Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), if he is here, that the Meehan-Shays bill is not a perfect bill. If the gentleman expects to have support from Members of this body, do not tell us to take it the way it is and do not try to amend it. That is not acceptable in this body. I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Hawaii, but I am amazed and surprised at her comments here tonight. It is patently absurd to suggest that the gentleman's amendment is unconstitutional. It is discriminatory in only one way, only one way. It differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. It also takes into account the fact that we have U.S. nationals in places like American Samoa, to the credit of the author of the amendment. The House has voted on this very type of amendment and approved it before by a very large vote. To this Member, it is very simple. If you want to be fully involved in our political process, then you must become a citizen of the United States. If you do not make the full commitment to our country by becoming a U.S. citizen, then you should not have the right to participate in our political system in the ultimate fashion, by making a campaign contribution and affecting the lives of American citizens. You should not have a role in electing American officials. Most Americans believe this is the law already, but in fact, as we learned last year, you can simply be a permanent resident of the United States, and in fact be a resident, and then it is not illegal to make a political contribution. There is no requirement on the gentlewoman, for example, to do a citizenship test of the people that might make contributions to her campaign. All she would have to do is simply say, ``Are you a citizen?'' And when you fill out a contributor's form you would have to attest that you are a citizen. We have had problems in the recent presidential campaign which have cast a cloud on Asian Americans. That is deeply, deeply regretful, because that is an inappropriate cloud. But there is no reason why there is any additional discriminatory scrutiny given to a Caucasian from another country or a Hispanic from South America than there is an Asian American who is a citizen or a U.S. national. I think it is a very obvious conclusion that the process of electing our officials should be a right reserved for citizens. It is wrong and dangerous to allow even the potential to exist for undue foreign influence in electing our government. That is what the American people expect. That is what they want. That is what the gentleman's amendment does. I urge Members to support the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Fossella], which would prohibit foreign individual campaign contributions or expenditures and allow such contributions or expenditures only from United States citizens or United States Nationals. The Fossella amendment is almost identical to H.R. 34, which this Member sponsored as one aspect of necessary campaign finance reform legislation, and which was previously passed by the House by a vote of 369 to 43 (with 1 Member voting present) on March 30, 1998. The only difference between the Fossella amendment and this Member's original legislation (H.R. 34) is that the Fossella amendment would appropriately allow United States Nationals (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act) to make individual campaign contributions or expenditures to Federal candidates. However, it is apparent that a serious problem really for the first time came to the attention of the American public during the 1996 presidential election season--campaign contributions from foreign sources. The abuse that allegedly resulted from foreign campaign contributions in the recent presidential campaign is a terrible indictment of our current campaign finance system. Many Americans believe that it is already illegal for foreigners to make Federal campaign contributions. The problem is that they are both right and wrong under our current Federal election laws. The fact of the matter is that under our current Federal election laws, you do not have to be a U.S. citizen to make campaign contributions to Federal candidates. Under our current Federal election laws, you can make a campaign contribution to a candidate running for Federal office if you are a permanent legal resident alien--a permanent legal resident alien and you, in fact, reside in the United States. This Member believes that this situation is wrong, this Member believes that most Americans would agree it is wrong, and this Member believes that it is a problem begging for correction. Therefore, this Member introduced H.R. 34 on the first day of the 105th Congress to change our current Federal election laws so that only U.S. citizens are permitted to make an individual contribution to a candidate running for Federal office. An overwhelming number of this Member's colleagues agreed with the purpose of H.R. 34 as on March 30, 1998, the House passed H.R. 34 by a vote of 369 to 43 (with 1 Member voting present). Indeed, the Congress must be concerned about the issue of legal and illegal foreign campaign contributions. Everyone here today should be concerned about this recent insidious development in our presidential election process, and should understand that these statutory and procedural changes like the passage of the Fossella amendment are necessary to protect the integrity of the American electoral process. We must insure that it is Americans who choose our President and Congress. We simply cannot allow foreign corporations and foreign individuals to decide who is elected to public office at any level of our government. Therefore, the Fossella amendment, which would require that only U.S. citizens and U.S. Nationals be allowed to make individual contributions to candidates for Federal office (and which is virtually identical to this Member's bill--H.R. 34), must be a priority for the 105th Congress. This issue must be addressed and this Member intends to push for this change until successful. In conclusion, this Member would ask his colleagues to strongly support the Fossella amendment--the essentially identical text of this Member's bill, H.R. 34, which previously passed the House by an overwhelmingly majority--as an important step forward campaign finance reform.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and endorse my colleagues' best hopes that in fact the Senate will act expeditiously on the amended version. On May 11, 1998, America's wheat farmers were busy working in the fields when India detonated nuclear weapons the first time. Undoubtedly our farmers had no idea that Pakistan's subsequent nuclear test, and a very questionable American sanctions policy, which failed to deter the tests, would undermine our farmers' ability to sell wheat to the countries of the Asia subcontinent. Perhaps they were also busy in their fields in 1994 when Congress passed the Glenn amendment to the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. That amendment prohibits export credit guarantees to nonnuclear countries which either develop or test nuclear weapons. Across the Atlantic on that same day, French wheat farmers had no idea that India's detonation of a nuclear weapon might produce such a windfall for them in lost American export markets. Contrary to the United States, France does not have a mandatory sanctions law, and their wheat sales, subsidized wheat sales, I might add, can continue to Pakistan. Today, Mr. Speaker, American wheat farmers stand to lose a 2.2 million ton wheat market in Pakistan because of our unilateral sanctions policy toward the Asian subcontinent. The stakes are high and the timing could not be worse. If Congress does not amend the sanctions law to allow U.S.-backed wheat sales to Pakistan, the French, Canadian or Australian farmers will exploit this lucrative wheat export market without American competition at a time when American wheat prices for our farmers are at their lowest point in decades and at at time when we desperately need to hold onto those export markets. This nearly forgotten sanction legislation imposed automatically on the backs of American farmers without additional thought, is just one facet of the 61 sanction-related laws or executive orders that Congress or the administration has enacted in the last 4 years. Those sanctions target 35 countries. According to an Institute for International Economics study, economic sanctions cost American industry and agriculture combined about $15 to $19 billion annually in exports. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a distinguished member of the committee and a man very much focused on export issues.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), who was, of course, the Member who first took legislative action for the successful Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thought I would try to set some context for why the removal of this sanction is so important. Among the things that has happened that is very much on our minds are the ramifications of the Asian financial crisis. We have seen a dramatic cutback in agriculture exports from this country to Asia. One of the reasons for that reduction, of course, is not only the absolute cutback of the imports by those Asian countries, but it also reflects the fact that the American currency versus the Australian, the Canadian and the European currencies is now more valuable; therefore, our export commodities and processed food products are less competitive in price than they were just a few months ago. Thus we not only have an overall reduction in the imports of agriculture commodities by these countries, we actually have American exports a bit less competitive than they were. This reduction in imports and the reduced competitiveness of our exports have had a dramatic and negative impact upon our trade. That is why this legislation, before us today is so important. We especially cannot afford to lose those Pakistani or Indian agricultural export markets at this time. There is no reason why economic sanctions should fall on the backs of the American farmer. I would imagine that it was not, the intention of the original sanction legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I highly commend to my colleagues this July 2, 1998, editorial from the South Sioux City Star supporting the end to the marriage tax penalty. Time To End Marriage Tax Penalty Of all the external challenges to marital bliss, the least expected and the most unforgivable is the one posed by your own government. Married couples are subjected to what is described as the ``marriage tax.'' Every year, more than 21 million couples are penalized for no other reason than they chose to come together in holy matrimony. It's unfortunate that a 1040 form comes between some couples who would like to get married, but would pay a financial penalty. The breakup of the family is a leading cause for many of America's social problems. Washington should advocate policies that strengthen families, not weaken them. Yet punishing working families is what the current tax code does through a cold mathematical calculation on a piece of paper. To correct this immoral inequality, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act (HR 2456), has been introduced. It would eliminate the penalty levied on nearly half of America's married couples. On the average, most couples must produce an additional $1,400 at tax time. Given the fact that two-income households have been the norm rather than the exception for years, the marriage tax needs to be eliminated. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act would restore equilibrium by allowing couples to choose their filing status either jointly or singles, whichever produces the most savings. The MTE Act was introduced in Congress with the support of the majority of the sophomore class and the Republican leadership. It already has 180 cosponsors and the support of such organizations as Americans for Tax Reform, Independent Women's Forum and National Taxpayers Union. With such broad-based support you'd think the Marriage Tax Elimination Act should have no trouble moving through Congress. But the MTE is a tax cut and you know the difficulty of getting Congress to cut taxes in any area.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to name the Federal building in Casper for our former colleague, Dick Cheney. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has pointed out Dick Cheney's meteoric rise within Republican ranks of leadership here in the House of Representatives. In all probability, he now would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives if he had stayed here, if he had not answered the call of the country to serve as our Secretary of Defense, and he served there so ably with such a distinguished record. Dick Cheney's competence was recognized by all as soon as he arrived here. I can recall that, directly, since he and I were first elected in the 96th Congress and served the first 4 years side by side on what was then called the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He was born in my district in Lincoln, Nebraska. His father was an employee of the U.S. Soil Conservation in Nebraska before he moved to Wyoming with Dick and his mother. They lived in a small central Nebraska town during World War II when Dick's father was serving in the military. Dick Cheney has sometimes told me in the past when he came into my district or when I visited him in his district, ``Doug, if I stayed in Lincoln, of course, I would be the Congressman.'' He would be. And I would be? ``Well,'' he said, ``I don't know what you would be.'' So Dick Cheney's departure to Wyoming was probably fortunate for me and undoubtedly for the citizens of Wyoming. But I must say, as I watched Dick Cheney in this body and watched his competence already demonstrable in the earliest stages of his career here in the House, because of his service as the White House Chief of Staff and earlier at the OEO where he worked for Dick Rumsfield, I think that I and everyone else who knew Dick were quite impressed with him. He was my candidate to be the President of the United States; I wish he had made that effort. In any case, he brought great honor and respect to this body for the contributions that he made here, and I thank my colleagues, particularly the gentlewoman from Wyoming, for offering this legislation. Naming the Federal Building in Casper for the Honorable Richard Cheney is a wonderful tribute that ought to be due to our former colleague, Dick Cheney.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. And I think they are tremendous allies. Unfortunately, they seem to be at each other's necks too much. That is not good for the alliance. So my concerns are what we are doing at the immediate point, when we have this high degree of intense concern in the Aegean, particularly centered around Cyprus.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I referred to the arcane and unfortunate procedures we have to go through with the budget process around here, I would say to the gentleman. But the gentleman remembers, as a former member of the Committee on International Relations, we have an opportunity to look at those sales ordinarily. And last year we had an opportunity to look at some proposed transfers, and we dramatically increased the funds coming to our Treasury as a result of our review. The Navy was underpricing them. That was good for the taxpayers. I would ask the gentleman, does he think it is good to send either to Greece or Turkey Kidd class guided missile destroyers at this stage?

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, has raised an interesting point about abuse in this process. And I want to talk about an abuse to the American taxpayer that is a part of this bill. When I do this, I absolve the chairman, distinguished Member from Florida, and the ranking member, distinguished Member from Pennsylvania, for the problem in this bill, because it is not of their doing. I had an opportunity to vote against the rule, and I did that because it protects this provision that ought to be stricken here from a point of order. I am referring to the transfer of 50 Navy ships, 50 Navy ships. It is an opportunity to raise $637 million for the Defense Department, and I am in favor of that additional expenditure. However, ordinarily when those ships are transferred, sold, leased, sold for a small amount of money, we are talking about 50 ships, $637 million, so my colleagues know we are not getting much money for those ships, that money goes back to the Treasury. What has happened in this instance, well, that is not happening. It is, for example, going directly to DOD, not only bypassing the authorizing committee, where we looked last year at some very inappropriate transfers, inappropriate in that we were not getting the money back for the Treasury that we ought to get, but we will not have that opportunity unless the chairman has worked out something in a colloquy which took place, I know, a few minutes ago between the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee. For anything that is worked out there, I express my appreciation to the gentleman. Let me tell you where these ships are going. One to Argentina, 3 to Brazil, 2 to Chile, 2 to Mexico, 1 to the Philippines, 1 to Portugal, 2 to Spain, 10 to Taiwan, 1 to Venezuela. I will come back to a couple more. Interestingly, one that is going to Spain is the Harlan County. The Harlan County was that ship that went down to Port-au-Prince. It ought to be bronzed as a recognition of the Clinton administration's policy with respect to national security, because Members may remember a few thugs on the docks in Port-au-Prince turned back the American forces, not because of lack of courage of those forces, because they were pulled back by the Pentagon at the direction of the administration. That one ought to be bronzed. But that is not really the point I want to make. What really is, I think, very dangerous about this provision is that 14 ships are going to Turkey and 11 are going to Greece. If you have not followed what is going on in Cyprus lately, with both sides bringing high performance aircraft, with the Greek Cypriots apparently about to bring in missiles from Russia with Russian technicians, you would wonder why our two NATO allies are behaving this way, and you certainly would wonder about providing them more firepower. Now, I noticed that one of those ships and perhaps as many as three or four are Kidd class guided missile destroyers. This is not an ancient piece of equipment. This is a very sophisticated set of weaponry, very expensive. And I really do not think that the conduct of Greece and Turkey, our two good NATO allies, justifies sending that kind of firepower to them at this moment. You can blame one side or the other and undoubtedly blame goes on both sides, but for us to make this transfer at this time, bypassing all the normal procedures, is not only bad for the taxpayer, it is a reflection of the archaic and convoluted budget process we have around here that is forcing us to do these end runs to put the resources where we need to put them, but you are actually building a dangerous arms race between Greece and Turkey. And that ought not happen. If I had an opportunity to raise a point of order, if the rule did not prevent me from doing that, I would do that. I hope that the American news media and the American people are looking at this situation and saying this is not only disgraceful, this is not only abuse of the taxpayers funds, this is not only abuse of the process around here, this is feeding a dangerous arms race between Greece and Turkey. I thank my colleagues for listening. I regret the fact that we are doing this. It is outrageous.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman recalls how I stand side by side with him in the North Atlantic Assembly and support Greece and Turkey, and sometimes we protect Turkey alone among some of those charges, the gentleman and I.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the gentleman heard this when I first started my remarks, but I said I am perfectly willing to put an additional $600- to $700 million in the Defense Department appropriations. I am for that. I admitted that right up front.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4101, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. This Members would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 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 Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important projects of interest to the State of Nebraska. First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 4101 provides $475,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance. The Alliance is an association of twelve leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing technologies. The Alliance awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching funds. During its third year of competition, the Alliance received 16 proposals requesting $627,968 but it was limited to funding 10 proposals for a total of $348,700. Matching funds from industry partners totaled $780,052 with an additional $158,869 from in- kind contributions. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing and processing industries. Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link between universities and industries for the development of competitive food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive in a increasingly competitive global economy. This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund a drought mitigation project at the Agricultural Meteorology Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This level of funding will greatly assist in the further development of a national drought mitigation center. Such a center is important to Nebraska and all arid and semi-arid states. Although drought is one of the most complex and least understood of all natural disasters, no centralized source of information currently exists on drought assessment, mitigation, response, and planning efforts. A national drought mitigation center would develop a comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability to drought by promoting the development and implementation of appropriate mitigation technologies. Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist the development and modification of food processing and preservation technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue to receive the safest and highest quality food possible. This Member is also pleased that the legislation has agreed to fund the following ongoing Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Food Processing Center--$42,000. Non-food agricultural products--$64,000. Sustainable agricultural systems--$59,000. Also, this Member is pleased that H.R. 4101 includes $125 million for the new Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100% Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults. Mr. Chairman, this Member appreciates the Subcommittee's support for the Department of Agriculture's 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program. The program has been very effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non- metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees for 30 year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home. The loan amount may be up to 100 percent of a home's market value, with a maximum mortgage amount of $86,317. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 4101 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to request approval of this floor amendment and that it be accepted by the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee. It would allow tax-exempt financing to be used in conjunction with the Section 538 housing program of the USDA. The floor amendment is necessary because of an unfortunate OMB ruling whereby tax-exempt financing could not be used in conjunction with the Section 538 housing program of the USDA Rural Housing Service. It is supported by the USDA. I am prepared and, in fact, do give arguments for it and, in fact, arguments against the decision by OMB. But I understand that the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee chairman and ranking member have seen it. While, this Member believes that the OMB ruling was an incorrect decision, as will be explained, without the change offered in this Member's amendment, the future success of the Section 538 program and as a result the future of rural housing will be harmed. This Member introduced the Section 538 Multi-family Loan Guarantee Program legislation which was passed into law as a two-year demonstration project in 1996. The Section 538 legislation was introduced to ensure that the housing needs of rural families could be adequately met by the creation of additional rental units in rural areas (cities with population of 20,000 or less). Under the Section 538 program, a Federal guarantee is provided for loans made to eligible for profit or nonprofit applicants by private lenders. The single biggest reason why the Section 538 program is such an important and needed innovation in rural housing is due to its privatization focus. In the Section 538 program, the USDA guarantees the loan for these multi-family housing projects. As a result, the U.S. Government is not directly lending the money to the borrower, instead private lenders in the free market serve borrowers with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government standing behind the loans. Guaranteed loan programs can save the Federal Government an enormous amount of money and at the same time allow the free market to construct affordable housing for rural residents. The Floor amendment that this Member is offering today, which would allow tax exempt bonds to be used in conjunction with the Section 538 program, is imperative for the two following reasons: 1. First, tax exempt bonds decrease the cost of borrowing money which is essential to keep the rents affordable for low and moderate income persons. 2. Second, lenders are more likely to lend money if tax exempt financing is involved. This is because lenders finance these loans in many different ways, but one very attractive means for such financing is for the lender to sell tax exempt bonds on the secondary market. Since bonds have a higher demand in the secondary market if they are tax exempt, this increased demand in turn results in more money for financial institutions to lend to individuals who want to build multifamily units. The Section 538 program was deemed a worthy project by the U.S. Congress in 1996 when it was enacted into law as a two-year demonstration project in 1997. Since its enactment, the Section 538 program in 1997 has guaranteed $28.1 million for 16 loans in 12 states to build a total of 813 new rental units. (These statistics are provided by the USDA). The success of the Section 538 program has been recognized by the House Appropriations Committee as the bill before us today provides $125 million in funding for the Section 538 program for fiscal year 1999. The Section 538 program has come too far to have the foundation of the rural affordable housing progam washed away through a tax exempt financing ruling by an anonymous person in the Office of Management and Budget. Tax exempt bonds are essential to the success of this program. This program deserves an opportunity to thrive and give rural residents affordable, and adquate housing, and that is what the amendment this Member is offering today will ensure--an even more successful Section 538 program that can work in conjunction with tax exempt bonds. In closing, Mr. Chairman, according to the most recent census data, 2.7 million rural families continue to live in substandard housing. The Section 538 program, by utilizing the private market, and if used in conjunction with tax exempt bonds as allowed by this Member's amendment will do much toward reducing the number of rural families living in substandard housing. Therefore, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for this Member's Floor amendment, which will allow the use of tax exempt bonds in conjunction with the Section 538 program. questions on cbo analysis on tax exempt bond issue: While the Member is pleased to answer any questions from his colleagues regarding this amendment, there is one question that this Member needs to respond to directly--that of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost assessment on the issue of tax exempt financing. This Member believes that the CBO cost assessment over a five-year period (i.e., $14 million) is grossly incorrect as there should be either no cost or a very minimal cost to the use of tax exempt financing in conjunction with the Section 538 program. The four following reasons support this analysis: 1. First, when CBO conducted theire calculations, they used a questionable $150 million amount for the yearly funding for the Section 538 program as a beginning point. The $150 million amount was the amount requested by the USDA to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for Section 538 funding. However, the House Appropriations Committee, in the bill before us today, provides $125 million in funding while the Senate Appropriations Committee provides $75 million in funding for the Section 538 program. Using the House and Senate funding amounts, a more reasonable assumption could be made that a conference compromise in the amount of $100 million in funding for the Section 538 program will result. The $100 million figure would have been more suitable to use as a basis point for a calculation as compared to the $150 million dollar figure that CBO used. It has been estimated that this flaw in the CBO calculation would reduce the CBO estimate by one-third (Note: The calcuilation correction fact of ``one- third'' is provided by the Council for Rural and Afforadable Housing.) 2. Secondly, the initial CBO assumption that this provision would leverage new investment financial by additional tax exempt debt is in question. CBO used the assumption that 50% of the bonds used in this program will be tax exempt. This Member believes that this percentage is far too high. This Member is not aware of any USDA program that has come anywhere close to this 50 percent tax exempt bond usage rate. For example, during the first pilot program under Section 538 OMB initially permitted tax exempt bonds to be used, only two out of 50 proposals involved tax exempt financing and both of these two were selected among the 10 successful applicants. Based on this information, this Member believes that 25% is a more suitable percentage for a tax exempt bond usage rate. In fact, this 25% figure was suggested by the USDA. This Member estimates that the use of the 25% estimate for tax exempt bond usage would reduce the CBO analysis by another one-third (Note: The calculation correction factor of this additional ``one-third'' is provided by the Council for Rural and Affordable Housing.) 3. Third, the full use of state volume caps by CBO in its calculation is in question as CBO refuses to reveal the volume cap model it used. Without such information from CBO, it is simply impossible for this Member to determine whether CBO in fact used these volume caps adequately. 4. Finally, CBO's calculation is questionable in that it progressively increases revenue loss by $1 million for each year of the five scored years culminating in a $5 million score for the year 2003. Due to the speculative nature of this scoring, especially with the volume cap questions, this Member believes that CBO scoring gets more and more questionable throughout the five-year scoring period. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this Member believes that the above reasons will substantially reduce if not eliminate the C.B.O. scoring of this tax exempt bond usage for the Section 538 program as a revenue loss. Therefore, this Member would again encourage his colleagues to vote for the Floor amendment which would allow tax exempt bonds to be used with the Section 538 program. If anyone has any further questions, I will be more than pleased to answer them. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico if he has any comments to make at this point.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have had good support, extraordinary support, as a matter of fact, from the Agricultural appropriations subcommittee on trying to move ahead with single-family and multi-unit housing. I appreciate that.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4059. I would also like to express a very special and sincere thanks to the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard); and to also express appreciation to the ranking Democrat of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina who is receiving such understandably high praise today in light of his career here in the House. And, of course, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee for their assistance. Their assistance to this Member relates to efforts in approving funding for the Nebraska National Guard Joint Army-Air Medical Training Facility located in Nebraska's First Congressional District which I represent. I know it is particularly important in light of the limited financial resources for the subcommittee's work this year. The new facility will be a unique cost saving military construction project for both Nebraska's Army and Air National Guard units. It will provide resources jointly to fund the construction project. While this joint funding construction arrangement is unusual and was initially bureaucratically challenged, to say the least, 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. Is it not 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 the Army and the Air National Guard health professionals will receive, and will also improve the quality of health care provided to their personnel. In conclusion, I want to express my sincere thanks to the National Guard Bureau and especially to the authorizing and appropriating subcommittees for assisting this Member in his efforts to make this joint, cost-effective project a reality. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and his staff have been assisting this Member in this effort for more than a year now to bring us to this point. I thank the gentleman for that effort. This is a frugally prepared piece of legislation worthy of support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), 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 1999 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. This Member greatly appreciates the $8 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. 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 this Member 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 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 UN-L 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 $200,000 for operation and maintenance and $150,000 for construction of 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. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member recognizes that H.R. 4060 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), 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. Since the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) earlier announced his intention not to seek re-election to the House, may I most sincerely commend, congratulate and thank the gentleman for the tremendous contributions he has made to America by the extraordinary effort and leadership he has demonstrated on the Appropriations Committee and through other responsibilities he has so ably discharged in his public service while a Member of the House. I recall as if it was only yesterday how the gentleman gave such friendly and quality advice and assistance to this Member when I arrived to serve on the House Small Business Committee in 1979 where the gentleman from Pennsylvania served as the ranking minority member. Thank you, my colleague and friend and very best wishes to you and your family during the remainder of this year and after you leave the House.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member opposes H.R. 3097, the Tax Code Termination Act, both as introduced and in the form of the Manager's Amendment. Before going into the reasoning behind this opposition, this Member would like to preface his comments by the following statement. This Member unequivocally believes that substantial but very careful reform is needed for the U.S. tax Code. Examples abound of inefficiencies and counterproductive elements of the Internal Revenue Code as it operates today. However, this Member opposes H.R. 3097 for the following four reasons: (1) This Member does not think that we should delay decision-making as H.R. 3097 does. We need to decide today's issues today and not defer them to tomorrow. (2) H.R. 3097 fails for its lack of precision. H.R. 3097, in its manager's amendment version, would sunset the current tax code effective December 31, 2002. It is certainly not legislatively wise to eliminate the tax code without an alternative to replace it with. If such major action should be taken as contemplated by H.R. 3097, a precise alternative of a federal tax system needs to be simultaneously discussed. (3) This Member does not support this legislation because it could dramatically discourage investment as investors are faced with great uncertainty. If H.R. 3097 is passed, Americans will be in a state of great confusion and apprehension until a replacement tax code is enacted, which could be as late as December 31, 2002 (the manager's substitute amendment date). We are in June of 1998. It may be 4\1/2\ years until a new tax system is passed, if H.R. 3097 is adopted. Members of the House need to put themselves in the position of their constituents. For example, can a corporation make a prudent investment decision if they do not know what the tax consequences will be of that decision just a few years hence? No, they cannot. Will investors continue to be as ready to buy tax-exempt bonds if they are not sure whether this tax exempt status will continue? Another example of the potentially very negative effects of H.R. 3097 concerns the mortgage interest deduction. A young family, who desires to purchase a home for the first time, will not know in the future if they can count on the mortgage interest deduction if H.R. 3097 is passed. In fact, this uncertainty may be enough to deter someone from purchasing a house until a replacement tax code is in place. (4) H.R. 3097 would have a negative effect on state and local entities. For example, there would surely be a lack of confidence in private municipal bonds due to the uncertainty created by H.R. 3097. Certainly, local school districts could be adversely affected, along with most other varieties of local governmental bodies. Mr. Speaker, for these four reasons just briefly described by limited available examples, this Member must oppose H.R. 3097. We need a fundamental reexamination of America's Federal tax code and it should begin now, but rash action like H.R. 3097 is most assuredly not the way to proceed. It would have a chilling effect upon our economy and cause greater difficulty in pubic and private decision-making. All that is lacking to begin such a comprehensive review and reform of our Federal system of taxation is the will or commitment to begin and the organizational and legislative skills to implement such changes. With such a narrow majority in this House, it will also take bipartisan cooperation and good will.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3035, the National Drought Policy Act. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. I thank the bill's managers on the other side of the aisle and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and others who brought us this legislation. This important legislation, as mentioned, establishes an advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on the creation of integrated and coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare for and respond to serious drought emergencies. Drought is one of the most complex and devastating natural disasters. Yet, it is also one of the least understood. Droughts cost the United States an average of $6 to $8 billion per year and cause serious environmental and social problems. Too often, the response to droughts is fragmented and it often comes too late. Once a drought hits, the options become much more limited. There is a clear need to plan ahead. The National Drought Policy Act seeks to address the current shortcomings by encouraging a proactive rather than a reactive approach to drought. The commission created by the bill would work to develop a comprehensive and coordinated Federal policy so that the Nation is prepared for upcoming droughts. The commission would also make recommendations on the best way to integrate Federal drought laws and programs with those of the state, local, and tribal level; and I think that is probably the most important responsibility. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding work by the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. The Center, founded in 1995, stresses drought prevention and risk management. The National Drought Policy Act would greatly assist the Center in its efforts to develop a comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability to drought by promoting the development and implementation of appropriate mitigation policies. The Center is focused on the Great Plains, but its work has advantages for many parts of the country. As I looked at some of the things the university is doing, I realize they have gone a long way now to help develop plants that are drought resistant or at least that do not suffer so greatly from the stress of drought. Mr. Speaker, development of a National Drought Policy Act is long overdue. I am pleased that H.R. 3035 addresses this problem and urge my colleagues to support the legislation.