Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of articles 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Speaker, this Member approaches these proceedings of the House with sadness for what has befallen our country and solemnly, but with a firm conviction that we must discharge our responsibilities under Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution by considering articles of impeachment against the President of the United States of America. This Member intends and will act in a manner required by and consistent with his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Many people and leaders from other countries have spoken on the matter before us today in a manner which reveals that they probably do not understand the absolutely central role the Constitution and the constitutional processes play in the governance of our country and their role in maintaining the very fabric of the American society. Indeed, even some of our citizens may not have focused on that central role. Drawn from every corner of the globe, with a total diversity of creeds, ethnicity, race, and heritage, America is the antithesis of a nation state. More than any other country on earth, we Americans are bound together and can function as a nation only because of our shared ideals and ideas of governance as embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. That is why upholding and defending the Constitution, even with the controversies, inconveniences, and possible effects on the nation's economic affairs, our foreign responsibilities, and our domestic affairs and tranquility, must come before all other considerations. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the partisan fervor that has marked the proceedings of the impeachment inquiry and this debate. As an elected Representative from what is by practice and nature undoubtedly the most nonpartisan state in our nation and having served previously in my state's unique state legislature, which surely functioned in an almost totally nonpartisan fashion, this Member once again finds it particularly difficult to fathom or justify the highly partisan course that this process of impeachment of the President has taken. It does not serve this nation well nor reflect well on this institution. None of my Republican colleagues should be reaching a decision to impeach the President for partisan reason. Indeed, there are very substantial reasons why progressing with these impeachment proceedings is not in the best interest of our party. None of us should misunderstand that point and neither should the American people believe that we do not understand those immediate and long-term political consequences. Nevertheless, we must pursue these impeachment proceedings and make our individual decisions as Representatives in order to discharge our constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, we ought to feel a particular sympathy for our Democrat colleagues, for their natural instinct almost certainly is to defend a President of their own party. They must, and undoubtedly do, struggle to overcome those instincts in order to conscientiously perform their constitutional responsibilities as demanded by our oath of office. However, if the impeachment inquiry has been, and this debate is, extremely partisan, if the partisan lines are very sharply drawn, it is not one side which is to blame. Surely many of our Democrat colleagues by their actions and the votes which they will cast bear at least half of the burden for this unseemly and inappropriate partisan divide. To maintain the trust of the American citizenry and to responsibly discharge our constitutional duties we need to rise above such partisan considerations. Indeed, that is especially true in a matter of this great import and precedent. Mr. Speaker, in concluding these introductory remarks before directly addressing the articles of impeachment before us, this Member wants his constituents to know that he received absolutely no pressure from party leaders in the House or elsewhere in deciding how to vote on the articles of impeachment before us. Nor did this Member receive inappropriate pressure from any quarter. Rather this Member has been able to conscientiously address the decisions before us on impeachment. Furthermore, this Member has attempted to avail himself of the views of numerous distinguished Americans and especially of the arguments, views, and sentiments of the constituents he represents in Nebraska. Obviously this has become a very decisive issue in America, made even more so, no doubt, by the strong, conflicting views about the President's performance and conduct and by the timing of intervening events related both to the impending end to the 105th Congress and to the armed conflict with Iraq which began less than two days ago. Nevertheless, it is important to say, this Member believes, that polls and the size, changes, and mixture in the tides of public sentiment should have no effect upon whether this Member and the House faithfully discharge their constitutional responsibilities related to impeachment or any other matter. Mr. Speaker, as for the specific matter before us in these proceedings, much emphasis in the public discussion of the President's actions has emphasized that impeachment is inappropriate, for it is argued that this is really only about sex and that as such it either is strictly a private matter or does not rise to the level of misconduct which would justify impeachment. Mr. Speaker, the matter before us is emphatically not just about sex and no person should be confused about that point. Certainly, the President has appropriately been condemned by perhaps all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and by most Americans for his sexual conduct in the White House and his intentional deception of the American public. Most would agree that it was reprehensibly exploitative, reckless, and morally and ethically inappropriate; that it discredited the President and the presidency; that it soiled the reputation of the White House which Most American's revere as a symbol of our nation; and that it damaged abroad the reputation of our country. As totally unacceptable as that conduct is, most Members of Congress and most of the American people understand that sexual misconduct does not justify impeachment. Mr. Speaker, of course, what is at issue here today is whether the President's actions or conduct constitute ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' which would justify impeachment. The material in the referral from the Independent Counsel and the investigative proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee made it abundantly clear to most reasonable persons that the President lied under oath to a Federal grand jury. In the words of Impeachment Article I before us, he ``willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury'' on several important matters. The President's perjurious statements thus means that his sexual discretions are no mere private manner. Similarly, it should be clear to most reasonable persons that the President in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights actions brought against him, as stated in Impeachment Article II, ``willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with a subordinant employee.'' Accordingly, his testimony can be seen as a possibly important factor in denying that citizen, Paula Jones, her legal rights as a citizen. More importantly, however, for the purposes of both of these articles of impeachment, one must consider that the President is in effect the chief law enforcement official in our nation, charged by his oath of office to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. By his perjurious statements the President, as charged by Impeachment Article I, ``impeded the administration of justice'' and ``acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.'' The same language and relevance is found in Impeachment Article II. No one in this country is more important than the law or above the law, not even, indeed certainly not, the President of the United States. If the President can lie under oath it does, by example, great damage to the very basic element in the foundation of the American justice system. In light of these conclusions of the House Judiciary Committee, my own reasoning and understanding of the facts, and as the elected Representative of my constituents, I believe the President's perjurious statements do meet the standards of misconduct--do meet the test of being a ``high crime and misdemeanor''--which require a vote to impeach the President under each of these two articles. Mr. Speaker, a review of the facts and testimony related to the matter of the President's conduct and actions now before us, in part as provided in the findings for Impeachment Article III, have convinced this Member that in order to conceal the perjurious nature of his sworn statement in a Federal civil rights case, the President, in the words of Impeachment Article III, ``in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.'' By these actions, this Member concludes, that the President, in the words of Article III, ``acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,'' despite his oath of office to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons this Member feels compelled, in voting to discharge our constitutional responsibilities in these impeachment proceedings, to vote in favor of Impeachment Article I, Impeachment Article II, and Impeachment Article III, while concluding that the case for impeachment under Article IV regarding the President's responses to certain written requests from the House Judiciary Committee is not sufficiently convincing to warrant a vote for Article IV.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message and the accompanying bill be referred to the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member deeply regrets that the President of the United States has jeopardized America's foreign policy leadership by vetoing this legislation, H.R. 1757. The President has vetoed this legislation which would permit the United States to pay $926 million overall and $475 million this year in arrearages to the United Nations, simply because he apparently believes that U.S. tax dollars should be used by foreign nongovernmental organizations to lobby for abortion. On the basis of past experience, one could conclude that the compromised Mexico City policy in this legislation would likely affect only one foreign, nongovernmental organization, the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London. According to the Congressional Research Service, that organization spends only $400,000, or less than 1 percent of its own budget, on abortion-related services. Mr. Speaker, the President, uncompromisingly, is willing to put this extreme position, defending a tiny expenditure by a foreign nongovernmental organization, ahead of America's long-term interest in paying down our country's United Nations arrearages through the authorization bill he just vetoed.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly supports H.R. 4856, which includes authorization of the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment or normal trade relations to the products of Mongolia. This Member introduced the original legislation authorizing this designation, H.R. 36, on January 7, 1997, the first day of this Congress. In 1952, the United States denied Mongolia and twenty other communist countries or territories under communist rule normal trade relations. Normal Trade Relations with Mongolia were restored in November 1991, when the President waived the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik trade legislation. In 1996, the President of the United States made the first determination that Mongolia was in full-compliance with the human rights objectives of the Jackson-Vanik trade legislation and the President has renewed that determination each year since, and most recently on July 1, 1998. Since 1990, there have been five free and fair elections in Mongolia which have coincided with significant reforms of the government and the economy. Approximately one year ago, the Economist magazine heralded Mongolia's dramatic economic reforms of the last several years by calling Mongolians ``those free-trading Mongolians.'' Unfortunately however, these dramatic economic and political reforms in Mongolia have recently begun to suffer from factional fighting in that country and the emergence of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP). Most recently, the MPRP has begun to attack the ambitious privatization and private sector development plans of the Democratic coalition in Mongolia and a high level Ministry official was recently assassinated. The World Bank estimates that Mongolia must have a 5% growth rate to create new jobs for its entrants into the work force. Yet with the Asian Financial Crisis to its east and Russia's collapse on its west, Mongolia will find it very difficult to meet its economic goals and stay on its reform path. The United States can play a fundamental, helpful role by granting Mongolia normal trade relations and therefore reasonable access to our markets. The United States currently provides a modest amount of aid to Mongolia that will be necessary in the short term. However, by granting Mongolia reasonable access to our markets and promoting trade with our two countries, this legislation is building the foundation so we can hopefully graduate Mongolia from U.S. assistance in the future. In light of the very difficult political and economic challenges for the people of Mongolia, passage of this legislation comes at a critical time. This legislation sends a very important signal to the people of Mongolia that they will be rewarded for maintaining their brave steps toward economic and trade liberalization. This Member only regrets that this legislation was not approved earlier to bolster the standing of those in Mongolia who have already bravely fought for economic and political reform here.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It is well-supported in both houses of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act (H.R. 4383 was originally sponsored by this Member with the support and assistance of the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and many other Members from both sides of the aisle, including Chairman Ben Gilman. This legislation is non-controversial legislation with strong bipartisan support in the House and Senate, tremendous grass-roots support throughout the nation, and support from the Administration including the United States Department of Agriculture. It previously passed the House on voice vote on September 28, 1998. The Senate passed it this morning with very modest changes, which have bipartisan support in the House. The changes include deletion of some findings clauses and a sunset provision for the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The sunset provision, added at the request of the Senate Budget Committee, insures that the operation and funding of this food aid trust will be revisited in the next farm bill. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this legislation, this Member would like to make clear that Section 212 of this legislation is a mechanism to enable USDA to fill the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust with funds or commodities that represent repayments to the Commodity Credit Corporation. The intent of this section is to enable USDA to use the $20 million annual limit in funds or commodities to fill the trust and use it in times of emergencies. Therefore, 212(a) is an annual limitation only on inflows to the trust (capped at $20 million annually) while outflows from the trust have no annual limitation and can equal the cumulative amount of the trust in any one year. The Africa Seeds of Hope Act (H.R. 4283) was introduced by this Member on July 21, 1998, with the support of the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the Ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee (Mr. Hamilton). It is the successor bill to H.R. 3636, which was introduced on April 1, 1998. Because of some confusion regarding the two bills, this Member regrets that a few Members of Congress who wanted to be listed as a co-sponsor of H.R. 4283 were not added prior to the House passage of this legislation. Therefore, this Member would like to recognize that the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) strongly supported this legislation and would have liked to have been added as a co-sponsor. This legislation was overwhelmingly passed by the House Committee on International Relations on July 22, 1998, and it was discharged by the House Committee on Agriculture on September 11, 1998. The Africa Seeds of Hope Act helps U.S. agriculture while promoting sustainable development in Sub-Saharan Africa so Africans can be less dependent on U.S. humanitarian assistance in the future. That is why H.R. 4283 has the support of both agricultural and humanitarian organizations and the United States Department of Agriculture. This win-win combination of grass roots supporters has been the foundation of America's long-term, good-will building, humanitarian food aid efforts since World War II. Mr. Speaker, the predominant organization responsible for stimulating the creation and support for this legislation is the organization Bread for the World, a nondenominational Christian organization led by Rev. David Beckmann. The Africa Seeds of Hope Act has been endorsed by over 220 agricultural and humanitarian organizations including: the Association for International Agriculture and Rural Development (AIARD), the Coalition for Food Aid, numerous land grant colleges, InterAction and major U.S. private voluntary agencies such as CARE, World Vision, ACDI/ VOCA, Catholic Relief Services, Technoserve, Africare, OXFAM, Islamic African Relief Agency USA, and the Mormon World Hunger Committee. In addition, this legislation has the support of most Christian denominations, Catholic religious communities, and mission groups. And, editorial pages from over twenty major newspapers across the country have endorsed H.R. 4283. Mr. Speaker, a recent article in the Washington Post entitled ``Africa's Agricultural Rebirth'' quoted a Vice-Minister of Agriculture from Ethiopia as saying ``You cannot detach economic development from food self-sufficiency.'' That profound truth is the essence of the Africa Seeds of Hope Act. There may be some people who believe or give the impression they believe that an admittedly very important trade liberalization effort alone can remedy all of Africa's woes. And, equally wrongheaded are some in the non-governmental organization community who initially expressed their opposition to trade liberalization, saying it would only hurt Africa's poor. The Africa Seeds of Hope Act bridges these disparate and unnecessarily conflicting ideological points of view with a reconciling view. That view is that liberalized trade plus targeted foreign assistance to Africa's small farmers, together, can best help Sub-Saharan Africa prosper. Several months ago, with this Member's support, the House of Representatives passed the African Trade Growth and Opportunities Act. In doing so, the House took the very important step toward greater trade with a continent in desperate need of private-sector led economic growth. By focusing on sustainable agriculture, research, rural finance, and food security, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act is directly aimed at helping the 76 percent of the Sub-Sharan African people who are small farmers thus providing another important step towards increased African trade. Improving the efficiency of these farmers is crucial to ensuring that our overall trade strategy is successful. As a longtime supporter of aid to Africa through the creation of the Development Fund for Africa and other mechanisms, this Member will tell his colleagues that this Member believes H.R. 4283--in conjunction with any new Africa trade initiatives--will help coordinate and focus America's resources on both trade and aid in Africa. If trade is to prosper in Sub-Saharan Africa, we need to better direct our scarce aid resources so that they stimulate private sector investment or help ease the suffering in those places either overlooked by the private sector or suffering from natural disasters. Our legislation attempts to refine our assistance programs for Sub-Saharan Africa and ensure that agriculture and rural development are not neglected. For example, this legislation requires the Agency for International Development (AID) to reverse its negative funding trend for international agricultural research and development. This will address the legitimate concern of U.S. land grant institutions that the Agency for International Development was increasingly ignoring sustainable agriculture in its development mandate. Also, the microenterprise program is recognized by this legislation and emphasized as an excellent tool to help remedy rural finance and investment shortcoming in Sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, H.R. 4283 attempts to better coordinate our international agricultural research programs with our domestic agricultural research so that farmers in Africa, as well as farmers in the United States, can benefit from AID funded agricultural research. The Africa Seeds of Hope Act refocuses our food assistance programs on long-term development assistance instead of being evaluated on the basis of short-term or immediate results that are often antithetical to their original purpose. This will enable non-governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations to design and implement food assistance programs that are cost-effective and ultimately succeed in graduating people and countries from those programs. Finally, H.R. 4283 also establishes a Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust in honor of the late, distinguished and much admired Congressman from Missouri who was a leader on America's food aid efforts. This important mechanism allows the United States Department of Agriculture to purchase surplus agricultural commodities when prices are low, isolate them from the market, and distribute them at times of international disasters and famines. This cost-effective mechanism is especially beneficial to U.S. farmers because it takes U.S. commodities off of the market when commodity prices are at their lowest, such as now. The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is a worthy tribute to our late colleague, and this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentlewomen from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for allowing us to further honor her late husband in this manner. Finally, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Maxine Waters), the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Cynthia McKinney) and the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Eva Clayton) for their special effort with the Congressional Black Caucus on behalf of the Africa Seeds of Hope Act. And this Member would like to thank the distinguished woman from Connecticut (Nancy Johnson) and the distinguished women from the District of Columbia (Eleanor Holmes Norton) for their work with the Congressional Woman's Caucus on behalf of this legislation. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act is legislation that benefits farmers in Africa as well as the United States.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, not too many months ago this Congress created a commission to examine the threat of distribution of weapons of mass destruction, and specifically, the development of ballistic missile technology to rogue countries and to lesser developed countries. That commission, a bipartisan commission of some of the most distinguished Americans in the area of defense, security and intelligence, has unanimously made its recommendations to the Congress. I know that Members will be busy the next several weeks, but I urge them to look at the executive summary or the full report which has been presented to their offices. I think this report is chillingly important. It suggests to us that our assumptions in the administration were very faulty when it comes to the amount of time, the difficulty that countries will have in securing ballistic missile systems and weapons of mass destruction. We have, they tell us, far underestimated the opportunity to buy or to acquire technology for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to look at this report. It is one of the most important items of information being brought to our attention on national security for many years. It is up to my colleagues to examine this and to try to have an impact on the future Congress, the 106th Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the committee, for any comments that he might wish to make.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for their support for this legislation. I announce my support for it. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my resolution of objection.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to thank our distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, for their great work, as well as that of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Mr. Speaker, there are four specific provisions among many others that I want to commend to my colleagues. First of all, this act has a provision which applies a common median one-family housing price to the entire metropolitan statistical area (MSA) together with the counties contiguous or proximate to such SMA which is equal to the median price in the county within the area that has the highest such median price. This will cause a very positive change in the non-metropolitan areas' housing programs in those counties adjacent to those metropolitan areas as well as all areas within the MSA. Number two, I am pleased about the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act provisions which establish a consensus committee of consumers, industry experts, and government officials to advise the Department of Housing and Urban Development on safety standards and regulations in the enforcement of manufactured homes. Three, there is a provision which also creates the Indian Lands Title Report Commission to improve the procedures of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the way they conduct title reviews in connection with the sale of Indian lands, expecially as it relates to home mortgages. This Member has a special interest in making sure this works because of the Section 504 Native American Loan Guarantee Program, and I think those changes will help solve a current bureaucratic problem that is delaying the implementation of the Section 504 program in the home areas of our country. Fourth and finally, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) for his role in working with me in establishing some grant approval of selection standards with respect to the Rehabilitation Demonstration Grant program, which is his initiative. I think that the criteria we developed together will ensure a more equitable use of these funds across the whole country with these appropriate standards, and I thank him for his effort to work with me on this language. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent bill. It needs to become law, with its many important provisions. I urge support.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the editorial of the October 12, 1998, edition of The Washington Post very appropriately lauds the continued progress Latvia is making in perfecting its democratic form of government, especially as it relates to the complex and controversial subject of extending citizenship and civil rights to the very large proportion of non-citizens which reside in that country. Of the estimated 600,000 non-citizens in a population of 2.5 million, most of the non-citizens are Russian nationals who are part of or ancestors of the Russian populations encouraged to resettle in Latvia by the Soviets after their brutal subjugation of the Baltic states to implement the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. Many of the Latvians including their president, Karlis Ulmanis, were forcibly removed to Siberia to fall unspeakable hardship and death. Despite the understandable frustration and anger among Latvians of their loss of independence under the domination of the Soviet Union, the Latvian votes commendably rejected a referendum that would have derailed legislation to liberalize the requirements for obtaining citizenship for its non-citizen residents. In a country like Latvia, where ethnic Latvians now make up slightly less than half of the people living there, Latvian voters have sensibly recognized the reality of the changes it must make to maintain domestic tranquility and integrate its citizens into a unified force to build its future and reduce one crucial element of controversy with its neighbor, the Russian Federation. Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to read the following editorial and to act to individually commend the Latvian government and voters for their good judgment, even in the face of the suffering and repeated provocations they have felt from the Soviet Union. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 1998] Latvia's Progress One of the great dramas of this decade has been the struggle of three small Baltic countries to reestablish their national identities after a half-century of Soviet occupation. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are succeeding more quickly and with less fuss than anyone had reason to hope. Only on rare occasions of tension, such as when Russia suddenly began putting the squeeze on Latvia last spring, does one or another Baltic nation make a brief appearance in the news. A recent referendum held in Latvia typically went mostly unnoticed here. The Soviet government shipped so many Latvians to Siberia and settled so many Russian-speakers in Latvia that when it regained independence in 1991 barely half its residents were ethnic Latvians. For any tiny nation trying to preserve a language and culture in the shadow of a large power, this would have posed a challenge; for a nation that felt it barely had escaped extermination, the challenge was particularly sharp. At the same time, many Latvians realized they could not hope to join modern Europe unless they welcomed and integrated all of their residents into their society. Many realized that a large pool of disaffected ethnic Russians would offer a perpetual pretext to make trouble for politicians in Moscow. The Oct. 3 referendum concerned the rights of these 600,000 noncitizens (in a population of 2.5 million). In June, parliament approved a liberalizing law allowing any number to apply for citizenship instead of setting an annual quota. The law also qualified for citizenship children born since 1991 to noncitizens. Latvian nationalists opposed to the law, or resentful of Russian and Western pressure on the matter, gathered enough signatures for a referendum. But Latvians, by 55 percent to 43 percent, endorsed the changes. Latvians still must demonstrate a sustained commitment to integration through language classes and other means. Russian speakers still must demonstrate their commitment to their new country. But the referendum result is an important symbol of Latvia's desire to join the West as a liberal democracy. Now Western institutions that strongly encouraged this result, and in particular the European Union, should respond by accelerating Latvia's inclusion in Europe.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.Res. 533 and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This resolution, of course, addresses the precarious human rights situation in Cambodia and the brutish behavior of the illegal junta in Cambodia and its strongman, Hun Sen. I use that term ``illegal junta'' advisedly. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is to be particularly commended for this legislation and also for his continued focus on Cambodian affairs. Without question, the people of Cambodia have suffered enormously in the past few decades, almost beyond human understanding. They have suffered through colonial rule, Civil War, the genocidal horror of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and then the Vietnamese invasion. Prolonged negotiations among the various political factions finally led to the Paris Peace Accords of 1991. A $3 billion international peacekeeping effort resulted in elections in 1993 where 90 percent of the population voted. Though the 1993 elections soundly rejected strongman Hun Sen and his formerly communist Cambodian People's Party CPP, Hun Sen simply refused to turn over the reins of power to the victorious FUNCINPEC party. A tortuous and largely unsuccessful power-sharing arrangement with FUNCINPEC's leader Prince Ranariddh lasted until July 1997 when a bloody coup d'etat ousted First Prime Minister Ranariddh and his supporters. Hun Sen's 1997 coup dealt a body blow to the fragile democratic institutions which slowly had been taking root in the long-suffering country. In the weeks and months that followed nearly all political activity except that of Hun Sen's CPP came to a halt. Most prominent opposition politicians, including Prince Ranariddh, fled for their lives into exile. Of those who chose to remain or were too slow in fleeing, many were murdered. On July 26 of this year, the long-awaited election was held but this has done little to effectively resolve the long-standing differences or to restore credibility to the governance of the Cambodian people. The party of Hun Sen seems almost certain to continue to hold the reins of power and opposition parties will continue to be marginalized. Madam Speaker, this is a situation where there are no simple answers and no clear blacks and whites. However, one constant thread has continued throughout this sordid mess, that is, the appalling behavior of Hun Sen. His forces have been responsible for the summary arrest, torture and murder of hundreds of opposition leaders. He has done everything in his power, including the 1997 coup, which is exactly what it was, despite the fact that the State Department never called it that because they knew it would result in kind of sanctions being imposed under law, to prevent the will of the people from being reflected in their properly elected leaders. These concerns, and others, are reflected in H.Res. 533, which highlights the human rights violations which have been perpetrated by the Hun Sen regime. This Member would say that the author of the resolution the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has worked very constructively with others interested in the fate of Cambodia to ensure that his resolution has the broadest support possible. The gentleman has crafted a resolution that merits broad support. The gentleman has mentioned before what has happened with respect to the State Department and our embassy in Cambodia, and I am concerned about what he said. Unfortunately, I have some verification of it, too. In fact, my office was contacted suggesting that the embassy would no longer be able to protect Americans or the personnel at our embassy in Cambodia if this resolution was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. We cannot be intimidated in this body. We cannot start down that slippery slope. The Members will not permit that kind of thing to happen. I would say that kind of threat by Hun Sen or people who represent him only confirm what he is, a bloody murderer. We will not be silenced. And so I want my colleagues to know, this is a resolution which is appropriate to express our concerns about the terrible things that have happened and that continue to happen under Hun Sen. Madam Speaker, I urge support of H.Res. 533.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for the conference report for H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. In particular, this Member is supportive of the provision which permanently extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farmers which would be retroactively applied to October 1, 1998. First, this Member would thank the distinguished gentleman [Mr. Gekas], Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law from Pennsylvania, for introducing this bill and for his efforts in bringing the conference report for H.R. 3150 to the House Floor. This Member would also like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts on this measure. Unfortunately, Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions for family farmers expired on September 30, 1998. Chapter 12 bankruptcy has been a viable option for family farmers nationwide. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, this will have a drastic impact on an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have to end their operations, but also land values will likely plunge downward. Such a decrease in land values will affect both the ability of family farmers to earn a living and the manner in which banks, making agricultural loans, conduct their lending activities. This Member has received many contacts from his constituents regarding the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--although the U.S. economy is generally healthy, it is clear that agricultural sector is hurting. The gravity of this situation for family farmers nationwide makes it imperative that Chapter 12 bankruptcy is permanently extended. Moreover, this extension must also be retroactively applied since the Chapter 12 bankruptcy option for family farms has already expired on September 30, 1998. The provisions in the conference report of H.R. 3150 regarding Chapter 12 are essential. If the President vetoes this conference report, as he has threatened to do, then this Member would ask the Judiciary Committee to advance legislation, through amendment or in stand-alone legislation, to provide for the immediate extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy and to make such an extension retroactive to October 1, 1998. In closing, this Member would encourage his support for H.R. 3150, the Conference Report on the Bankruptcy Reform Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution, the resolution supporting the Baltic people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in condemning the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression of August 23, 1939. This resolution was, of course, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) on August 5 of this year, referred to the Committee on International Relations. The people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have a new active leader and friend in the U.S. Congress in the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Ohio, and I commend the gentleman from Illinois, for example, in his efforts to craft a strong bipartisan statement of support for these nations. I am pleased to join as a cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, in 1991, after more than 50 years of Soviet occupation, the nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, acting peacefully, but with great courage, regained their freedom. In doing so they at last put an end to the illegal and forcible subjugation they had suffered as a result of the infamous Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression of 1939. It is highly appropriate that this body remember that shameful occasion of the 59th anniversary of the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact by reaffirming our principle bipartisan rejection of that evil agreement and by calling on others to join in condemning it and all it represents. During the bitter years of occupation, as the gentleman from New York mentioned, the United States' administrations and congressional leaders of both parties consistently rejected the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union and maintained diplomatic relations with their legitimate representatives. When at long last their freedom was restored, the United States joyfully welcomed those three countries back into the community of independent nations and sought to assist them in overcoming the legacy of Soviet domination. Playing a key role in this effort were the many citizens who traced their origins back to the Baltic countries. While enriching our Nation with their cultural heritage, they never lost hope that their mother countries would regain the freedom that is their birthright. Finally, I join in expressing strong support for the landmark U.S.- Baltic Charter signed in January of this year. The charter both defines and describes our bonds of kinship and friendship with all three nations. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that through their efforts, both individually and together, these three nations will continue to make progress in overcoming the lost years of occupation and returning to their rightful place among the free peoples of the world. Lastly, I would like to note the very direct link between Latvia and Lincoln, Nebraska. Karlis Ulmanis, Father of Latvian independence and the long-serving Latvian President between World War I and World War II, was a graduate of the University of Nebraska School of Dairy Science. He returned to his homeland after World War I, led his country to independence, and was eventually brutally seized in prison by the occupying Soviets and disappeared in Siberian captivity. Next year his grandnephew, Guntis Ulmanis, the current and very popular President of Latvia, will receive an honorary degree from the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we complete the circle. The Latvian-American community in Lincoln are proud of the role of their adopted son, the first President of Latvia and his grandnephew, the current President of Latvia, who will be welcomed to Lincoln soon. The Lithuania-American and Estonian-American citizens of our State are also, of course, very supportive of this resolution supporting the Baltic people and recognizing their long-term suffering under the Soviets. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H. Con. Res. 320.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 334 relating to the appropriate participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization. I commend my colleague and classmate, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his initiative on crafting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, there is strong support for the people of Taiwan being able to take advantage of the information and services offered by the World Health Organization, the WHO. Given that fact, and given the fact that international travel makes the transmission of communicable diseases much more prevalent, it is illogical to deny WHO services to Taiwan's population of 21 or 22 million. Moreover, there is much that Taiwan could offer in terms of medical and pharmaceutical expertise. This Member very strongly, therefore, is supportive of Taiwan having a meaningful role in the WHO. The difficulty has been the fact that the WHO only allows membership for states, and Taiwan does not fit within the definition of a state. Mr. Speaker, this is a technical issue, but it is nonetheless an important issue. It relates directly to the fact that Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, the mainland, both claim the same territory. By and large, the international community supports the PRC's claim. As a result, Taiwan is denied full membership in organizations where statehood is a prerequisite. There are some in Taiwan, and perhaps some in this country, who would push for membership in international organizations as an indirect method of altering Taiwan's sovereign status. While such motives are understandable, it is not the purpose of H. Con. Res. 334, and this body does not, therefore, become enmeshed in such a debate. It would otherwise, I think, unfortunately have been enmeshed in such a debate in the previous resolution. This resolution deals with legitimate humanitarian issues, while consciously avoiding the political dispute. Mr. Speaker, the point of the resolution before us today is the important contribution to global health that would result from meaningful Taiwanese participation. The Taiwan Relations Act, which everyone in this body seems to support, certainly I do, expresses the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. There is an expectation, and indeed I would say a requirement, that Beijing and Taipei talk to one another about substantive issues. Mr. Speaker, such discussions are indeed about to take place again. Next week, on October 14, the mainland and the Taiwanese negotiators will meet to resume high-level discussions that have been in a 3-year hiatus. In recent weeks, the head of the association for relations across the Taiwan Strait, the PRC's chief negotiator, has indicated that Beijing may be willing to make significant concessions. Incredibly, there even has been talk about concepts of shared sovereignty. This Member would hope this negotiation does, in fact, happen, goes forward positively, and there will be a clear substantive negotiation. If these negotiations are ultimately successful, or at least moved towards a successful conclusion, then both sides achieve a better situation. And then it may well be that one day resolutions such as this one before this body may not be necessary. But it is necessary at this point. I, of course, look forward to the day when we have a peaceful resolution of those difficulties. Mr. Speaker, this Member would congratulate the author of this resolution again, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules. The gentleman's support for Taiwan has been legendary and it has never wavered. This Member is genuinely pleased that we were able to reach an accommodation on a measure so close to the gentleman's heart through the resolution which he crafted and introduced. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 334, recently introduced, I urge its speedy adoption.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today as a co-sponsor and strong supporter or H.R. 4567. When Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act last year, we made some very important changes to Medicare that will insure its availability for seniors well into the next century. However, Congress went a little too far in the area of home health. In an attempt to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse that did exist in the home health care industry, the Medicare interim payment system, which was created last year, instead hurt some of the most cost-conscious agencies that have worked hard over the years to keep costs low. For example, one of the home health agencies in this Member's district in Beatrice, NE, was told earlier this year by their intermediary that under IPS they would receive a Medicare reimbursement limit of about $1,600 per beneficiary. That's over $700 less than the regional average of $2,341 per beneficiary, and $2,200 less than the national average reimbursement per beneficiary of $3,862. A reimbursement limit of $1,600 a year is simply not enough money in many cases where a home health agency needs to treat a disabled, elderly individual. To make matters worse, the only other home health agency in the town of Beatrice went out of business this summer, mostly due to its low Medicare home health reimbursement rate. Even worse, HCFA has announced that they cannot implement a permanent, perspective payment system by their October 1, 1999, deadline because of their Y2K problems. Therefore, under current law, home health agencies will not face an additional reduction of 15 percent in their per-beneficiary reimbursement. Under this system, home health agencies, especially those in rural areas, will go out of business--this unfortunate situation will occur in areas of many States, including Nebraska, with the end result being that these areas will have no home health services available. Under this system, Medicare beneficiaries will suffer. H.R. 4567 begins to correct the problem with the interim payment system and will allow these agencies to stay in business until a prospective payment system is implemented. It increases the per beneficiary reimbursement to those agencies whose limit is below the national median limit--which will help almost every agency in this Member's district. It also directs HCFA to send Congress a report on its progress, if any, on implementing a prospective payment system. Finally, H.R. 4567 asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to help Congress find a way to prevent the 15 percent reduction in payment limits scheduled for October 1, 1999. Mr. Speaker, this Member cannot emphasize enough the importance of passing legislation that will correct the flaws of the IPS. Congress must pass legislation before the end of this session in order to save the hundreds of home health agencies all over the country that will no longer be able to provide care next year if the current payment system is allowed to remain in place. This Member asks all of his colleagues to support this critical measure for all of the elderly constituents receiving home health in their district.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would commend and ask his colleagues to consider carefully the following editorial from the October 8, 1998, edition of the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``A Broad Inquiry the Better Course.'' [From the Omaha World Herald, Oct. 8, 1998] A Broad Inquiry the Better Course The fate of William Jefferson Clinton is not the only concern that the Kenneth Starr investigation has raised for Congress and the nation. There is also the matter of dealing with Clinton's misbehavior in a way that demonstrates respect for the rule of law. Democrats have tried to narrow the impeachment inquiry. Abbe Lowell, counsel for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, contends that any case for impeaching Clinton consists of one basic allegation: ``The president was engaged in an improper relationship which he did not want disclosed.'' The position is designed to minimize Clinton's deceptions by casting them in effect as little white lies. If the Democrats could convince the House and the nation that ``it was just sex,'' Clinton's chances of avoiding impeachment might be greater. The approach of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had much more to commend it. They voted to recommend to the full House an open-ended inquiry, possibly into allegations unconnected to the Lewinsky affair. Presumably, the broader inquiry might include the firing of the travel office staff, the illegal possession by the White House of FBI files, the finding of a job for Webb Hubbell, the mysterious disappearance and reappearance of billing records and even illegal campaign fund raising, even though it was not part of Starr's mandate. The Republicans' main concern is not the sex, but the lying under oath about it, the memory lapses about it, the exploitation of government employees to cover it up. David Schippers, a lifelong Democrat who is counsel for the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, explained why Americans ought to be concerned. Clinton took the position that the Paula Jones lawsuit was bogus, Schippers noted. But the law gives a defendant no right to combat a bogus lawsuit by lying under oath. ``The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the foundation of the American system of justice, which is the envy of every civilized nation,'' he said. ``The sanctity of the oath taken by a witness is the most essential bulwark of the truth-seeking function of a trial, which is the American method of ascertaining the facts.'' Schippers said that if lying under oath is tolerated, ``the integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse.'' He said the individual circumstances of the case didn't matter. ``It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced,'' he said. Americans ought to consider the consequences of letting the president's lying go unpunished. This isn't just that lovable rascal, the Comeback Kid, trying to escape another jam. This is the president of the United States defying one of the most important principles of the legal system: that the truth must be told when a person is under oath.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider carefully the following editorial from the October 6, 1998, edition of the Norfolk Daily News, entitled ``Defense System is Needed in U.S.'' [From Norfolk Daily News, Oct. 6, 1998] Defense System is Needed in U.S. 1972 Treaty Doesn't Bar United States From Developing Anti-Missile Weapons A bipartisan commission headed by Donald Rumsfield, a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, recently concluded that nuclear missiles from rogue nations would strike American cities with ``little or no warning'' in just a matter of a few years. At the same time, U.S. intelligence agencies are saying that the United States has nothing to worry about from such missile attacks. What is one to believe? The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute, thinks Americans would be wise to heed the findings of the Rumsfield commission and take the steps necessary to ensure the United States has an effective missile defense system. We agree. The Soviet Union may be no more, but the threat of a missile attack on the United States is as real as ever. China is a bona fide nuclear power with missiles already aimed at the United States, and India and Pakistan have detonated nuclear devices as well. In addition, North Korea and Iran have been developing missiles that soon may be able to reach the United States. And a number of countries already possess missiles capable of striking U.S. allies and troops stationed abroad. All of this prompts Edwin Feulner, president of Heritage Foundation, to make two points: 1. Those who argue that the 1972 ABM Treaty bars the United States from having a military defense system are mistaken. The treaty, which the United States signed with the Soviet Union, was designed to prevent the deployment of missile defenses. But the Soviet Union no longer exists. That makes the treaty null and void. 2. A missile defense system doesn't need to spur flashbacks of Star Wars and President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative that was proposed in 1983. Since then, defense experts have been able to devise an effective missile defense system that could be operational simply by upgrading the U.S. Navy's existing fleet of guided-missile cruisers. Those two points should help further the cause of establishing a missile defense system. For if even one nuclear missile reached the United States, millions could die within minutes. As Mr. Feulner has said, building such a defense system is not just a defense consideration, it's a moral imperative.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 4364, the Financial Institution Regulatory Streamlining Act of 1998. This Member has a long history of initiating and supporting regulatory relief efforts and this bill is another substantial step toward this end. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentlelady, [Mrs. Roukema] the Chairperson of the Banking Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Subcommittee from New Jersey, for introducing this bill and for her efforts in bringing H.R. 4364 to the House Floor. This Member would also like to express his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the Chairman of the full Banking Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the Ranking Minority Member of the full Banking Committee, for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House Floor today. Before going into specific provisions of H.R. 4364, this Member believes that it is imperative to note that efforts directed toward regulatory burden-relief benefits both financial institutions and consumers. It allows financial institutions to conduct their business more efficiently as well as reducing the costs of banking to the consumer. This Member is supportive of H.R. 4364 for the following three reasons. 1. H.R. 4364 would allow the Federal Reserve to pay interest on reserve balances maintained by depository institutions at Federal Reserve Banks at a rate no greater than the general level of short-term interest rates. This Member understands and appreciates the beneficial effect of this provision since it enhances the liquidity of depository institutions which in turn will positively impact the manner in which depository institutions conduct their lending practices. 2. This measure also applauds the H.R. 4364 provision which would allow for the payment of interest on business checking accounts effective October 1, 2004. This provision, which is both pro-business and pro-commerce, eliminates an undue and unnecessary regulation. 3. This Member would also like to highlight three under-recognized, but important parts of H.R. 4364 which will decrease the everyday regulatory burden on financial institutions. For instance, provision in H.R. 4364 would require Federal Banking Agencies to use plain English in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 1999. This measure will help all financial institutions from confusing and perplexing rules. Furthermor, H.R. 4364 permits the Comptroller of the Currency to waive the current restriction on having no more than 25 directors serve on the board of national banks. It appears to this Member that there actually is no rationale to support the current regulatory limit of 25. This measure appropriately enhances the flexibility and freedom of a National Bank. One additional small, but consequential, provision of regulatory relief is the repeal of the Dividend Notice Requirement. Financial institutions are many times inundated with regulatory paperwork. This simple provision would eliminate the 30-day advance notice to the Office of Thrift Supervision of a dividend payment by a savings association to its savings and loan holding company. In closing, because of the above reasons and others, this Member would encourage the House to vote in support of H.R. 4364.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I was involved in a hearing and I happened to see some comments on the television monitor by the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and I have to tell my colleagues that despite his good intentions, they are inaccurate. Because of a huge effort the trails organization made over several years, and as a result of a thorough study, of the 6,000-plus miles in the American Discovery Trail, only 58 miles of the trail cross private property. Most of that is in the hands of a few big electrical utilities. There are less than 20 private property owners that are affected by this 6,000-plus mile trail. And all of them, every single one of them, have given consent or signed agreements permit access for the trail. Furthermore, there is an absolute prohibition against imminent domain or even the voluntary sale by owners of the private property for the American Discovery Trail. Now, I am very unhappy that this legislation is a part of the overall omnibus bill. I was guaranteed by the chairman the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the ADT legislation, my bill, would be brought up separately. It has great support in the House, passed in the other body, but I do not want the argument raised in this debate that the ADT presents a private property issue. It absolutely does not. There is no way that the ADT component of this legislation threatens private property rights; therefore I ask Members to disregard those comments by the gentleman from Okahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as a classmate, as a friend, as a long- term colleague of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I am pleased to say a few words about him. There is much that could be said about his many very positive contributions to this Congress and to the governance of this Nation. Our colleague from New York and I have worked together on so many issues. Of course, we have had our policy disagreements from time to time but they are few. Our wives also have become very good friends. Sweet, long-suffering, patient Freda and my wife Louise, are good friends, and Jerry Solomon since you are a marine, and I dare not say former marine, in addition to his public service, after retirement from the House, can now devote more attention to trying to bring to order that moving mountain he calls his dog before it chews up all of his wife's carpets and tears up the entire lawn. Quite seriously I would like to focus on just one aspect of this gentleman's very distinguished service and that is his service and contributions in the North Atlantic Assembly and his focus on NATO issues. Jerry Solomon has served as a House delegate to the North Atlantic Assembly since 1982 and he has served there for us with great distinction. He is currently one of the two longest serving members of the House delegation. In that capacity, he served with distinction as the chairman of one of the five committees there, the Political Committee, for the entire maximum length of time for that position. He currently is the North American vice president for the North Atlantic Assembly. That parliamentary group of NATO countries has had a dramatic effect, I might say, in helping the delegates of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact to understand their parliamentary role in a functioning democracy. Additional, Representative Solomon, among other things, has been in the leadership of that NAA effort to help our colleagues from the associated member nations of Eastern and Central Europe. I also would say that the time he spent here in this House preparing the entire Congress, including our Senate colleagues, for the upcoming vote on NATO expansion, and his strong, and I think correct views, on the necessity of NATO expansion, were a major contribution to the success of the recent enlargement round for NATO and for the enlargement rounds yet to come. Beyond that, our distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Solomon) has focused necessary congressional attention on the nations of the Caucasus region and on the Central Asian republics and for that we are very grateful and benefitted as Americans. So, Jerry Solomon, my colleague, friend, and classmate of 20 years, I say for the American delegates to the World Atlantic Assembly and for so many of us in this Congress, well done. We do not expect you have completed your public service but this part of your career is approaching an end and we thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act, H.R. 4647. I would also like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for his initiative and his persistence in bringing this important legislation to the floor prior to our adjournment. I also thank him for his kind words. Last Friday, the New York Times ran an article on the massive grain surplus building in the Pacific Northwest. Though the article focused on the damaging impact of the Asian financial crisis on U.S. grain exports, the article also said, ``What is also clear is that many farmers are increasingly angry over the trade embargoes that the United States has imposed on many nations around the world.'' Would my colleagues believe it? We have imposed trade sanctions on 35 countries in the last 5 years, and we have trade sanctions standing on 75 or 80 countries now under existing law. One farmer and State representative from Washington State was quoted as saying, ``If we take their money and they take our grain, I don't think there is going to be anyone hurt.'' Mr. Speaker, that farmer correctly understands that unilateral embargoes of U.S. food exports do not hurt or effect any real change on the targeted country. All U.S. farmers have a right to be angry that they are being used by both the executive and legislative branches to carry out symbolic acts so foreign policymakers can appear to be doing something about our toughest foreign policy problems. There are three types of embargoes: Short supply embargoes, foreign policy embargoes, and national security embargoes, and all, unfortunately, end up hurting the people who should be least hurt by the intent of the authors. Those farmers, I think, have a legitimate right to be angry, because when Congress and the President point the sanctions gun at a foreign country, that gun, more often than not, gets pointed at the guy on the tractor who is simply trying to provide for his family. Hopefully, certain Members of Congress and the President relearned this lesson again this summer when American farmers lost, or nearly lost, at least, a $300,000 metric ton wheat sale to Pakistan because of our unilateral nonproliferation sanctions on that country. Sensing our serious mistake, those of us concerned in Congress rushed to reverse that sanction just hours before the bids for the wheat sale were made. Had we not acted, I am sure that Australian, French or Canadian wheat farmers would gladly become Pakistan's new primary supply of wheat. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important in that it takes the first step towards rationalizing our sanctions policy by requiring the President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on agriculture commodities. It provides a termination date for any embargo, and it provides greater assurances for contract sanctity. In addition, the bill requires Congress to approve the embargo for it to extend beyond 100 days. It is important to state what this legislation does not do. First, it does not alter any current sanctions because it only affects embargoes that apply selectively to agriculture products like President Carter's ill-fated and totally ineffective grain embargo on the Soviet Union in 1980, or President Ford's unilateral, farmer-damaging, short-supply soybean embargo. Additionally, this legislation does nothing to restrict the President's ability to impose cross-sector embargoes or embargoes that apply to agriculture as well as other U.S. export goods. Mr. Speaker, the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act is straightforward, common-sense legislation that aims at ensuring that our future sanctions do not unnecessarily hurt our farmers and our agricultural sector, while having no impact on the targeted country. This Member, therefore, urges his colleagues to vote for H.R. 4647. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his outstanding work on this. I would say to my colleague from North Dakota who addressed the House just a minute ago, I happen to agree with him on his view on the adequacy, or I should say the inadequacy, of the assistance rendered to farmers. I believe that the transition payments, even though they were up perhaps 29 percent, should be higher, because no one could really have anticipated the Asian financial crisis or the fact that the U.S. dollar was very much stronger suddenly than our major competitors. It is for that reason that I voted for his motion to recommit on the Agriculture Appropriation Conference Report. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to express his concerns about the inadequacy of the emergency farm relief package in the conference report for H.R. 4101. This Member would like to begin by expressing his appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their diligent work in crafting this legislation. Although this legislation includes important emergency aid provisions for farmers, this Member believes that it is inadequate to address the enormous needs of agricultural producers who are reeling from depressed commodity prices across the board. Most of the assistance available under this agriculture relief package is targeted toward farmers who have suffered natural disaster and multi-year losses. As a result, it will offer little help to farmers in most agricultural states, such as Nebraska, who are harvesting good crops but encountering drastically lower prices. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe that the $1.65 billion in the package for market loss assistance is adequate to compensate producers. Since it represents a 29 percent increase over the AMTA payment received by producers in FY98, it is a good first step. However, the 1996 Farm Act was based on the premise of expanding international markets for the commodities produced by our nation's farmers. This clearly has not happened. Certainly, one of the root causes of the current low commodity prices is the recent economic down- turn. Nobody could predict the Asian financial crisis or the contagion effect which is still being felt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is now forecasting that FY98 exports will be $2.3 billion lower than FY97 sales and $4.8 billion below the FY96 record of $59.8 billion. Also, because of the strength of our national economy relative to most other countries, the value of our currency relative to others now makes our exports less price-competitive in Asian markets than our competitor exporters like Canada, Australia, Brazil, or the nations of the European Union. Thus, there is not only a dramatically reduced agricultural export market in Asia, we are also getting a reduced portion of the remaining Asian import business. This Member continues to support the flexibility offered by the 1996 Agriculture Market Transition Act and does not want to see a return to the policies of the past. Farmers certainly appreciate the freedom to plant what they want and for the most part do not want to encounter unnecessary restrictions and bureaucracy. However, proposed changes, such as removing the loan rate caps would likely cause intermediate and long-term problems. A recent study prepared by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri and Iowa State University concluded that such a change would lead to larger supplies and lower prices in the future. This Member supports the Pomeroy motion to recommit with instructions which proposed that the conferees should ``increase the assistance available to family farmers suffering economic loss as a result of record low prices, deteriorating market conditions and/or natural disasters.'' In addition, this Member is supportive of recent actions which are designed to assist farmers during these difficult times. For example, this Member was supportive of the legislation which makes $5.5 billion in current FY99 Farm Act payments to farmers available at an earlier date on October 1, 1998. This action will significantly expedite these much needed payments. More must be done for our nation's farmers and this Member believes it almost certainly now will be necessary to approve an emergency supplemental appropriation to assist farmers early next year, because the emergency assistance to farmers is not sufficient given the wholly unexpected export conditions in Asia and world markets and very low commodity prices they face.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member has served in the U.S. House of Representatives with our very distinguished colleague from Indiana [Mr. Lee Hamilton] for twenty years and this Member has worked closely with Lee on the House International Affairs Committee for sixteen of those twenty years. As a result of that contact, this Member will tell this body that this Member believes he is the most outstanding Member now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. Certainly, he is one of the three most distinguished legislators with whom this Member has served in that period of twenty years. This Member also knows that this Member's high regard for Lee is shared by the very wide circle of people who have known and observed him, not only by those of us in the Congress, but also by people across the country and in the far corners of the earth. His sound and well- reasoned judgment, his unswerving integrity, his unfailing courtesy, his intellect, and his very wise and deep knowledge of matters foreign and domestic have built his exceptional reputation that reflects to favorably on the people of Indiana who have elected him to Congress an amazing seventeen times. There have been very few if any Members in the U.S. House of Representatives--for decades at least--who is more knowledgeable and respected on foreign affairs issues than Representative Lee Hamilton. Whether serving as the Chairman or recently as the senior minority member of the House Committee on International Relations, he has consistently provided the leadership our country needed on these international issues. This had been true even when his analysis and convictions on such issues compelled him to stand almost alone against a tide of emotionalism and irrationality. First and foremost, this Member admires Lee Hamilton, as others do, for keeping his focus on the American national interest and insisting, that against all pressures, it would remain his guide. This Member wants Representative Hamilton's constituents in Indiana to know, too, that despite his necessary attention to all these complex and demanding international issues and despite flattering acclaim, Lee Hamilton kept his feet on the ground, his gaze on the horizon, and his focus ``away back home in Indiana.'' Always a Hoosier, Lee was born and bred to understand and honor the views, interests, and values of his constituents. He always has so naturally demonstrated the self- confidence and judiciousness in decisions and the humbleness in demeanor that springs from a deep understanding and respect for what it means to truly serve the people who elect one in our representative democracy. Indianans and all Americans can take a full measure of pride in our distinguished colleague's extraordinary service to America. In concluding, this Member wants to convey to Lee Hamilton, our distinguished colleague from Indiana, and to his wonderful life, Nancy, who undoubtedly has been crucially important to his public service, this Member's great appreciation and admiration for the extraordinarily important public service you have rendered to our nation. Lee, undoubtedly you have so much yet you can offer. All of us, who have had the privilege to serve with you in the Congress, wish you every good opportunity and success in that respect, and also to Nancy, you, and your family in your life together.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his opposition to a particular provision in the H.R. 6 Conferene Report, which would increase the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee to nine basis points effective on October 1, 2004--a three basis point increase over the current level. This provision was not included in the House version of H.R. 6 legislation. However, the Senate version did contain this three point increase in the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee. Unfortunately, the H.R. Conference Report which includes this Senate passed provision is both illconceived and contrary to the spirit of promoting home ownership. Under current law, Ginnie Mae guarantees payments to ivestors if mortgage servicers are unable to make the scheduled payments. In turn, the mortgage servicers are charged a present guaranty fee of six basis points. This Member is opposed to a three basis point increase in the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee for the following two reasons. No. 1. The cost of a three basis point increase will likely be passed in part to the homebuyer. This provision in the H.R. 6 Conference Report will increase the costs of a mortgage servicer to lend. While some of this increase in basis points will likely be borne by the mortgage servicer, it is inevitable that some of this increase will be passed to the homebuyer as an unncessary tax for buying a home. This Member is opposed to passing on such avoidable costs to the homebuyer. No. 2. The Senate had earlier rejected an increase in basis points for the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee. On July 17, 1998, the Senate in considering the fiscal year 1999 VA/ HUD appropriations bill, tabled the Nickles Amendment by a 69-27 vote. The Nickles Amendment would have increased the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee by six basis points. The VA/HUD appropriations bill appears to be a more suitable forum for debate and consideration of such a guaranty fee increase than in H.R. 6 Conference Report. In closing, this Member opposes the provision in the H.R. 6 Conference Report which increases the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee by three basis points.