Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Line Item Veto Act. It is an important tool in the battle to reduce the spending that will be given to the President through the line item veto authority. I particularly appreciate the time yielded to me today by the distinguished gentleman from Florida, because it is an opportunity to speak on what has been for me a long-time commitment to my constituents, a contractual arrangement, you might say. For more than 10 years now, I have been saying in response to my constituents' concerns that I think there are two fundamental changes that must be made to deal with our continual deficit problem: One is the balanced budget amendment and the other is the line item veto for the President. So, since 1985 I have been cosponsoring legislation which would grant the President the line-item veto. It has been frequently mentioned that 43 Governors have this tool at their hand, and it has been well used in those States. In fact, in my home State we have an extraordinarily powerful version of it. We can actually have our Governor mark down expenditure items, not only mark them out. It will enable us through the President's authority to strike a pen to the pork barrel projects that too often find their way into appropriations bills. This power given to our Governors in 43 States has been a successful tool in discouraging unnecessary expenditures at the State level. I think the President can be well vested with this power as well. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is one of the fundamental, institutional changes we can and must make. Obviously, with only one balanced budget in the last 20 years, we not only need a balanced budget amendment, we need this kind of institutional change as well.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. President, the gentleman from Oregon has indicated that the Republican leadership in the House has some sort of an agenda to move forward the Mexican loan guarantee program. That is not factual. The Republican majority has a responsibility, which we are exercising, to listen to the President of the United States when he proposes a legislative initiative, and that is what the Republican majority has done. Obviously, the President has not made his case well or sufficiently with respect to the Mexican loan guarantee for both minority and majority Members. The ball is back in your court, Mr. President; it is not a Republican initiative in the House.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, there has been much controversy surrounding the national history standards proposed by the National Center for History in the schools at the University of California, Los Angeles. As many others have pointed out, these proposed standards contain many obvious omissions and present a slanted view of American history. This Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on January 19, 1995. History Standards Are Far Off the Mark The academic committee that produced national standards for teaching history will take another look at its work. Certainly another look is in order. A number of historians and teachers have condemned the standards as anti-European and anti-American. Two sets of standards were produced, one for American history and one for world history. Both have been widely criticized. Gary Nash, a University of California at Los Angeles history professor who was involved in both projects, said, ``We will look for examples of ideological bias or imbalance and will make appropriate changes.'' The group shouldn't have to look far. Liberal academics in the project snuffed attempts by others on the committee to include time-honored mileposts in U.S. history and world history. The resulting standards consist of a dizzying list of politically correct concepts, including detailed attention to marginal events and people who seem to have been included mainly as examples of white, European, male imperialism. A gathering of early feminists in Seneca Falls, N.Y., is mentioned nine times in the U.S. history standards. Nowhere do the standards acknowledge the first meeting of Congress. The Ku Klux Klan is mentioned more frequently than George Washington. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose memory is hated because of his often-imprecise charges of communist infiltration in American institutions, receives more attention than Thomas Paine and other early leaders whose words continue to inspire freedom fighters around the world. However, other societies escape the harsh criticism directed at the United States. In the world history standards, the Aztec culture is praised for its achievements in astronomy and agriculture. But the historians give the Aztecs a free pass on the subject of their practice of human sacrifice. It isn't mentioned. The world history standards focus disproportionately on long-dead cultures that contributed little to life as it is currently lived in most parts of the world. But the standards treat almost as an afterthought the main sweep of civilization that stretched from the Fertile Crescent through Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to the ultimate flowering of democracy across much of the globe. Defenders of the standards say that they are only a guide. Even if adopted by President Clinton's Goals 2000 program, the defenders say, the standards are merely advisory. But ``advisory'' standards have a way of becoming mandatory. They need to be reviewed before they take effect. Eliminating anti-Western and anti-American bias, even if the original authors were able to do that, wouldn't solve all the problems. The standards also sneer at the traditional process of learning facts about important people, ideas and events. Rather, a sloppy, game-playing approach is encouraged. Students are to ``learn'' by making up imaginary conversations among historical figures. Or they are to speculate about what it was like to be a member of an oppressed group in the Middle Ages. One suggestion is to conduct a mock trial of John D. Rockefeller. It is absurd to suggest that accurate historical insights can be achieved by people who don't have their facts straight. Indeed, as one critic suggested, the standards appear to be ``seriously flawed in concept, in tone and in content throughout.'' The drafters of the standards have far to go in addressing the serious concerns that have arisen.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. As a cosponsor of H.R. 5, this Member is pleased to see this important legislation receive such prompt consideration on the House Floor. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for their introduction of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, in recent decades Congress has dramatically increased the number of mandates it has imposed on States and local governments without providing adequate funding to fulfill the requirements. In other words, while Congress has passed the buck, it hasn't forwarded the bucks. When I was first the community affairs director, Federal-State relations coordinator, and then State planning director for my home State in the late 1960's, on a daily basis I saw vivid examples of the senselessness and cost of a great many unfunded mandates visited upon local and State government, and I did what I could to push for reforms and changes. Since then the number of mandates and their costs and negative impacts have only increased, both by actions of an unheeding Congress and by the inflexibility and policymaking excesses of Federal bureaucrats. Although there are numerous examples of burdensome unfunded mandates, this Member would like to highlight one that is particularly onerous for States and communities across the Nation. The statutory language of the Safe Drinking Water Act creates a one-size-fits-all national approach to testing and treating drinking water without taking local conditions into consideration. Many of the current Safe Drinking Water Act testing and treatment requirements result in prohibitive costs without any real health benefit or increase in water quality. As a result, there is a growing financial crisis for small communities that becomes more evident each year as new testing and treatment deadlines are imposed. Some small communities expect to spend a third or even half of their budgets to comply with water testing requirements. It is clear that States and communities must be allowed to identify and focus on those contaminants which present an actual health risk in a particular area. Without question, the safety of this nation's drinking water must be vigorously protected. However, it is essential that Congress allow States and local governments to achieve this goal in effective and efficient manner. In addition to the growing problem with unfunded mandates. this Member also wishes to express his long-standing and continuing concern about the related issue of attaching strings to money to States from Federal trust funds, such as the highway trust fund. For instance, the surface transportation bill, which was signed into law in 1991, requires a State to spend a percentage of its Federal highway funds for highway safety programs if it, for example, has not enacted both a motorcycle helmet law and a safety belt use law. Worthy objectives aside, this Member strongly opposes this mandate approach in limiting the States' ability to use their highway trust funds--paid for at the gasoline pumps by their citizens and by all Americans--as they choose for authorized activities and in accordance with legitimate standards, criteria, or regulations. Highway users in each State have paid into this fund through gas taxes and this Member believes that States should be allocated money from the highway trust funds without conditionally being applied for any legislative or bureaucratic objectives--be they noble or misguided. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5 forces Congress to consider the consequences of its actions and take greater responsibility for the laws it passes. This Member urges his colleagues to support this legislation as a necessary response to the menacing trend toward imposing unfunded mandates on States and local governments and the types of regulations we are levying on our localities.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the Nebraska Cornhuskers' thrilling victory in the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day was an exhilarating success for the entire State. This Member joins all Nebraskans in extending hearty congratulations to Coach Tom Osborne and the Nebraska Cornhuskers on being named college football's national champions. As important as this victory was for Nebraska, this Member believes it also sends an important message to all Americans. Everyone would do well to study the lessons offered by Coach Tom Osborne and the Huskers throughout the 1994 season. The Huskers' perfect season, the exciting Orange Bowl win, and the resulting national championship tell a compelling story about the importance of perseverance, hard work, and commitment to a goal. The entire Cornhusker team was intensely motivated from the beginning of the year to complete its unfinished business. This incentive enabled the Big Red to rise above numerous obstacles along the way. Many so- called football experts counted the Huskers out when their star quarterback was unable to play and his backup suffered an injury as well. What wasn't taken into consideration was the absolute dedication of the entire team to turn it up a notch to get the job done. This same determination shone brightly when the team was trailing the University of Miami on their home field, in the Orange Bowl, during the fourth quarter. The Huskers pulled together as a team and found a way to completely stymie the Miami team and win. The Huskers are clearly a reflection of their outstanding coach, Dr. Tom Osborne. During his 22 years as head coach, Osborne has earned national respect and praise for his coaching expertise, integrity, high academic motivation, and genuine concern for his players. He has set exemplary standards for excellence and character both on and off the field. Nebraska and NCAA football are certainly fortunate to have such an exceptional coach and role model. Nebraskans have always considered Coach Osborne and the Huskers to be champions. It is certainly gratifying to see that the overwhelming majority of the country agrees. In conclusion, this Member commends to his colleagues the following article from the January 3, 1995, edition of the Lincoln Journal congratulating the Nebraska Cornhuskers on their outstanding success. Go Big Red. [From the Lincoln Journal, Jan. 3, 1995] Huskers: N credible! In the world of sports, as in the rest of the world, the good guys don't always win. In the 22 years since they won their last national title, a succession of very good Nebraska Cornhusker football teams has learned that, no matter how much they train and try, the other guys are sometimes better. spoken--thunderously. The good guys are the best there is. This city and this state spent Monday basking in the glow of an undefeated season and an Orange Bowl victory. Tuesday, although a day back at work, is a day to bask in the glow of a national title. Wednesday Nebraskans can remind themselves that football and all sports are only small parts of what the billboards at the borders advertise as The Good Life. They can get on seriously with 1995. But not before one more warm embrace with some brand new and sparkling memories--of a coach who demonstrates, even in winning it all, his faithfulness to priorities that go beyond winning, of a team that leaves taunting to opponents foolish enough to waste their energy on it, and of a Big Red army that kept the faith. In all those bars and bowling alleys and coffee shops across Nebraska, on all those charts where a dozen victories were joyfully recorded, victory No. 13 is now writ large: Nebraska 24, Miami 17. The 1994 football season ended as it began. It was N credible!

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress begins to examine areas to cut Federal spending, this Member would like to convey his strong support for reduced funding levels for the General Accounting Office [GAO], an investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. Last year during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 legislative branch appropriations bill, this Member offered an amendment to cut funding for GAO by 5 percent below the fiscal year 1994 level. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a close vote even though three committee chairmen vigorously worked against it on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, during a time when the American public has called for reduced Federal spending, the GAO has continued to undergo funding increases. Most recently, GAO received a funding level of $430.2 million in fiscal year 1994, and the House fiscal year 1994 legislative branch appropriations bill included a fiscal year 1995 funding level of $439.5 million--an increase of $9.4 million. The final fiscal year 1995 conference report for legislative branch appropriations included $449 million for GAO, $10 million more than the House-passed bill. This Member's amendment would have reduced the fiscal year 1995 funding level of GAO to $408.7 million, a reduction of $30.9 million from the committee-approved bill, and $21.5 million below fiscal year 1994's funding level. This Member strongly believes that GAO is an agency where growth is out of control. It is an agency which also has not been responsive to individual Members, especially those who serve in the minority. The quality of work produced by the GAO is increasingly shoddy. While the quality of the work varies dramatically, unfortunately and inappropriately, all GAO reports are given the same high respect and credibility simply because they are GAO products. The level of personnel and budgetary resources provided to GAO for its work now is excessive and has grown disproportionately when compared with other congressional support agencies. In addition, GAO resources are also used in certain questionable cases for consultants, training, and for various unnecessary expenses. Concern has also been expressed that GAO is more interested in getting headlines than in supporting the Congress with required information. From 1985 to 1993, the number of GAO investigations doubled from 457 per year to 915. In addition, GAO's budget jumped from $46.9 million in 1965 to our current spending level of $449 million, a percentage increase of nearly 1,000 percent in unadjusted dollars. In fiscal year 1994, the number of full-time equivalent positions at GAO were reduced from the fiscal year 1993 amount by approximately $6 million and 100 positions. However, additional cuts are still needed to account for the past growth at this agency, which this Member will outline. In 1980, for example, funding for GAO staff cost $204 million. By 1985 that had grown to $299 million. In 1988 it was $330 million, and in 1989, $346 million. The average increase between 1980 and 1990 was 8 percent per year. Then, in 1991, GAO was increased by 14 percent, to a total of $409 million. In 1992, GAO received another 8-percent increase to $443 million. The GAO is the largest support agency for Congress, and, incredibly, its budget represents more than one-quarter of the total fiscal year 1995 legislative branch appropriations. GAO's budget is 7\1/2\ times the size of the Congressional Research Service, 19 times the size of the Congressional Budget Office, and 20 times the size of the Office of Technology Assessment. According to a Democratic Study Group [DSG] special report issued on was 4,597. This level is nearly as large as the staffing level of 4,617 for the entire Library of Congress--the largest library in the world-- which also includes the staff of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Speaker, here is something that should catch the attention of the House and the Congress. According to this same study, in 1994, GAO's staffing level was nearly 2\1/2\ times as large as the 1,849 House committee staff members--during the 103d Congress, and more than one- half as large as the 7,340 individuals employed by all of the Members of the House together. The DSG study also compares funding levels for the legislative branch from 1979 to 1994, in inflation-adjusted dollars. According to the DSG, the General Accounting Office has received one of the largest increases in funding for the entire legislative branch at an inflation-adjusted level of 13.5 percent during this time period. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, now hear this: The funding for other areas of the legislative branch have actually declined since 1979 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to this study. For example, the Library of Congress received a 17.6 percent reduction, CBO was reduced by 3.8 percent, and Members' staff has even been reduced by 6.4 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1979. But, again, the GAO has an inflation-adjusted increase in its budget of 13.5 percent. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to support efforts to reduce the funding level of the GAO. This Member will continue to support any Budget Committee or Appropriations Committee efforts regarding this matter and offer assistance in accomplishing this objective. If such appropriate cuts are not forthcoming, this Member will prepare to again offer budget reduction amendments for the GAO to be offered on the House floor.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the current Safe Drinking Water Act is a disaster and must be fixed as it is reauthorized. This Member is committed to supporting legislation which will inject more common sense into the way that public drinking water supplies are tested, monitored, and treated. It is certainly encouraging that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the new chairman of the Commerce Committee, has indicated his intention to place a high priority on revising and improving Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing financial crisis for communities across the country that becomes more evident each year as new water testing and treatment deadlines are imposed. These unfunded mandates hit small communities especially hard. Not only are these mandates costly, they often do nothing to ensure safe drinking water. It is clear that States and communities must be allowed to identify and focus on those contaminants which present an actual health risk in their geographic area. Without question, the safety of this Nation's drinking water must be vigorously protected. However, in these days of tightening budgets on the local, State, and Federal levels, it is more important than ever that this goal be reached in a realistic cost-effective, and efficient manner.