Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), a member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) for his message, for watching this issue so closely. It is important to the agricultural sector; and I think, as the gentleman points out, it is a real test of whether we can depend upon the People's Republic of China to implement their promises on trade. So I thank the gentleman for his diligence on this issue.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises tonight to comment on the crisis in East Timor and its broader implications for the political future of Indonesia. This issue was a topic of a hearing of the Committee on International Relations' Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific which this Member chairs today. It was held jointly with the subcommittee's Senate counterpart committee, and Indonesia and East Timor will undoubtedly be a major topic at the APEC summit President Clinton will be attending this weekend. In the wake of the historic vote in East Timor, both Indonesia and East Timor face a future filled with portent. For Indonesia, the referendum comes at a time of very sensitive political maneuvering and a fragile economic recovery. When the subcommittee last held hearings on Indonesia on May 12, we were anxiously awaiting the June 7 national election results. Despite some violence, a very slow vote count and a limited amount of election irregularities that election was nonetheless judged by the international community to be a success. It buoyed optimism about Indonesia's ability to overcome its profound political and economic crises. However, that June election also created new complexities. No one party achieved a majority, and, in fact, the opposition, PDIP led by Megawati Sukarnoputri won a plurality of the vote. Therefore, for the first time in modern Indonesian history political coalitions will be needed to form in order to elect a new president, form a new government, carry out further economic and political reforms, address the subject of rescinding the 1976 law which integrated East Timor into Indonesia as its 27th province and address separatist sentiments in other parts of Indonesia like the province of Aceh in northern Sumatra. Indeed this is a new experience for these relatively immature political forces in a democratic Indonesia. How they carry out these responsibilities will determine the legitimacy of the new Indonesian government as viewed by the eyes of the Indonesian public and by the international community. Of course, the most obvious and immediate task is the crisis in East Timor. After years of Indonesian intransigence, President Habibie took bold steps towards resolving this long-standing problem. In January, he seemingly brushed aside the reservations of the military and others in the Indonesian society and surprised the world by offering the people of East Timor an opportunity to determine their own future through the ballot box. Many of us were encouraged by this bold and positive development. There was perhaps a general sense of guarded optimism prompted by the assurances of President Habibie and Armed Forces Chief General Wiranto that Jakarta would maintain order and create an environment conducive for a fair and safe election, but that proved not to be a realistic assessment. Despite increasing violence and intimidation by Indonesian militarily supported militia in the recent Timorese elections, a record 98.6 percent of registered voters turned out to vote with 78 percent of them choosing independence. The will of the East Timorese people is clear and overwhelming. It is evident by the truly horrific events in East Timor over the past week that the Indonesian government and particularly the Indonesian military has been deliberately unwilling or perhaps in some cases unable to uphold their responsibilities to provide peace and security. It must be emphasized that this is Indonesia's responsibility. Indonesia demanded this responsibility from the United Nations, and the international community entrusted it to Indonesia. It is reported the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has made very strong representations to the Indonesian government about their obligations and the negative consequences Jakarta could face from the international community for jeopardizing the integrity and the subsequent implementation of the expressed citizens' desires of this U.N.- sponsored election. The United Nations General Assembly should do the same. Mr. Speaker, I will report more on these events after the weekend and after we complete work on a resolution that we intend to offer on a bipartisan basis early next week.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this member rises today in strong support of the Hinchey/Frelinghuysen amendment which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. From the time the Administration announced this new system, this Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA and has supported funding levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the President recommended. The new VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska and other sparsely populated areas of the country. The VERA plan provides the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care funding to regions across the country and employs an allocation formula that ties funding for each of the 22 geographic regions to the numbers of veterans they actually serve. While the VERA formula produced a very modest one percent increase in funding for this fiscal year, last year the VERA formula produced a 5 percent decrease, which resulted in $13.5 million less funding distributed to VA programs in my state of Nebraska, resulting in the fact that Nebraska is still receiving significantly less veterans funding than it did only two years ago. All members of Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, that the VA must provide adequate facilities for veterans all across the country regardless of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals. The funding distribution unfairly reallocates the VA's health care budget based on a per capita veterans usage of facilities. Because of this formula, we have already been faced with the closure of a major VA medical facility in my district. While it is true that the number of veterans now eligible to be served at the Lincoln VA Hospital and other VA facilities in the state have decreased over the past years, we still have an obligation to provide care to these people who served our country during our greatest times of need. There must be at least a basic level of acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel, and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our veterans wherever they live. The decrease in quality and accessibility of medical care for veterans who live in sparsely populated areas is completely unacceptable. There must be a threshold funding level for VA medical services in each state and region before any per-capita funding formula is applied. In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Hinchey/Frelinghuysen amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 2684, the Veterans (VA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Mollohan) and all members of the subcommittee for the important but difficult work they did under the tight budget caps imposed in 1997. Once again, this subcommittee undoubtedly has struggled to complete the tough task of allocating limited resources among many deserving programs. As a member of the House Banking Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal housing programs, this Member is very interested in how funds are appropriated in this area. Although there are numerous deserving programs included in this funding bill, this Member would like to emphasize five points. First, this Member, in particular, would like to comment favorably upon the treatment of some housing programs. Section 8, section 184, section 202, and section 811 programs probably were funded as adequately as we can under the budgetary restraints. In particular, this Member commends the $6 million appropriation for the section 184 program, the American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which he authored. This seems to be a program with excellent potential which, this Member notes without appropriate modesty in recognizing the support received from many colleagues, is for the first time providing private mortgage fund resources for Indians on reservations through a Federal Government guarantee program for those Indian families who have in the past been otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. Second, this Member applauds the subcommittee for reducing the duplicative efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. After a funding level of $32 million in fiscal year 1999 for rural housing and economic development efforts in HUD, the subcommittee appropriated no money in fiscal year 2000 for HUD's rural housing efforts. However, unfortunately, a set-aside of $10 million is still allocated from CDBG for rural housing and economic development. As a long-term advocate of rural housing during my tenure in the House, this Member nevertheless believes that we need to be careful of duplication and waste of financial resources in the efforts of the Federal Government's programs for rural housing and economic development. The United States Department of Agriculture, through their Rural Development offices, has housing and development staff located throughout each state. We do not need to hire new HUD ``community builders'' to duplicate their work as suggested by the administration. Third, however, this Member would like to emphasize his concerns about the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) provisions in this Act. The CDBG Program is proposed to be cut from a funding level of $4.750 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2000, a reduction of $250 million. This Member would like to certainly support the restoration of funds for CDBG to the fiscal year 1999 level in the conference committee. The CDBG program not only is valuable to the larger entitlement cities, it gives assistance to those communities under 50,000 through state administering agencies. It is a government program with minimal overhead and bureaucracy. Moreover, the CDBG program has provided invaluable dollars to cities and rural communities for such things as affordable housing, public infrastructure, and economic development. Specifically in Nebraska, CDBG dollars have recently been used in rural counties to meet their recent hurry-up demand for the development of important comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances as a result of concerns over the placement of mega-sized hog production factories. With regard to CDBG, this Member is pleased to commend the subcommittee on reducing the overall set-asides by $266.5 million as compared to last year. This Member has testified at the subcommittee level that the expenditure of the maximum amount of CDBG funds should be left to the allocation of the state and eligible entitlement governments as compared to selected set-aside programs. Fourth, this Member would also express his opposition to the elimination of the funding for the AmeriCorps Program, as contemplated by this appropriations bill. The funding for the AmeriCorps Program should be restored in the conference committee. Lastly, this Member is aware of HUD's concerns with the reduced level of this subcommittee's appropriation. However, it is important to note that overall Congress is providing more than $26 billion for housing and community development across the country, an increase of $2 billion from the fiscal year 1999 mark. Moreover, 18 new HUD program initiatives deserve a thorough review by the authorizing committees before they are launched. According to the General Accounting Office, HUD has requested more than $700 million for these ambiguously defined, and in some cases-questionable, new initiatives. This Member definitely believes we place an emphasis on funding proven current programs instead of understanding a wide variety of new initiatives, many of which lend themselves to the use of discretion for political rewards. Because of the necessity to fund important housing and community development programs and despite the reservations expressed, this Member would encourage his colleagues to support H.R. 2684, the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider carefully the following editorial from the September 8, 1999, edition of the Daily Nebraskan, entitled ``Policy Problems--Clemency Move Looks Like Hypocrisy.'' Once again, President Clinton did not think his actions through. In mid-August, Clinton offered clemency to 16 members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group called FALN, which is a Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation. Law enforcement officials blame FALN for a least 130 bombings in the United States and Puerto Rico between 1974 and 1983. As part of the clemency offer, Clinton gave the 11 men and give women until Friday to renounce political violence and pledge to disassociate with FALN. The separatists have already served between 14 and 19 years for crimes such as bomb-making and conspiring to commit armed robbery. When criticized, the White House was quick to point out that the clemency offer was extended to only those ``not associated with the more violent acts that led to injuries. With this offer, Clinton has made an abrupt about-face from the terrorism policy the espoused following the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania last year. Following those incidents, the United States bombed terrorist training headquarters and launched a manhunt for alleged mastermind Osama bin Laden while Clinton vowed that we would not bow to terrorists. Now we are going to pardon the terrorists simply because they hail from a U.S. territory? That is wrong. Even President Clinton's wife now thinks so. Speculation abounds that the president offered clemency to this group to help his wife's chances in next year's New York Senate race. Initially, Hillary Clinton supported clemency, but with a move out of her husband's play book she reversed her position last weekend. Regardless of the motives, this is simply a bad idea. The United States should not condone terrorism in any form. Clemency only reinforces terrorists' actions, and any pledge to renounce violence on their part would hardly be worth the paper it was printed on.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his great appreciation to the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), and to all members of the Subcommittee for the inclusion of a $500,000 appropriation for planning and site money for a detention center in Grand Island, Nebraska. This country's interior illegal immigration problems have grossly been ignored, in part because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has been unwilling to acknowledge the exponential increase in the interior's illegal alien population. In addition to failing to acknowledge the population increase, the agency has not devoted the necessary funds for the development of the infrastructure to allow its officials to implement one of this country's fundamental immigration laws--that illegal aliens are to be deported from the United States. Although the proposed project will not be in this Member's district, this Member strongly believes the facility will serve an important role in building the aforementioned infrastructure. The detention facility will provide a crucial link between the apprehension and the deportation of illegal aliens in Nebraska and Iowa. It will be beneficial not only in conjunction with worksite enforcement programs such as Operation Vanguard, which the Subcommittee mentions, but also with efforts to deter alien smuggling. In recent years, Interstate 80, which traverses the states, has become a popular venue for alien smuggling. After apprehending suspected illegal aliens, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has few options for detaining the suspects. Detention space in county jails has become severely limited. As a city centrally located along I-80, Grand Island, Nebraska, certainly will serve well as the primary site of the modular detention center. In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to acknowledge and express his most sincere appreciation for the assistance that Chairman Rogers, the Subcommittee, especially the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), and the Subcommittee staff provided thus far on this important project.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the amendment. I regret having to do that, but we tried the other approach; it was called the Articles of Confederation. We gave it up in 1789. My colleagues have heard reference to that. This amendment would jeopardize U.S. trade and international relations around the globe. No longer would our trading partners have any assurance that the agreements they entered into with the United States are safe from being arbitrarily changed or even nullified by any one of our 50 States. Without the ability to speak as one voice, the United States would lose the leverage it needs in both bilateral negotiations and multilateral rules-based organizations like the WTO to break down foreign barriers to American exports. The resulting impact on American exports and American jobs on these exports would really be severely harmed. This is a very serious amendment; it is very seriously wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. Chairman, as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, this Member rises in strong opposition to the Kucinich-Ros- Lehtinen amendment which would prohibit the Federal Government from challenging State and local laws that conflict with valid obligations the United States has made under international agreements including the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This amendment strikes at the very ability of the United States Government to negotiate and implement international agreements by allowing individual States to enact their own discriminatory trade and foreign policy laws. It appears to this Member that the underlying motivation for this amendment is that its principal proponents do not like the WTO and NAFTA and are seeking a back-door way to repeal these beneficial trade agreements behind the guise of protecting State and local laws. This amendment is nothing more than another attempt at protectionism and it comes with very serious and negative constitutional and international relations ramifications. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress, not the individual States, the authority to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' Recognizing the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation in this regard, the drafters of the Constitution understood the need for uniformity among the States in the conduct of international trade. We tried this approach and abandoned it in 1789. In cases where there is a conflict between an act of Congress that regulates commerce and State or local legislation, Federal law enjoys supremacy. The Kucinich amendment would undermine the Federal Government's ability to challenge State and local laws in court when they conflict with Federal commitments and, therefore, upsets this important constitutional balance. As fully debated in the House during the consideration of both the WTO and NAFTA, American sovereignty is in no way diminished by these trade agreements. The implementing statutes of both agreements clearly state that panel reports under the World Trade Organization dispute settlement mechanism or under NAFTA are not binding as a matter of U.S. law. Federal law remains supreme and neither the WTO nor the NAFTA dispute settlement panels have any power to compel any change in U.S. law or regulation. The U.S. Government decides how it will respond, if it responds at all, to WTO and NAFTA panel reports. Indeed, no foreign entity can nullify State or local laws. Furthermore, in consideration of both the WTO and NAFTA, the Congress established elaborate consultation procedures to protect the interests of the States and to ensure that the States do have a formal role in any international dispute settlement proceeding that affects State laws or policies. Therefore, the Kucinich-Ros-Lehtinen amendment is unnecessary. The pending amendment could also harm American exports and the jobs these exports support in other ways. For example, with this amendment, Ohio could put in place a self-serving policy that discriminates against Japanese exports in violation of U.S.-Japan trade agreements or the WTO agreement. In response, Japan would likely retaliate against American--not just Ohio--exports. Japan, for example, could target American agricultural products, hurting farmers and agribusiness everywhere from Maine to California. Indeed, the self-serving actions of just one State to make some symbolic political statement or protect a handful of local jobs could jeopardize billions of dollars in key American exports that support tens of thousands of American jobs across the United States. Mr. Chairman, this amendment radically changes American trade laws. Given the adverse and serious constitutional and international relations implications of this amendment, this Member strongly urges its rejection.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I rise in opposition to the resolution. The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not constitute an endorsement of the communist regime in Hanoi. However, our experience has been that the isolation and disengagement does not promote progress in human rights. New sanctions, including the symbolic disapproval of the Jackson- Vanik waiver, only strengthen the position of the Communist hard-liners at the expense of those in Vietnam's leadership who are inclined to support more openness. Engagement with Vietnam has resulted in some improvements in Vietnam's human rights practices, although we still remain disappointed at the limit scope and nature of those reforms. Mr. Speaker, Americans must conclusively recognize that the war with Vietnam is over. With the restoration of diplomatic relationships in 1995, the U.S. and Vietnam embarked on a new relationship for the future. It will not be an easy or quick process. The emotional scars of the Vietnam war remain with many Americans. In the mid-1960s, this Member was an intelligence officer with the First Infantry Division; less than a month after the completion of my service, members of our tight-knit detachment of that division were in Vietnam taking casualties the very first night after arrival. Like other Vietnam-era veterans, this Member has emotional baggage. A great many Americans have emotional baggage on Vietnam, but this Member would suggest it is time to get on with our bilateral relationship and not reverse course on Vietnam. Distinguished Americans like John McCain, Pete Peterson, Robert Kerrey, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Max Cleland, Chuck Robb, and others support the effort to normalize our relationships with Vietnam. If they can do it, so can we. Passing this resolution of disapproval on the Jackson-Vanik waiver would represent yet another reflection of animosities of the past at a time when Vietnam is finally looking ahead and making changes towards integration into the international community. A retrenchment on our part by this disapproval resolution is not in America's short- and long-term national interest. Accordingly, this Member strongly urges the rejection of House Resolution 58. By law, the underlying issue is about emigration. That is what Jackson-Vanik is all about and that is what we ought to be addressing. Since March of 1998, the United States has granted Vietnam a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik emigration provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. As this is only an annual waiver, the President decided on June 3, 1999 to renew this extension because he determined that doing so would substantially promote greater freedom of emigration from that country in the future. This determination was based on Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and on Vietnam's continued cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over the past year. As a result, we are approaching the completion of many refugee admissions categories under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP), including the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees, Former Re-education Camp Detainees, ``McCain Amendment'' sub-programs and Montagnards. The Vietnamese government has also agreed to help implement our decision to resume the ODP program for former U.S. Government employees, which was suspended in 1996. The renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is an acknowledgment of that progress. Disapproval of the waiver would, undoubtedly, result in Vietnam's immediate cessation of cooperation. The Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and established diplomatic relations four years ago, the United States has tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral political, economic and consular relationship. This policy builds on Vietnam's own policy of political and economic reintegration into the world. In the judgment of this Member, this will be a lengthy and challenging process. However, he suggests that now is not the time to reverse course on Vietnam. Over the past four years, Vietnam has increasingly cooperated on a wide range of issues. The most important of these is the progress and cooperation in obtaining the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing from the Vietnam War. Those Members who attended the briefing by the distinguished Ambassador to Vietnam, a former Prisoner of War and former Member of this body, the Honorable ``Pete'' Peterson, learned of the significant efforts to which Vietnam is now extending to address our concerns regarding the POW/MIA issue, including their participation in remains recovery efforts which are physically very dangerous. The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any new trade benefits, including Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. However, with the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to negotiate a new bilateral commercial trade agreement in principle with Vietnam. Achieving such an agreement is in our own short and long term national interest. Vietnam remains a very difficult place for American firms to do business. Vietnam needs to undertake additional fundamental economic reforms. A new bilateral trade agreement will require Vietnam to make these reforms and will result in increased U.S. exports. When the final version of this agreement is complete, Congress will then have to decide whether to approve it or reject it and whether or not to grant NTR. As the Jackson-Vanik waiver is only a limited prerequisite for any future trade agreement, the renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver only keeps this negotiating and approval process going--nothing more. However, terminating Vietnam's waiver through passage of the resolution of disapproval before us would certainly derail this entire process as well as rejecting the modest trade opportunities currently available to American businesses. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of some, renewal of the Jackson- Vanik waiver does not automatically make Vietnam eligible for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs such as those administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The waiver only allows Vietnam to be eligible for such coverage and that country must still face separate individual reviews against each program's relevant criteria.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Vice Chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the original sponsor of H.R. 1152, this Member rises in strong support of the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999. In introducing this important legislation, this Member was joined by the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and many other colleagues in the House who were interested in and concerned about improving U.S. relations with the countries in this vital region of the world. Mr. Speaker, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia became the focus of U.S. attention and heir to the vast Soviet arsenal. Russia also retained the Soviet permanent seat on the UN Security Council and membership now, of course, in the G-8. A peaceful post-Soviet era largely depended on Washington's ability to get along with Moscow. It is not surprising then that U.S. attention, including the Freedom Support Act, was directed principally at Moscow. We should remember, however, that 15 countries emerged or reemerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union. A few, the Baltics and Ukraine, garnered special attention in the Freedom Support Act, or in the SEED Act, which addressed Eastern Europe. But the Caucasus and Central Asia region received scant attention. The area includes some 75 million people in the Nations of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. Mr. Speaker, two points are clear as we look at the situation in these eight countries. First, there is much at stake for our national security. The Caucasus and the Central Asian states are strategically located at the geographic nexus of Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey. At least six are secular Islamic states that largely have rejected the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism. They are a front-line force in U.S. efforts to contain the spread of terrorism, the proliferation of sensitive weapons and technologies and drug trafficking. Rich in natural resources, these nations are a proven storehouse of energy with vast crude oil and natural gas reserves. Second, given the region's clear importance, it is time for the United States to become more energetically and effectively engaged in the region, for this area is at an historic crossroads, poised between merging into or retreating from the free world order. It is undergoing an uncertain and turbulent economic, political and cultural transformation. H.R. 1152 seeks to invigorate and provide direction to U.S. policy in the Caucasus region and the Central Asian Republics. First, it outlines what our foreign policy and foreign aid priorities should be. Second, it delineates potential rewards for continued cooperation with the United States, as well as actions that would result in the termination of U.S. assistance. Third, it does not authorize new money. Instead, it redirects funding already provided to the countries of the former Soviet Union. Fourth, it does not address the difficult question of section 907 of the Foreign Assistance Act, the prohibition of assistance to Azerbaijan. Frankly, where the votes are on this issue is well-known, and elements of this legislation are too important to subordinate to a Section 907 debate. The states of this region are looking to the outside for political and economic support, to Russia and Iran and Turkey potentially, to China and Pakistan, and even to Afghanistan, as well as to the United States. They are actively looking to the United States for leadership and guidance on a range of international issues and to long-standing U.S. friends in the area, such as Israel and Turkey, for closer relations. At this crucial juncture in their evolution, the support the U.S. does provide can tip the scales of these countries' orientation towards or against the West. We have a unique opportunity to influence events there now by adopting a broad-based and proactive policy of engagement designed to keep conquerors away from the region, to foster cooperation among the states, and to unleash and channel the engines of growth, economic, social and democratic growth. We cannot build toward these goals without the creation and use of effective tools. This body has been at the forefront in encouraging the formation of coherent policies for assisting the Caucasus region and Central Asian republics and, indeed, moved the Freedom Support Act for just this purpose. This body can and must continue legislative initiatives in this area. This Member's proposed legislation, H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999, is an essential tool in building toward U.S. goals in the region. Broadly, this bill targets U.S. assistance to support the economic and political independence and cross-border cooperation of the Caucasus and Central Asian states. This puts the U.S. squarely behind efforts to, first, build democracy and cross-border cooperation as well as resolve regional conflicts; second, to build market-oriented economies and legal systems as well as the infrastructure to facilitate strong East-West commerce and other relations; and, third, to promote U.S. business interests and investments in the region. Sustained, affordable engagement that matches U.S. ambitions with resources is indispensable to the Caspian region's evolution in a manner compatible with the Free World order and interests. H.R. 1152 is an essential tool in helping to ensure that the region's political and economic options are clear and expansive, and that the far-reaching changes under way in the nations there will turn out to be desirable ones. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1152) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the economic and political independence of the countries of South Caucasus and Central Asia, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1152, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a first-term member of the Committee on International Relations, who is making a major contribution there, for his kind remarks and for his support. I recall well how the gentleman came up to me after the markup and pointed out something that we mutually agreed was a problem, and we have a way outlined to resolve it and I think to meet the administration's satisfaction. It was one of those things that we recognized, but at the moment we could not do anything about. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his perceptiveness in that respect. Mr. Speaker, at this point I submit for the Record a statement in support of the legislation from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicates, for example, that he believes this legislation will serve as a signal to the peoples of those countries of America's desire to ensure that their future will be one of democracy, prosperity, peace and security.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for the purposes of a colloquy. And I would say as we begin this that the gentleman has been very much interested and concerned about this legislation and supportive overall and came to the committee hearings and participated in those hearings. Mr. Speaker, this distinguished gentleman from California is a new member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to respond to the gentleman's statement. I am pleased that the gentleman has joined the Committee on International Relations this year, and as my colleague knows, this Member, the author of the legislation, has made it a point to ensure that the Silk Road Strategy Act intentionally did not include any change in Section 907. Neither the Senate version of the Silk Road legislation which was advanced after amendment, repeals or otherwise revises Section 907. So there would be no basis in a conference, with the approval of this legislation we pass in the House today, for Section 907 to be repealed or altered. Therefore, I think the gentleman's concerns are fully addressed. Neither the House, by the passage of this legislation, or the Senate legislation, after the amendment deleting the provision of the senior Senator of the State of Kansas, contains anything referencing Section 907.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge again support of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. While the amendment might make for catchy so-called cost- cutting sound bites, in reality it would significantly hurt U.S. foreign policy, result in a revenue loss for the Federal Government, and cost American jobs and American export opportunities. This amendment has only costs, in my judgment, and no benefits. First, contrary to some things that have been said, OPIC has contributed $3.3 billion to deficit reduction and the Function 1050 account. In fiscal year 2000, OPIC anticipates it will contribute approximately $200 million to deficit reduction. OPIC is self- sustaining and generates an annual increase in funding. If OPIC were eliminated, the budget would lose revenues rather than achieve savings. In fact, this amendment would put the Federal Government $200 million in the red for just the next year. Since OPIC's operating costs are covered by user fees, eliminating OPIC does not mean these resources are available for other programs or can be considered as cut spending. There are no millions of dollars in savings as claimed by the amendment's supporters, just lost jobs and export opportunities without any offsetting benefit. OPIC supports new, high-paying, export-oriented jobs in the United States. More than 237,000 jobs have been created as a result of OPIC- supported projects. In 1998 alone, nearly 7,000 U.S. jobs were created by OPIC projects. Without OPIC, it is estimated that 70,000 job opportunities could be lost in the next 4 years. To those who express concern about OPIC supported investment abroad luring jobs away from America to foreign countries, this Member recommends they examine closely what kind of investments OPIC is supporting and what kind of so-called foreign jobs are being created. The United States cannot supply raw electric power to Egypt. We can supply American-made power generating equipment and services. How is selling power generating equipment and years of spare parts and services taking jobs away from Americans? If we don't sell the Egyptians these power plants, the Europeans, Japanese, Canadians, or other foreigners will. The United States does not grow tea. Therefore, how does investing in a tea plantation in Rwanda steal American jobs? Indeed, it supports U.S. jobs insofar as that tea operation needs tools, machines, trucks and other services--and these are products and services made by American labor. The United States is not home to the great African savannah and giraffes, lions, zebras, and baboons are not native wildlife. Therefore, how does supporting the eco-tourism industry in Botswana by investing in new hotels and tour operations take away American jobs? On the contrary, this development requires all kinds of infrastructure, construction materials, furnishings, vehicles, and services--these goods and services Americans produce and sell. OPIC-backed projects around the world are U.S. small businesses. Over the next 4 years it is estimated that OPIC projects will generate $23 billion more in America exports. $6 billion of those exports are to be from over 150 American small businesses. OPIC has proven itself to be a successful supporter of American foreign policy. OPIC mobilizes private sector investment in support of U.S. foreign policy at no cost to the American taxpayer. The Andrews amendment would mean no support for U.S. investment in high priority foreign policy areas. It would eliminate an estimated $9 billion in increased trade and investment with Sub-Saharan Africa, $4 billion in Central America and the Caribbean, and $8 billion for development of Caspian Sea energy resources. Since 1971, OPIC supported projects which have resulted in the export of $58 billion of American products. More than $2.8 billion in American exports were generated by OPIC supported projects in 1998 alone. With respect to the Andrews-Sanders-Sanford amendment, I would have to say that it hurts American competitiveness and benefits our foreign competitors. Most of our developing nations, like France, Germany and Japan, offer a comprehensive array of export and overseas investment support. They clearly understand the importance of such programs in supporting jobs and economic growth at home. The U.S. spends less per capita, as a percentage of GDP, and in dollar terms on supporting private sector investment in developing countries than any other major competitor country. Mr. Chairman, the support OPIC provides is not corporate welfare and has not eliminated American jobs as the ``Dear Colleague'' letter circulated recently complained. Caterpillar was cited. It makes tractors in Illinois, and that is the epitome in Peoria of an American city. The Member, I suspect, would be surprised to find among the Caterpillar workers any of them who believe they are fat cats. These are hard-working Americans. OPIC helps promote the sale of the tractors they make at no cost to the American taxpayer. Given the significant support foreign competitors receive from their governments, without OPIC, America's Caterpillar is in many instances at a real disadvantage to Japan's Komatsu or Korea's Hyundai. Let us not ignore the consequences--ultimately, this Amendment benefits foreign competitors like Komatsu at the expense of American workers in all 50 states. Mr. Chairman, in response to the charges by some OPIC critics that OPIC is not even authorized, this Member would remind his colleagues that the House International Relations Committee, the appropriate authorizing body, has already considered and marked up a new reauthorization for OPIC. This legislation is pending on the Union Calendar. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the Andrews amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment, according to the intent of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), would cut one-quarter of the development assistance aid to India. This would affect, of course, not only American national interests, but some of the neediest people in the world in South Asia. Make no mistake about it, the purpose of the gentleman's amendment is punitive. It is designed to show our displeasure and our disapproval of the government of India. But India, a nation of a billion people, is too important to American interests to threaten or to punish in order to send a message or to show a pro-Pakistan tilt. Regrettably, despite his intent to the contrary, I have to submit that the gentleman's amendment does not serve our national interests, neither with regard to arms control nor in relationship to human rights. It cuts off all aid except Public Law 480 Title II when it comes to humanitarian aid. Some of the most important things that we are trying to do to assist the poorest people in the world and those specifically in India in this instance would be cut off. We are talking about immunizations against communicable diseases, basic education, nutrition programs, programs relating to HIV/AIDS. I urge opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). India is already subject to a wide range of sanctions in accordance with Glenn Amendment to the Arms Export Control Act. As a result, all military assistance and even the commercial sale of defense articles are prohibited. All foreign assistance except humanitarian assistance has been terminated. While this Amendment does not affect the $81 million in P.L. 480 Title II food aid provided by the United States, it does directly affect other kinds of humanitarian aid. Utilizing the waiver process, the remaining U.S. development aid program responds other non-food humanitarian aid which supports to two key U.S. national interests: (1) The global issues of population growth, infectious diseases and environmental conservation; and (2) the humanitarian concerns of alleviating poverty and supporting child survival. This Amendment would directly affect these poverty alleviation and basis development programs. It would cut HIV/AIDs containment and cut immunizations against such communicable diseases as polio and tuberculosis. It would cut basic education and nutrition programs. The recipients of this aid, mostly poor Indian women and children, have absolutely nothing to do with their government's nuclear proliferation, human rights or foreign trade policies. Their lives should not be further jeopardized for the sake of making a symbolic political statement. Our national interests in South Asia go beyond poverty alleviation. With India's and Pakistan's successful testing of nuclear weapons, it is in our own short term and long term national security interests to bring both South Asian countries into the regime of international arms control agreements. The chances for and consequences of nuclear warfare in this very volatile region are too great to belittle with symbolic political statements aimed at only party. In just the past few months, we have seen tensions escalate to a very dangerous level due to Pakistan's irresponsible provocations in Kashmir. The fact that India reacted in a relatively measured and internationally responsible way certainly helped contain and diffuse the conflict. While this Member doesnot support direct linkage between humanitarian aid and regional conflict resolution, to arbitrarily cut humanitarian assistance to India given these recent positive actions by New Delhi would, indeed, undermine the leverage we have and jeopardize our efforts to further engage India on critical nuclear proliferation issues that affect their own national security. Human rights problems exist in India. It is appropriate for us to express concern about this issue. However, cutting humanitarian assistance is not an appropriate or effective way to influence human rights practices in India. On the contrary, it only punishes the poor in India, who unfortunately, are often the actual victims of human rights transgressions. India is not our enemy. India is a friendly democracy. The United States continues to be India's largest trade and investment partner with trade between our two countries exceeding $10 billion annually. Deep cuts in humanitarian assistance to some of the world's neediest people are not the way to go about addressing the gentleman's concerns and advancing American interests. Accordingly, this member urges his colleagues to reject the Burton Amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as vice chairman of the International Relations Committee, this Member rises in strong opposition to the Kucinich amendment which would cut the funding of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation's (OPIC) Investment Fund program. While this Member shares the distinguished gentleman's concern about funding only environmentally responsible projects, given that OPIC already has an effective environmental review program, it appears that the underlying purpose of this amendment is to drastically cut and restrict OPIC under the guise of environmental protection. Mr. Chairman, we have already had this debate on the Andrews amendment. Contrary to the claims of some OPIC opponents, all of OPIC's fund investments must meet stringent world class environmental standards. These standards are higher than any other bilateral export credit, investment or insurance agency in the world. In fact, no other investment funds program has higher standards. OPIC requires that each environmentally sensitive fund investment must undergo a complete environmental impact assessment and must meet OPIC obligations to mitigate potential environmental harm. Each funds project is subject to OPIC environmental monitoring over the life of the project. This includes the Russian forest project which has been cited and about which this Member has been informed did meet applicable World Bank Environmental Standards. Moreover, by imposing new, additional standards by Congressional fiat and well beyond those established at the time the fund was established, this amendment could potentially expose the U.S. taxpayer to lawsuits for breach of contract. The Kucinich amendment as written would directly undercut U.S. assistance programs to the neediest of developing countries and leave the environments of these countries open to unregulated exploitation. For example, the new $350 million Africa Infrastructure Fund would not be able to make the most of its potential investment because infrastructure, by definition, tends to involve environmentally sensitive programs. These investments, under current laws and regulations, must follow sound environmental standards. This initial $350 million investment is expected to leverage another $2 billion in investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is unlikely that the Africa Infrastructure Fund could even raise private sector money under the conditions required by the pending Amendment. As a result, the benefits that Africa so desperately needs will be lost. This includes environmental improvement projects in the areas of clean water, forest protection and conservation of natural resources. Indeed, if unable to access resources from the Africa Infrastructure Fund, African nations will be forced to run to other sources of investment including those that may not require the same standards of environmental responsibility as we do thereby resulting in further exploitation of and damage to Africa's fragile environment. This Member would refer his colleagues back to all of the sound reasons detailed during the debate we just had on the Andrews amendment about why OPIC is an important and successful component of American foreign policy and trade promotion. While the approach of the Kucinich amendment may be somewhat different, the cost of it equals that of the Andrews amendment. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. Any projects supported by OPIC in what is called Category A that subsequently change in nature from the description provided in application materials, and will thereby cause material impacts to the environment, shall be required to submit additional EA documents to OPIC that must be acceptable to OPIC in its sole discretion. Industrial categories: A. Large-scale industrial plants. B. Industrial estates. C. Crude oil refineries. D. Large thermal power projects (200 megawatts or more). E. Major installations for initial smelting of cast iron and steel and production of non ferrous metals. F. Chemicals: 1. Manufacture and transportation of pesticides; 2. Manufacture and transportation of hazardous or toxic chemicals or other materials. G. All projects which pose potential serious occupational or health risks. H. Transportation infrastructure: 1. Roadways; 2. Railroads; 3. Airports (runway length of 2,100 meters or more); 4. Large port and harbor developments; 5. Inland waterways and ports that permit passage of vessels of over 1,350 tons. I. Major oil and gas developments. J. Oil and gas pipelines. K. Disposal of toxic or dangerous wastes: 1. Incineration; 2. Chemical treatment. L. Landfill. M. Construction or significant expansion of dams and reservoirs not otherwise prohibited. N. Pulp and paper manufacturing. O. Mining. P. Offshore hydrocarbon production. Q. Major storage of petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products. R. Forestry/large scale logging. S. Large scale wastewater treatment. T. Domestic solid waste processing facilities. U. Large-scale tourism development. V. Large-scale power transmission. W. Large-scale reclamation. X. Large-scale agriculture involving the intensification or development of previously undisturbed land. Y. All projects with potentially major impacts on people or serious socioeconomic concerns. Z. Projects, not categorically prohibited, but located in or sufficiently near sensitive locations of national or regional importance to have perceptible environmental impacts on: 1. Wetlands; 2. Areas of archaeological significance; 3. Areas prone to erosion and/or desertification; 4. Areas of importance to ethnic groups/indigenous peoples; 5. Primary temperate/boreal forests. 6. Coral reefs; 7. Mangrove swamps; 8. Nationally-designated seashore areas; 9. Managed resource protected areas, protected landscape/seascape (IUCN categories V and VI) as defined by IUCN's Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories; additionally, these projects must meet IUCN's management objectives and follow the spirit of IUCN definitions. Mr. Chairman, this member will finally include with information as to why the Kucinich amendment on OPIC supports investment funds will kill the new Africa Infrastructure Fund. I. The Kucinich amendment is a bullet to the heart of OPIC's $350- million New Africa Infrastructure Fund. This amendment would: Stop the fund from investing in a majority of infrastructure projects (since many infrastructure projects are environmentally sensitive). Prohibit most investments in clean water, sewage treatment, transportation, electric power and other projects that improve the lives of African people. Undercut the fund's ability to raise the private sector matching funds. Make the fund uneconomical and less able to invest in women and microenterprises. It would deny the benefits of the fund, including: 6,800 new jobs for Africans. Almost $50 million in annual revenues for the countries of sub- Saharan Africa. $2.5 billion in additional financing capital to Africa. $350 million in exports from the United States. II. This amendment undercuts the environmental protections and new transparency built into the New Africa Infrastructure Fund OPIC has world-class environmental standards that apply to all OPIC programs and funds: All environmentally sensitive projects must undergo a complete environmental impact assessment. The New Africa Infrastructure Fund projects will provide for public notice and public comment period in the host country. All environmentally sensitive projects must meet OPIC requirements to mitigate potential environmental harm. All environmentally sensitive projects are subject to OPIC environmental monitoring over the life of a project. The New Africa Infrastructure Fund must have at all times an environmental management system and a full-time qualified environmental expert supervising the implementation of OPIC requirements. III. The amendment would jeopardize investments by two other OPIC- supported Africa funds totaling $270 million. These funds: Would be prohibited from investments in many manufacturing, agricultural, and processing projects as well as many basic services in sub-Saharan Africa. Will generate more than $300 million in US exports (estimated). Will create an estimated 5000 African jobs. IV. The amendment would harm, rather than help, the environment in Africa. Because OPIC funds would be prohibited from any environmentally sensitive investment: Some infrastructure projects will go forward with no obligation or requirement to meet OPIC's world-class environmental standards. Africa will lose the benefit of OPIC's world-class standards being applied to a broad range of infrastructure, manufacturing and natural resource projects. V. This amendment will undermine OPIC's ability to fulfill its commitment to create another $150 million fund for Africa as called for in the House-passed Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher amendment, and I am pleased to support it. As my colleagues know, as I was listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), he spoke movingly about the conditions in Cambodia, and I have no doubt that he and the gentleman from California have both seen the same deplorable conditions that exist there, but there seems to be something missing here. It seems we are talking beyond each other. There is no intent of the gentleman from California, I am sure, there is no intent of this gentleman to stop any funds from going to assist the people in Cambodia. In fact, I think the three of us might agree we ought to be giving more resources to help the people in Cambodia. What the gentleman from California is attempting to do is assure that no U.S. taxpayers funds goes to the government of Cambodia, and that is what this Congress did last year in the appropriation measure, because this gentleman offered the amendment. We eliminated the possibility of money going to the Cambodian government. We want it to go through those NGOs where my colleagues saw the good work being done, and there is nothing to keep AID or any other institution of American government from providing authorized funds which are appropriated to nongovernmental organizations for valid purposes in Cambodia. And in fact, the authorizing committee has taken this step as well. Now I would like to say the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is exactly right in the way he has characterized the outrageous people that run that government. We ought not be putting one cent of the taxpayers' money into that government. When we do, we send exactly the wrong message, that we tolerate the kind of murderous people that are running that country. That is something I tell my colleagues as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific this government ought not do, and that is the direction we have given to the Executive Branch. Now let me give my colleagues one example of how the government of Cambodia is using some of the funds today. Let us talk about the Cambodian Mine Action Center. About one out of every 250 people in Cambodia have been injured or killed by mines, and it is a serious problem, there is no doubt about that. Well, according to reports in the Australian, the newspaper, one of the most prestigious newspapers in Australia, according to the South China Morning Post, the most important newspaper in Hong Kong, the nepotism, the corruption that has existed in this mining program where the leaders of that government are directing funds to go to demine the land of their cronies, of their political people from the Pol Pot regime is outrageous. Of the $12 million that are spent so far, at least 1 million, 1.3 million, has been spent corruptly. In fact, the executive director of that agency admitted in a press release that at least a half a million dollars of it had been spent in that fashion. And we have colleagues in the most prestigious academic institutions in this country with specialists on Cambodia which will verify that a minimum of one-tenth of the money on that government-run program to demine is being misused for the advantage of the cronies of the government. Now that is the way the Cambodian government uses their money. That is the way they take the international funds. Fortunately, it is not involving U.S. funds because we have acted. Now both of these newspapers have reported that we have held up $1 million. Our ambassador in Phnom Penh held up $1 million plus to keep it from going to this corrupt entity of the Cambodian government. Mr. Chairman, my colleague's instincts were right last Congress, they are right in the authorizing committee. We stripped, eliminate, prohibit any funds from going to Cambodian government, and, if my colleagues will, send a lot more to help the people of Cambodia through NGOs. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).