Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The gentleman from Texas has just spoken to us about letting the market work. The problem with the mixing of commerce and banking is that market decisions are not made. Credit decisions are made on the basis of equity that a bank has in a business. We are more likely to have the market working properly when we have this division between banking and commerce as we have had since the 1930s, even tracing far back beyond that, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) earlier said, tracing back in some form to a period even before the founding of the Republic. I just cannot help but think of what happened in the home State of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) when we had under S&L law in Texas, in that State and some other States, an opportunity under their legislation to use federally insured deposits to make investments in their own name instead of loans to residents of their community. And I recall something like 50 percent of the total losses in the S&L debacle were in the gentleman's home State of Texas. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) suggests that this 10 percent basket is a modest step. Well, I think we are more likely to pay attention to what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) said. He said this 10 percent basket is a reasonable first step as a basket. And that is the point this gentleman was trying to make some time ago; that there is, in fact, no end to this process for a larger basket all the time once we break the barrier down between commerce and banking. We are going to be back here with such amendments year after year.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I am a 17-, 18-year member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I do chair the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House Committee on International Relations, and I think, frankly, that is a more relevant set of experience right now for this legislation than service on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Because of that combination, I have had an opportunity to watch up close, first as a member of the authorizing subcommittee for the IMF legislation or the activities of the IMF, and then from the Asia and Pacific Subcommittees to see what is happening in Japan and Korea and Thailand in recent months. I want to speak in the strongest possible terms of my opposition to the Roukema-Vento amendment and for the Leach-Campbell-Bereuter substitute. What we have seen over the last few years is a Japanese banking system where the assets have grown tremendously because Japanese banks have been able to take equity positions or ownership in businesses. So as the economy was good in Japan, the assets of those banks also moved upward dramatically with the progress of those industries. So Japan had most of the largest 20 or 25 banks in the world. But what happens with their mixing of banking and commerce is that it also exaggerates trends downward. So at a time when the Japanese need a strong banking system, they do not have that strong banking system to help them spin out of their economic difficulties. In fact, if we take a look at the ownership of a Japanese bank today and their assets, we will find that they can take 5 percent ownership in this business, 5 percent in this business, 5 percent in this business, and so on, and as those businesses had trouble, then, in fact, the asset base of the banks also has deteriorated. We have also had, there and in Korea, an incestuous relationship between banks and businesses. So we have the disaster in the Republic of Korea today with the chaebols, those huge conglomerates, when banks gave loans to such businesses without considering the real risk, but only on the basis of those incestuous business relationships. And the same sort of thing happened in Japan and Thailand. I can tell my colleagues that the burden of proof should be on those people in Congress and not American society that want to change Glass-Steagall-- those who want to eliminate the separation between commerce and banking. What did Paul Volcker tell the Committee on Banking and Financial Services? I want to quote from his statement to us. He said, ``The American financial system is the most vigorous, flexible, innovative, quickest-to-change, most efficient in allocating capital, and it has been done by maintaining the separation. So the burden of proof seems to me to be on those who want to end this separation. We are doing fine without it, and without exception those countries that have more connections between banking and commerce are noted for having inflexible systems.'' The burden of proof, my colleagues, is on those people who want to establish this so-called ``basket,'' and certainly, it is on those people who want to accentuate the size of it. Once we cross that line, once we eliminate the separation between commerce and banking, we know what is going to happen. The beneficiaries of this change are going to be in here every year asking for an increase. That is not in the best interests of the United States. Madam Chairman, I want to suggest to my colleagues that the burden of proof indeed should be on those people that want to break down the barriers between commerce and banking, on those who want to disturb the status quo. We have the strongest banking system in the world, and we have loans being made on the basis of risk, not on the basis of incestuous relationships between banks and business. I would like to ask my colleagues to take a look at a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and I have circulated to show my colleagues the breadth of the opposition to any changes in Glass-Steagall. It is extraordinary. It spans the ideological-business-political-labor spectrum. This elimination of the Glass-Steagall barrier is a step we do not want to take. Vote ``no,'' vote ``no'' emphatically on the Roukema-Vento amendment, and support the status quo, which keeps the barrier between banking and commerce.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member rises to express his deep regret and disappointment at the series of underground nuclear tests staged May 11 and 13 by India. While offering assurances of their commitment to world peace, India's actions have quite possibly triggered a chain of events that could set back global efforts of nonproliferation and severely increase tensions throughout the region and the world. In Pakistan, public pressure is mounting on the government to proceed with similar nuclear testing. China also has expressed its concern about the tests, and there are some suggestions that Beijing may consider resuming its nuclear testing program. This Member would note that the law is quite specific on this matter. If a non-nuclear State tests a nuclear device, sanctions must be imposed by our government. Failure to do so would render U.S. nonproliferation policy impotent. The United States was required to impose the sanctions mandated by law on India. Mr. Speaker, this member calls upon the government of India to carefully reconsider and attempt to back away from what it has unleashed, and urges the government of Pakistan to exercise restraint in its response.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it seems that the ``Mexico City'' policy will continue to be an item of contention between the House of Representatives and the Clinton Administration. This Member hopes the President will reconsider his hard-line opposition to the ``Mexico City'' policy, but that appears unlikely. As demonstrated during the Reagan years, there are family planning organizations which do not perform abortions that can implement the international family planning programs. Accordingly, this Member commends to his colleagues an excellent editorial which appeared in the Norfolk (Nebraska) Daily News, on May 12, 1998. Veto Promise Not Warranted On abortion matter, United Nations policy consistent with Republicans Most Americans are accustomed to meeting their obligations, even those made on their behalf by politicians and statesmen with whom they may disagree. The dues payment that the United States provides (or has refused to pay in full in the past) to the United Nations is one of those obligations. The arrears should be paid. A long battle to reduce the size of that annual assessment, to get the U.N. to be less wasteful and more accountable, was won last year. A compromise was reached, the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues has been approved by Congress. President Clinton, who favors the payment, threatens to veto the bill, however. It is because the Republican majority in Congress succeeded in aiding language to the appropriations bill that would preclude any of the federal funds from being used by international family planning organizations which advocate abortion. Judging by the slim margin of victory for the measure in the Senate a few days ago (51-49), President Clinton could expect to be sustained in his veto action. That would leave the dues unpaid, of course. Undesirable as it may be to attach special conditions to this sort of appropriations measure, the president needs to back down. Any one of these three reasons is enough. 1. The United Nations itself has adopted a policy consistent with that which the GOP majority is attempting to emphasize. In 1984, at an international conference related to population control, it affirmed this policy: ``Abortion is never to be promoted as a means of family planning.'' 2. Planned Parenthood and other organizations which are involved in this field have adequate means to promote their own policies without tapping either the resources of the American government or the United Nations. 3. The bitter and unreconcilable divisions in America about when, or if ever, abortion is acceptable, should mean that no money obtained from mandatory tax levies should be used for such procedures unless there is virtually unanimous approval. That the procedure is legal in America, under a variety of conditions approved by the Supreme Court and set forth in law, does not mean that public funds must follow. Private funding for those who choose abortion should be demanded. President Clinton should not be allowed to claim that his congressional opponents on the abortion issue are voting, in effect, to penalize the U.N. by refusing to give him a spending bill without any strings attached. The conditions imposed are not only a valid expression of the congressional majority's views on an important issue related to international affairs, but also consistent with U.N. policy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I am not a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I do not expect to respond to the gentleman's questions. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is the money has been recovered. It is not lost. In any case, what I want to say is that countries from around the world send their parliamentary bodies to try to understand how we conduct oversight of the intelligence functions of our government, and they do that because of the quality of what is done by the people appointed by the minority leader and the Speaker of this House. Now, they choose people who they think will give the interest, the competence, the time, and have the intense focus necessary to give oversight to these important functions of the Federal Government. We have a limitation. First 6 years, now 8 years, like the other body, on the length of time that Members can serve on the intelligence committees, and that is so that these Members do not become co-opted by the agencies over which they conduct oversight. That is a protection for all of us. Now, I have been a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I do not serve there any longer because of that term limitation. I spend a lot of my time on foreign policy and trade issues, and I want to speak to my colleagues from that perspective today. Mr. Chairman, our policymakers, from the President on down, depend upon accurate and timely intelligence when making their most critical decisions. The Secretary of State relies on the information to assist her in crafting foreign policy, to judge the performance of that policy and, as added ammunition, during crucial international negotiations. It is true of the STR, it is true of the Treasury Secretary, it is true of the Department of Defense. In fact, the Secretary of Defense needs political and military intelligence in order to deploy troops and plan for future military needs. And the list goes on. For all these leaders, intelligence is a vital tool that enables them to respond to crises and to anticipate future needs. A broad cut to our intelligence capabilities would hamper our government's abilities in these areas. The sponsors of this amendment argue that the intelligence budget should come down. After all, the Cold War is over. Well, intelligence spending has declined, along with other defense spending. But the world is still a very dangerous place, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, and new threats to our Nation's security and the safety of its citizens have emerged. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, international organized crime, and drug trafficking all pose increased risk to the United States. We need to collect information about these new threats if we are going to combat them and combat them successfully. The gentleman from Oregon raised some interesting points a few minutes ago. He talked about some areas he felt that we had not had adequate intelligence. First of all, policymakers have to make use of the intelligence that is provided. I sat in that Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Nothing could have been better than the intelligence given to our policy leaders during that period of time. But European nations and our leadership, from President Bush to President Clinton, had to act upon that intelligence to have its effect. That was not done adequately. Secondly, I would say when it comes to the terrorist activities that took place in Saudi Arabia, we were not blind in intelligence, but action has to be taken. Finally, I want to say as a person who follows trade, we have disarmed ourselves in certain parts of this world. We disarmed ourselves on economic intelligence in southeast and east Asia, and it is no wonder we had no intelligence adequate to take steps to avoid the kind of monetary fiscal crises that took place in Thailand, the Republic of Korea and Indonesia. That is because, in part, I suggest, we disarmed ourselves. The same is true in parts of Latin America, where we have devastated our human intelligence by disarmament, not conducted by this body, but conducted by the executive branch over a period of time. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this cut on the basis that it is not good government. As a former member of this committee, I believe it is fair to say that I know firsthand the process that is required to develop an annual intelligence authorization. And I can attest to the scrutiny and to the rigorous oversight that the members of this committee, chosen by the leadership of the House, give to this budget. They have done a particularly good job this year. And I would say that the staff that assists them is always among the best in the House. I have great confidence in their recommendation.

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming the balance of my time, the gentleman had his 5 minutes.

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of interesting rhetoric here, and I think that, in a charitable mood, generous mood, maybe, that this kind of debate each year is salutary, because it is an opportunity for members who do not serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to ask questions of those who do. I think, despite what the gentleman said, perhaps in a little bit of overblown rhetoric, the gentleman from New York, this is not a command and control operation of the Soviet Union. The kind of oversight that the House and Senate give to the intelligence operations of the United States is the best among all the parliamentary bodies in the world.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the highway bill recently passed by the House takes an important step toward addressing our nation's enormous surface transportation needs. In addition to the obvious benefits of much higher revenues for better roads and bridges, this legislation recognizes that the money in the Highway Trust Fund belongs to the American people. Finally, we are returning to the principles that were established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for the Highway Trust Funds. When Americans pay this tax at the gas pump, they have every right to expect that their money actually will be used for transportation and not diverted to other purposes. The balance held for the Highway Trust Fund has ballooned, and that money has been used for government programs and deficit reduction efforts which are not related to transportation. It is a violation of the trust of the American people when those highway trust funds are used for other purposes. This Member encourages his colleagues to read the following opinion piece by David R. Kraemer, chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, which appeared in the Omaha World- Herald on April 27, 1998. It highlights the importance of using the money from the Highway Trust Fund in the way it was originally intended. Highway Bill Helps Everyone (By David R. Kraemer) (The writer is 1998 chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the nation's largest organization of highway contractors.) A lot of criticism has been flying around during the past few weeks about the federal highway bill, with the media, special interest groups and fiscal hawks all trying to paint the bill as a pork-laden ``budget buster.'' The finger-pointing obscures what the highway bill is really for: improving our transportation system. Critics of the highway bill are missing--or choosing to ignore--three critical realities. One, America's transportation infrastructure is in desperate need of improvement. Two, the highway bill is paid for in advance through fees paid by people who use the system, and the revenues go straight into the Highway Trust Fund expressly for this purpose. Three, improving our highways will save thousands of lives. Plain and simple. The first point is obvious to anyone who travels the nation's highways. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of miles of roads and thousands of bridges are in poor condition, posing a danger to drivers and undercutting economic growth. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 59 percent of the nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 31 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Department of Transportation also says we must spend $46.1 billion annually just to maintain our highways and bridges, let alone make improvements or upgrades. Clearly, funding road repair and improvement should be a top priority for the federal government. Fortunately, the dollars Congress is committing to the program are available from a reliable source--highway users. The most misunderstanding issue related to the highway bill is where the money--all $200 billion plus--is coming from. It comes from all of us who use the roads, through taxes paid at the gas pump and through other road-related assessments. For every gallon of gas purchased, 18.3 cents is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, which by law is supposed to be used for transportation improvements. Unfortunately, billions of dollars have been allowed to accumulate in the trust fund and mask deficit spending elsewhere in the federal budget. More than $25 billion is sitting in the trust fund now, unspent on road and bridge repair. If people want to criticize Congress about the highway bill, the issue is not how much they want to spend but how little. By keeping dollars in the trust fund that were intended to go toward road and bridge improvement. Congress is short-changing America's highway users. The fact is, improving highways will save lives. Research shows that for every $1 billion spent since 1955 on improving the nation's highways, 1,400 traffic deaths and 50,000 injuries have been avoided. The Transportation Department estimates that every year 30 percent of all traffic fatalities--more than 12,000 American deaths--are related in some way to poor road conditions. Adding turning lanes, widening shoulders, constructing lane barriers, improving signage and safety markings and repairing dangerous bridges all are important safety upgrades proven to save lives. When a bridge collapses and lives are lost, the story makes the evening news and a hue and cry is raised about how to prevent it from happening again. The answer lives in Washington and in the thousands of repair and improvement projects authorized in the federal highway bill that are now being so roundly criticized. Unfortunately, all the political squabbling diverts attention from these real issues. So who benefits from the highway bill? Everyone. Communities grow, commercial and private transportation becomes easier and more efficient, and thousands of new jobs are created. Moreover, improving our transportation system will save billions of dollars from being lost each year in wasted productivity, vehicle maintenance, insurance fees and, tragically, health care expenses to care for people injured on our highways.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) who has been very responsive to the concerns of many people in his district concerned with the continued conflict in Afghanistan. For his active interest in the issue, I commend him.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) concerning the urgent need to establish a ceasefire in Afghanistan and begin the transition toward a broad-based multiethnic government that observes international norms of behavior, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 218, which this Member introduced on February 1, 1998, calls for the urgent need to establish a cease-fire in Afghanistan and begin the transition towards a broad- based multi-ethnic government that observes international norms of behavior. Today Afghanistan has no internationally recognized government. It is a country torn apart by civil war carried out by two warring factions known as the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. No parties to the conflict are heroic. All must share the blame for the destruction and division. One of the by-products of the destruction brought about by this extended warfare is that Afghanistan has become one of the world's leading producers of opium. Over the past year alone, the production of opiates in Afghanistan has increased, and results in a growth in the drug trade throughout Central and South Asia, Russia, Europe and the United States. Other problems currently facing Afghanistan include serious and repeated human rights violations occurring throughout the country, especially the treatment of women. The Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights for 1997 states, The overall human rights situation in Afghanistan is poor. Political killings, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, looting, abductions and kidnappings for ransom were committed by armed units, local commanders and rogue individuals. At the end of this decade-long conflict it would appear that Afghanistan is beginning the process of resolving these problems, as well as a number of others, including the removal of millions of land mines scattered throughout the Afghan countryside; the repatriation of over 2 million Afghan refugees currently residing in Pakistan and Iran; as well as the cessation of safe haven for terrorist leaders and activities in this war-torn Nation. The United States officially supports no party or faction in this conflict and backs the United Nations negotiation efforts to establish a coalition government where all factions are fairly represented. Recently, on April 17, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, the Honorable Bill Richardson, brokered an agreement from the two opposing factions to establish a cease-fire and participate in structured peace talks. If the factions follow through with their commitments, it will mark the first talks since the Islamic militia took control of the capital 1\1/2\ years ago. Fighting broke out which appeared to jeopardize the negotiations. However, recognizing the renewed U.S. attention to Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Northern Alliance have begun these important talks. This Member commends Ambassador Richardson and his staff, as well as the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, for their efforts in successfully bringing the two warring factions to the negotiating table. In their opening statements, representatives of the two factions declared their willingness to work towards a peaceful resolution of the Afghan conflict. This Member sincerely hopes that this round of negotiations will bring enduring peace to the people of Afghanistan. In the past, similar efforts have ended in failure as agreements reached in 1992 and 1993 quickly collapsed into more fighting. But this initiative comes at a time when internal and outside parties to the conflict seem at least more ready to work towards achieving stability in Afghanistan before all hope of stability and economic development is lost. The return of stability would in turn encourage international investment projects to the region, beneficial to South Asia and the newly independent Central Asian nations as well. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 218 was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on March 5, 1998 and was favorably reported to the full committee. On April 1 the Committee on International Relations unanimously approved this important resolution. In conclusion, this Member again expresses appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for their support and cosponsorship of H. Con. Res. 218. This Member would also thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his advice and support on this resolution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has visited Afghanistan on numerous occasions, and has taken an active interest in Afghanistan's history and in resolving the bitter dispute which has consumed this country for the past 10 years. Mr. Speaker, at this critical point of the ongoing peace negotiations, this Member urges this body to send a strong message that the United States Government and the Congress, which in the past assisted Afghanistan in the war against communist aggression, are supportive of the desire for peace by so many, indeed almost all of the Afghan people. Accordingly, this Member urges adoption of H. Con. Res. 218. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his excellent statement.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 350) congratulating the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of their nation's independence.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 350.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H. Res. 350, this Member rises to congratulate the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their nation's independence. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 350 was introduced on February 4, the day that Sri Lanka celebrated the 50th anniversary of their independence, by this Member, by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. America's relations with this island nation are very strong and productive. The social and economic progress that Sri Lanka has made in the last five decades is truly encouraging and has laid a strong foundation for its future. Sri Lankan Americans, both Sinhalese and Tamil, have made major contributions to American society, and our relationship has proven mutually beneficial. While the official celebration will last all year, the precise date of the 50th anniversary was, as I mentioned, February 4. Major celebrations were held on that day, attended by Prince Charles as the head of the British delegation. Regrettably, the celebrations have been marred by a series of bombings. This tragic fact emphasizes the point that a terrible bloody civil war continues in Sri Lanka that has cost tens of thousands of lives. This Member's purpose in introducing today's resolution is not just to discuss the specifics of the ethnic conflict. No, not at all. Rather, this Member wishes to give the U.S. House of Representatives an opportunity to celebrate and commend the achievements of the people of Sri Lanka, Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim alike. H. Res. 350 does precisely that. It congratulates the people of Sri Lanka and points to this occasion as an opportunity to renew the common U.S.-Sri Lankan commitment to international cooperation. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations unanimously adopted H. Res. 350. This Member believes that H. Res. 350 represents a fitting and balanced expression of congratulations to the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their nation's independence. This Member also thanks the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for moving this initiative in an expeditious manner. This Member also expresses appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for his constructive additions to this resolution. Finally, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for his important assistance in speeding this resolution to the House. Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous adoption of H. Res. 350. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the world is closely watching Japan to determine if that country's leaders can steer the world's second largest economy clear of recession. The implications of their action or inaction is enormous for Japan itself, for the regional and global economy, and for the United States. Today at 1:30, in 2172 Rayburn, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade hear testimony on this subject, and on the legislation offered by this Member, the gentleman from California, Representative Berman and others, from four experts on Japan's role in the Asian financial crisis. This Member urges interested Members to send their staff and to read the summary in the Congressional Record on this important and timely hearing so that we can all learn more about Japan's enormous role in our own future, and to review the suggestions of what Japan must do to ensure that the future is bright for all of us.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this evening, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the Ranking Member of the House International Relations Committee (Mr. Hamilton) and this Member are introducing legislation that focuses on improving agricultural efficiency in Africa. This legislation is an important compliment to our goal for an invigorated trade strategy with Africa. Several weeks ago the House of Representatives passed, with this Member's support, the African Trade Growth and Opportunities Act and 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, our legislation is directly aimed at helping the 76% of the Sub-Saharan African people who are small farmers. 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 Development Fund for Africa and other mechanisms, I believe this legislation--in conjunction with our new trade initiatives--helps 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 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, we believe that the microenterprise program and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation are two excellent tools to help remedy rural finance and investment shortcomings. Moreover, we believe our international agricultural research programs can be better coordinated with our domestic agricultural research to benefit farmers in Africa as well as the United States. And, our food assistance programs need to be refocused on long-term development assistance and not be evaluated on the basis of short-term or immediate results that are anathema to their original purpose. This Member is especially pleased that this legislation seeks to replenish the Food Security Commodity Reserve and appropriately rename it the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The late, distinguished gentleman from Missouri worked tirelessly to ensure that the United States provided humanitarian assistance to those most in need throughout the world. By providing a mechanism to replenish the commodity reserve in times of low agricultural prices, this legislation continues that legacy by ensuring that a reserve for humanitarian purposes will exist when prices are high. In conclusion, this Member would like to commend Bread for the World for its relentless efforts to reduce hunger and malnutrition throughout the world. This Africa: Seeds of Hope Campaign and our legislation combine to form one more initiative in a long history of successful campaigns by Bread for the World.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2400. I commend the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the distinguished chairman (Mr. Petri) and the distinguished ranking member (Mr. Rahall) of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, for their extraordinary work. Mr. Chairman, I think this legislation lives up to its name. It will improve the lives of all Americans by helping to create a more efficient and safer highway system. I am pleased we are restoring integrity to the trust fund. Finally, we are returning to the principles that were established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for the Highway Trust Fund. When Americans pay their Federal gasoline tax at the gas pump, they have every right to expect that their money actually will be used for transportation and not diverted to other purposes. Those funds do not belong to OMB or the House Budget Committee. They belong to the American people who pay those gasoline taxes to be used for transportation, primarily highway construction and maintenance. Mr. Chairman, this bill ensures that the taxes paid at the gas pump will go toward constructing and improving our Nation's highways. Our infrastructure is in desperate need of additional resources. The gentleman from West Virginia a few minutes ago told us of the situation with the country's obsolete bridges, functionally and structurally deficient. This bill addresses these and other crying needs in our infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this outstanding and, I would say, very responsible legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, after nearly 20 years of effort, I have a victory to announce: Since I came to the Congress in 1979, my constituents in small Nebraska communities and Americans like them throughout our Nation have sought relief from the injustice of having to pay Post Office box rental fees because the U.S. Postal Service did not provide delivery to their homes. They came to the post office to pick up their mail because they had no home delivery, and they paid box rent for the privilege of doing so. Incredibly and unfairly, they paid box rent while saving the U.S. Postal Service the cost of providing home delivery, which is provided free to urban residents and those living in the countryside. Can you believe it? Well, finally, Mr. Speaker, that has changed. This afternoon I was notified by the U.S. Postal Service that effective April 5, 1998, throughout the United States, eligibility for no-fee post office boxes finally will be extended to those citizens living in small towns without home delivery whose residences or businesses are within the immediate vicinity of the post office and who, therefore, are ineligible for delivery service. See the Federal Register, March 27, 1998, page 14820, for the details. In the parlance I have learned as a lonely Member fighting this inequity over the years for small town America, effective April 5, there is no more quarter mile rule. Those Americans will now have free box rent for a normal-sized box. The costs are gone at last. I congratulate the U.S. Postal Service for making the right decision.