Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to simply conclude by thanking the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). During the last Congress he was extremely helpful in us getting the 290 cosponsors to meet the subcommittee requirement, and I appreciate his effort and his long interest in Lewis and Clark. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1033.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to urge the passage of H.R. 1033, legislation introduced by this Member which authorizes the U.S. Department of the Treasury to mint 500,000 one-dollar coins to commemorate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The coins will be of legal tender. In addition, this measure will raise money to defer costs of bicentennial celebrations. Original cosponsors of this legislation include the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), who is the co-chairman of the Lewis and Clark Caucus. Last Congress, a very similar bill was introduced by this Member; and we, in fact, had 299 House cosponsors. This Member would especially like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) the subcommittee chairman for expediting the consideration of this legislation once House-Senate tactics on revenue measures on this Congressional measure were settled. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for his role, as well. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note a Lewis and Clark commemorative coin bill, which this Member also introduced, conforming with all rules of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, passed the House in the 105th Congress by a vote of 398 to 2, but was not individually passed by the Senate before the 105th Congress adjourned. President Thomas Jefferson, eager to explore newly-acquired land from the Louisiana Purchase, chose Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to begin the expedition, which came to be called ``The Corps of Discovery.'' President Jefferson gave the following directive to Lewis and Clark to ``explore the Missouri River and such principal streams of it, as, by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado, or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purposes of commerce.'' Lewis and Clark departed St. Louis on May 14, 1804, and returned to St. Louis 28 months later on September 23, 1806. The journey covered 8,000 miles of the land which now constitutes the States of Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. This expedition was one of the most remarkable and productive military and scientific exploring expeditions in all of American history. This expedition advanced our geographical knowledge of the continent and its beautiful natural resources. In addition, the expedition greatly enhanced amicable relationships and nurtured a mutual friendship and respect between the United States and the autonomous American Indian nations. Furthermore, Sacajawea, the young Native American woman who was a guide and interpreter for the expedition, deserves our acknowledgment and admiration. In addition, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan, has simultaneously introduced a companion bill on this subject in the other body, S. 1187. Under H.R. 1033, these coins will include the likeness of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark and the U.S. Mint considers incorporating appropriate elements from the Jefferson Peace and Friendship Medal which Lewis and Clark presented to the chiefs of the various Indian tribes they encountered and shall consider recognizing Native American culture. In its 1997 report, the congressionally authorized Citizens Coin Advisory Committee recommended commemorating the Lewis and Clark Expedition with the coin. This Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin authorized by this legislation will be scheduled to be minted and into circulation in the year 2004. The legislation provides that the net proceeds from the surcharges included in the price of the coin shall be distributed to the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council, two-thirds of it, and the National Park Service, the remaining third, to be used by the Park Service for activities associated with commemorating the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Thus, this contribution from the proceeds of coin sales to the Park Service will save taxpayers on currently planned Lewis and Clark events. The legislation also includes language requiring the Department of the Treasury to take action necessary to ensure that the minting and issuing of the coins result in no net costs to the United States. Moreover, the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council, which advocates this commemorative coin, is an outgrowth of the Lewis and Clark Trails Foundation, Incorporated, which was created in 1969 to continue the work of the 1964 congressionally established Lewis and Clark Trails Commission. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member believes that the courage and resilience and discoveries of Lewis and Clark assisted by Native Americans along the route of their great expedition, ``The Corps of Discovery,'' left an indelible and lasting contribution to the settlement and perhaps to the ultimate boundaries of the United States. Lewis and Clark, in 1804, began an expedition from St. Louis into the unknown wilderness of the West. They returned in 1806 with a wealth of knowledge and experience which has been invaluable in the development of the United States and the American Nation. We still stand in awe of their intrepid journey to explore the American West. Therefore, this Member would strongly encourage his colleagues to vote for H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Commemorative Coin Bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1033) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and for other purposes.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends this editorial from the July 15, 1999, Norfolk Daily News to his colleagues regarding the need for development of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in light of recent successful tests and North Korea's intention to launch a long range missile capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii. It Can Be Done--First ``Hit'' of Missile Intercept System an Indication the Technology Does Work In hindsight, it would appear that the media gave too little coverage to a report several weeks ago that had U.S. intelligence sources confirming that North Korea is preparing a late-summer launch of its Taepo Dong 2 missile, an ICBM capable of reaching Alaska or Hawaii. This will make North Korea one of only a few countries above to strike U.S. soil with long-range missiles. But what should be given even bigger coverage is the news that the U.S. Army's new anti-missile system successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile launched 120 miles away in a test that was conducted last month. Without using an explosive warhead, the interceptor destroyed the incoming missile by crashing into it at an altitude of almost 60 miles. What's called the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) is designed, however, to defeat intermediate-range missiles. That means it will not be able to stop North Korea's Taepo Dong 2. But it proves that ``hit- to-kill'' technology can work, which is something critics of missile defense have long denied. The challenge now is to build an effective defense against long-range missiles that builds on THAAD's success. This will require much more development and testing, and much more support from Congress and the Clinton administration. The fact that it took the Army seven tests to score the first THAAD ``hit'' is not an argument against missile defense but an argument for investing more in anti-missile technologies. It can be done, but it's a difficult proposition. Unfortunately, the United States cannot make progress as long as the Clinton administration observes the restrictions of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. As a matter of international law the treaty is defunct since the United States' signing partner, the Soviet Union, ceased to exist in 1991. Misplaced devotion for the ABM Treaty hampers the development, testing and deployment of certain kinds of missile defense, ensuring that any system will be less capable than it otherwise could be.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As a cosponsor, I believe that the expanding trade and foreign investment in Africa is going to be a highly effective way to promote sustainable economic development on the continent. By providing African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global economy and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute market-oriented economic reforms, this bill will help African countries provide jobs, opportunities and a future for their citizens. Only through dramatically improved levels of trade and investment will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace and significantly raise their standard of living. It is true that trade liberalization cannot remedy all of Africa's woes; however, that is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa is a combination of trade and aid working together. To those who criticize H.R. 434, charging it does not provide sufficient immediate aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this Member would remind his colleagues that just 8 months ago the Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Africa Seeds of Hope legislation. This food security initiative, which this Member sponsored, refocuses U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development and is aimed at helping the 76 percent of the sub-Saharan people who are small farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs such as the Development Fund for Africa are the aid components of our African development strategy. With the passage of this legislation, we will have a balanced trade and aid program. Frankly, I am mystified by some of the arguments against this legislation. I refer my colleagues who are opposed to reexamine the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) during the debate on the rule and to listen to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who spoke just a few moments ago. The gentleman from Maryland reminded us that all of the Africa nations really are supportive of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, now is the time to complete this strategy and approve this desperately needed complementary trade component. This is the crucial missing component. I urge my colleagues to vote aye.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, during the Independence Day district work period, this Member had the opportunity to continue his series of town hall meetings in his congressional district in Nebraska. At these meetings, and at my earlier listening sessions, two main topics have been vigorously addressed by constituents. The first of these is the desperate conditions that farmers are now facing in this country, which this Member addressed Monday on the House floor. Another issue that was also discussed at these town hall meetings was the very inadequate level of veterans medical care funding available today. Veterans in my state understandably are not satisfied with the current situation, and it is clear that the Federal Government is not meeting its responsibility to the health care needs of our military veterans. Over the last several years, Congress has provided a slight increase in funding each year for veterans health care. However, the level of funding in the past and present has been far from the amount needed for these vital health programs. The simple fact is that the Federal Government must provide greater funding for veterans health care. We have a bulge in World War II veterans in need of more health care services at this time. The number of veterans treated in VA facilities in the year 2000 is projected to rise by more than 30 percent compared to 1997. Funding must be substantially increased to keep up with this demand. However, the President's budget request for veterans medical care funding is less than 2 percent above what it was in 1997. In fact, over the past few years, the President's budget request has always been less than what Congress actually appropriated for these important health programs. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Resolution contained a 1.7 billion dollar increase for veterans health care. This Member strongly encourages the Appropriations Committee to support this increase in funding, and would support an even greater amount to insure that at least minimally acceptable veterans' health needs of all eligible veterans are met. This Member would also like to send a message to the Administration, encouraging them to stop ignoring the essential health care services veterans deserve, and to propose and support the greater funding levels needed to adequately serve our veterans. The inadequacy of VA health care funds in this Member's home state of Nebraska is accentuated by a Clinton Administration funding formula called the Veterans Equity Resource Allocation, or VERA. Its results are anything but equitable to veterans in Nebraska. The VERA system was created and implemented in April of 1997 in an ill-advised attempt to more equally allocate VA health care resources among different regions of the country. However, this system is not equitable. Funds are allocated among the 22 VA regions strictly on a veteran per-capita basis, which means that the Sunbelt regions where veterans are retiring have far more resources to provide the necessary base of service. Sparsely populated states, like Nebraska in the Northern Great Plains, have a smaller and shrinking veterans population. These lower-population states simply do not have the numbers to receive adequate funding under this system in order to provide for even the minimum services and facilities required. No matter what state a veteran lives in, he or she is entitled to an acceptable level of health service. This level is not being met in Nebraska under VERA. This Member calls on the Clinton Administration to take off their blinders and address this problem with an adjusted formula. This Member will also continue to actively oppose VERA, and will work to restore more funding for VA facilities in Nebraska. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way of life. As they served our nation in a time of need, the Federal Government must remember them in their time of need. Therefore, the needs of these veterans, especially health benefits, must be met to the fullest extent possible. The people of the U.S. owe a tremendous debt to our veterans. We should keep the promises made to them.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 2415 and, of course, the legislation. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the members of the Committee on Rules and their staff for crafting a very fair, thorough, well-structured rule. I know that they gave intense and very thorough consideration to the amendments that are offered. They will make it easier for the Committee on International Relations to discharge its duties and to pass an authorization bill for the State Department and related agencies. I think it is particularly appropriate that the legislation is indeed called the American Embassy Security Act. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) explained, the chairman of the relevant subcommittee, this is a priority for our committee. It should be a priority for the Congress and the American people. Those of us who visit the embassies, the consulates and missions abroad have on our conscience the concerns about the security of our personnel working abroad. They need attention. We have seen too many problems that exist today. We have, as the gentleman from New Jersey emphasized, authorized the full amount requested and suggested by the distinguished commission led by Admiral Crowe. We believe that is appropriate emphasis. We look forward to the debate on the legislation upcoming. Again, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for their excellent job in crafting this fair rule, which will bring the legislation before the floor.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his colloquy. I think that is reassuring, particularly in light of the comments of the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. BEREUTER. I agree with the gentleman that the examples given are abuses of the local zoning law. My second question will be this: Will anything in the bill prevent local government from requiring compliance with conditions authorized by statute for a conditional or special use permit for religious facilities or other traffic-generating uses in certain zoning categories?

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am an urban planner by training. I have prepared lots of zoning ordinances for municipalities and counties, a certified planner by the American Planning Association, and on my own initiative I wanted a clarification from the gentleman. I thank him for yielding for a colloquy, and I have two questions. Will anything in the bill prevent local government from precluding religious uses in a particular category of zoning such as an industrial zone?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to address funding for a new Army Reserve Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. The Army Reserve in Lincoln, Nebraska, currently leases a building assigned to the Agriculture Campus of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. The University's plans for expanding its classroom space are being hindered by the Army Reserve's occupancy. Of late, the desire of the University to reclaim the facility has become more pressing. The Nebraska Army Reserve needs to construct a new building to serve as its center. The Nebraska Army Reserve has identified an alternative to the current situation, but it lacks the funding needed to get it out of the starting blocks. Therefore, $1.3 million is needed to proceed with land acquisition and to develop preliminary design specifications. This Member supports the Nebraska Army Reserve's request for ``seed money'' in the amount of $1.3 million to fund the planning and acquisition of land for this relocated Center. Our colleges and universities have enough challenges. Forcing them to delay, or work around, improvements to and expansion of their programs should not be unnecessarily adding to those challenges. We ask our military personnel to make enough sacrifices. Depriving them of modern, badly needed facilities should not be one of them. While the bill before the House today does not include this funding request, this Member would note that the Senate version of the military construction appropriation, S. 1205, which was passed on June 16, 1999, by a vote of 97 to 2, already includes funding for this requirement. To bring the House measure into agreement with Senate version, and for the reasons above, this Member urges the House conferees--who will be appointed to the conference on the Military Construction Appropriations bill--to agree to the Senate's funding level of $1.3 million for the construction of a new Army Reserve Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, in the conference report for H.R. 2465.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his great appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, and to all members of the Subcommittee for the inclusion of a $10 million appropriation for the first phase of construction for a replacement Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, to serve the Winnebago and Omaha tribes. Of course, the Subcommittee is already well-aware of the ongoing situation with this hospital. Indeed, last year the Subcommittee kept the process going by including funds to complete the design phase of the project for which this Member and Native Americans in the three state region are very grateful. Now, construction dollars are needed. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget overruled Indian Health Service's FY2000 budget request for the first phase of construction, so there was no request by the Administration. Once the design is completed, it is important to begin funding for the first phase of construction without a delay. If there is a time lapse between completion of design and construction, it is very possible that costs will increase, making this project more expensive. That is why this appropriation action at this time is so critical. In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to acknowledge and express his most sincere appreciation for the extraordinary assistance that Chairman Regula, the Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee staff have provided thus far on this important project.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, during the Independence Day district work period, this Member continued his series of town hall meetings with 14 additional meetings to hear the views and questions of my constituents. Many subjects were discussed, but two subjects understandably dominated their concerns. The first, overwhelmingly expressed, as it has been all year, related to the deplorably bad conditions for farmers and the communities and small businesses that serve farmers and depend upon agriculture. All grain, soybean, and livestock prices are very low, some unprecedently low this year, while the predictions are all equally gloomy. World surpluses and export losses in the Asian markets, huge projected 1999 harvest numbers, coupled with the strength of the dollar as compared to our export competitors' agricultural commodities and products, have created desperate conditions for farmers. It is reported that the U.S. Government has actually spent more in farm subsidies during the current year than during the most expensive year of the previous farm bill. But those subsidies are not appreciably alleviating what is a real crisis in farm country. Net farm income per farm in my State of Nebraska last year is a negative number after average Federal subsidies are subtracted, as contrasted to a net farm income of over $40,000 two years ago. This Member has said for nearly a year now that no ideas or proposed solutions are off the table, all deserve consideration. No ideological blinders or pride of authorship of any current farm policies should stand in the way of finding answers quickly for turning around and meeting this farm crisis. The administration must use the export promotion tools and dollars the Congress has authorized and be more innovative and aggressive in meeting the crisis. Without immediate and concerted actions now, thousands of farm families who have been financially responsible and good farmers will be forced from their farms. Modest accumulated savings and assets built up through years of effort and investment are being wiped out and growing debts look overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan leadership and members of the Agriculture Committees of the two Houses of Congress must find solutions and proposal actions now, not after the 1999 harvest is complete. That will be too late for thousands of farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness- dependent families and communities. A whole farm infrastructure is threatened. The leaders of the two Houses also must give this matter a top priority for action. Mr. Speaker, this Member knows these terrible economic problems are not being ignored by our agriculture committees here on Capitol Hill even if the White House and USDA seem indifferent. Solutions to our current dilemma are not obvious. The situation results from perhaps an unprecedented or at least totally unexpected combination of factors. When this Member asked his farm constituents for ideas or solutions, few have specific answers and there certainly is little agreement. However, one comment is heard over and over again: the loan deficiency payments arrangement provides no floor for prices. And it may, in fact it is suggested, be driving commodity prices down and helping only the major grain companies. This must be examined. Second, farmers argue in large numbers that they want to see a farmer-held reserve reinstituted. That needs to be seriously considered and a decision made, one way or another, with an explanation for the decision. And, third, farmers and agriculture leaders also believe the growing concentration of companies that supply the farm population with key inputs and others which serve as their markets deserve closer and immediate scrutiny by the USDA and the Justice Department. These complaints need to be seriously addressed before it is too late. Mr. Speaker, we need action now on a real crisis in farm country.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial, ``Flag Deserves Extra Protection,''; which appeared in the Wednesday, June 30, 1999, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. [From the Daily News, June 30, 1999] Flag Deserves Extra Protection Court's ruling should be subject to final decision by amendment process One member of the House of Representatives was careful to note what is sometimes ignored in the heat of debate. ``We all believe in our country; this is an honest dispute about how we reflect patriotism,'' said Rep. Mel Watt, D-NC., of the proposal to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to ban desecration of the flag. That is proper acknowledgment that people who believe flag burning is an offensive act but one protected by the First Amendment may be no less less sincere patriots than those who believe this symbol of the nation is sacred and deserves special protection. Opponents to an amendment, however, seem too willing to accept court interpretations of First Amendment issues as final, irreversible truth. When such decisions--especially those so narrowly decided as in the flag burning case--are controversial enough, it is proper that they produce legislative reaction. That can take the form of utilizing the constitutional amendment procedure. It is rarely invoked, and requires overwhelming popular support. But the amendment process should not be avoided either because it is difficult or because jurists are thought to have the last word. If it is otherwise, then America is not so much a nation governed by laws as one governed by lawyers--in this case, lawyers who have reached the stature of judges. However objective those learned men and women try to be, the American system did provide for amendments and there are some issues which deserve that attention. It will not diminish the Bill of Rights to allow Congress to define and allow either state or federal enforcement of a law or laws which put Old Glory in a special category for protection. It will, instead, provide a small countermeasure to offensive behavior of a sort which deserves no First Amendment protection. The argument is not about legitimate free expression, but rather the extent to which free people must tolerate offensive acts. The American people should be given a chance to decide whether or not they want their government to protect their flag from desecrators. The many exceptions to the First Amendment--libelous and slanderous statements, treasonous acts, defacement of property, incitement to riot among them--have been defined by court opinions. In this case, an exception would be made directly by the amendment process. It should be allowed to go forward. The House of Representatives decided that it should, and by a 305-124 margin. The Senate ought to act positively this time, and acknowledge that the flag deserves to be treated as a living thing.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the chairman. In particular, it is this Member's understanding that under H.R. 10 insurance revenues will still not be deemed to be banking related for the purposes of determining whether a savings and loan holding company qualifies as diversified. Is this correct?

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, today marks a positive and long sought milestone along the long journey to financial modernization. I commend the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the Committee on Commerce leadership also for their involvement and cooperation. This bill is necessary to keep the United States in its preeminent position in the world's financial marketplace. There are a number of reasons to support. I am going to list just a few: H.R. 10 illustrates that a Federal statutory change in financial law is imperative. Second, this measure will allow financial companies to offer a diverse number of financial products to their consumers. Third, this bill will have a distinct positive effect on consumers. Fourth, the bill allows for no mixing of banking commerce through a commercial basket. Fifth, this measure will necessarily restrict unitary thrifts. Sixth, the bill will avoid the threat of presidential veto by placing the integrated financial activities in the operating subsidiary structure. Seventh, it balances the interests of a State in regulating insurance with that ability of a national bank to sell insurance. And Number 8, it strikes an equilibrium on the issue of securities. My colleagues, I urge strong support for this legislation. It is a long time coming. It is worth the effort. First, a Federal statutory change in financial law is imperative because Congress must call a halt to the recent trend of ad hoc financial modernization through regulatory fiat and judicial consent. Instead we need to modernize the nation's banking laws through statute. As a matter of fact, on the first day of Banking Committee consideration of financial modernization legislation in 1998, during the 105th Congress, this Member stated: ``Once more, we start an effort to modernize our financial institutions structure. It is an effort we have tried before and must begin someplace. It should begin in the House, and so I commend you, Chairman Leach, for launching this effort. We need to do this. We need to face up to our responsibilities as a legislative body. There is no doubt about that.'' Second, this Member supports H.R. 10 as it will allow financial companies to offer a diverse number of financial services to the consumer. This bill removes the legislative barriers within the Glass- Stegall Act of 1933 and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act. As a result, H.R. 10 will allow financial companies to offer a broad spectrum of financial services to their customers, including banking, insurance, securities, and other financial products through either a financial holding company or through an operating subsidiary. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies will be able to affiliate one another through this financial holding company model. These entities will be able to engage in those activities which are defined to be ``financial in nature'' which include: lending, other traditional bank activities, insurance underwriting, financial and investment services, securities underwriting and dealing, merchant banking, and other activities. In order for banks to be able to engage in the new financial activities, the banks affiliated under the holding company or through an operating subsidiary have to be well-capitalized, well-managed, and have at least a satisfactory Community Reinvestment Act rating. Third, this Member supports H.R. 10 because it is very pro-consumer. It will increase choices for the consumer in the financial services marketplace by creating an environment of greater competition. As a result, financial modernization will allow consumers to be able to choose from a variety of services from the same, convenient, financial institution. Financial modernization will give consumers more options. Whether it be in rural Nebraska, or in New York City, consumers of financial products all across the United States deserve additional competitive options. Moreover, under the current setting, many rural communities are under-served in regards to their access to a broad array of financial services. Financial modernization will help ensure that the financial sector keeps pace with the ever-changing needs and desires of the all-important consumer. In addition, H.R. 10 will also allow financial institutions to provide more affordable services to the consumer. Financial modernization will result in additional competition and in efficiency which in turn should result in lower prices for financial services to the customer. Fourth, this Member has been a fervent advocate of keeping banking and commerce separate. In fact, this Member is quite pleased that H.R. 10 does not contain a ``commercial market basket'' which would have allowed the very dangerous mix of commerce and banking--equity positions by commercial banks. We must avoid the problems that the Japanese have lately experienced because of such a dangerously volatile mixture of commerce and banking in their banking institutions. An amendment was initially filed, but not offered, in the House Banking Committee in the 106th Congress which would have allowed for the mixing of banking and commerce in a five percent market basket. However, this Member believes in large part because of expressed strong opposition, including vocal and effective opposition of this Member, this amendment was withdrawn for consideration in the Committee. Fifth, the issues of the unitary thrift charter is of significant importance to Nebraska commercial banks. One of the reasons this Member is unequivocally opposed to the existence of this unitary thrift charter is because of its mixing of thrift activities with commercial ventures. However, this is not the sole reason--it also results in an extremely powerful variety of financial institutions that has an uncompetitive advantage over other types of financial institutions. At the H.R. 10, Banking Committee markup in the 106th Congress, I expressed my desire to completely closing the unitary thrift loophole. Financial modernization, H.R. 10, allows for no new unitary thrifts; indeed it restricts commercial entities from purchasing grandfathered, existing thrifts. There was a compromise in the legislation before us which establishes an application process whereby the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of Thrift Supervision will determine whether an existing unitary thrift holding company may be sold to a commercial firm. This Member wants that grandfather loophole closed altogether. This Member also believes that the provisions on unitary thrifts in H.R. 10 are better than the status quo which allows both new unitary thrifts as well the unfettered transferability of existing thrifts to commercial entities. A very recent example is Walmart's recent application with the Office of Thrift Supervision to acquire a unitary thrift in Oklahoma. Again, this Member wishes that H.R. 10 would go one step further and prohibit the transferability of existing unitary thrifts to commercial entities. If H.R. 10 passes, this Member is hopeful that such a prohibition could be considered and adopted during the probably House-Senate conference on H.R. 10. This Member would reiterate that his concerns about unitary thrifts transferability remains as a major concern regarding H.R. 10. Sixth, this Member believes that, in order to avoid the President's veto of H.R. 10, the operating subsidiary structure for these integrated financial activities is the preferred financial structure to adopt. As is well known among the Members of this body, the Treasury Department desires the operating subsidiary structure. However, the Federal Reserve Board desires the affiliate structure. Both sides of this issue make compelling arguments for their positions on this matter. However, among other important reasons, because of the threat of a veto, this Member believes that the operating subsidiary is the best structure for these integrated financial activities. Seventh, this Member supports H.R. 10 because, it balances the interest of a state in regulating insurance with that of the interests of a national bank to sell insurance. At the outset, this Member notes that he has a strong record of supporting states rights, especially in the area of insurance regulation. In that respect it is important to note that H.R. 10 preserves state rights by providing that the state insurance regulator is the appropriate functional regulator of insurance sales. Whether insurance is sold by an independent agent or through a national bank, the state, and only the state, is the functional regulator of insurance in both instances. Moreover, H.R. 10 also does not unduly burden the ability of national banks to be able to sell insurance. Eighth, this Member supports H.R. 10 as it strikes an equilibrium between the interests of securities firms with those banks that will be allowed to sell securities under H.R. 10. This measure amends the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to provide functional regulation of bank securities activities. As a general rule, securities activities under H.R. 10 will continue to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Financial modernization, H.R. 10, repeals the ``broker'' and ``dealer'' exemptions that banks have under Federal law, which subject banks to the same regulation as all securities firms. In addition, H.R. 10 replaces the ``broker'' and ``dealer'' exemptions with other exemptions which allow banks to be able to engage in their current activities involving securities. Lastly, this Member supports H.R. 10 as its passage is necessary to keep the United States in its preeminent position in the world, financial marketplace. U.S. financial institutions are among the most competitive providers of financial products in the world. However, the financial marketplace is currently undergoing three changes which are altering the financial landscape of the world. The first of those changes involves a technological revolution including the internet through electronic banking. Technology is blurring the distinction between financial products. The other two changes include innovations in capital markets, and the globalization of the financial services industry. Financial modernization is the proper, appropriate step in this ever- changing financial marketplace. Consequently, in order to maintain American's financial institutions' competitive and innovative position abroad, H.R. 10 needs to be enacted into law. In the absence of this bill, the American banking system could suffer irreparable harm in the world market as we will allow our foreign competitors to overtake U.S. financial institutions in terms of innovative products and services. We must simply not allow this to happen. Therefore, for all these reasons, and many more than have been addressed today by this Member's colleagues, we must, and will pass H.R. 10. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 10, the Financial Modernization bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and in this colloquy with the chairman I would just say that it is this Member's understanding that H.R. 10 would not alter the definition of a diversified savings and loan holding company. Is this correct?

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial, ``Court Ruling on Disability Makes Sense,'' which appeared in the Friday, June 25, 1999, edition of the Lincoln Journal Star. Court Ruling on Disability Makes Sense The U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that there is no requirement under the Americans With Disabilities Act that more than half the nation's population be classified as disabled. That's a victory for common sense. Ruling in four cases at once, the court concluded that Congress did not intend to have individuals who wear glasses, or people who have high blood pressure, given the same protections under the ADA as people who have disabilities such as blindness or paraplegia. If Congress had intended to include those individuals, the court said, it would have estimated the number of people covered by the law at more than 160 million, instead of 43 million. In one case considered by the court, United Airlines refused to hire two nearsighted sisters. Without glasses, their eyesight was worse than the 20/100 required by the airline. In another case a truck driver who could see out of only one eye was dismissed from that job. In the third case, a truck driver was dismissed because of high blood pressure. Creating physical criteria for a job, the court noted, does not violate the ADA. ``An employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment--such as one's height, build or singing voice--are preferable to others,'' wrote Justice Sandra O'Connor in the majority opinion. And who wouldn't prefer to have pilots who can see even if they lose their contacts or break their glasses? The ADA has had a tremendous and largely positive effect on society. It made life more fair for citizens with disabilities by making public buildings accessible by wheelchair and protecting them from unnecessary discrimination in employment. Advocates for the disabled profess to be outraged by the ruling. Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum, who helped draft the language of the ADA, even contends that Congress did intend to cover correctable impairments like those remedied by spectacles and medication. Those advocates, however, would stretch the ADA beyond the limit of common sense and open employers to a broad new field of litigation. They would trivialize the original purposes of the law, and give nearly every employee the right to demand changes in the way an employer assigns and structures jobs. The Supreme Court ruling is a welcome clarification of an ambiguous law. It closes the door on a potential new flood of lawsuits, and preserves the ADA for those who need its protection the most.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to express his grave concern regarding the current conflict in South Asia. It is particularly distressing because only 4 short months ago the prime ministers of India and Pakistan signed a watershed agreement known as Lahore Accord. In it both committed to reduce the risk of conflict, particularly in Kashmir, their most volatile source of discord. Now the promise of peace has been replaced by the worst fighting in decades. Islamic insurgents infiltrating from Pakistan have occupied strategic mountain locations in India and control portions of Kashmir. Both sides have reinforced troops and weaponry, and fighting has intensified. India and Pakistan also are redeploying troops along the Punjab border, the key battleground in previous conflicts. Citizens are collecting money for the war effort, lining up at recruitment centers, and donating blood. Recent press reports indicate that hard-line politicians on both sides are talking about using their nuclear options. There is good evidence that these heavily armed infiltrators at Kashmir could not have been positioned or sustained themselves without direct Pakistani assistance, possibly including Pakistani troop involvement. This Member calls upon Pakistan to immediately halt such assistance. This Member also calls on both sides, India and Pakistan, to stop seeking short-term tactical advantages and work to achieve a strategic accommodation on the issue of Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, no solution can be achieved under the continued threat of increased military action. This Member, and I am sure this Congress and the world, strongly cautions against further escalation. At the Lahore meeting, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan sagely agreed that they owe peace to their people and to future generations. They should fulfill that hope and commitment starting now with the cessation of hostilities.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to add his strong support for H.R. 2280, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act, and would also commend the chairman and ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs for bringing this important legislation to the House floor today. This Member wishes to express his belief that even more attention needs to be paid to the needs of America's veterans; in fact, these essential benefits must be met to the fullest extent possible. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way of life. As they served our nation in a time of need, the Federal Government must remember them in their time of need. The people of the United States owe our veterans a great deal and should keep the promises made to them. It is important to note some of the important provisions of this legislation, including a cost-of-living adjustment for disability compensation, permanent eligibility of housing loans, further authorization of payment of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for surviving spouses, provisions for homeless veterans, and recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. While the veterans legislation appearing on the House floor today is commendable and significant for our nation's veterans and their families, it must also be noted that we must continue to give veterans the benefits they need and deserve, including health benefits. As a greater number of veterans, especially World War II veterans, are reaching the stage in life where they need more health care, Congress must insure that there are adequate funds and services available for these veterans, and that the current Veterans Equity Resource Allocation (VERA) formula should be changed since it is very unfair to sparsely settled states like Nebraska, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. Mr. Speaker, this Member is committed to insuring that veterans receive the benefits they deserve; benefits they have been promised and which the American people support. As additional legislation appears before the House of Representatives, be assured that this Member will continue to support necessary and meaningful veterans legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the People's Republic of China has denied a request for a United States military aircraft at Hong Kong's Chek Lap Kok airport and indicated it was ``denied in view of current circumstances.'' Undoubtedly this is a Chinese reaction to our bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. However, as the following editorial from Hong Kong's South China Morning Post indicates, that action is not only counterproductive for Sino-American relations, it raises further questions in America and the world regarding the autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) within the Chinese governmental system. It is true that the People's Republic of China does maintain full responsibility for foreign policy and national security for the Hong Kong SAR, but this decision seems an unnecessary further aggravation in the relations between China and the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to read the following editorial in the June 24, 1999, editorial of the South China Morning Post. Editorial More than a month after the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade, Beijing's fury is apparently still undiminished. Profound and repeated apologies by the US, including the telephone call from President Bill Clinton to President Jiang Zemin, have failed to get diplomatic communications back on track. The mainland Government's response was understandable in the emotion of the moment; after all, staff members tragically lost their lives. But by refusing to help defuse the ongoing row, Beijing now risks deepening the harm to Sino-US relations. No doubt the spying row and repercussions from the Cox report have helped to keep tensions on the boil, but it is disheartening to know the SAR is still a casualty of the discord, more than six weeks after the tragedy. Banning US warships may have driven home the extent of China's anger, even if it was taken at the cost of HK$385 million in lost revenue at a time when the economy is still struggling to revive. But the decision to refuse US military aircraft permission to land here will inconvenience none but the country concerned, and then only mildly. However, if it is applied to military planes bringing in US delegations during the Washington midsummer break, it will appear to be rather a petty act, and will certainly not enhance Hong Kong's image. What an irony it would be if Christopher Cox, author of the controversial report, was refused permission to land in a USAF aircraft, after he accepted Chief Secretary for Administration Anson Chan Fang On-sang's invitation to come and witness the mechanisms to prevent the export of sensitive technology across the border. It is, of course, the mainland's business to decide how long it will continue to wreak revenge, but the point has been made very forcefully with the warship ban, and that should suffice. To implicate the SAR in any further repercussions can only hurt its claims to autonomy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2084, the FY2000 Transportation Appropriations Act. This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes $1 million in funding for vital improvements to the bus maintenance facility in the City of Lincoln, Nebraska. The City's of Lincoln's bus system, known as StarTran, is the primary provider of public transportation services in the area, with 65 buses and vans serving over 1.7 million riders annually. The need for increased bus service in the area continues to grow, but Lincoln's share of Federal transit assistance has steadily declined over the last several years. As a result, the City has had to use more and more of its General Fund revenues just to maintain current StarTran services, which makes major projects such as facility improvements next to impossible without a one-time infusion of Federal dollars. For several years, the bus maintenance and operations facility have not provided adequate space for the duties that must be performed there and the result has been decreased safety and efficiency. For example, none of the current stalls in the maintenance area are capable of lifting a bus any more than a few inches because of lack of overhead clearance, sloping floors prevent what should be simple maintenance functions, and narrow stalls provide insufficient workspace around the buses. In order to correct these deficiencies, StarTran will use the Federal funds for the construction of a 15,000 square foot expansion adjacent to the current facility. This expansion would include new repair bays that would be properly sized with lift capabilities; an improved service and cleaning area; a level, safe, and more efficient work area; and a relocated tire and brake shop that will eliminate the need to perform tire work in the parking lot. These improvements would go a long way in providing the proper tools with which to maintain StarTran buses as well as a safe area for the department employees. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2084.