Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has proposed and seems to have indicated he might be satisfied with a study, and he has gained the support of the ranking member and the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and the chairman of the authorizing committee. But I would like to put additional facts on the record at this point. We have heard a little comment or two about these issues. They are all fairly negative by the gentleman from Michigan. But I would like to point out to my colleagues that the staff to form the regional offices came from several former organizational levels, including the national headquarters, national technical centers, of which there were four, and State offices. In fact, only 25 percent of the regional office employees came from positions in the national headquarters. The regional offices have provided essential and successful managerial and oversight functions for the restructured NRCS by bringing managerial authority closer to the field and the actual work and customers. Previously the NRCS assistant chiefs who held some of the current regional managerial authorities were actually located in this city. They were too far removed from local needs to be effective. Given the funding realities of the last several years, we have been able to keep significant staff in the field largely by making as many cuts above the field level as possible. Without the regional offices, the move toward them, I would say that some of this would have been impossible. The NRCS regional conservationists hold full authority for funding within their regions. This has put funding decisions closer to the field and to the customer, the client. Regional conservationists, I would suggest, based upon input I receive, are better able to address priority issues in a timely manner than previously when funds and decisions were held here in the Nation's Capitol. If the various requirements in the GAO asking for strengthening oversight activities alone were not being handled by the regional offices, we would be forced to assign those responsibilities to the State office level in the organization. This approach would hinder the ability to put additional staff at the field level, cause the State operations to be more focused on administrative duties, and reduce the amount of technical backup the State offices are now providing the field, which has directly improved customer service. Mr. Chairman, I think this approach allows the agency to recognize the different parts of the country and the fact that they have very different natural resource needs, different agricultural systems, and different customers. The old system forced our policy to approach solutions which were national in scope and tended to be kind of one- size-fits-all. The regional approach, I think, is assisting in fostering our efforts of locally-led conservation. And as the regional system continues to mature, it will ensure, I hope, that local needs are met with local solutions. And I say ``hope'' because we have moved to this arrangement only a year ago. So I would suggest that radical surgery is too premature at this time. Certainly, it is appropriate for the authorizing committee in particular to examine this issue, but I did want to bring these facts to my colleagues' attention at some point.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] for working so diligently on this issue. The compromise is a good one, and this Member certainly supports it. This Member had tried to be helpful in the effort to reach common language on the North Korean famine, and was prepared to offer a second degree amendment that would have reflected the view that has been expressed in the Committee on International Relations. While the Parliamentarian ruled that the International Relations Committee's language would have been authorizing in an appropriation bill and was not in order. This Member would note, however, the intention of the International Relations Committee to move its North Korea policy language as part of the Foreign Assistance Act. This Member will discuss the components of the Bereuter perfecting amendment momentarily. Certainly it can be agreed that this Nation should be willing to provide food to starving women and children, regardless of the despicable nature of the regime under which they live. And, there is no more heinous regime than that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is perhaps the last Stalinist regime, and certainly one of the most brutal regimes that ever has existed. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the International Relations Committee, this Member has conducted three hearings and countless briefings on the situation in North Korea in the last several years. The subcommittee has followed this issue very carefully. Certainly there is starvation--some of it as the result of unprecedented flooding, but most due to the utterly incomprehensible and counterproductive agricultural policies of the North Korean Government. This Member would tell his colleagues that this famine is largely Government-induced, and not the result of natural catastrophe. But the famine is real. We have reliable reports of women and children eating grass and tree bark. The famine is so bad that many industries have simply ceased to exist because the workers no longer have the energy to perform even the most simple tasks. When the United States began working with the World Food Programme to provide humanitarian food aid to the North, this Member, together with the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Hamilton, set forth certain criteria that were absolute preconditions for any U.S. food aid program. These included: One, assurance that our South Korean allies were consulted and supportive of the food aid deliveries; two, assurance that previous food aid and official confessional food deliveries have not been diverted to the military; three, North Korean military stocks have been tapped to respond to the North Korean unmet food needs; four, the World Food Programme would have the monitors on the ground to oversee the delivery and ensure that food aid is not diverted from the intended recipients; and five, that the United States Government encourage the North Korean Government to undertake a fundamental restructuring of its agricultural system. These basic, commonsense conditions are the essence of the Bereuter second degree amendment that this gentleman would have been prepared to offer had it been ruled in order. These types of basic conditions were deemed necessary because, in the past, food aid deliveries had in fact been diverted by the North Korean military. This Member would hasten to point out that U.S. humanitarian assistance was not diverted, but significant diversions of assistance from other countries has been detected. It would be entirely unacceptable if the North Korean military were to benefit from our humanitarian outpouring of good will. This body must be vigilant against this possibility. The Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and the International Relations Committee are working very closely with the administration to ensure that these conditions have been met. We have taken steps to ensure that the administration dramatically increases the number of trained monitors on the ground to supervise the dispersal of food assistance. The International Relations Committee also has been working with excellent organizations such as Catholic Relief Services and CARE to ensure that the monitoring teams are adequate to perform the tasks they have been assigned. We continue to work with the administration, and this Member can assure his colleagues that the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and the International Relations Committee are following this extremely important matter very, very closely. Again, this Member commends the gentlemen for crafting an amendment that addresses the very real famine in North Korea while at the same time addressing the legitimate security concern that we not provide comfort to the North Korean military.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the chairman, 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, I think, is to be particularly commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of the budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee for a number of actions that are important to a four-State region where I carried a bi-State region and some various projects like that one in Pender, NE, which is extraordinarily important for flood control purposes. So I do thank the subcommittee for their work and appreciate their effort once again. Mr. Speaker, 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 1998 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. First, this Member is very pleased, for example, that the bill includes $3,741,000 for construction of the Pender, NE, section 205 Logan Creek flood control project. There is an urgent need for this funding and this Member is particularly grateful to the subcommittee for agreeing to this appropriations item during a time when the restrictions on available funding are exceedingly tight. The community of Pender, a small municipality, and the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District have expended approximately $160,000 of their own funds to date. The municipality has expended an additional approximate amount of $25,000 on the costs of engineering, project coordination, and other related costs. Without the flood control project the community will remain at risk and will be stymied from undertaking future developments in their community due to FEMA flood plain development restrictions; 60 percent of Pender is in the floodplain and 40 percent is in the floodway. The plan calls for right bank levees and flood walls with a retention pond for internal storm water during flood periods. The project will remove the entire community from the FEMA 100-year flood plain. This project is needed to protect life and property, eliminate or greatly reduce flood insurance costs, and allow community and housing development. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, at great expense the State and local entities involved in the project have held up their end of the agreement. If Federal-local partnerships are to work, Federal commitments need to be met; therefore, this Member is pleased that this legislation will greatly facilitate the completion of this project. In addition, this bill provides additional funding for other flood- related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First 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, NE. 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. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to take this opportunity to thank the subcommittee and the full committee for providing $300,000 in funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. In addition, a related study was authorized by section 503(d)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This Member would request that the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water into a colloquy on this matter. Mr. Speaker, additionally, the bill provides $90,000 in 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 multifaceted 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 downtown 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 10-foot by 20-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 includes $150,000 for a study of flooding problems in Ponca, NE. This funding is needed to initiate and complete a study to determine the feasibility of a solution to the flooding problems on Aowa and South Creeks at Ponca, NE. The city of Ponca is located on the north side of the junction of South Creek and Aowa Creek. During the flood of July 16-17, 1996, water left the banks and covered Ponca from the west end to the east, causing extensive damage throughout the area. In addition to extensive private property losses, damage to public property reached nearly $100,000. For example, both of the city's wells were damaged and all the pumps and motors in the sewage treatment plant had to be removed and repaired. The flood also caused considerable damage to city streets and park. Future flooding poses a significant risk to life and property. Clearly, action must be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of the flooding disaster of last year. 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. In addition, this Member appreciates the funding provided for the Missouri River Mitigation Project. This 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 predevelopment days. The Missouri River Mitigation Project addresses fish and wildlife habitat concerns much more effectively than the Corps' overwhelmingly unpopular and ill-conceived proposed changes to the Missouri River Master Manual. Although the Corps' proposed plan was designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, these environmental issues are already being addressed by the Missouri River Mitigation Project. 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. This Member is also pleased that the legislation includes full funding for the section 22 planning assistance for States and tribes program as well as significant funding in excess of the budget request for the section 205 small flood control projects program, and the section 14 emergency streambank and shoreline protection program of the Corps of Engineers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member recognizes that H.R. 2203 also provides funding for a Bureau of Reclamation assessment of Nebraska's water supply, $88,000, and an assessment of the Nebraska Rainwater Basin, $133,000, as well as 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. Speaker, 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.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much for his statement of intent and clarification.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have a simple colloquy, one question, really: Is it the committee's intention that the appropriations made for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Nebraska study may also be used to conduct studies authorized by section 503(d)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 watershed management, restoration, development of the Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to reluctantly agree, as I said, to concede the point of order and express my general appreciation for the treatment this Member has had.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard?

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Point of Order

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this common sense amendment is needed to ensure that the Corps of Engineers does not repeat its previous mistake, a proposal which would have devastated farms, businesses, landowners and countless communities along the Missouri River. In 1994, the Corps issued its proposed changes to the Master Manual and made a colossal blunder by proposing to drastically increase the flow and water level of the Missouri River during the months of April, May and June. These, obviously, are the very months when States such as Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, especially in the area south of Plattsmouth, NE, are already most vulnerable to flooding due to snow melt and heavy rainfall in the internal watersheds that drain into the Missouri River. It is bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river have to contend with natural disasters, they should not be forced to deal with the kind of man-made disasters that would have been caused by the Corps' proposal. The floods and heavy spring rains of recent years offer clear and convincing proof that the proposal was seriously flawed. At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River Basin region, participants expressed very strong, even vociferous remarks and nearly unanimous opposition to a number of provisions in the Corps' preferred alternative. One of the most detested provisions was the increased spring rise. Following this massive opposition to the proposed changes, the Corps acknowledged the flaws in the original proposal and expressed a willingness to reevaluate the issue. However, this Member believes this common sense amendment is desirably discussed each year to make absolutely certain that the Corps does not repeat this mistake. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member again heard the strong concerns and objections to the current Missouri River bottomland flooding from affected landowners and farmers in Otoe County and Nemaha County at town hall meetings this Member held on Monday of this week in Nebraska City, NE, and Auburn, NE. Some of these individuals have had their crops destroyed by flooding in 4 of the last 5 years. Their crop insurance costs are soaring and they are understandably suffering great economic losses which do threaten their survival. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is important that any changes in the Missouri River Master Water Control Plan alleviate this severe flooding problem and not accentuate it. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member will attempt to address this subject throughout any appropriate authorizing committees. I have had tremendous cooperation from the chairman and the ranking member on this subcommittee, and I am very much appreciative of it. I know that the rules, or the interpretation of the rules which made this amendment possible to be considered in the last two Congresses are different. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has reserved a point of order and I would be willing to hear anything that he wishes to say to me at this point, and will end my remarks by conceding the point of order to the gentleman.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to express his concern about the Mink amendment offered to H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational--Technical Education Act amendments and to make it clear why this Member felt compelled to vote against it on principle and in order to provide the necessary flexibility to the States to better meet the diverse requirements and conditions of their populations. This Member supports the direction incorporated in H.R. 1853, which is to move away from Federal setasides and toward giving authority to States, local school districts, and post-secondary institutions to determine their own priorities for reform and funding. In addition to allowing for greater decisionmaking at the local level, this bill includes enforcement mechanisms that are necessary to ensure that special populations are accommodated under H.R. 1853. This bill requires States to provide vocational education opportunities for special populations including, specifically, displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women. If the State application fails to show how the State will ensure that the special populations meet or exceed State benchmarks, then enforcement mechanisms in H.R. 1853 require the Secretary of Education to reject the application. Further, if a State fails to meet its own benchmark for these special populations, then the Secretary and the U.S. Department of Education has the authority to intervene to bring the State up to a minimum adequate level of performance. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1852 already allows States and local communities to continue to fund programs for special populations such as displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women to ensure that they have the opportunity to participate in vocational education programs. States should have the flexibility to choose and set priorities for themselves and protect their own citizens without being given a Federal mandate. This Member strongly believes that there is no reason to suspect that a State or local official will not make the right decision. This bill ensures that special populations will continue to receive vocational and technical education. In addition, Mr. Chairman, this Member has a record of support for assisting displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women, to ensure that they have access to educational opportunities. For example, during the previous sessions of Congress, this Member supported an amendment offered by the gentlelady from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] to the CAREERS Act to require States to include in their work force development and literacy plans a description of how the State will maintain programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant women, as well as programs designed to promote the elimination of sex bias. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member would like to reiterate that States must have the flexibility to set priorities for themselves and protect their own citizens. This Member will continue to monitor the progress of this important legislation to reform the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act. Further, this Member pledges his commitment to an effort to have his home State of Nebraska comply with this legislation and to continue to provide needed educational assistance to displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for their excellent work and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that serve on this committee. My colleagues may have heard me applauding a few minutes ago when the gentleman from Pennsylvania made his remarks, because I regret the fact that the chairman reached, I think, the right conclusion in the face of opposition to cut the rural set-aside from 10 to 5 percent. I think that was inappropriate pressure from the other side of the aisle. I think they should not be anti-rural in their actions. Nevertheless, this bill has many important features that are positive. H.R. 1853, for example, most importantly alters the amount of dollars spent at the local level. Under the current law, only 75 percent of Federal dollars currently are required to flow to the local school districts. This bill, of course, in a very important change, requires 90 percent of those dollars to go to the local level. Any true changes in vocational technical education must come from the local level, from teachers who are in the classroom, to make a difference. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this legislation contains two important components to assist rural communities and schools. Not as much as I had hoped but a big and important change, especially in the longer term. One provision, of course, encourages the States and permits them to set aside a portion of the funds flowing to the local level to target rural or nonmetropolitan areas. This provision provides States with discretion in the equitable distribution of funds throughout the State. An additional provision lowers the minimum grants for secondary and postsecondary programs, enabling more schools to qualify. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very important change, it is long needed, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] very much for his diligent work on this. Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of American youth do not complete a 4-year college degree. This bill appropriately changes the way funds are distributed from the Federal Government to the States by targeting the funds more directly to the youth and young adults up to age 24 which are served by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. This legislation broadens opportunities after high school for vocational-technical education students by ensuring that they receive a high-quality education which will allow them to continue on to college or further education, the military, training or directly into the work force. In addition, H.R. 1853 most importantly alters the amount of dollars sent to the local level. Under current law, only 75 percent of Federal dollars currently are required to flow to the local school districts. This bill requires 90 percent of the dollars to go to the local level. Any true change in vocational-technical education must come from the local level--from teachers who are in the classroom making a difference. The increased funding that H.R. 1853 sends to the local level in this Member's home State of Nebraska will result in a $52,000 increase for the Lincoln Public School System, a $3,000 increase for the York Public Schools, an increase of $1,600 for the Wahoo Public Schools, $700 more for the Homer Community Schools, a $2,200 increase for Nebraska City Public Schools, and $8,000 more in funding for the Norfolk Public Schools, just to name a few. This Member is also pleased that H.R. 1853 contains two important components to assist rural schools. One provision enables States to set aside a portion of the funds flowing to the local level to target rural areas. This provision provides States with discretion in the equitable distribution of funds throughout the State. An additional provision lowers the minimum grant for secondary and postsecondary programs, enabling more small schools to qualify. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This is an important reform bill, and it deserves to be supported.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express the reasons for opposition to the amendment that was to be offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt]--to disregard report language included in the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill pertaining to the veterans equitable resource allocation [VERA] system. Because this Member had filed an amendment to block implementation of the VERA system in fiscal year 1998, in this House chamber, negotiations this afternoon involving this Member resulted in an agreement regarding a revision to the subcommittee's VERA report language which I had supported. While the agreement will still require the timely completion of a General Accounting Office [GAO] report to study the impact of VERA on the individual veterans integrated service networks [VISN's], the political reality of a vote count permits the House conferees on this appropriations measure to remove that portion of the committee report language funding all VISN's at fiscal year 1996 levels while the GAO study is being done. It is vitally important that this GAO report be completed in a timely manner in order to give the executive branch and Congress time to react to the GAO report findings before the fiscal year 1999 budget preparation season in order to ensure that all veterans receive the best health care possible. This Member has publicly expressed his concerns about the negative impact that the new VERA system will have on Nebraska and other sparsely populated areas of the country. In fact, this Member conveyed these concerns to the House VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee earlier this year during testimony on the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, the VERA plan would provide medical care funding to regions across the country, by employing an allocation formula that ties funding for each of the 22 geographic regions to the number of veterans they actually serve. Such a new system, under the VERA formula, would eventually result in at least a 4-percent decrease in funds for the region that includes this Member's State of Nebraska, with other reductions perhaps forthcoming in the longer term. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, here is the important point for my region: The VA must provide adequate facilities for all veterans throughout the country regardless of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals or in large urban areas. A national infrastructure of facilities and medical personnel is needed to serve our veterans wherever they live. This Member finds the prospect of a decrease in quality and accessibility of medical care for veterans in sparsely populated areas to be completely unacceptable. Veterans in Nebraska and Iowa also deserve to have adequate medical services; they must not be neglected or treated inequitably just because they live in a relatively sparsely settled region. Mr. Chairman, again, this Member expresses his objections to the Nethercutt amendment as originally proposed and reluctant agreement to the change in the subcommittee report language on VERA, but only out of political realism.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this body has once again completed its annual debate over retention of MFN, or normal trade status, to China. While the actual fate of MFN was never truly in doubt, during the week or two before the debate, that debate was marked by a wide array of accusations and charges. In the aftermath of this debate, it is understandable that there is some confusion as to the precise nature of our vital interests in China, and how best to pursue those interests. This Member believes that linkage of trade to human rights does not advance United States vital interests, nor does it promote democracy in China. As an excellent editorial in the Lincoln Journal Star recently noted, ``there is a fine line between making our views known to China and trying to, or even thinking we can, impose our will. * * * While we should continue to speak up for the rights of other peoples, including those in Hong Kong, we will have more influence if we simply maintain an open relationship with China in which there is a free flow of people and goods.'' Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the July 2, 1997 editorial entitled ``Best way to influence China through open relations, trade'' in the Lincoln Journal Star and asks that it be submitted as part of the Record. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, July 2, 1997] Best Way to Influence China Through Open Relations, Trade The spectacle that unfolded in Hong Kong this week has provided a good opportunity for Americans to focus attention on China. The more we know about the world's most populous nation, the better we will understand it. And that's imperative as China develops into a world-class economic power. In the sweep of history, the return of Hong Kong from British to Chinese rule is a welcome event. Hong Kong belongs to China. It is Chinese. The passing of the racist-tinged relic of Western colonialism should be a cause for celebration, not mourning. The legitimate concerns surrounding this week's historic transfer of power center on protection of Hong Kong's economic and political freedoms. While the former seem relatively secure, the latter may turn out to be not quite as broad as they once were, certainly not as unfettered as we would want them to be. We will have to wait and see. While we can, and ought to, monitor events as they progress in Hong Kong, we should recognize that the economic forces already unleashed in China are likely to carry it along the path to broader personal freedom. And we need to understand that, try as we might, we cannot dictate the pace of change. It is fair to expect China to abide by the agreement it negotiated with the British in which it promised to abide by a ``one country, two systems'' formula that guaranteed a level of autonomy for Hong Kong that would protect its market economy and democratic freedoms. China should be held accountable for keeping its word. But there is a fine line between making our views known to China and trying to, or even thinking we can, impose our will. We need to be sensitive to such issues as sovereignty and national pride in making our case, and to China's long- held suspicion that we are embarked on a new form of colonial dominance called American hegemony. It would be useful if we sometimes tried to step back and see ourselves from other people's eyes. China's leaders may ask how we would like it if they questioned our civil rights record, or the plight of our poor in the midst of vast wealth, in the court of world opinion. While we should continue to speak up for the rights of other peoples, including those in Hong Kong, we will have more influence if we simply maintain an open relationship with China in which there is a free flow of people and goods. In the long run, congressional approval of President Clinton's renewal of normal trading relationships with China will do more to positively influence the lives of Chinese citizens than any of our lectures. It is difficult to keep societies open and regressive at the same time. And economic freedom begets broader personal and political freedoms.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for an outstanding job in meeting the Nation's agriculture, agribusiness, rural housing and small community housing and development programs with limited resources. I am particularly appreciative of some assistance for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, 12 major leading universities plus corporations; a quarter of a million dollars for a very special and detrimental disease affecting grain sorghum; for drought mitigation research projects; and for various CSRS projects at the University of Nebraska. Also I want to say to the gentleman, the gentlewoman and also to the former member, Mr. Durbin, that I think that the loan guarantee programs for housing, like the 502 program and the demonstration for the 538 program, are working well. I appreciate their continued support and again I thank them for the tremendous work. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, July 9, 1997. Hon. Doug Bereuter, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Doug: Earlier you wrote me regarding funding for several Department of Agriculture special research grants. I am pleased to say that the FY 1998 Agriculture Appropriations Bill reported by the Committee includes $300,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection in Nebraska and Georgia, $200,000 for drought mitigation in Nebraska, $42,000 for the Food Processing Center in Nebraska, $423,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, $64,000 for Nonfood Agriculture Products in Nebraska, and $59,000 for Sustainable Agriculture Systems in Nebraska. I hope we will have not only your vote, but also your personal support when the bill is considered by the House. Sincerely, Joe Skeen, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, is it also the committee's intention that in order not to override creative and locally supported State efforts, which are effective in assuring public health, the EPA should develop a rule that clearly demonstrates that the groundwater poses a genuine health risk before requiring systems to disinfect?

Mr. BEREUTER. This Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for this clarification. Since Nebraska has more communities, all except five public water systems, that depend upon groundwater, more than any other State, this is a matter of great importance to our State, and I understand it affects other districts around the country as well. Mr. Chairman, once again, the Appropriations Committee has completed the tough task of allocating limited resources to many deserving programs. As a member of the House Banking Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal public housing programs, this Member is keenly aware of the growing strain section 8 contract renewals are placing on the HUD budget. This Member commends the appropriators for dealing with this difficult task in the absence of a legislative solution. Although there are numerous deserving programs included in this funding bill, this Member would like to mention three specific programs. First, the bill provides $3.0 million for the section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program which is administered by HUD. According to the committee report, this appropriation will result in over $36.9 million in loan guarantees. The section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program has already proven to be an excellent program that for the first time is providing privately financed homes through a guarantee program for Indian families who are otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. Second, appropriators should be applauded for including $4.6 billion for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]. This amount, which is the same as the fiscal year 1997 enacted level will efficiently provide block grants for many successful programs, including Youthbuild. Finally, this Member would like to thank appropriators for retaining the fiscal year 1997 enacted level of $645 million for the section 202 elderly housing program and $194 million for the section 811 disabled housing program. These levels, which this Member supported during House floor consideration last year, are a minimum commitment Congress should make to these special needs citizens. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2158 and urges his colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, first of all, the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of some of the housing programs. Section 8, section 184, section 202, and section 811 programs were funded as adequately as we can under the circumstances, and they are very important, and I appreciate the subcommittee's good work. Mostly, however, I would like to address the Safe Drinking Water Act. Legislation was enacted last year to amend that act and inject more common sense in the process of testing and treating our Nation's water. This Member is concerned, however, that the Environmental Protection Agency's groundwater disinfection program may be ignoring congressional intent. Specifically, the EPA may attempt to implement a rule which would result in enormous disinfection costs for small communities, but with no actual benefit to the citizens of those communities. In recognition of the general good quality of our Nation's groundwater, the excellent existing State water quality protection programs and the expense and other complications of unneeded treatment, the Safe Drinking Water Act of l996 provided the EPA with only the authority to promulgate regulations requiring disinfection as a treatment technique as necessary, and I stress the words as necessary, for all public water systems using groundwater. Therefore, it appears that the EPA staff, all too predictably and as this Member predicted, would be the problem in his floor comments on June 25, 1996. It appears they may be focusing on a proposed regulation which goes far beyond the regulation of those systems with groundwater quality problems. Agency drafts have proposed regulatory measures that exceed disinfection and which are currently and properly covered under State authority or State programs. Therefore, this Member would request that the chairman of the appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD enter into a colloquy on this matter. Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's intention that a small community using groundwater should not be subject to EPA-directed improvements unless the community's groundwater poses a genuine health risk?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ehlers amendment. We have had problems with the NEA because a few artists want to extend beyond what is acceptable with public funds. We have had great success with the State arts councils. I want to give them the funds they need to continue. There is a legitimate matter of debate about the use of public funds for art, but I believe that in a great civilization there has always been the use of public funds to support the arts. America is such a great civilization. I ask my colleagues to set aside their concerns and to help us move to a substantial situation of providing assistance to our State arts councils. Perhaps too much is allocated to the schools at the expense of the State arts councils, but this Ehlers amendment is a valid effort. I think it is important that we move in this direction. It is the solution in the long term. The national level will always be contentious. It is time to get the money to the State arts councils. They have done an extraordinary job in deciding how to spend their funds. I urge Members to support the Ehlers amendment to expedite this process to the final solution. The Ehlers amendments would replace the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) with a block grant program to the State art councils and public school districts. This Member has always been in favor of public funding for the arts. Every great civilization has always had public support of the arts. America is a great civilization and we should continue small but reasonable Federal funding in this area. This Member has great confidence in the State arts councils. For example, there is no doubt that the Nebraska Arts Council will make the right decisions regarding use of Federal funds. As we all know, the controversy surrounding the NEA is largely the result of inappropriate funding decisions regarding pornographic or obscene projects which have been the subject of strenuous objections by many Members of Congress, including this Member. Because of the strong public opposition to the NEA, the best way to ensure continued Federal support of the arts is to send the money to the State art councils and public schools for distribution. A vote for the Ehlers amendment is a vote to support the arts. In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support the arts by voting ``aye'' on the Ehlers amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to engage the gentleman from Ohio in a colloquy to receive his views and to receive and understand the subcommittee's views on the nature of the matching requirements that will apply to the completion of the Lewis and Clark Trail Interpretive Center in Nebraska. It is my understanding that the matching requirements for the additional fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the center, plus the previously appropriated $391,000 in total can be matched by cash, materials, and services. While it is my understanding that a substantial cash contribution will be required, it is further my understanding that such materials, services and activities in non-cash contributions could include contributed architectural and engineering plans or planning activities, construction materials, landscape planning and plant materials, survey activities, utilities installation and/or relevant new artwork creations. Mr. Chairman, is my understanding of the nature and the anticipated matching contributions for the center correct?

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