Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their extraordinary work in developing this bill and bringing it to the floor. This Member appreciates their diligence, persistence, and hard work. This important legislation includes numerous projects designed to improve flood control, navigation, and shore protection. It also promotes environmental restoration and protection efforts across the nation. In particular, this Member is pleased that the bill includes a provision he promoted which helps to ensure that the Missouri River Mitigation Project can be implemented as envisioned. In 1986, Congress authorized over $50 million (more than $79 million in today's dollars if adjusted for inflation) to fund the Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat that were lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan. At that time the Corps did not choose to include funding requests for implementing that Act in their budgeting process. That is why this Member, along with other Members who represent the four states bordering the channelized Missouri River (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri), have worked to provide funding to implement the Missouri River Mitigation Project which has just begun to become a reality during the last few years. This project is specifically 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 that are needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are dramatically reduced. And estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost because of Federal action in creating the flood control projects and channelization of the Missouri River. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days. The success of the project has resulted in a concern related to the original study that outlined habitat needs. Under this study, acreage goals for each state were listed and these goals are generally considered to be an acreage limitation for each state. Nebraska and Kansas have already reached their acreage limits and Missouri is fast approaching its ceiling. Before long, Iowa will also reach its acreage limit. To correct this problem, H.R. 1480 authorizes an increase in mitigation lands authorized to the four states to 25% of the lands lost, or 118,650 acres. In addition, the Corps of Engineers--in conjunction with the four states--is directed to study the amount of funds that would need to be authorized to achieve that acreage goal. This Member is also pleased that H.R. 1480 also includes a provision which provides for the completion of the Wood River Flood Control Project. When completed, this important project in Nebraska's Third Congressional District will provide protection for an estimated 1,755 home and business structures in southern Grand Island, Nebraska. It is also expected to protect more than 5,000 acres of irrigated farmland and 7,000 to 8,000 acres of grassland. Madam Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on March 24, the day the bombing began, this Member stood on the floor and said, this is a tragic day, undoubtedly the beginning of a tragic scenario, and that is exactly what it was. We have heard today about hamstringing the President. But I would like to point out that, in fact, no authorization was requested by the President before the bombing began, and he has not asked for that authorization to this day. This is a gratuitous authorization. I do not think it is wise that it is brought up. I wish even at this late date that it would be withdrawn. Bombing for peace, bombing for peace is wrong, and it is not working. I regret the fact that any of our colleagues would suggest that decisions of this gravity are based upon partisan considerations. I say to my colleagues, we have a war, in Yugoslavia. We can call it whatever we want, but it is a euphemism unless we recognize it is a war. It is an unmitigated disaster. Our and NATO's involvement in this war is an unmitigated disaster. That is the ugly truth, and everybody knows it. They certainly know and talk about it in the Pentagon. In the past, NATO, the 12 members, the 16 members, now the 19 members, were a defensive pact, and for the first time NATO has used those forces aggressively. We can imagine what the Soviet Union said, and now what the Russians say about NATO as an aggressive force. Well, we have just confirmed their worst suspicions and, in fact, we set back Russian-American relations dramatically for years to come. We have reinforced the wrong people in Russia in the process. We cannot say that this war has unintended or unanticipated consequences. They were entirely predictable. I had hoped that people in the administration would have looked at and understood the history of the Balkans. I would have hoped they would have talked to people who know Mr. Milosevic and how he came to power. I had a chance to visit with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and General Shelton in a meeting convened by the Speaker, a bipartisan meeting, and I laid out the dire consequences that I thought would prevail if, in fact, the bombing campaign began, and all of those predictions but one have come true. The remaining prediction is that after starting to bomb we would have combat troops involved in Yugoslavia in 2 months. We are a little over a month and counting, and we are headed for those combat troops in Yugoslavia. Now, look at it from the side of the Albanian militants, the KLA. They never wanted autonomy, they wanted independence, and that is what they want today. Look at it from the side of the Serbians. We have to recognize that Kosovo is sacred ground for the Serbs. It is where they all came together in an infamous but courageous defeat in 1389, and they have not forgotten what happened on the Field of Blackbirds. It is for them the same as if Lexington, Bunker Hill and Yorktown are rolled up into one. It is like asking a Texan to give back the Alamo, site of another courageous defeat, to the Republic of Mexico. That is what it means to the Serbs. Milosevic had no option to give up his Serbian control over Kosovo. He did not have that option. And what we have predicted, that the Serbs would coalesce around Milosevic, has happened. Yes, I say to my colleagues, as negative and terrible an individual as Milosevic is, he would now be followed by more Serbian leaders who have this very kind of militant, aggressive Serbian nationalism re-aroused. What has happened, of course, is that Milosevic made his reputation in Kosovo by jumping right over his mentor by speaking to the abuses, real, alleged and exaggerated, that were taking place against the Serbian minority in Kosovo. And that is how he played upon their emotions, and that is what has been further ignited by the bombing campaign. What happened when we threatened we would bomb, and then we held off, and we threatened and we threatened? Well, of course, it provided time for him to deploy his troops in and around Kosovo, in fact right on the Macedonian border, for that matter. And all of the NGOs and independent observers, they went out of Kosovo, naturally, and so no one is there to report on the atrocities and the ethnic cleansing that were accelerated when we began that air war, just as predicted. Some people have said, and in fact the Secretary of State said before our committee, well, we had no idea he would be so brutal and thorough and energetic in the ethnic cleansing. I say to my colleagues, we had an object example in Bosnia with Croatian and Serbian ethnic cleansing like we had not seen since World War II in Europe. Of course, we had an idea of what he would do. Were we ready for it? Did we anticipate it? Did the people that launched this war have this in mind? Look at the refugees coming out of Kosovo into Macedonia and Albania and Montenegro. Look at the people dying from all kinds of disease and from hypothermia. NATO was not able to take care of them. It is obvious NATO was not ready for it. The Administration and NATO did not anticipate this result. One of the frustrating things about being on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at a period of time when Yugoslavia was in danger of disintegration was that we had the best information about what would happen with the disintegration of Yugoslavia. We knew a blood bath was coming in Bosnia where three religious/ethnic groups live side by side, and we knew that Kosovo was a tinderbox waiting to explode with its Albanian majority, but our vital national interests were not involved yet. Where they are and still remain involved is in Macedonia. And we should have gone to great lengths never to destabilize Macedonia. This air war is, in fact, pushing us towards a destabilization of Macedonia. Why is that so important? Because it is likely to bring Greece and Turkey, overtly or covertly, in on opposite sides, fracturing the NATO alliance, and that, I say to my colleagues, is very much against our vital national interests. But we have taken steps inadvertently, but predictably, to destabilize Macedonia. And yet today, the Yugoslavian military is basically intact. All the armor units are setting there; they are not using their engines, they are not using fuel, they are in hiding. And they have not used their air defense systems at this point. We have been attacking, but we have been attacking refineries and bridges and a whole variety of things that are important to the long term, but the Yugolavians or Serbians military is basically setting there intact. And what are we assured on the other side? We have assured the rule of the KLA militants in Kosovo beyond this. I urge all of my colleagues to take a look at the May-June 1999 issue of Foreign Affairs and read the article by Chris Hedges, the former Balkan Bureau Chief of the New York Times. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the resolution. Vote against it. I voted against the War Powers Act; for strategic and tactical reasons we do not want to give that 30-day warning before a withdrawal would theoretically be required under the invocations of the War Powers Act. I urge my colleagues, do not take this gratuitous step to authorize the bombing war.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an excellent editorial questioning the President's recent comments about Congressional inaction on Social Security reform which appeared in the Washington Post, on April 27, 1999. [From The Washington Post, Apr. 27, 1999] A Rout on Social Security The President now denounces the congressional Republicans for refusing to take a step on Social Security that the president himself has consistently shunned. The Republican leaders say they won't bring up a bill this year to restructure the program so that in the long term revenue will cover costs; they don't want to take the political risk this close to the next election. The president deplores the fact that they have ``abandoned the effort,'' are ``either unable or unwilling to face up to the challenge,'' etc. ``I have proposed concrete steps,'' said the statement issued in his name last Friday. But he no more than they has said how he would make what he once again called ``the tough choices needed to secure the trust fund over the long term.'' The most he will say is that there should be bipartisan discussions of the subject, which is to say, he wants to share the blame. Yesterday the vice president joined in beating up on the Republicans for flinching. Since the vice president aspires now to lead the country, perhaps it's fair to ask him, what is he for? It may not surprise you to learn that he hasn't said either. Mr. Clinton has proposed that the bulk of the projected budget surplus over the next 15 years be set aside to pay future Social Security costs in the only way the government can set it aside, which is use it to pay down debt. It's a good proposal as far as it goes. Debt reduction translates into an increase in national savings that will help the economy grow and make it easier for the government to increase borrowing again when it needs the money to pay the cost of the baby boomers' retirement. By invoking Social Security, he rightly keeps the money from being used for other purposes, either new spending programs or tax cuts. But his plan, even in the event that the surplus were to materialize as forecast, would close only a little more than half the long-term gap between Social Security revenues and costs. The rest will require benefit cuts and/or tax increases. It's at that point that the voices of the president and his acolyte, the vice president, cease to be heard. It's a lot more fun to save an imaginary surplus than to tell future retirees and/or taxpayers that they'll have to make do with less. The Republicans want to ``privatize'' Social Security, meaning shift toward a system in which at least a share of benefits will flow from individual investment accounts rather than the government. To a large extent, the shift would be illusory. The money for the ``private'' accounts would come from a compulsory national savings program, and to guard against loss, the government, in most versions of the plan, would likewise limit the range of investment. Our own sense is that the costs and risks of such a step seriously outweigh the possible benefits. That's the president's apparent view as well. He thus berates the Republicans for failing to put forth a plan of which he disapproves. But they like the idea, and some in positions of leadership have at least been tinkering with alternatives. One version already has been put forward with some Democratic support, and another may be unveiled on the House side this week, if only for discussion. The president offers no counterpart on this or, thus far, on Medicare, either. ``We need some leadership of the president,'' Senate majority Leader Trent Lott said on a Sunday talk show as he announced that he, too, intended to duck the issue this year. The year began with statements of determination by both parties to follow the president's slogan of ``saving Social Security first.'' It's not happening. They'll spend the time blaming each other instead--and both will be right. To suggest as the president did the other day that only the Republicans are flinching is to give hypocrisy a bad name.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an excellent editorial questioning some of the values reflected by parts of the entertainment industry which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald, on April 23, 1999. The Gothic Wilderness One of the television networks, at some point during the seemingly endless picking over of the tragedy in Littleton, Colo., brought to the screen a young woman who had some connection or other with the gothic subculture. She was asked about the awful events at Columbine High School. Was it not possible that the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were acting out the themes of popular lyrics or video games? The goth girl, as might be expected, came off as disbelieving, almost contemptuous of the idea that anyone would be so stupid as to kill because of a song. Her comments echoed the responses of others, including people in the entertainment industry, who scoffed at the idea that there could be any connection between their art and the orgy of violence that Harris and Klebold unleashed at the Denver-area high school. People, like, have a right to their music. Artists, like, have a right to be controversial. Certainly it would be difficult to prove that any particular set of lyrics or any particular video game was directly responsible. Harris and Klebold are dead. Even a society that has convinced itself that a goofy cartoon camel creates an irresistible desire in teen-agers to smoke cigarettes doesn't have the ability to read the mind of a killer beyond the grave. Nonetheless, isn't it about time that someone had the courage to speak up, like the lad who saw the emperor's nakedness for what it was, and say that the saturation of young minds with symbols of violence, Santanism and death is manifestly unhealthy? Won't someone, anyone, give parents permission to pull the plug on video games that involve slaughtering hordes of electronic adversaries like mowing down so many high school students in the cafeteria? A newspaper columnist found these lyrics in the work of a group admired by Harris and Klebold: ``Kill everything, kill everything--bomb the living bejeepers out of those forces-- kill everything, kill everything--bomb the living bejeepers out of those forces.'' Maybe such ravings--and some are much worse--don't cause anyone to become a mass murderer. But can it possibly be healthy to entertain oneself by fantasizing about slaughter as a remedy for the petty annoyances of life? And what of the people who profit from such art, defend it and produce it? Words have meaning. Even if it can't be proved that Harris and Klebold weren't motivated by the bloody images that seemed to so entice them, can the producers and disseminators of those images be admired as just more artists pushing the edge? The industry claims to occupy the moral high ground, wearing the mantle of artistic freedom, failing to distinguish political satire and social alienation from pathological homicide. Its spokespeople, like the goth girl on the television screen, demand to be tolerated, or at least left alone. But surely there is at least some moral culpability when the entertainment industry saturates the culture with images of mass murder and some misguided slobs in Colorado try to act them out.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to support H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition and Consumer Protection Act, but that support is accompanied by reservations. There are many good reasons to support this bill. It provides a way for satellite companies to carry local stations in rural areas and metropolitan areas. It requires satellite companies to accept the must carry provisions. It will expedite the waiver process for customers who do not receive local signals. And, it will encourage the increased competition that is necessary for all Americans to more fully benefit from the revolution in telecommunications. This Member has heard from many Nebraskans who are frustrated about the restrictions in the Satellite Home Viewer Act that compel satellite carriers to stop transmitting network signals to their customers. We must provide a way for residents of rural areas to receive network satellite service. At present, satellites offer the best opportunity for increased competition with cable television systems. Unfortunately, this bill includes a provision that will further an injustice that cable customers in some of our small, rural communities are already experiencing. For years, because of the Federal Communications Commission's enforcement of syndicated exclusivity and non-duplication rules, cable customers in certain small communities located in some state border areas have not been able to watch television programs produced by stations in their own state. Their cable systems are prohibited from transmitting the news and other programming that relates to the customer's own state. This bill applies those same restrictions to satellite companies, and makes no provision or exception for those small communities near state borders that are ``blacked out'' of their own state's news and sports. In 1992, when the 102nd Congress considered the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, this Member supported an amendment introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that would have provided an exception for those few, but very important, communities.That amendment was withdrawn when the then- Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee agreed to revisit the issue. Now, almost seven years later, those communities have not seen relief, and we are acting on legislation that will perpetuate their problem. We must resolve the current satellite problems and this measure is intended to do that. But, those state-border communities have yet to see their problem resolved, and this Member assures them that he is preparing a bill that addresses that problem.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to recognize Colonel Tom Lampley, USAF, who will retire tomorrow from the U.S. Air Force after 29 years of service. This Member has had the pleasure of working and traveling with Col. Lampley in this Member's capacity as Chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (formerly the North Atlantic Assembly). Col. Lampley has been serving as the Chief, Congressional Action Division, Air Force Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, directly supporting the interaction between the Air Force's senior leaders and Members of Congress. In recognition of Col. Lampley's exemplary record of service, this Member would like to congratulate him upon his retirement and take this opportunity to acknowledge Col. Lampley's credibility and good will for which the Air Force and the Department of Defense will long reap the benefits of his tenure. Colonel Thomas S. Lampley was born in Washington, DC on 31 August 1947. He attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and received his commission upon graduation in 1970. Col. Lampley also received a Master of Science degree in business management from Troy State University in Alabama. As a master navigator with over 2,200 flying hours, Col. Lampley has served in numerous flying positions including 225 combat sorties in the F-4 Phantom as a forward air controller in Southeast Asia. Out of the cockpit, he has served in staff positions at Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe, the Pentagon and Headquarters Tactical Air Command. Col. Lampley is an experienced commander, having commanded a flying training squadron at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and the 14th Support Group at Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi. Prior to moving to his present position, Col. Lampley also commanded the 42nd Support Group, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and subsequently became the Vice Commander, 42nd Air Base Wing, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. In addition, Col. Lampley has received the following major awards and decorations: Legion of Merit; Distinguished Flying Cross with one oak leaf cluster; Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf clusters; Air Medal with 23 oak leaf clusters; and Air Force Commendation Medal. Again, this Member wants to offer his congratulations to Col. Tom Lampley for his fine record of service to the Air Force, to the Department of Defense, to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and to our country. Colonel Lampley, you have performed your duties as an officer in the United States armed forces in a manner which reflects the best traditions and principles of the U.S. Air Force and our nation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition to House Joint Resolution 37, the so-called tax limitation amendment. Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for any tax increases. However, as a matter of principle and conscience, this Member cannot do that. As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the House in the past, there is a great burden of proof to deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is consistent or complementary to this important principle. There should be no question of this Member's continued and enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring such a balanced budget. In my judgment, tax increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget; balanced budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as appropriate, tax cuts. That is why this Member in the past has supported the inclusion of a supermajority requirement for tax increases in the rules of the House. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in this Member's opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why this Member will vote against House Joint Resolution 37. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this time. I am an original cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill. This Member first became familiar with the microenterprise concept during the 99th Congress. At that time, an organization known by its acronym of FINCA, F-I-N-C-A, worked closely with poverty stricken areas of Latin America and South America. The concept of microenterprises, I think had not had much visibility at all on Capitol Hill or in America until we learned about FINCA's good work. Having since visited numerous developing countries while serving on the Committee on International Relations, this Member can testify to the utter despair and grinding poverty that is all too commonplace throughout so much of the world and to the hope which microenterprise programs can provide. Much of the grinding poverty could be redressed by just a few dollars' worth of tools and raw materials. In countries where the average wage may be no more than 50 cents a day, as little as $10 can provide someone with the reed to make straw mats or leather for shoes. Just a few dollars can stock a peddler's cart and allow him or her to rise above helpless poverty. Microenterprise initiatives will not make anyone rich, but it will pay for tuition for a child's basic education or the cost of a concrete surface to replace an old dirt floor, or a pump where the water is not tainted. Importantly, microenterprise can provide these small luxuries, or I would say basic elements of life, but they come only to those who are willing to combine these small loans with hard work. Recipients of these loans certainly do work hard. It is reported that recipients repay the principal within the first month in many cases, and 95 to 98 percent of recipients repay the loans on time. Indeed, that repayment rate is incredibly good as compared to commercial banks' repayments. It also serves, I think, as a strong testament to recipients' receptivity to these programs. The legislation before this body today gives an important boost to existing microenterprise programs like the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, where microenterprise has had great positive effects for a whole generation of women; or BancoSol, which now has the largest number of clients of any financial institution in Bolivia. This legislation will ensure their survival. H.R. 1143 sets forth the guidelines to ensure that the needs of the poorest of the poor are addressed. One-half of all microenterprise resources are devoted to loans of $300 or less. Importantly, the legislation establishes a facility specifically devoted to countries devastated by war or natural disasters. This is a particularly important provision, Mr. Chairman. It means all is not lost when torrential flooding destroys an entire economy, as was the case last year in Bangladesh. It means that people in war-torn regions can return home and try to start life anew, as has been the case in Rwanda and Cambodia. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1143 speaks to the best part of our collective conscience. Through this legislation, the U.S. is offering hope to those who have no hope, a helping hand to those who want to make for themselves a better life. This Member congratulates the author of this initiative, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. It is largely through his efforts that microenterprise has become such an important part of our foreign assistance efforts. This Member would also thank the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking Democrat on the committee, for his constructive efforts to move this legislation forward. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this time and for his support of the legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends this March 20, 1999, editorial from the Omaha World Herald regarding President Clinton's actions on Medicare Reform. Because of the imminent crisis that Medicare faces in the near future, I am very disappointed that the President has chosen to play politics with such an important issue instead of finding real solutions to preserving Medicare. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 20, 1999] Cut Off at the Knees When President Clinton torpedoed the recommendation of a majority of the members of his bipartisan commission on Medicare reform, his action raised the question of whether he ever intended the commission to succeed. Clinton has been demagoguing the Medicare issue ever since before the 1996 election, when Republicans in Congress proposed slowing the growth of Medicare spending from 10 percent a year to 7 percent. The President won re-election, in part, by persuading some voters that the Republicans wanted to destroy Medicare and forsake the elderly. After the election, the GOP insisted that Clinton must take the lead if he wanted Republican help in repairing the program, which is headed for bankruptcy as the cost of providing doctor and hospital care for retirees outraces available revenues. Clinton responded with the classic bureaucratic evasion. He named a commission to study the problem. The need for reform is indisputable. Medicare is funded by payroll taxes and income taxes. The worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 4-to-1 when the program was enacted in 1965. That ratio will be cut in half by 2030, when aging baby boomers will swell the ranks of Medicare recipients. By then nearly 80 million people will be eligible for Medicare. That's double today's number. Meanwhile, medical care has become more sophisticated and expensive. Medicare is projected to go bankrupt in 2008--and that's before the impact of baby boomer retirements is felt. Spokesmen for the elderly have been pressuring government to expand the benefits, adding coverage for prescription drugs. What started out as providing doctor's services and hospitalization would become a full-service health program, not only covering catastrophic care but also paying for routine services that people used to assume were their own responsibility. The bipartisan commission recommended changes that have been ordered by some congressional leaders, among them Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb. Changes include raising the eligibility age in small steps to age 67 over the next quarter of a century. The commission also said that people ought to be able to receive Medicare coverage through private plans, nearly 90 percent of which would be subsidized by Medicare dollars. Such changes could save $500 billion by 2030, the commission said. Clinton rejected the plan, although he said some parts of it had promise. He characterized it as a reduction in benefits, which he said is not permissible. Ten members of the commission had supported the recommendation, with 11 votes needed. The 10 consisted of eight Republicans and two Democrats, Kerrey and Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, who co- chaired the commission. Instead of savings $500 billion, Clinton said, the government needs to spend an additional $700 billion through 2020. ``Medicare cannot provide for the baby boom generation without substantial new revenues,'' Clinton said. Taxpayers ought to cringe at the prospect. Clinton said the new money will be provided by future budget surpluses. By siphoning 15 percent of projected surpluses, Clinton said, the government can fund his proposed expansion of Medicare. That is based on an implied assumption that the economy is recession-proof, which has no basis in fact or history. When the spending in a program is accelerating out of control, government should at least question the assumptions that are behind the growth. Clinton's solution is to find more money. He is confident that it will be there. Yet neither he nor anyone else, a year or two ago, saw the revenue tide coming. And even if payroll and income taxes could generate enough revenue to cover the rising cost of Medicare, that does not mean it is right to let the program's budget spiral upward indiscriminately. Health care for the elderly is a legitimate concern of government. But it is not evil for politicians to decide that government may have to be more efficient in subsidizing such care. Neither is it evil to suggest that a major expansion in benefits isn't affordable at the very time a big increase in recipients is projected. At one point, with senators like Kerrey and Breaux taking the political risks of looking for an actuarially defensible solution, it seemed that a genuine, compassionate, affordable and bipartisan plan of action could be arrived at. Now that Clinton and their fellow Democrats on the commission have cut Kerrey and Breaux off at the knees, that possibility, regrettably, has become less likely.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today is a tragic day. It will undoubtedly be the beginning of a tragic scenario. I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) asked an interesting question. Why is it he said, that we repeatedly are up here on the House Floor under the compulsion to express our support for our men and women in the armed services? I think it probably has something to do with we have had too many military deployments recently which were based on very questionable premises, ill-informed, ineptly handled and for which there was no exit strategy, and here we are again facing the same kind of deployment problems. In Kosovo we are trying to coerce a peace agreement between two sides which do not agree with the objectives of that peace agreement. As a result of the American and NATO air strike today, the Serbians are now going to be more supportive for Milosevic. Now, certainly America's objectives in Kosovo are honorable and humane. There is no doubt about that, but I believe that contrary to what is expected, with this armed action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia we are actually going to see a further destabilization in the Balkans. A fragile country, the Republic of Macedonia, or the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, if you prefer, will be subjected to further destabilization. I also believe we are going to accelerate the kind of violence by Serbian forces in the next few days against the Albanian ethnics in Kosovo. That is almost inevitable. Bombing will not do what we hope it will do. Bombing or air power never wins wars: it never settles things on the ground. It takes ground troops. So we will go through this air strike phase against missile sites and air defense systems, then we will accelerate the air attacks against strategic targets, and, I predict, unfortunately that within 2 months, probably in a far shorter time than that, we will be involved with ground troops in Kosovo and there will be Americans among them. We do need to support our troops, by all means, because they are now going to be there for a very long time as ground troops in a hostile environment. There is no exit strategy prepared or easily possible from this unhappy quagmire. I also think we have to decide when it is indeed in our vital national interest to be involved in humanitarian efforts that we want to support. Why not in the civil and ethnic or racial conflicts in the Caucasus? Why not in Central Asia? Why not in Rwanda or Congo or Eritrea and Ethiopia? I ask those questions of my colleagues, but I do support the resolution and the men and women of our armed forces and I know we all do.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to answer my distinguished friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). We have no NATO agreement with Kosovo, with Yugoslavia or Macedonia either.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, for example, and with emphasis, this Member wants to express his appreciation for the interest and support of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for cosponsoring H.Con.Res. 56 and for assisting this Member to facilitate our expeditious markup in both the committee and the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, H.Con.Res. 56 is a very timely resolution, given the concerns that many Members of the House, including this Member, have about the current direction in Sino-American relations. Our relations with Beijing are increasingly problematic. However, it is important for all to know, especially for Beijing to know when making its foreign policy calculations, that when it comes to U.S. relations with Taiwan there has been no weakening in our resolve to help the Taiwanese provide for their defense. The solid direction provided for by the TRA has helped provide consistency in the demonstration of our resolve. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges passage of H.Con.Res. 56.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, this Member rises in support of H. Con. Res. 56, the resolution before the House commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. Following President Carter's decision in 1979 to terminate relations with the Republic of China and diplomatically recognize the mainland People's Republic of China, a new American relationship with Taiwan was necessitated. As a result, the Taiwan Relations Act, often referred to as the TRA, was enacted on April 10, 1979, and continues today to serve as the basis for continued commercial, culture, and other relations between the United States and Taiwan. Much has changed since the enactment of the TRA. Taiwan has developed into a full-fledged multiparty democracy that respects human rights and civil liberties. Taiwan has grown into one of the strongest and most developed economies in East Asia and it is America's seventh largest export market. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and military threats to Taiwan from the People's Republic of China have not abated. Indeed, from a technical military perspective that threat has actually increased, especially, it appears, in the last several months. Significant Chinese military exercises in the region have included live-fire exercises in March 1996 and the firing of two missiles that impacted near Taiwan. Now there is an increased deployment of such offensive ballistic missiles in Fujian province, just across the strait from Taiwan. They clearly are there to threaten or act against Taiwan. Actually, according to recent newspaper reports, China has deployed more than 100 additional ballistic missiles in mainland provinces close to the Strait of Taiwan. This would more than triple the number of missiles previously positioned in that area. House Concurrent Resolution 56 makes note of the Congress' grave concerns about these threats, seeks from the leaders of the People's Republic of China a public renunciation of the use of force or threat to use force against Taiwan, and reaffirms the United States' commitment to the TRA and the specific guarantees for the provision of legitimate defense articles to Taiwan contained therein. On this, the Congress and the U.S. Government should be clear. The resolution reaffirms that the policy of the United States remains the rejection of any attempt to curb the provision of defense articles and services by the United States which are legitimately needed for Taiwan's self- defense. From diplomatic and legal perspectives, the relationship of the United States which it has maintained with Taiwan since 1979 is certainly unique. Yet in many ways our ties remain very normal and comprehensive. Indeed, they have been strengthened over the years, thanks to the solid foundation provided over the past 20 years by the Taiwan Relations Act and to the democratization of Taiwan by its leaders and its people. Thus, it is appropriate on the 20th anniversary for Congress to take the time to commemorate and reaffirm its commitment to the TRA and to Taiwan and its people. This Member wants to thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for his interest in working with this Member on this 20th year resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may claim the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 56, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, like this Member, the chairman, of course, was here in 1979 and voted for enactment of the TRA. This Member also certainly welcomes the opportunity to work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in crafting House Concurrent Resolution 56. All three of us independently, I think, had resolved to raise this issue by our own initiatives, and in this legislative product we are joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor, this Member rises in support of the resolution. If this Member can bring any special relevance to the debate it is probably through my focus on missile development and threats from and for Asia through my chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, and through the background gained as a member of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The latter puts limits on what I can say here today, but it surely reinforces my support for the resolution. However, I support this measure because the threats from a limited missile attack are here, now, very real, and potentially very disastrous for our citizens, who are right now undefended against this threat. Contrary to what over 70 percent of the American people believe, we and our forces abroad do not have defense capabilities against even a single ballistic missile. Let me say it again, this U.S. does not have defense capabilities against a single ballistic missile. Is an NMD technologically possible? Yes, it clearly will be technologically feasible. Just 3 days ago, in the skies over New Mexico, the U.S. Army successfully, in effect, hit a bullet with a bullet. This NMD proposal is not about a rehash of former President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense proposal, a nation-wide ballistic missile defense system proposal that some insisted on negatively labeling as ``Star Wars.'' This defense system would offer protection against an accidental or unauthorized ICBM launch or against a limited ICBM attack by a rogue nation. The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that the third stage of the North Korean Taepo Dong missile launched on August 31, 1998, travelled over 3,000 miles. Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a major source of U.S. oil, is within that range. The Washington Times reported that a newer missile under development, the Taepo Dong-2, will have a range greater than 6,000 miles and could be deployed soon after the turn of the century. Several hundred thousand of the nine million people living in Los Angeles, California SMA, for example, are within that range and would die. Mr. Speaker, we are all well aware of the bottom line in the Rumsfeld Commission Report and recent North Korean missile tests. The possibility of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea, using an ICBM to threaten U.S. interests is real. Parts of Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. allies in the Pacific are vulnerable, now. Today, we need to be concerned about what a North Korean ICBM, armed with just a conventional warhead, would do to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a major source of U.S. oil. The 48 contiguous states of the U.S. will also become vulnerable to this threat by 2002. By 2002, our concern will be about what a North Korean ICBM, armed with a weapon of mass destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon--would do to hundreds of thousands of people among, for example, the nine million people living in Los Angeles SMA. It is only a matter of time until that vulnerability exists unless we act and even if we act now and technological hurdles are handled, there will be years of unprotected vulnerability. For those of you who still question the threat, this Member would remind you that Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen has confirmed that North Korea had demonstrated that it has achieved long-range missile delivery system capability and that it appears that North Korea is not complying with the freeze imposed on its nuclear weapons development program. He also acknowledged that Russia's aging and sporadically maintained missile systems create the nightmarish possibility of an accidental launch. Former Commander in Chief of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral Joseph Prueher, has confirmed that North Korea is developing a capability that could potentially reach the western-most reaches of the U.S. with an ICBM. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, the President's special advisor on North Korea, states that North Korea is moving forward with its nuclear weapons program. Japan's Defense Agency believes North Korea has already deployed some of at least 30 medium-range ballistic missiles. It is only a matter of time. Some of you will argue that a National Missile Defense (NMD) system will do nothing to deter less traceable means of delivering a weapon of mass destruction, such as a suitcase or truck bomb. While that may be true, our law enforcement agencies serve admirably as our defense against and deterrent of close-in terrorist attacks. Contrary to what over 70% of Americans believe, we do NOT have defense capabilities against even a single ballistic missile. Let me say that, again. The U.S. does NOT have defense capabilities against even a single ballistic missile. There is no secret, silver bullet in our arsenal that will stop an ICBM, and there is no alternative to NMD to effectively deal with a limited ICBM threat. NMD, like its anthithesis--ICBMs, is less about launching than it is about basic deterrence. It removes from the negotiating table what might otherwise be a trump card that could lead to extortion, if not outright blackmail, by a rouge nation. NMD counters this eventuality. As a world leader, we owe this to our allies. To the rogues we owe nothing. Hoping, or expecting, that a ``disarmament solution'' or ``containment'' will eliminate or protect us against the emergingly diverse missile threat just isn't realistic; it holds out a very dangerous false hope. The world and technology are not standing still, and no amount of ``hoping'' on our part will make it so. There are no indigenous ballistic missile development programs. In fact, there is substantial cooperation among developing countries, themselves. Even if all the help from the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, and Asia were ended, developing countries would still move forward toward ballistic missile capability. The West, alone, is educating nearly 100,000 foreign graduate students, most of them in technical fields. In the process, we are educating cadres of essentially all the countries of the world; some of them surely do have the increased capacity to develop ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence collecting is getting more difficult and intelligence compromises continue to occur. We must recognize that we will not be successful in plugging every hole and we cannot ignore the reality that increasingly sophisticated threat will confront us in the 21st century. We are in an environment, potentially, of little or no warning. Meanwhile, the Administration has reluctantly begun to acknowledge the threat while simultaneously throwing down obstacles, such as the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and changing their 3 plus 3 policy to a 3 plus 5 policy. NMD deployment might occur in 2005, even in the face of claims that the threat will extend beyond Alaska and Hawaii to the 48 contiguous United States as early as 2002 (three years before the possibility of NMD deployment). To those that say that NMD is destabilizing, unannounced missile launches, especially those with aggressive trajectories, are even more destabilizing. Further launches will be further destabilizing, long before the Administration's current 2005 projected NMD deployment date. This Member is not advocating blindly stepping up the time line, would that be possible. In fact, there are significant hurdles to overcome, just from a technological perspective. Hitting a missile traveling at about 15,000 miles per hour, or somewhere between three to five miles per second, is certainly am impressive challenge. However, this Member certainly believes that the technical difficulties can be overcome. Many of the impossibilities of the past have yielded to imagination and innovation. The academic critics are not entertaining practical solutions to their willing despair, not because they are unable to but, because they do not want to and because it is not being demanded of them. To those that question the technological feasibility of this effort, this Member would remind them of the following from the late President John F. Kennedy: We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. . . . Iran, with more than 66 million people and the proud heritage of the Persian Empire that once ruled everything from Libya to India, today is using its oil wealth to build a new center of power in the Middle East. Teheran has been boasting for two years that it already has the most powerful missile force in the Middle East. Last July, the Rumsfeld Commission concluded that the extraordinary level of resources Iran is using to develop its own ballistic missiles poses a substantial and immediate danger to the U.S., its vital interests and its allies. The Rumsfeld Commission reported that Iran is making ``very rapid progress'' on the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile. That was July 15, 1998. One week later, on July 22, 1998, Iran conducted a flight test of the Shabab-3, continuing an ambitious missile development program that was initiated and pursued during Iran's war with Iraq during the years 1980 to 1988. Not waiting for more tests, President Mohammed Khatami ordered 15 Shabab-3s to be produced by the end of March 1999. The mobile launchers are ready and Iranian soldiers have been training for months to deploy the missile, which is expected to become operational this year. Iran's next missile, the Shabab-4, which is modeled on the Russian SS-4 intermediate-range ballistic missile, is projected to have a range of 1,300 miles, reaching southern and central Europe. U.S. and Israeli officials estimate that, with continuing help from entities in Russia and China, the Shabab-4 could be in service by 2001. Work also is under way on a long-range missile that with a nuclear warhead could be a serious threat to Western Europe and the United States. The Rumsfeld Commission noted that advance warning of such a missile may be zero. Iran has chemical weapons, is conducting research in biologicals, and is pursuing a very aggressive nuclear weapons program that is close to success. The Rumsfeld Commission reported that, because of significant gaps in our human intelligence efforts, the U.S. is unlikely to know whether Iran possesses nuclear weapons until after the fact. This is reminiscent of the surprise nuclear detonations that occurred in India and Pakistan. Iran is expected to be the next declared nuclear state. Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has warned that Russia is backsliding on commitments to the U.S. to curb the transfer of advanced missile technology to Iran. Especially over the past six months, Russia has continued to assist the Iranian missile effort in areas ranging from training to testing to components. Iran's ability to take advantage of its existing ballistic missile infrastructure to develop more sophisticated and longer-range missiles is being aided by the crucial roles being played by Russia, China, and North Korea. Would Iran resort to extortion? This Member need only remind you of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80. While Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji scoffed at some Western reports claiming a major economic crisis is brewing in China, he acknowledged that the East Asian recession had affected China more seriously than expected. Former Commander in Chief of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, Admiral Joseph Prueher acknowledges that China, with its shaky economy, growing unemployment and burgeoning military might, has problems. Prueher views China's latest crackdowns on dissidents as symptoms of weakness rather than strength. During the March 1996 Taiwan straits crisis, China fired short range missiles north and south of Taiwan. In late 1998, China's army conducted military exercises with simulated missile firings against Taiwan and also, for the first time, conducted mock attacks on U.S. troops in the region. With respect to the most recent overt threat to Taiwan, the Chinese protest is disingenuous on its face. The Chinese Government knows that we should no more apologize for the theoretical consideration of including Taiwan in plans for missile defense than we did for including South Korea in similar plans. Our having agreed in principle that Tawiwan might someday rejoin China does not mean that we would ever allow such a unification to be coerced. Taiwan claims that China has deployed more than 100 additional ballistic missiles in PRC provinces close to the Straits of Taiwan. This would more than triple the number of missiles previously positioned in that area. China must understand that the use of ``coercion,'' missile rattling, to bring Taiwan and PRC together will not work. Likewise, the U.S. is sensitive to concerns that a ``shield'' might embolden Taiwan to avoid serious negotiations with the PRC. At this time, there are no firm U.S. plans to provide Taiwan with a full- scale missile defense system of its own, but we must not be intimidated from actively considering a Taiwanese inquiry or request under the threatening circumstances developing across the Taiwan Straits. Mr. Speaker, the North Korean missile launch adds credence to allegations that China has not done everything in its power to discourage North Korean effort to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile capability. When we complain, China criticizes our concern. Nevertheless, China, more than any other country, can exert more influence over North Korea to dissuade it from further development of these weapons. China's own recent aggressiveness toward Taiwan and its apparent ineffectiveness in discouraging North Korean nuclear and missile development programs have not only raised our legitimate concerns but also sent alarms around the world. Our friends and allies recognize the reality of the threat from and for the Asia Pacific region. Controversially, President Clinton's comments that the Administration views China as a strategic partner in the Asia Pacific region is particularly unsettling. If Chinese moves are left unchecked, the possibilities of misperceptions regarding American intentions--even by China itself--will multiply. These kinds of misperceptions can cause wars, as when, many suggest, during a January 1950 speech to the National Press Club, Secretary of State Dean Acheson unwittingly encouraged the attack that began the Korean War by failing to specify that South Korea was inside the American zone of interest. Contrary to internal issues like human rights and gray areas like assisting Pakistan, Chinese bases in the Paracels and the Spratlys are clearly matters with international implications. The United States should lose no time in examining China's expansion of its installations on these islands and, if appropriate, questioning Chinese intentions. The Administration should keep in mind that the consequence of not confronting China expansionism today is very likely to lead to a far more dangerous world in the years to come. China's own recent aggressiveness and its apparent ineffective efforts to discourage North Korean nuclear and missile development programs have sent alarms around the world. This Member can personally attest that, everyday, in the Taiwanese media, there is discussion of the need for ballistic missile protection. These concerns are a ground swell from the Taiwanese citizens in the streets and from the media, not generated entirely, by any means, by the Taiwanese Government. Taiwanese demands for U.S. ballistic missile defense assistance are directly attributable to China's reluctance to influence North Korea. They also trace to recent allegations about Chinese espionage successes, to Chinese military construction activity in the South China Sea, and, as reported in the New York Times, China's actions to dramatically increase the number of short-range ballistic missiles along the country's coastline near Taiwan. With respect to increased interest in ballistic missile defense systems in Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea, which the Chinese threaten, China has no one to blame but itself. The greatest threat to peace and security in Asia is Kim Jong-Il's DPRK, North Korea. North Korea remains the country most likely to engage in bloody extortion or to involve the U.S. in a large-scale regional war over the near term. Kim Jong-il's regime's foremost concern is self preservation. He appears to have increased his reliance on the military and draconian security measures to maintain his position and control of the populace. If he is willing to do this to his own people, how can you doubt that he would not hesitate to resort to extreme measures, even against South Korean, Japanese, or U.S. citizens? Gen. John Tilelli, Commander in Chief of the United Nations Command and of the U.S. Forces in Korea, concurs with the CIA Director's recent remarks to the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``. . . concern for North Korea can hardly be overstated and that . . . in nearly all respects, the situation there has become more volatile and unpredictable.'' In his view, the Kim regime will sacrifice everything to keep itself in power. We remain in a situation wherein Kim Jong-il could decide at any moment his prospects are so bleak that his best chance for survival is to use his military rather than risk losing that capability, forever. The North Korean military--the fifth largest in the world--is the embodiment of North Korea's national identity. Without the military, the regime is simply not viable. Over the last four decades the leadership has specifically designed and tailored the size, organization, equipment, and combat capabilities of the military to support attainment of their reunification goal. With military expenditures at 25% of GDP, the North Korean People's Army includes an air force of over 860 combat jet aircraft, a navy of more than 800 ships, over 1 million active duty soldiers, over five million reserve troops, a huge artillery force, tremendous special operations capabilities, hundreds of theater ballistic missiles, (primarily Scuds), and weapons of mass destruction. How does the DPRK reconcile widespread famine with ``gross'' levels of spending to support the lavish lifestyle of the DPRK leadership and defense? Its citizens don't matter, except as pawns of the leadership and the military. The greatest threat is the possibility that the Kim regime will couple its ballistic missile program with an unchecked nuclear program. The possibility of a successful North Korea nuclear break-out strategy is too dangerous to risk. Unchecked, the Kim regime's missile program will ultimately threaten U.S. vital interests in other parts of the world as North Korea sells its only viable export to hostile nations. It is believed that Pakistan has already been a customer, purchasing missile know-how from North Korea for its medium-range Ghauri missile, which was test fired for the first time last year. The Ghauri has been described as closely resembling the North Korean Nodong missile. We will not pay tribute to the modern-day Barbary pirates in North Korea. The Clinton Administration has fallen into the dangerous pattern of accepting the extortion demands made during the negotiations with the North Koreans. Despite the gravity of the situation, this Member is forced to conclude that the Administration's response to the military threats of the North Koreans to extort money, humanitarian aid or other concessions is a shameful, un-American violation of this country's principles. Unfortunately, North Korea has learned that irresponsible behavior and confrontation results in U.S. humanitarian aid and other benefits. That rogue country is now the largest recipient of U.S. aid in Asia. Fueled by its own paranoia and fear, the DPRK claims that a ``passive'' NMD is a sign of U.S. movement toward a goal of ``global domination.'' This Member would say to the DPRK that, simply by virtue of being the only superpower, much of what the U.S. does ends up being perceived as dominating, even though the U.S. has no such intentions. If there are concerns about global intentions, this Member believes they should be focused on the DPRK. The DPRK Korean's People's Army gathered in late February to renew their loyalty to Kim Jong-il by declaring an oath that ``under the leadership of the supreme Commander Kim Jong-il they would . . . make the glorious Kim Jong-il era shine all over the world with arms.'' This followed an event earlier in the month where DPRK citizens were told they should defend Kim with their lives and ``prepare themselves to be heroes through human bomb attacks and soldiers ready for suicidal explosion.'' The Clinton Administration is perpetuating, if not aiding and abetting, a regime that is clearly hostile. We went down this path in the late 1930s, reaching that path's bitter end on December 7th, 1941. This Member expects that we would not be so naive, again. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion this Member supports H.R. 4 for several reasons. First, H.R. 4 signals the Department of Defense (DoD) and those involved in the ballistic missile defense program that they should pursue NMD, in earnest. It raises the relative importance of NMD among the many DoD projects, enabling higher prioritization of resources and increasing the focus on research, development, test and evaluation activity. Another factor influencing this Member's support for NMD is that there is no higher responsibility placed upon Congress by the U.S. Constitution than providing for the defense of the United States, its territory, and its citizens. The possibility of a small-scale missile attack upon the people and territory of the United States is real, and significant. The lack of any U.S. capability to defend against such an attack is equally real, and significant. With regard to a limited intercontinental ballistic missile attack, the U.S. is defenseless! Maintaining the defenseless status quo can only lead to one place, and is not acceptable. This legislation neither imposes deadlines, for either development or deployment, nor alters the position of the Administration. It does nothing to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty or to alter the foundation of the U.S. policy--dissuasion, denial, deterrence, and defense--regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it leaves open the possibility to develop a complementary NMD/ABM relationship, as well as the potential to explore cooperative missile defense and non-proliferation efforts with Russia. Yet, this bill provides a clear and necessary policy and announces America's resolve, to develop its missile defense capabilities, to America's friends and foes, alike.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following comments made by Deila Steiner, Director of Federal funding for the Lincoln Public Schools, which appeared in the Friday, March 12, 1999 edition of the Lincoln Journal Star: If I had to choose, we would want more special education funding to meet the current obligations. Funding special education at appropriate levels will keep our class sizes down. They go hand and hand. Just sending us more teachers who are unprepared and new isn't necessarily going to serve the children.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. We may come out on different sides of this, but I thought the gentleman ought to know that one of the reasons why we are in this debate from my perspective and I think from the perspective of many people is that we were told the same sort of thing: Wait until the Dayton accord is concluded. This is a very delicate negotiation; do not get involved. But by the time the signature ended up on the line at Dayton, troops were already on the way, Congress was precluded from action, and we were told, ``You must now support our men and women, the troops abroad.'' Mr. Chairman, that is the reason why we are at this stage in my judgment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I want to drop back, though, to some of the debate that took place on the rule. The minority leader came here and suggested it was inappropriate for us to be debating this resolution at this time. That was also voiced by the ranking minority member of the House International Relations Committee here today, and by others. As the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) said, unfortunately debating the issue before the situation fully developed is important for Congress to have a meaningful role. I want to remind my colleagues what happened in Somalia where without any consultation we saw the Administration move from protecting the people involved in the deliveries of food to a nation-building process. It was classic mission creep. I want to remind Members what happened in the formulation of the Dayton Accords when, in fact, we were told by the Administration ``do not do anything, it might upset these delicate negotiations ongoing in Dayton.'' Then what happened? Before Congress had any opportunity express its view or to have a role, before the Dayton Accords were actually signed, troops were on the way to Bosnia and we were locked in. Then what were we told? What we had been told before, we have to support our troops, our men and women in the field, and Congress was cut out of the process. Here we are in another similar situation, but what we have here is very different. What we have here is an invasion by the United States and NATO of a sovereign country. Kosovo is an autonomous region within Serbia. This Member has previously voiced, and still has enormous difficulties for many reasons, with the proposal for a peace keeping, I would have to call it a peace enforcement, plan in Kosovo. Chief among them is the Member's reservation that the President is ready to act outside the U.S. Constitution to engage uninvited U.S. combat forces in an internal conflict in a country which is not a threat to the United States. The U.S. Constitution clearly limits his authority to place U.S. Armed Forces in hostile situations, but can do so only in response to a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or its armed forces. The more extreme measure of launching unprovoked air strikes against Serbia, a sovereign country for which I have little respect in terms of their leadership, who have committed extraordinary atrocities in Kosovo, nevertheless the Administration proposal to deploy troops to Kosovo is tantamount to a declaration of war against Serbia. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifically grants war declaration authority exclusively to the Congress. The President's commitment to deploy our troops into a hostile and foreign territory of Kosovo cannot be considered a defensive measure that falls under his authority. What is going to happen? If we ever have a peace agreement on Kosovo, it will be coerced and it will have to be an enforced peace--for who knows how long. We have an Administration which has threatened, imagine this, if you do not sign, Mr. Milosevic, we are going to bomb you. I suppose we are going to bomb the KLA, too. How does one find the KLA to bomb? How does one enforce peace on that side? Let me ask some questions about the current peace proposal. We have one party somewhat bound to the U.S., the other bound by the threat of U.S. force. Many questions need to be addressed: By what means are we going to protect the Kosovars? Who will police the borders? How will we neutralize the danger of Kosovo expansion when it has no international status? What is the political objective? (Autonomy is not the destination sought by the Albanians.) How do we handle the relationship of the Albanians in Kosovo with those in the surrounding region? What are the rules of engagement? What is the concept of how it will end? Under what authority can NATO ``invade'' a country in this matter? Morover, the projected Kosovo agreement is unlikely to enjoy the support of the parties for a long period of time. For Serbia, acquiescing under the threat of NATO bombardment, it involves nearly unprecedented international intercession. Yugoslavia, a sovereign state, is being asked to cede control and in time sovereignty of a province containing its national shrines to foreign military force. Though President Slobodan Milosevic has much to answer for, especially in Bosnia, he is less the cause of the conflict in Kosovo than an expression of it. On the need to retain Kosovo, Serbian leaders--including Milosevic's domestic opponents--seem united. For Serbia, current NATO policy means either dismemberment of the country or postponement of the conflict to a future date when, according to the NATO proposal, the future of the province will be decided. The same attitude governs the Albanian side. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is fighting for independence, not autonomy. The KLA is certain to try to use the cease-fire to expel the last Serbian influences from the province and drag its feet on giving up its arms. And if NATO resists, it may come under attack itself--perhaps from both sides. What is described by the administration as a ``strong peace agreement'' is likely to be at best the overture to another, far more complicated set of conflicts. Ironically, the projected peace agreement increases the likelihood of the various possible escalations sketched by the President as justification for a U.S. deployment. An independent Albanian Kosovo surely would seek to incorporate the neighboring Albanian minorities-- mostly in Macedonia or FYROM--and perhaps Albania itself. And a Macedonian conflict would land us precisely back in the Balkan wars of earlier in this century. Will Kosovo then become the premise for a semi-permanent NATO move into Macedonia just as the deployment in Bosnia is invoked as justification for the move into Kosovo? Is NATO to be the home for a whole series of Balkan NATO protectorates? In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we change our objective to self- determination and permit each ethnic group to decide its own fate. In Kosovo, that option does not exist. There are no ethnic dividing lines, and both sides claim the entire territory. America's attitude toward the Serbs' attempts to insist on their claim has been made plain enough; it is the threat of bombing. But how do we and NATO react to the Albanian transgressions and irredentism? Are we prepared to fight both sides and for how long? In the face of issues such as these, the unity of the contact group of powers acting on behalf of NATO is likely to dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly emerge as the supporter of the Serbian point of view. The President's statements ``that we can make a difference'' and that ``America symbolizes hope and resolve'' are exhortations, not policy prescription. This is bumper sticker foreign policy. Is NATO to become the artillery to end ethnic conflict? If Kosovo, why not intervention in East Africa or Central Asia? And would a doctrine of universal humanitarian intervention reduce or increase suffering by intensifying ethnic and religious conflict? What are the limits of such a policy and by what criteria is it established? In Henry Kissinger's view, that line should be drawn at American ground forces for Kosovo. Europeans never tire of stressing the need for greater European autonomy. Here is an occasion to demonstrate it. If Kosovo presents a security problem, it is to Europe, largely because of the refugees the conflict might generate. Kosovo is no more a threat to America than Haiti was to Europe--and we never asked for NATO support here. The nearly 300 million Europeans should be able to generate the ground forces to deal with the problems for 2.3 million Kosovars. To symbolize Allied unity on larger issues, we should provide logistics, intelligence and air support. But I see no need for U.S. ground forces; leadership should not be interpreted to mean that we must do everything ourselves. Again, paraphrasing Henry Kissinger, he said in opposing ground troops in Kosovo that: Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North Korea. The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each time we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a ``peace implementation force.'' Such comments have two unfortunate consequences: They increase the impression among Americans that military force can be used casualty- free, and they send a signal of weakness to potential enemies. military readiness Where will the money be coming from to support Kosovo deployment? Will it be pulled from readiness accounts? As recently as Monday, March 8, in an HASC hearing that included Maj. Gen. Larry R. Ellis, the 1st Armored Division commander (Germany based division now with troops in Bosnia and FY ROM), five other flag officers, and a group of mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers, readiness was described as ``a rubber band that is stretched very, very tight.'' While military strength has drawn down, deployments have picked up steadily and there aren't enough people to do the job. Across the board, readiness is wearing dangerously thin. A former militaryman described the plight of the mid-career professional soldier this way: ``They are sent to far-off places with inadequate support, pointless missions and foolish rules of engagement so the cocktail party set back in D.C. can have their consciences feel good.'' ``We keep drawing down long-term readiness to meet near-term missions,'' said Gen. Charles C. Krulak, the Marine Corps commandant. ``That is severely straining our long-term readiness and modernization efforts.'' A 4,000 troop commitment translates into 12,000 troops involved in Kosovo support (4,000 training to go in, 4,000 on the ground, and 4,000 being retrained upon coming out). This is demoralizing, it degrades retention, and leads to questions about management. Secretary Cohen said yesterday that NATO forces would enter Kosovo to maintain an ongoing peace--that may be true, but it is certainly debatable. Indeed, this Member would argue that we are talking about peace-enforcement, not peacekeeping. And I would remind my colleagues that our last experience with peace enforcement (Somalia) was not a pleasant one. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is an armed separatist group that would appear bent on independence; major element in the Serb population are adamantly opposed to the KLA's objective. This is a situation were any existing ``peace'' is highly suspect. There is no way to place a time limit on a Kosovo deployment. Remember the Bosnia experience. Upon the rapid deployment (without congressional consent) following the Dayton Accord, Secretary Christopher assured the nation that it would be for one year only--to give the Bosnians a chance for peace. Four years later, everyone acknowledges there is no end in sight to the Bosnia deployment. The cultural difficulties that gave rise to the violence are far too great. The cultural difficulties in Kosovo are at least as serious as those in Bosnia. Milosevic has successfully preyed upon the ancient fears and hatreds of the Serb population. The Albanian diaspora has fed the most violent tendencies of the Kosovar Albanian population. And the Albanians in Kosovo are insisting that a NATO presence remain for at least three years! In short, we lack an exit strategy. This is the same point that House Members argued four years ago regarding Bosnia. At that time, the Administration discounted our warning that, once deployed, U.S. troops would be in Bosnia for the long haul. Well, we were right and the Administration was wrong. I absolutely do not condone anything that the Serbians have done. In many ways, they are their own worst enemy. Belgrade has been condescending and abusive of the rights of ethnic Albanians, and their brutality gave rise to the KLA. My concern is, do the very real abuses of the Serbian forces warrant the long term deployment of an undetermined number of U.S. ground troops?