Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to rise today as an original cosponsor in strong support of H. Con. Res. 230, a resolution honoring the 10 U.S. communities selected to receive the All-America City Award. This Member is proud to note that South Sioux City, which is located in the First Congressional District of Nebraska, received this impressive designation.

South Sioux City is located on the banks of the Missouri River in northeast Nebraska. It is the home of many recent immigrants and refugees in addition to a population that has been there 4, 5, or 6 generations. It is a growing community with a population of almost 12,000, which is a 23 percent increase over the last census. It is part of the Sioux City metropolitan area, otherwise known as Siouxland, which is well known here on Capitol Hill for the annual steak dinner they host for all Members. They have been doing that for some 20 or 30 years.

South Sioux City has many accomplishments. Some interesting things the city has done recently include guaranteeing that all fifth through eighth grade students have a home computer; creating a youth council aimed at building youth leaders; creating a county-wide economic development committee; constructing a 15-field soccer complex that is very popular with their Hispanic American population, of course; and building the world's first ecopath using recyclables versus aggregate surfaces.

All of the citizens of South Sioux City are to be congratulated on this designation. The mayor, William McClarty; the city administrator, Lance Headquist, who always has a new effort for us to support; other city and school district employees, the chamber of commerce and many others played a role in this achievement. South Sioux City is a progressive community. It has had problems but, it has always tackled them straight on and been successful. I am very pleased that they have cooperated so well cross-culturally in their achievements. The leadership of South Sioux City is very proactive and skilled in pursuing opportunities for the city. As a result, they have been very successful.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) for his initiative in bringing this resolution to the floor. With respect to the community that is in my district, I know that they are not going to rest on their laurels; they will continue to grow and excel in the future.

This Member urges his colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 230.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a number of glowing remarks about Congressman Robert Borski. They are not exaggerations. He was an excellent Member of this House. My experience with him came in two areas: the first, serving on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure where he was a very senior member. He did perform on that Committee in an outstanding way. He was very much bipartisan in his approach even though, of course, he was a confirmed member of the Democratic Party. I would say also in this respect that he went out of his way to find a consensus whenever possible. It is often said that there are show horses and workhorses in this Congress. Definitely Mr. Borski was a workhorse and a very, very effective one.

The second place I knew him was in my role as the chairman of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly where Mr. Borski was one among many Members that do not come from the Committee on International Relations or from the Committee on Armed Services or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; he came from one of the authorizing committees that does not have that much involvement in international affairs under most circumstances. But he played a very valuable role in this respect. We missed him this past Congress in his role in that respect. I want to commend him and thank his wife for all of her patience and his family for all of their patience in giving Robert's time for working on these international issues as well. I strongly support the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 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 measure. 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 2004 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.

This Member greatly appreciates the $18 million funding level provided for the four-State Missouri River Mitigation Project and hopes that the final funding for FY2004 will be closer to the $22 million included in the Administration's budget. 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 predevelopment days.

In addition, this measure provides additional funding for 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, Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased that H.R. 2754 continues funding in the amount of $191,000, the full amount thought necessary, 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.

This Member recognizes that this bill includes $546,000 for the Sand Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE, and $318,000 for the Western Sarpy-Clear Creek. However, this funding is to be used for preconstruction engineering and design work. This Member believes that it is very important that the final version of the FY2004 Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation include funding for construction of these projects.

Funding for the Sand Creek project is particularly urgent. There is a cooperative effort in Nebraska between the State highway agency and water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead of a bridge as part of the new State expressway in the immediate vicinity of Wahoo, NE. Immediate funding would help ensure that this cost-effective, coordinated effort could continue so that the construction of the expressway will not be further delayed.

Mr. Chairman, this Member very much appreciates the report language which ``directs the Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on the Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting advance funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the sponsor, including work performed in connection with the design and construction of seven upstream detention storage structures.''

Another project, the Western-Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Reduction Project is designed to provide protection to the city of Lincoln's water supply, Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 6, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad/Amtrak line, telecommunication lines and other public facilities. The project completes and strengthens a levee system, most of which is already in place, to channel water and ice downstream away from the confluence of the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers, which is where major flood problems begin.

On still another important project, this Member is pleased that $1.5 million in additional construction funding is included for the Antelope Creek project in Lincoln, NE, and also hopes that this funding level will be increased in the final version. The purpose of the project is to implement solutions 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 the project since he 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. The Antelope Creek Flood Control Project is a large project and will have a number of phases of right-of-way acquisition and construction.

Finally, this Member notes regrettably that the bill does not include the usual $260,000 in funding requested for operations and management related to 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. This Member believes that the final venison of the legislation should include this funding and would appreciate the committee's assistance with the other body on this issue.

Again Mr. Chairman, this Member gratefully commends the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as the people living in the Missouri River Basin in the four-state region.

Mr. Speaker, this Member agrees with the sentiments expressed in a July 11, 2003, Omaha World-Herald editorial entitled ``Courting foreign ideas.'' In the recent Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas sodomy law (Lawrence v. Texas), the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy cites a 1981 European Court of Human Rights decision as evidence that state sodomy laws are not founded in Western tradition.

Regardless of what one's position is on state sodomy laws, Supreme Court decisions should be (and, of course, generally are) based on the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal precedent. This citation contributes to a damaging and dangerous precedent; this practice should end. While this Member is a long-time supporter of a strong transAtlantic relationship, European or other foreign court actions, laws or traditions should not be cited in U.S. court cases.

This Member requests that the Omaha World-Herald editorial be included in the Congressional Record.

[From the Omaha World-Herald, July 11, 2003]

Courting Foreign Ideas

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence vs. Texas has

stirred political controversy, and not just for what it may

or may not mean for gay marriage. Its reference to a European

Court of Human Rights decision has spawned a furor over

whether the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of

individual liberties.

We welcomed the outcome of the case, which overturned a

Texas sodomy law. But we're taken aback that a U.S. court,

particularly the highest one, could so boldly open itself to

foreign precedents.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in

the Texas case, cited the European courts 1981 decision as

evidence that state sodomy laws are not founded in Western

tradition.

Past U.S. laws and traditions are referenced heavily in

many court decisions. American laws are certainly founded on

the nation's Western heritage, especially that of the British

legal system. But the U.S. Supreme Court is charged with

upholding the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal precedent.

In the 227 years of this nation's history, American laws

and norms have developed apart from those of other nations,

even those with similar concepts of liberty and rights. The

death penalty and gun control are important issues on which

U.S. and European laws, for instance, differ.

Are U.S. citizens now to be bound by other countries' laws

and constitutions? Who will choose which countries' laws are

fit and applicable and which are not? In his dissent to the

Texas ruling, Justice Antonio Scalia. decried the foreign

citation.

``Constitutional elements do not spring into existence . .

. as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations

decriminalize conduct,'' Scalia wrote.

We agree. It's a course several justices seem inclined to

pursue, unfortunately.

``Our Constitution and how it fits into the governing

documents of other nations, I think, will be a challenge for

the next generations,'' Justice Stephen Breyer said on a

Sunday morning talk show.

Foreign laws and ideals that become broadly accepted by the

U.S. populace certainly can be adopted into U.S. law--by

their elected representatives, in Congress. That's a

legislative function, not a judicial one. The guardians of

our Constitution should know that and abide by it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and that he may be allowed to manage that 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands an article from The Washington Post of July 15 that says, ``Archeologists on the Block? Park Service May Ax Its Experts on `OutSourcing' Initiative.'' And that is what this is all about.

I have no complaints with the committee. I have come with this amendment as a last resort in stopping something that is mindless and not well considered. I am going to speak about two centers, one located in Tallahassee, Florida, in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), and one in my district, the Midwest Archeological Center.

This center in the Nebraska location is a center which has been in existence for 60-plus years. I have had intimate knowledge of it for more than 30 years. It has 12 FTE, but it has 30 temporary positions, undergraduates and graduate students from universities in five States.

The center has developed an excellent reputation of providing professional and technical archeological services for the management of cultural heritage sites in the 13-State NPS Midwest region and to other Federal agencies. I am rather certain that the persons in OMB and the Department of the Interior that determined the process with this out- sourcing activity were not fully aware of the center's mission and history.

Mr. Chairman, if you read a study from the National Park Service, it clearly shows that no feasibility study or mission of the center was considered in the decisions made by the Department of the Interior. Secondly, it states that in 2003, the National Park Service group had hoped OMB would consider excluding what are called ``curatorial series'' as ``inherently governmental.'' That would have meant that they would have been exempt from A-76. But OMB did not agree.

Now, I do not resist A-76. I have consented and gone along with A-76 for other Federal employment in my district. But this process is flawed from the beginning.

Mr. Chairman, the consultants hired by the National Park Service, and thus far they have spent $412,766, they are about to spend another $872,000 to examine these two centers, nearly $1.3 million. They had no latitude to suggest that the activities should not be considered for outsourcing. In fact, I have been told by my staff that the consultants have been instructed not to answer any questions that might be asked by congressional staff. These instructions came following the consultants' statements that the centers should not have been chosen for outsourcing study.

I ask Members, would it be appropriate to ask whether the whistleblowers protection afforded government employees should also be afforded to these Federal government contractors? Accordingly, I have good reason to assume the consultants operated under an imperative to find a rationale for outsourcing the activities of these centers.

The Park Service was given a quota by the Department of Interior. They looked at the seven regions and the three centers, looked at another center in Washington, and said you have to find so many jobs for outsourcing study. They said, ``we do not want to take them all out of blue collar workers; we also have to take some jobs for outsourcing study out of the upper end,'' and so that is what they did. They chose the curatorial category--archaeological person--to study, and they chose them despite the fact that they should have been exempt as ``inherently governmental. I will have more to say on this issue in a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his generous offer, but this is so important that I cannot withdraw this amendment. This is my last resort. The gentleman's amendment handles those studies that are underway. Unfortunately, we are told that this study has moved too far along for it to be stopped by the gentleman's more general language in the bill. So our only hope is to resist it at this point.

I am not able to withdraw this amendment. I need to push this to a vote, and I need to win this vote. This is an important issue. I have never used this word on the floor before in 25 years, but this process has been not only flawed, but it has been stupidly proceeded with.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am reluctant to oppose the gentleman, but I am counseled that I must take this course, and I cannot withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's advice. I have great respect for the chairman. In this instance, I have fought this process for over a year. The first letters I received from the Department of Interior were, shall I say, nonresponsive and also condescending.

There are only three such centers in the United States. We are dealing with two of them here, the majority of the archaeological capability. It is mentioned that they frequently do things for other parts of the Federal Government. They have been involved in looking for the remains of the POWs and MIAs in Vietnam. They were involved in examining the sites of the war crimes in the Balkans. This is a particular expertise that will never, ever, be put back in place again if it is destroyed.

These employees and centers should never have been categorized this way. It is a mistake. They do not want to admit it. Their consultants say it was a mistake, and they have been hushed up as a result with pressure from the National Park Service, pressure which ultimately does come, as the distinguished gentleman from Alaska suggested, from OMB. It is a bean-counter that is doing something that is senseless.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 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 measure. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to all the members of the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 includes funding for two projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.

This Member is very pleased that the bill includes $400,000 from the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Division for the new fish and wildlife cooperative research unit established in FY2003 at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This Member had been requesting funding for this cooperative research unit each year since 1990! The University of Nebraska and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission have already committed funds and facilities for the unit, but the Federal funding is needed to make it a reality.

Nebraska's strategic location presents several very special research opportunities, particularly relating to the large number of migratory birds that visit our state each year via the Central Flyway. However, Nebraska is one of the few states without a fish and wildlife cooperative research unit within the state. Locating a cooperative research unit in Nebraska to develop useful information relating to these issues upon which to base critical management decisions is an urgent need.

This Member is also pleased that Homestead National Monument of America receives $350,000 to continue planning for a visitor facility. This project received $300,000 in planning funds in FY2003.

Homestead National Monument of America commemorates the lives and accomplishments of all pioneers and the changes to the land and the people as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862, which is recognized as one of the most important laws in U.S. history. This Monument was authorized by legislation enacted in 1936. The fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations legislation directed the National Park Service to complete a General Management Plan to begin planning for improvements at Homestead. The General Management Plan, which was completed last year, made recommendations for improvements that are needed to help ensure that Homestead is able to reach its full potential as a place where Americans can more effectively appreciate the Homestead Act and its effects upon this nation.

Homestead National Monument of America is truly a unique treasure among the National Park Service jewels. The authorizing legislation makes it clear that Homestead was intended to have a special place among Park Service units. According to the original legislation:

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to

lay out said land in a suitable and enduring manner so that

the same may be maintained as an appropriate monument to

retain for posterity a proper memorial emblematic of the

hardships and the pioneer life through which the early

settlers passed in the settlement, cultivation, and

civilization of the great West. It shall be his duty to erect

suitable buildings to be used as a museum in which shall be

preserved literature applying to such settlement and

agricultural implements used in bringing the western plains

to its present state of high civilization, and to use the

said tract of land for such other objects and purposes as in

his judgment may perpetuate the history of this country

mainly developed by the homestead law.

Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. The funding included in this bill will begin the process of realizing these goals.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased that funding was allocated for the National Endowment for the Humanities program entitled, ``We the People.'' This initiative is designed to promote a broad understanding of the ideas and events that have shaped our nation. The ``We the People'' program will support the study of our nation's history, institutions and culture. The state humanities councils will play a large role in this effort and receive substantial resources from it. A number of the programs undertaken by the Nebraska Humanities Council are examples of the programs which are expected to be included in ``We the People.'' These include the Great Plains Chatauqua on Lewis and Clark, the Capitol Forum, and their Speaker's Bureau.

Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District.

This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2691.

Offered By: Mr. Bereuter

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec. 3____. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be used for the implementation of a competitive sourcing

study at the Midwest Archaeological Center in Lincoln,

Nebraska, or the Southeast Archaeological Center in Florida.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1950, and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for crafting and presenting this important legislation to the House for action.

Of course, a key goal of foreign relations authorization bills are to provide the best and most secure service to American citizens traveling and working overseas. Indeed, when lax security and dilapidation at U.S. overseas facilities contribute to U.S. vulnerability to attacks and subsequent American deaths, this country suffers.

Please recall the reaction to the tragic 1998 embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Saalam. All Americans shared a sense of pain, grief and outrage at these senseless acts of terrorism. While not all attacks on U.S. overseas missions can be averted, Congress must provide the appropriate tools to improve the ability of the State Department to guard against disasters like these.

On many occasions, Secretary of State Colin Powell has articulated embassy security as a key priority for the State Department. Additionally, this Member is a long-time supporter of increased embassy security. In fact, in this legislation the funding level reflects a commitment to embassy security by allocating over $1.653 billion in fiscal year 2004 and $1.784 billion in fiscal year 2005 for ongoing embassy security construction and maintenance. This is an important additional step for both the administration and for Congress which now must work together to ease restrictions which for

many years have significantly slowed the construction of new embassies and consulates.

Furthermore, this Member is particularly pleased that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will offer an amendment to provide the initial authorization for the Millennium Challenge Account. On March 14, 2002, President Bush proposed the MCA, which would provide additional U.S. aid for fiscal year 2006 to poor countries to be used for social sector improvements such as agriculture, health, education, and the environment. The President's concept underlying these proposals is clear. Countries that rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom will receive U.S. assistance.

The amendment which the chairman will offer is nearly identical to H.R. 2441, the free-standing legislation offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This Member is a cosponsor of that legislation.

Secondly, an amendment he will offer today will establish a Millennium Challenge Corporation, MCC, an entity which would be authorized to provide development assistance grants to eligible countries. Also, the MCC would work with national local organizations, government and nongovernment organizations within eligible countries to develop specific multi-year development goals.

Finally, the amendment includes a provision which this Member requested to ensure that agricultural development would be among the areas on which the MCA focuses.

Madam Chairman, this Member has had a long-standing interest and experience in seeking to construct efficient, innovative ways to deliver humanitarian assistance, especially in agriculture. I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and the legislation and urge all Members to support it.

Indeed, if a country cannot feed itself, that country's prospects for political, economic, and societal stability are greatly endangered. Educating children and treating adults for communicable diseases simply produces few results if the efforts are directed people who do not have to eat.

Agricultural development programs which gather supplies of good seed, build breeding livestock herds, construct basic irrigation systems and viable roads to markets, provide microcredit, and establish rural electric infrastructure do not require vast resources. However, such programs to build subsistence farming capacity do require a clear commitment from the U.S. Government and technical assistance gleaned from the incredible human resources found within American land grant colleges and universities, the NGO and cooperative communities, and the private sector.

Previously, in 1985, this Member drafted a successful amendment to the 1986 Farm Bill which required that, for the first time, a small portion of 1 percent of the funds from the Food for Peace program could be directed toward what is now the Farmer-to-Farmer program. Originally implemented as a pilot program operating only in Central America and the Caribbean, Farmer-to-Farmer has gained support from skeptics, including the USAID, who believed that the concept was too simply to be effective. The simple approach has worked and, in fact, has been extended to Africa, Asia, South America, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (NIS).

Madam Chairman, some people within the Washington Beltway have expressed similar concerns about the MCA. This Member sincerely hopes that 18 years from today, the MCA proves to be as successful as the Farmer-to-Farmer program in assisting the world's poor people.

In conclusion, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote for the Hyde amendment regarding the MCA and for final passage of H.R. 1950.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, I was chairing a meeting with the Commissioner of External Affairs, Chris Patton, of the European Union; and we were not able to conclude it in time. Therefore, I missed the vote on the Kolbe amendment to the Hyde amendment. Had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on the Kolbe amendment.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hyde, as Amended

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. The gentlewoman has explained adequately the very limited number of circumstances under which licensing would not be required. In fact, they have to require such licensing now. That is the point of this amendment.

But the U.S. market share in the commercial satellite industry generally has fallen from around 75 percent of the market now to 50. As U.S. sales have dropped, European commercial satellites have dramatically increased. Among the key concerns which commercial satellite customers cite as a concern when working with U.S. satellite producers is the delay frequently associated with licensing requirements. In some cases, a simple license to release unclassified information takes up to 60 days.

Furthermore, exempting from licensing the sharing of very limited type of nonclassified marketing information does in no way jeopardize the security interests of the United States. Amazingly, the competitiveness of U.S. satellite processors, however, if we damage it by continuing this unnecessary licensing, does damage the security interest of the United States.

I was a member of the Cox Commission which generated the concern about licensing information. I am very concerned about the transfer of classified information or something that would jeopardize our national security. This in no way does. There is no good argument why this nonclassified marketing information should not be shared, and I urge support for this amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendments and appreciate the fact that it includes amendment No. 22, so I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

This amendment offered by this Member begins with a set of findings concerning the liberation of Iraq by U.S. coalition forces, the current situation on the ground and the challenges and demands facing American military forces and American taxpayers in bringing stability to Iraq.

Included in the findings is a statement by President Bush that, ``The rise of Iraq as an example of moderation and democracy and prosperity is a massive and long-term undertaking,'' and testimony by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that, ``We certainly want assistance from NATO and from NATO countries.''

This amendment exactly parallels the amendment offered by Senator Biden, endorsed by Senator Lugar which passed the Senate recently by a 97-0 vote. In the operative section, the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that it is in the national security interest of the United States to remain engaged in Iraq in order to ensure a peaceful, stable, unified Iraq with a representative government.

The amendment goes on to suggest that the President should consider a formal request for NATO to assume a greater role in Iraq and that other NATO allies and other nations should provide troops and police to coalition efforts in Iraq. Finally, the amendment again, a sense of Congress amendment, asks the President to consider calling on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide personnel and resources to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Let me emphasize that the amendment text makes clear that sovereign member states should provide military forces and civilian police to promote security, not the U.N. itself. The situation in Iraq is far too dangerous for a U.N. peacekeeping operation. It deserves to have the first-rate one, NATO.

Mr. Chairman, this Member believes we have no option but to remain engaged in Iraq, but this Member believes that we should seek as much assistance in this effort as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I did claim the time in opposition, although I recognize the efforts and interests on the part of the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from California, and I respect the contribution just made by the ranking member of the committee. They want to focus more attention on HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean region. That is understandable. Actually, the authorizing legislation focuses not just on Africa, not sub-Saharan Africa only, but also specifically mentions the Caribbean, the only other part of the world mentioned beyond sub-Saharan Africa.

It is a growing problem in the island nations and the coastal countries of the Caribbean, no doubt about it; and this would add 13 countries to the list of two Caribbean countries already identified by the President as focus countries. Under PL 180-25, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act, it provides the President with the authority to add additional countries to the list of countries under the purview of the coordinator.

I would have to say to the gentleman from New York that this does not expand the coverage because there are no

limits on the number of countries that may be assisted; but it does place those countries listed, illustrative countries, as being under the purview of the coordinator to give special attention. It actually puts more control by the White House through the coordinator on any of those that are listed. And if the gentleman expands that list, then we run the danger, I think, of diluting the focus of the HIV/AIDS. China could just as well be listed soon, unfortunately; Southeast Asia, certainly countries there.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that since we have no adverse and negative, or very negative reaction from the White House, and since I think it does no damage, although we may well be adding all of the countries eventually we are going to work under this kind of theory, I would not express opposition to the gentleman and gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and we hope he will take yes for an answer.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this is an outstanding amendment, and we support it, and we are pleased the gentleman has offered it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment points to an important subject, the need for prompt implementation of the Act, and we certainly think that the Committee on International Relations and other relevant committees ought to receive periodic reports and hold hearings and briefings, if necessary.

The reporting provisions in the legislation require the Secretary of Treasury to inform the Congress of his progress in implementing the Act, but we have no objection to the amendment of the gentlewoman at this point. Unless we figure something differently, we are entirely supportive.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.

This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), 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. 2673 provides $477,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). 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 MAFMA award grants for research projects on a peer review basis. These awards

must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching funds. In 2002, MAFMA had a total of 22 requests for funds seeking $789,995 with matching funds of $916,596. Thirteen proposals were funded with the total award of $387,688. Matching funds for the funded proposals were $416,702 in addition to an in-kind total of $97,550. 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 $224,000 to fund the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project has assisted numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and developing drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented levels of drought in several parts of our country in recent years, this effort is obviously important.

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 Committee Report expresses support for a number of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations projects, including the Aowa Creek Watershed in Dixon County, Nebraska. When completed, the project will significantly reduce the risk of flooding to farms, roads, and community of Ponca, Nebraska. This important flood control project is nearing completion, but lacks sufficient funding to reimburse the local sponsor.

This Member would also note that H.R. 2673 includes a loan level of $100 million for the Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan subsidy of $5.95 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The Section 538 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 percent 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 certainly appreciates the $2.725 billion loan level for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan subsidy of $39.9 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The Section 502 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.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 2673 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Furthermore, this Member, as a co-sponsor of the legislation, would like to thank the Ranking Member of the House International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for writing and introducing this timely legislation which enjoys bipartisan support. Also, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is to be commended for his efforts to bring this bill to the Floor.

This bill would impose sanctions upon companies associated with Burma's current ruling party, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). If the President would certify that the SPDC has made ``substantial and measurable progress'' toward ending human

rights violations and implementing democratic reform, the sanctions could be lifted.

Generally, this Member is opposed to bilateral sanctions because they frequently prove to be ineffective and, indeed, counterproductive to the policy consequence sought. However, the ruling junta's arrest and subsequent detention of Burmese democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was such an egregious affront to democracy and rule of law that the government deserves swift and harsh punishment from the international community.

Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to vote for

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to spend $12 million for the conduct of research on the comparative effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and safety of drugs, biological products and devices under their existing authorization.

This is a priority-setting amendment that is intended to ensure that objective scientific research on prescription drugs continues or is accelerated in fiscal year 2004. This, unfortunately, may not be an increase in spending for this purpose, but the $12 million figure is the amount the agency estimates it currently spends on this effort to assess the efficacy of drugs.

This amendment does not require new money to be spent. Instead, the amendment earmarks $12 million for the total amount yielded to what is called the AHRQ for such research. This Member wishes it could be more; and in fiscal year 2005, it should, pending good results, be dramatically increased.

The amendment also demands accountability by requiring the agency to actually and productively spend such funds on this initiative.

Mr. Chairman, while the Food and Drug Administration is charged with assuring the safety of pharmaceuticals that are approved for the marketing, clinicians, patients, health plans, insurers, and those financing health care services need additional help in making informed choices among pharmaceuticals. They need objective scientific information regarding the effectiveness, quality, and cost effectiveness of new drugs in comparison with existing alternatives, especially when the new drugs cost much more than those that are now on the market.

While the responsibility for developing this type of scientific research was assigned to AHRQ and reinforced by two different authorizing acts, the Congress has never provided AHRQ with the adequate resources necessary to carry out that important mission. Additional pharmaceutical research conducted by the AHRQ would also be beneficial, for example, to the Medicaid program.

Specifically, AHRQ's research can help State Medicaid programs better target their health care dollars. By a research initiative, for example, the AHRQ recently demonstrated that children with a common ailment, middle ear infection, recovered just as effectively after treatment by one of several antibiotics as they do from treatment by more expensive brand-name products. This is precisely the type of information that State Medicaid programs need to guide coverage decisions on a whole range of medical conditions, but

by and large such objective research findings do not exist for most health conditions.

Additional research on anti-inflammatory drugs, cholesterol treatment drugs, and drugs to treat other medical conditions would also be beneficial in the development of Medicare prescription drug benefits. Perhaps the AHRQ should conduct research on the clinical appropriateness and cost effectiveness of the 50 drugs most frequently prescribed for senior citizens. The findings would certainly be interesting; and this Member believes that, overall, it would result in greater cost effectiveness, greater drug efficacy, and, therefore, lower cost to the patients and the American taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, Americans deserve the best health care for their dollar. The goal of this amendment is to provide clinicians, patients, health plans, insurers, and others financing health care with the credible, objective information on the benefits, risks, and costs of prescription drugs so they can make informed decisions about the prescriptions they consume and prescribe.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to, first of all, thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I also thank the chairman for his comments and his remarks regarding securing information about the impact.

I do believe that the research estimate of $12 million probably includes not only contract services but also direct grants. I want to make sure that we have not too specifically prescribed the authorizing subsections so that we cover all the contracting and the grants that are made for this purpose. So it would be good to look at that, because last-minute information coming to us may have provided that when we were actually too very specific by specifying the subsections.

With that information, Mr. Chairman, I ask Members for their support on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on the Toomey-Chocola Amendment, I voted present as I have a conflict of interest on research project RD01HD039789, a project of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University.

Offered By: Mr. Bereuter

Amendment No. 5: In the item relating to ``Department of

Health and Human Services--Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality--Healthcare Research and Quality'', insert before the

period at the end the following:

: Provided, That, of the funds made available under this

heading, $12,000,000 shall be for the conduct of research on

the comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety

of drugs, biological products, and devices under subparagraph

(B) of section 912(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42

U.S.C. 299b-1(b)(2))

Mr. Speaker, today this city is the site of the annual U.S.-EU summit. Leaders of the European Union are here meeting with President Bush and members of his administration in order to strengthen transatlantic relations and to work on a common agenda which seeks solutions to issues within this relationship.

A balanced and well-defined U.S.-EU relationship is critical to global peace and stability. Although the difficult debate over Iraq presented yet another challenge to the relationship between the United States and Europe, it remains clear to this Member that a strong, mature transatlantic relationship is critical to the long-term economic, political and security interests of both the United States and Europe. And one of the central ingredients to a successful partnership with Europe is a stable and integrated European Union. It is important that the EU has evolved to become, along with NATO, one of the two critical international organizations to achieve these objectives.

Summits such as the one today along with legislative exchanges can serve to reinvigorate transatlantic relations in order that we, the United States and the Europeans, can together meet the global challenges we face.