far has been less about health care than it has been about campaigning for election in 2000. Democrats want to go into the election season with an excuse to portray Republican candidates as indifferent to the suffering of sick and injured people. The theme is part of a blue-print for restoring Democratic Party control of Congress. Michael M. Weinstein, in The New York Times, took a calm look at the situation for his readers Sunday. ``The debate consisted largely of name-calling,'' he said, with Vice President Al Gore and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt calling the GOP plan a charade and a fraud, respectively, and GOP Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas accusing the Democrats of wanting to destroy HMOs by mandating expensive coverage that would drive costs into the stratosphere. ``But the partisanship obscures an important truth,'' Weinstein wrote. ``The substantive differences are narrower than they seem. Removed from the context of election-year politics, combatants on both sides concede they could find ways to give Americans protection from health-care plans that wrongly skimp on coverage.'' Republicans, said Weinstein, know that their bill would never get past President Clinton. They like the bill because it will help them wring campaign contributions out of HMOs and insurance companies. Democrats, the Times writer said, privately concede that their bill overreaches. But it will make them even more popular with their generous long-time allies, the members of the Trial Attorneys Association. The Democratic bill would repeal a ban on lawsuits against HMOs, furthering the attorneys' goal of expanding the field for punitive damages. Weinstein identifies four issues that he says should be relatively easy to compromise: A method by which patients and their physicians can appeal to medical authorities the denial of reimbursement by an HMO; a defintion of medical necessity; a modified right to sue for denial of service; and the question of whether the legislation would cover 160 million patients in state-regulated health plans as well as the 50 million in employer-sponsored plans not covered by state regulations. Political partisanship is not an evil thing. Americans have been well-served by the clash of ideas between two political parties with different philosophical approaches to government. It is part of the system of checks and balances. However, there are some things that should be obvious to members of both parties. Patients and their physicians tend to overuse health care, driving up the cost. Sometimes they have no other choice. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that visits to emergency rooms, one of the most expensive forms of treatment, are up in some places where HMO treatment is not available at nights and on weekends. Some HMOs want the right to decline reimbursement for emergency room treatment. Is that reasonable? In a case of medical necessity, of course it is not. HMOs, in attempting to drive the cost back down, have sometimes gone too far in denying care. Although determining the extent of the problem is difficult, it has caused physicians to recoil in horror at the damage done to patients who were sent home from a hospital prematurely or in other ways denied treatment. Mandated coverage, such as a patient bill of rights, drives up costs, which are typically passed on to the buyers of the health-care coverage--the same businesses and patient groups that turned to HMOs to keep costs down. Policy-makers must not avoid the question of what would happen if costs were raised so high that more people, because of unaffordability, became uninsured. What would be the logic behind that? The question is how to preserve the benefits of cost- cutting while minimizing its potential to hurt people. Reasonable people, including a handful of moderate Republicans, seem to be saying that a rational way exists to make the system more humane without sacrificing cost-control.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and a member of the Cox Committee, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I strongly support the continuation of NTR status for China because it is clearly both in America's short-term and long- term national interests. Continuing NTR is not about granting a favor or a preference to China; it is about acting in our own national interest. That is what this debate is all about. Rather than ranting and raving about problems in human rights and democratic freedoms, I prefer to focus realistically on doing something about them. This is not the right forum for addressing those issues. Mr. Speaker, ever since President Nixon traveled to China, U.S. policy has sought to promote a stable and peaceful Asia where America's trade interests could be advanced without sacrificing security. Successive administrations have made expansion of trade relations and economic liberalization key tenets of our China policy. The goal is not only to expand U.S. trade, but also to provide a means of giving China a stake in a peaceful, stable, economically dynamic Asian Pacific region and pulling that country into an international community. Overall, this responsible approach has been successful despite the increasingly problematic nature of Sino-American relations. It has protected not only our own national interests, but also those of our friends and allies. The U.S. has convinced nearly every other country in the region that the best way to avoid conflict is to engage each other in trade and close economic ties. Abandoning this basic tenant of our foreign policy with respect to China would be a serious shock and would be an extraordinary setback for much of what our Nation has been trying to achieve in the entire Asian Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, it would send many countries scrambling to choose between China and the United States. Finally, remember that it is certainly premature to view China as an enemy or an adversary, although we can make it our adversary if we adopt a policy of trying to isolate and ostracize China. There is perhaps no more important set of related foreign policy issues for the 21st century than the challenges and opportunities posed by the emergence of a powerful and fast-growing China. However, today we are not having a debate focused on those important challenges. Instead, we are debating whether to impose 1930s Great Depression-era Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs on China that the rest of the world and China know for our own American interests we realistically will never impose. This particular annual debate has become highly counterproductive; it is very damaging to Sino-American relations with almost no positive results in China or in our relationship with that country and its people. It unnecessarily wastes our precious foreign policy leverage and seriously damages our Government's credibility with the leadership of China and with our allies. It hinders our ability to coax the Chinese into the international system of world trade rules, non- proliferation norms, and human rights standards. Moreover, Beijing knows the United States cannot deny NTR without severely harming American workers, farmers, consumers or businesses, or do it without devastating the economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is true as NTR opponents argue, that ending normal trade relations with China would deliver a very serious blow to the Chinese economy, but the draconian action of raising the average weighted tariff on Chinese imports to 44 percent harm the United States economy as well. China is already the 13th largest market abroad for American goods and the 4th largest market for American agricultural exports. If NTR is denied to China, Beijing will certainly retaliate against the over $14 billion in U.S. exports to China. As a result, many of the approximately 200,000 high-paying export jobs related to United States- China trade would disappear while the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and other major trading nations would rush to fill the void. Maintaining NTR is crucial to being able to re-engage in negotiations with China on its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), negotiations which could result in a much greater opening of China's markets to U.S. agricultural, industrial and service exports. As the pending agreement is export-oriented, it is the American worker, farmer and businessman who benefit from increased sales to China. The agreement would also institute important reforms that reduce the competitive coercion on American businesses to transfer their industrial technology to China or for China to require manufacturing offsets to transfer jobs from the United States to China. Just focusing specifically on agriculture for a minute, it is certainly worth remembering that the American Farm Bureau has called China ``the most important growth market for U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.'' The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that, over the next decade, 75 percent of the growth in American farm exports will be to Asia, of which half will come from increased U.S. exports to China. In the China WTO accession negotiations and have been halted but which the Administration quite rightly wants to resume having mistakenly rejected a commercially viable package during Premier Zhu's visit last April, it is China that is making all of the concessions. The United States is not giving up anything. In manufactured goods and service exports, the news was almost all incredibly good. In agriculture, for example, the pork, beef, soybean, corn and wheat markets in China that are essentially closed to American exports today would be opened significantly with tariffs dropping from over 40 percent today down to 12 percent or lower. Indeed, the National Pork Producers Council has called this deal a ``grand slam home run.'' Revoking the extension of NTR for China would have the effect of scuttling these stalled negotiations during what we hope will be their final phase and jeopardizing the substantial benefits to American exports and jobs a new trade agreement and China's accession to the WTO promise. Revoking NTR would turn our grand slam home run into a dismal strike-out. Rejecting NTR status for China is self-evidently neither in our short term nor our long term national interest. Some have advocated the revocation of NTR status for China in order to punish Beijing for its espionage operations against the United States. As one of the nine members of the bipartisan Cox Select Committee (Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China) which investigated and reported on Chinese espionage, and as a former counter-intelligence officer in our military, this Member adamantly rejects such linkage. The United States has been and will continue to be the target of foreign, including Chinese, espionage. We should have expected China to spy on us, just as we should know that others, including our allies, spy on us. While our outrage at China for spying is understandable, that anger and energy ought to be directed on correcting the severe and inexcusable problems in our own government. Our losses are ultimately the result of our own government's lax security, indifference, naivete and incompetence, especially in our Department of Energy weapons laboratories, the National Security Council and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The scope and quality of our own counter-intelligence operations, especially those associated with the Department of Energy's weapons labs, are completely unrelated to whether or not a country like China has NTR status. Indeed, revoking NTR status for China does absolutely nothing to improve the security of our weapons labs or protect militarily sensitive technologies. However, this feel-good symbolic act of punishment would inflict severe harm on American business and the 200,000 American jobs that exports to China provide. It makes no sense to punish American farmers and workers for the gross security lapses by our own government of which the Chinese-- and undoubtedly other nations--took advantage. We should first remember to do no harm to our own Nation and America's citizens. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Member is strongly opposed to House Joint Resolution 57 and urgently urges its rejection.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the floor. This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. This Member greatly appreciates the $10 million funding level provided for the four-state Missouri River Mitigation Project. This represents a much-needed increase over the Administration's insufficient request for this important project. The funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days. In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan. In addition, this bill provides additional funding for flood-related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 1st Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased the Committee agreed to continue funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and tributaries. In addition, a related study was authorized by Section 503(d)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $250,000 to complete the interim feasibility study and begin plans and specifications for the Lake Wanahoo project in Saunders County, Nebraska. This is a breakout study of the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. The interim feasibility study will assess the environmental and flood control benefits of Lake Wanahoo. It will also evaluate other possible measures to provide flood control for the affected downstream areas. The Corps of Engineers has conducted a preliminary feasibility study and has determined that further study of the Sand Creek watershed, the site of the proposed project, is required. This will fulfill the intent of the study authority and to assess the extent of the Federal interest. Mr. Chairman, additionally, the bill provides continued funding for an ongoing floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The purpose of the study is to find a solution to 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 study are to anticipate and provide for the control of flooding of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the condition of the underground conduit, make recommendations for any necessary repair, suggest the appropriate limitations of neighborhood and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln city campus development within current defined boundaries, eliminate fragmentation of the city campus, minimize vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts while providing adequate capacity, and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems. This Member is also pleased that the bill provides funding for the Missouri National Recreational River Project. This project addresses a serious problem by protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous work on the river by the Federal Government. Although this bill does not include funding for the proposed Missouri River Research and Education Center at Ponca State Park in Nebraska, this Member is pleased that $1 million is included in the version approved earlier by the other body. This Member hopes that the conference committee will include funds for this important project in the conference report. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member recognizes that H.R. 2605 also provides funding for Army Corps projects in Nebraska at the following sites: Harlan County Lake; Papillion Creek and Tributaries; Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; Salt Creek and Tributaries; and Wood River. Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people living in the Missouri River Basin.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his qualified support for H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act. At the outset, this Member thinks that a tax cut is very good for the American people and for the economy, but he wants to make sure that it is the right size and that it focuses on middle income Americans. In particular, this Member also wants to see some of the future surplus funds used to reduce the national debt. By locking away some of the additional money for Social Security and Medicare, and by reasonable limits on the tax cut, we can devote more of any real surplus to retiring more of the national debt. At this Member's town hall meetings, he has found Nebraskans resoundingly in favor of reducing the national debt and many of his colleagues have told him that they have had the same experience. This Member is pleased to know that the manager's amendment to H.R. 2488 expresses the sense of Congress on its commitment to debt reduction and a national debt increase trigger which would annually block the across-the-board Federal income tax reduction if the amount of that debt interest outlay increases for total U.S. Federal Government debt from the amount of the previous year. This means there will be an iron-clad method to assure that there is a payment toward reducing the national debt. This Member is confident that the size of the tax cut will be reduced in conference. He thinks that the proposed reduction in taxes over the next 10 years may be too big because of overly optimistic budget surplus projections. This Member fully expects that after conference with the Senate this tax cut will be reduced in size. In regards to inheritance taxes, this Member does not think the conference version of this tax bill should or will include a total elimination of the Federal inheritance tax in the case of ``super- wealthy'' individuals. While this Member wants to give inheritance tax relief to family farms and family small businesses by accelerating the exemption level for Federal inheritance taxes to $1 million, he does not think it is appropriate at this time to eliminate the Federal inheritance tax altogether for very wealthy individuals. Hopefully, the complete phase-out will be eliminated in the House-Senate Conference. Some say the super-wealthy don't pay inheritance tax anyway--that they in part give it to charities or establish foundations to avoid taxes. Of course that is an exaggeration, but certainly we don't want to reduce such charity or beneficial giving by eliminating the inheritance tax on the super-wealthy. The American society would surely be harmed. This Member also notes that the legislation includes tax relief for private utilities with nuclear power plants in a state-deregulated environment. It is important to recognize that as states have taken action to deregulate, two unintended Federal tax problems have resulted. This bill addresses the nuclear decommissioning fund issue which affects private utilities. Unfortunately, the bill does not address the private-use issue which affects consumer-owned utilities. This Member hopes that during the conference, relief can also be provided to consumer-owned utilities which are also hindered by an outdated Federal tax law. On a different note, this Member is quite pleased that two particular provisions are included in H.R. 2488 which will increase rural housing opportunities. In fact, this Member has been quite active during his entire tenure in promoting the need for adequate, affordable rural housing. First, H.R. 2488 includes an increase in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program from $1.25 to $1.75 per capita. The bill phases in the increase by 10 cents per year from 2000 to 2004 until it reaches $1.75 and indexes it for inflation thereafter. This provision will give states additional resources in providing rural housing throughout America. Second, H.R. 2488 accelerates the phase in of the private activity cap to $75 per capita beginning in 2000. This provision will give additional capital for financing home purchases by low and moderate-income homebuyers in the mortgage revenue bond program. Therefore, for the above reasons and others, this Member gives his qualified support to H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. This common sense legislation would require the Administration to submit to Congress a comprehensive annual accounting statement and report containing an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. The number of regulations issued by Federal agencies have greatly increased in recent times. These regulations can have huge financial repercussions on the private sector, state and local governments and the public with little or no oversight. This Member is pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1074 which simply requires a reporting of the costs and benefits of regulations. For example, it is shocking to note that an estimate indicates that regulatory costs for 1999 will exceed $700 billion (or $7,000 for the average family)! Mr. Chairman, in closing, this legislation will provide much needed accountability and will give the public access to information regarding the cumulative costs, benefits and impacts of Federal regulations. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1074.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do agree. I would say to the gentleman, as a matter of jurisdiction, that those particular high officials of our government were not mentioned.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just rise to say that the majority has no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and we accept it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I have been involved in committee debate and have not prepared remarks for the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from New York. But I do think it is so important that we need to see if there is any common ground. I want to address some remarks particularly to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). As some of my colleagues know, I chair the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. In each of the last three Congresses, I have made the hearing on North Korea the first held each Congress in the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, because I feel it is potentially the most dangerous place in the world that, indeed, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) pointed out, this is a very isolated regime. I would go on to say a very paranoid regime that, all too apparently, cares very little about the welfare of their people. Among the people I have known in the executive branch appointed to leadership positions, few, if any, would be up there in the ranks of Dr. Perry, a former Secretary of Defense. I have great respect for him. I do not want to do anything to undercut his effort in trying to find if North Korea is willing to take a different tack. On the other hand, I have great suspicion that, in fact, North Korea is violating the Agreed Framework, that they are proceeding with nuclear development. They are the world's greatest tunnelers. The fact that we have examined one site where we have suspicion tells us really nothing definitive about what they may be doing. I would say, as they approach what appears to be their intent to proceed with the launch of a Taepo Dong 2 missile, which has extraordinary range, I believe that, if in fact they launch this missile, they will have crossed the line; and we will have to conclude that they are irrevocably on a path that is dangerous for our interest and dangerous for our world and ultimately dangerous for the people living in the United States. I am very familiar with what we are attempting to do, of course, with KEDO, the light-water reactors, two of them, which would be provided primarily at the expense of the Republic of Korea, South Korea, and Japan, but basically U.S.-licensed design. Of course we have been providing heavy fuel to assist during this period of time when North Koreans say they need the energy. But we have fallen into a pattern of complying with extortion on the part of the North Koreans. Again and again, we have provided assistance, primarily indirectly through international organizations for food, to help the people of North Korea. They have become our largest recipient of humanitarian assistance in Asia. This is a country that continuously daily, day after day, condemns the United States in the most incredible language. Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), for whom I have great respect, who was a previous chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, says he is concerned that none of the conditions for certification by the President could be really implemented, or at least some of them could not be implemented because they express intent. I read them to be action, not intent. So I am not quite sure I understand the gentleman's argument in that respect. Mostly, however, I would like to say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the point that he has made about, I will refer to it indirectly, action that might take place to stall any kind of affirmative action by the Congress by resolution, joint resolution to approve. The House, of course, earlier, by a 300-plus margin, with the gentleman concurring, voted for such an affirmative action for the transfer of domestic nuclear power components to China. Now, that did not become law, but in fact we embraced that as a possibility. I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) that an expedited procedure, on a one-time basis only, would bridge the gap, would find common ground between those of us concerned about what may be happening there, the need for certification, that could be something that could be accomplished in conference, for example. Would the gentleman from Connecticut care to comment to the reaction to an expedited procedure so that, in fact, there could be no delays which would make it impossible to have an affirmative action by a joint resolution? Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think that is something that we need to consider. I would say to the gentleman, if Dr. Perry finds they are on a different track, the wrong track for us, clearly this kind of resolution will come to the floor, even if the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is not approved today. It is inevitable.