Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about this subject and I think there may be some confusion, but I hope some Members focused on the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] a few minutes ago when he said that recently the United States, when you consider all costs, was paying over 80 percent of the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations. It is incredible. What I am suggesting and what I was able to do in the committee is to assure that at least incremental costs are to be offset. We have a tremendous expenditure of funds. We have an important role to play in peacekeeping. But as I suggested to the Secretary of State when he appeared before us, the status quo is not acceptable. We have to have some changes in the way our assessments are calculated. Mr. Chairman, I would be absolutely convinced that even though our peacekeeping assessment is 30.7 percent, and even though the last Congress said by resolution that we are going to reduce it to 25 percent, supporters of the United Nations, perhaps even the Clinton administration, will come to us later this year and say again next year, and perhaps next year, ``You are in arrearage,'' even though we had expressed our clear intent to pay no more than 25 percent. That is a very generous share, because when we consider all of our other calculated costs, incremental costs and others, we are paying far, far beyond 25 percent. We are paying more than 50 percent. Recently we paid 80 percent. I think it should be clear to our colleagues that we can ask for some different procedures to be established when it comes to our contributions to peacekeeping. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the debate on title 2, to assure that all of the amendments are considered in consecutive fashion so that we have a rational debate on the issue, I ask unanimous consent that my amendments numbered 10 and 12 be considered en bloc and passed.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a new member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger]. (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman that under my reservation, I can object to the unanimous-consent request that all of these amendments the gentleman has listed are not read here on the House floor, and exhaust the amount of time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, under my reservation of objection I would point out to the House that there has been little or no opportunity for Members of the House who are not members of the Committee on the Judiciary to offer amendments to this legislation if they are not members of the Committee on the Judiciary. I think that is quite inappropriate. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman under my reservation of objection, the distinguished chairman, for whom I have great respect, it is my understanding that he is not including my amendment printed in the Record, amendment No. 22.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the Chair, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so only to ask the gentleman to make his motion to include all amendments thereto.

Mr. BEREUTER. I understand what the gentleman is offering. It is not objectionable to this Member. I hope the gentleman will examine the amendment that I have pending.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you understand the difficulty, I would say to the gentleman from New York. I can stand here all day, and even though we are rotating back and forth, as long as there are amendments from members of the committee I will not have an opportunity to offer mine.

Mr. BEREUTER. This Member's patience is not inexhaustible, and I want to be cooperative, but eventually I think we ought to have some time for nonmembers of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Could I ask the gentleman from New York or Michigan, in fact are there other amendments from members of the committee beyond those he has just mentioned that would also eat into that hour and one- half?

Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the distinguished ranking member this question: For those amendments that may well be noncontroversial from nonmembers of the committee, could some discretion be given for us to stand up, offer an amendment, dispose of it quickly, and proceed back to the more controversial amendments that some of the members of the committee have to offer?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to the Members' attention, members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle, that we have gone on at some length on this amendment, this debate, primarily, perhaps exclusively, between Members of the Judiciary Committee. I assume this matter has been debated in committee as well. The result of all of this may be that Members of the House, not members of the committee, will have no opportunity to offer their amendments. I understand that on the minority side there are at least three or four members of the committee who have amendments, and since we have approximately 3 hours left, that will mean a Member of the House, not a member of the committee, will never have an opportunity to offer an amendment. So I would hope that as we proceed here, this debate has exhausted the arguments, pro and con, in short order, and we might have an opportunity to proceed. Otherwise, I would ask for a little discretion on the part of the members of the committee who have amendments to permit those of us who do have amendments that are perhaps noncontroversial to have a chance to offer them.

Mr. BEREUTER. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I think given the time considerations, I would say to the chairman, this Member does not think he was well treated by the process that was established here. However, I want this process to move forward. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to have an opportunity to offer his amendment, so I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. I would say that I appreciate the fact that the gentleman listened to some Members in Republican conference on the need for a matching requirement. Our colleagues have taken the initiative. I urge my colleagues to support the Martini amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Martini-Castle amendment. I think this bill must have some method of accountability in order to ensure that the grant money is not misused. A 10-percent match requirement would at least help ensure that local governments will have a financial interest in the success of the grant. Instead of local governments considering that grant money to be in effect free money, more care will be taken to ensure that the grants are not wasted. Oftentimes I think it can be shown that the degree of local concern will increase proportionately to the amount of matching grant. Mostly I rise today, however, to tell my colleagues that I really thought a larger grant amount was appropriate. I have an amendment prepared to the amendment for a 20-percent grant, but in an abundance of caution and with some consultation with local officials and especially my colleagues, I am going to support the 10-percent matching grant requirement, insisting, as the gentleman from Delaware said, that it is a cash match. My experience that leads me to the conclusion that we have to have a matching grant comes from serving on the State crime commission in the late 1960's and early 1970's when we had a number of excesses with the LEAA program. One of the excesses that came about, I think, related directly to the fact that we had no sufficient matching requirement. In the existing crime bill, last year's bill that was enacted, there are matches that require 10 percent in some instances, in some cases as high as 40 percent. We have got some difficulty in local governments apparently with some of the higher matches. I think the 10-percent match is perhaps a bit minimal, but I believe that the will of the body would support a 10-percent amendment, and I am going to ask my colleagues to support on both sides of the aisle the initiative by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] and the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and I want to associate myself with their effort and with the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan in support of the matching requirement.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly supports efforts to create a leaner and more efficient Federal Government. Such efforts are long overdue. However, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture moves forward with its reorganization plans, it is critical to keep in mind that reorganization simply for the sake of reorganizing is inefficient, counterproductive, and often very costly. The use of reorganization to achieve the appearance of change is certainly not new. This Member quotes from Petronius Arbiter in the year 210 B.C.: We trained hard * * * but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. This Member believes this observation of some 2200 years ago is especially relevant as the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers a reorganization plan for the new Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]. This Member is specifically concerned about the proposed closing of the Mid-West Technical Center located in Lincoln, NE. This technical center has proven to be productive and well-located and this Member is extremely doubtful that the proposed changes are either cost- effective or will bring great efficiency. In addition to the specific concern, this Member is also concerned that the currently proposed reorganization plan will severely and adversely impact the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The current schedule to finalize plans by May 1, 1995, with implementation of the reorganization set for October 1, 1995, needs to be placed on hold until a reevaluation is completed. Mr. Speaker, this Member, is concerned that the charge given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce administrative staff in the Washington, DC office is being implemented in NRCS by moving many of their administrators to the six proposed regional offices. In order to make room in the budget to fund the new regional administrative staffs, the technical experts now located at the technical centers would then be sacrificed. It is this Member's belief that such a move would be very short-sighted and ultimately would undermine the technical capability and reputation of the agency. The NRCS, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service, has earned a richly deserved reputation as a highly professional and technically competent agency. Now there appears to be a clear, and not so subtle, trend to diminish the carefully nurtured technical competence of the Service. For example, the proposed plan gives lip service to the need for technical competence while at the same time destroying the very repositories of technical skill and the knowledge, the National Technical Centers [NTC's]. The explanation for dismantling the collective technical expertise of the NRCS is not comforting. The plan calls for the duties of the NTC specialists to be taken over by the States. Yet, the States' budgets are being reduced and the State conservationists do not appear to be enthusiastic about assuming this responsibility. technology by creating institutes of excellence at various locations throughout the country. This is a novel concept. However, in an age of integrated technology these miniature NTC's would lack synergy. This Member is afraid that in a few years someone will suggest reorganization that combines all the institutes into one or two units. They might even be called technical centers. Mr. Speaker, this Member is also concerned about the proposed realignment of U.S. Forest Service regions to coincide with the NRCS regions because there is not that much commonality between their functions and responsibilities. This may seem like a reasonable idea for those at the undersecretary level, but it is not a good idea for the vitality and future of the NRCS. Colocation with the Forest Service would not be for the benefit of the citizen or for programs of mutual concern. The NRCS and the Forest Service clearly serve different constituencies. Because there is little overlap between the agencies' responsibilities and areas of focus, a regional division which makes sense for one of the agencies would not necessarily work for the other. Furthermore, colocation of the NRCS with the Forest Service would, most likely, lead to the swamping of the NRCS and its programs by the larger agency. This Member believes there is a danger that the NRCS would eventually be absorbed into the larger Forest Service, rather than the two serving as coequal agencies. Also, since the Forest Service budget has been included in the Interior appropriations bill, this Member believes this is an added complication that may not have been thoroughly considered. The anticipated savings in administrative costs, as a result of colocation with the Forest Service, may also be a bit misleading since administration of the NTC's is usually a shared function between the NTC's and the State office of the NRCS. If new administrative regions are a good idea, and they may be, then it would seem to make sense to utilize the facilities of the existing technical centers as a base of operation within the four proposed regions in which technical centers are now located. Historically, the SCS has shared locations with the ASCS, now part of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency [CFSA], because of mutual program components and for the convenience of the citizens that utilized the services. In fact, colocation of NRCS and CFSA is being required at the local level. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member does not believe that the recently passed reorganization legislation was intended to change the mission of the old Soil Conservation Service. However, anonymous, but highly respected USDA employees have told me that NRCS officials have indicated that NRCS is no longer in the business of production agriculture! The SCS was born as a result of a calamity caused by nature and poor stewardship of the soil. The NRCS should be dedicated to assisting the private landowner in the production of food and fiber in a sustainable and conservation-friendly manner. Sweeping changes in the mission and basic structure of the NRCS should not be undertaken in haste and need the concurrence of Congress. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges the USDA to carefully reexamine the current proposal to reorganize the NRCS at the national, regional, and State levels. The proposed changes are, on balance, a very bad idea. I hope our distinguished former colleague, Dan Glickman, will send the USDA teams back to the drawing boards when he takes charge.