Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 469) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding assistance to Mexico to combat wildfires, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, recently raging fires engulfed over 1 million acres of land in Mexico. Our border states, in particular Texas, were overwhelmed by a pile of smoke that created an acute pollution problem and raised serious health concerns. The administration deployed emergency assistance to help Mexico cope with fires. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), for working with the honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) to offer an answer, which was unanimously approved in committee updating this resolution. In the aftermath of these terrible fires, it is important for the House to endorse this resolution's call for the negotiation with Mexico of a cooperative fire suppression agreement similar to the one that exists between the United States and Canada. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 469, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding the time and the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding to him. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2344, the Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act. This important legislation would provide farmers the option, of course, of receiving all of their Agriculture Market Transition Act contract payments for fiscal year 1999 immediately after the beginning of the fiscal year. Currently it is an option at least. Currently producers receive two separate payments, one in December or January and one in September. This change would provide farmers with much needed infusion of cash at a time when they clearly need it. Since the payment would occur in the same fiscal year, there is no additional cost to the Federal government. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be a co-sponsor of the original House legislation, and I commend the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for his initiative. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting. While this legislation is certainly helpful, it is also important to continue efforts to improve agricultural trade since about 40 percent of U.S. farm production is exported. Several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have already mentioned that. One of the root causes of the current low commodity price is the current drop in exports, especially to Asia, as a result of the region's economic downturn and the relative value of the U.S. dollar versus the currencies of our export competitors. My State, for example, over 85 percent of all of our exports total go to Asia. To combat the drop in exports it is crucial that efforts continue to approve fast track trade authority, increase pressure on the European Union to reduce subsidies and anti-competitive trade practices and to approve legislation designed to block unilateral sanctions which we too often impose in this body and in the other body which do harm agriculture. Such actions are clearly long-term approaches to improving the economic outlook for the Nation's producers, however S. 2344 will provide immediate help for farmers, and, Mr. Speaker, therefore I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of H.R. 3150--the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, this Member encourages his colleagues to read the following editorial which appeared in the June 27, 1998, Beatrice Daily Sun. This article highlights why the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. [From the Daily News, June 27, 1998] Bankruptcy Bill Deserves Support--Measure Aims To Bolster Notion of Personal Responsibility for Finances We find it difficult to muster much sympathy for those who are criticizing recent legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that would make it tougher to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Some of the critics are wailing as if the measure is like tossing widows into the poor house. They're arguing that accumulating unpayable debts is not the fault of the debtors. Rather, it was their credit cards that made them do it. Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? Because the measure would only apply to persons making more than $50,000 a year, it effectively counters the concern that the poor and downtrodden will be negatively affected by the measure. In effect, the measure says that if a person has enough money after paying for necessities to repay 20 percent of what he or she owes over five years, a court should mandate that to occur. That seems to make a lot more sense than letting people off the hook entirely, as Chapter 7 does, even when they can afford to repay some of what they owe. From our perspective, such a measure is needed and should quickly receive the support of consumer groups. After all, when thousands upon thousands of people claim Chapter 7--some without justification--prices for everyone else go up to compensate. Either that or businesses may risk going out of business. Someone is going to pay, and not just people who happen to be rich. But some consumer groups are not supporting the House measure and instead pointing the finger at credit-card companies. It's true that some issue their cards with too little checking, but it doesn't follow that it's OK to cheat those companies or that people who run up debts they cannot afford should not be held accountable. There's nothing draconian about this House measure, and it would be a good idea for the Senate to pass something similar, although its bill is expected to be softer. We like the House bill because it aims to restore more personal responsibility in people's dealings with each other. That's an extremely crucial ingredient in any free and decent society.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and rise informally but very sincerely to commend our colleagues for bringing this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. As a former member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am aware, very much aware, of the extraordinary respect that the men and women of the CIA hold for their former Director, the honorable George Bush, our very distinguished former President. He brought innovation to the agency, he improved the morale dramatically of the Central Intelligence Agency, and his legacy continues on there today. So I think it is a very fitting tribute to name this facility after our former President and the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Bush.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to express his support for the conference report on H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for 1999. This Member would like to again express a very special and sincere thanks to the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], and also express appreciation to the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the Ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], along with the other Members of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and the full Committee for their efforts in approving the Nebraska National Guard Joint Army-Air Medical Training Facility located in Nebraska's 1st Congressional District, which this Member represents. This new facility will be a unique cost saving military construction project as both Nebraska's Army and Air National Guard Units will provide resources jointly to fund the construction project. While this joint funding construction arrangement is unusual, and was initially bureaucratically challenged, it is the reasonable way to go, for a jointly used facility is by far the most cost-effective and economical use of taxpayer resources. Isn't it ironic that taking the most cost- effective approach in spending the taxpayers' money is not always the easiest bureaucratic course? This project will go a long way toward improving the quality of training that Army and Air National Guard health professionals will receive, and will also improve the quality of health care provided to Nebraska National Guard personnel. In conclusion, I again want to express my thanks to the National Guard Bureau, and the Subcommittee for assisting this Member in his effort to make this a joint, cost-effective project. Mr. Speaker, this conference report appears to be carefully and necessarily frugally drafted to contain worthy military construction projects. Therefore, this Member also asks his colleagues to vote for the conference report on H.R. 4059.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for extension of the waiver and in opposition to the resolution. In the mid-1960s, I was an infantry officer and intelligence officer with the First Infantry Division. I completed my service, but within a month the members of my tight-knit unit were in Vietnam and taking casualties the first night. I have emotional baggage, we all have emotional baggage in this country, but I would suggest it is time to get on and not reverse course on Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who just spoke, but I bring to the attention of the Members what we know already. Another former POW, our former colleague Pete Peterson, tells us about the dramatic progress now being made, with the Vietnamese help, in remains recovery under some very difficult and dangerous and treacherous conditions. And in fact, of course, another POW, John McCain, has also, along with others who served in Vietnam, supported a waiver in this instance. But after all, this issue is about emigration. That is what Jackson- Vanik is about. So, we ought to address the issue before us. Under the statute, a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment may be granted if it will substantially promote freedom of migration. Vietnam's record on emigration has improved dramatically in the last 10 to 12 years. Over 480,000 Vietnamese have emigrated to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program. And, despite some unwise things done in this House just a year or so ago, only about 6,900 ODP applicants remain to be processed. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to this Member that in the case of Vietnam, the Jackson-Vanik amendment is working. Last October, Vietnam eliminated the requirement for applicants to obtain exit permits prior to interviews for the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees, ROVR, greatly facilitating the implementation of ROVR. Subsequently, as the waiver came up for renewal, Vietnam modified its procedures for handling the ODP cases of Montagnards and former reeducation camp detainees to conform with the ROVR procedures. The prospect of the initial waiver and later its renewal almost certainly factored in Vietnam's decision to liberalize procedures under the Orderly Departure Program and ROVR. The yearly renewal of the waiver will maintain incentives for progress toward free emigration. Vietnam remains a difficult place for American firms to do business. That is sure. But we ought to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver not to benefit the Government of Vietnam or its people, but for the benefit of the American people. The waiver should lead to increased U.S. exports and to have a greater impact on the way the Vietnamese regard human rights and democracy. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member would suggest that now is not the time to reverse course on Vietnam. Since establishing relations three years ago, Vietnam has increasingly cooperated with the United States on a range of issues. The most important of these is, I am informed, dramatic progress and cooperation in obtaining the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing from the Vietnam War. Those Members who attended the briefing by the distinguished Ambassador to Vietnam, a former Prisoner of War and former Member of this body, the Honorable Pete Peterson, learned of the great efforts to which Vietnam is now extending to address our concerns regarding the POW/MIA issue, including their participation in physically very dangerous remains recovery efforts. Moreover, the Government of Vietnam is proving to be cooperative on the issue of emigration--which, as Members of this body must know, is actually the issue that Jackson-Vanik addresses. This Member would not want to permit the impression to exist among any of his colleagues that support of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is an endorsement of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a regime that places restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. But even in this problematic area, engagement is producing results. The American presence in Vietnam exposes Vietnamese to American ideals and principles. Vietnamese visitors to the United States including official delegations, students and businessmen, learn about the American way of life. We can expect that over time these contacts, along with access to international media and telecommunications, will have a beneficial effect on Vietnamese attitudes. Greater prosperity will lead to increased demand for responsiveness from the government, an important first step on the road to democracy. Vietnam remains a difficult place for American firms to do business. This Member is particularly concerned about the level of corruption that has been tolerated by Hanoi. A bilateral trade agreement is under negotiation that will improve Vietnam's trade and investment environment to benefit and protect American business. Rejection of the waiver would undermine the trade negotiations and remove any incentive for Vietnam to meet United States requirements. Extending the waiver will encourage economic reforms and maintain American firms' access to the trade promotion and investment support programs of the Export- Import Bank, OPIC and USDA, enabling the firms to compete with foreign businesses that receive benefits from their own governments. The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not give MFN to Vietnam. MFN can be considered only following the waiver and the approval by Congress of a completed bilateral trade agreement. We should extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver, not to benefit Vietnam's Government or people, but for the benefit of the American people. The waiver should lead to increased United States exports to and investment in Vietnam, which, in turn, will lead to more jobs for American workers. Continued engagement with Vietnam is the way to promote the democratic values we uphold. Approval of the waiver will encourage Vietnam's further integration into regional organizations and world markets. This integration is a positive force for regional stability. I urge rejection of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would take a moment to commend the members of the Senate Finance Committee for their efforts last Tuesday to give ``fast-track'' authority to the President by attaching fast-track legislation to S. 778, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. This action by the Senate was also applauded on the editorial page in the July 24, 1998, edition of The Omaha World-Herald, as necessary to protecting the economic health of our nation by giving the President the flexibility and authority to negotiate international trade agreements expeditiously. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration, which initially stated fast track was one of their top legislative priorities, labeled this initiative by the Senate Finance Committee as ``political mischief.'' Why is it that the Nebraska press can readily identify legislation designed to safeguard the interests of U.S. workers and consumers when all the administration can do is play politics? [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 24, 1998] Clinton's Switch on Fast-Track A Puzzling Political Maneuver The Senate Finance Committee has resurrected a plan that was considered dead: giving President Clinton ``fast-track'' authority to negotiate international trade deals. But now the administration seems to be balking. Fast-track authority enables presidents to negotiate international trade agreements without interference from Congress. When a deal is made, Congress can say ``yes'' or ``no,'' but cannot rewrite it. Presidents have had the authority, granted by Congress, since 1974. But in 1994, the authorizing legislation lapsed. Efforts to revive it earlier this year were supported by President Clinton, many congressional Republicans and business groups. But opposition was strong from protectionist labor groups and environmental organizations worried about pollution abroad. Those groups with the cooperation of Democrats, helped kill the proposal. Maverick Republicans also had a hand on the ax. They attempted to hold fast-track hostage until Clinton agreed to reduce family-planning aid to Third World countries. The Finance Committee voted 18 to 2 Tuesday to attach fast- track to a bill, already passed by the House, that would expand trade with Africa. President Clinton should be delighted. But no. Press Secretary Mike McCurry asserted that the committee vote was ``political mischief'' rather than a commitment to free trade. Senate Democrats, too, were unhappy with the revival of the potentially divisive issue before an election. Fast-track eases the way for U.S. negotiators to join in drafting international agreements. Without it, possible trading partners aren't motivated to make their best deal because they know Congress can always revise any agreement that is reached. International trade has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy. That is especially true in the Midlands, where agricultural exports are growing fast. In Nebraska, for instance, exports have increased fivefold in the last five years. Surely something that was so important just a few months ago remains important, even though an election is approaching. The president still needs the flexibility and authority granted by fast track to deal with trade agreements expeditiously. When President Clinton declared that fast-track authority was one of his top legislative priorities, he was speaking out of a concern for U.S. trade relations. Senators and members of the House who pushed the issue had the same worthy motive. Political maneuvering had to place in the conversation then. It still does not.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment Number 20 which would stop the promulgation of the copper rule. I am not going to offer it, because of my concern of what it would do in some places where the copper rule needs to be applied. I have heard the assurances of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) of the appropriations subcommittee, and I take those assurances for cooperation. And next year, I will be back to cut the $15 million out of the administrator's office, a very tempting target, if necessary.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think we are in the business of making judgments as legislators over appropriate kinds of initiatives by Members trying to take the interest of their constituents to heart. If statutory direction is a bad idea, if it does damage in a national sense to priorities, then the gentleman has a right to object. That is his responsibility. I see no reason why that would happen in this instance.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his understanding of the concern that we have in our State. It is not our State alone, but we have a more severe problem with it, there is no doubt about it, because of our groundwater dependence and the corrosive impact of copper in the house pipes. I would say to the gentleman, perhaps he could help this gentleman understand, since we are legislators, what the difficulty is in us legislating some advice on the kind of studies that are necessary, since we are not changing the copper standard, since we are only asking them to proceed at the same time with studies to be done in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences? What is there about the precedent of having some statutory direction that is so offensive to the administrator?

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

Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to have the gentleman's comments. I appreciate his assistance.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in one of our communities, a community of 23,000, the estimated initial cost would be $1 million for water treatment equipment, $250,000 per year for treatment. Unfortunately, it would result in no health benefits. That community has wells in 14 different locations. None of them are interconnected. There is no central point for decontamination, disinfection, or copper treatment. That is a very typical situation in our State. We are unique in that respect. We have the largest groundwater supply in the continent. Although this Member is obviously most familiar with the problems in our communities, it is important to keep in mind that dozens of States will be affected by this rule. If Members have not heard from communities in their districts, they should expect in the near future to hear from them as the EPA pushes for enforcement. This Member has had repeated contacts with the EPA on the issue dating back to 1993. Unfortunately, the EPA has resisted a commonsense approach, and this Member has come to the conclusion that Congress must act to correct the situation. This amendment does not go nearly as far as I would like, but it does require them to move ahead in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences to find a proper copper action level. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his work and the work of his staff with me in trying to find some accommodation on this issue.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is reserving a point of order, and this is straightforward legislating on an appropriation bill if it were to be accepted. I understand that fact. I have two amendments filed, I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that indeed are in order. One simply forbids the use of funds to implement the copper rule, and the other takes $15 million out of the administrator's office. Both are in order. I would prefer not to offer them. I gave my colleagues some indication of why this is particularly important to my State. I want to tell my colleagues that the Republican Attorney General of Nebraska is filing or has filed a lawsuit on this issue. The Democratic governor is supporting that lawsuit and requesting relief for more than 60 communities in our State that are affected by the copper rule, and the entire Nebraska delegation in both Houses are very much involved in trying to find a solution to this issue. In fact, I believe that the amendment offered here might well be acceptable to the EPA and to the appropriators and authorizers on both sides of the aisle as report language, but what the administrator wants to avoid is any kind of statutory direction, and I think that is what it comes down to on this amendment. But I do think it is better to have that statutory language than report language which seems sometimes to have little impact upon the Environmental Protection Agency. And I think I would say to my colleagues it is better to accept this amendment than having one of the two other amendments that are in order and which are not subject to a point of order. Unfortunately, the EPA is moving forward in implementing a regulation, despite the lack of any convincing evidence of adverse health effects which would justify its current course of action. As a result, the current regulations will result in enormous costs for water systems across the country, even though it is unlikely to result in any health benefits. Obviously, communities do not have unlimited financial resources, and money spent on compliance with the copper rule is money that cannot be spent for other necessary community needs. The costs are significant for all communities, especially the smaller ones. As a result, it is crucial that this rule be implemented only if it is supported by solid, objective and scientific research. The EPA's current standard relies on what seems to be almost anecdotal evidence rather than scientific studies. For instance, one of the studies cited by the EPA involved nurses who became ill after consuming cocktails which were mixed and stored in corroded copper- lined containers. It is important to emphasize that this so-called copper problem is generally the result of the corrosion of copper household plumbing, rather than by copper in the community's water sources. In addition, copper concentrations from plumbing result from water setting in copper pipes for many hours and the level drops dramatically after the tap has run for several seconds. The commonsense solution to any potential problem related to copper concentrations from plumbing in the house is to have consumers simply run the faucet for less than a minute for the first time the water is used in the morning, and that eliminates the problem or reduces the copper level below the 1.3 or even below the 2.0, 3.0 milligrams per liter, whatever standard or copper action level you might wish to choose. To help compensate for the dearth of scientific research on the issue of copper in drinking water, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were commissioned to conduct new and more comprehensive studies. One was conducted in Nebraska and the other in Delaware. The studies are expected to be published soon. They have not been peer- reviewed. That is the problem at this point. The interim CDC report on the Nebraska study concluded that ``People were not experiencing G.I.,'' gastrointestinal, ``illness related to the level of copper in their drinking water, even though in 51 of the selected homes drinking water levels were greater than 2 times the EPA action level the year prior to the study.'' A similar study in Delaware which had even higher copper concentration levels also found that the water was safe for drinking. Correspondence from the EPA concerning the Delaware study acknowledges that ``Study results suggested no meaningful differences in the symptoms typically associated with copper toxicity between the control group, those not exposed to copper in drinking water, and the group with high copper levels of 5 milligrams per liter.'' That 5.0 level is much more than what is being proposed here by the EPA in the way of a copper action level--1.3 milligrams per bites. That is on the ``first draw sample.'' The EPA rule establishes an action level for copper and drinking water of 1.3 milligrams per liter. Yet our Canadian friends and the World Health Organization says it should be at 2.0. They also provided for a risk margin at that level, as well. Copper in drinking water is generally caused by household plumbing, as I said, rather than water source. In addition, copper concentrations result from water setting in copper pipes for many hours, and the level drops dramatically after the tap has been run for several seconds. I could give the Members some statistics about a number of our communities.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would say to the distinguished gentleman I appreciate his clarification, and I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee's report language also addresses this subject.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Is it also the committee's intention that EPA should work to develop a groundwater rule which gives the States adequate flexibility in developing preventive measures?

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