Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1151, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 34 to prohibit foreign individual campaign contributions or expenditures, which this Member sponsored as one aspect of necessary campaign finance reform legislation. This Member would also like to thank the gentleman form California [Representative Bill Thomas] the Chairman of the Committee on House Oversight and the gentleman from Connecticut [Representative Sam Gejdenson] the ranking member of the Committee on House Oversight for their support in bringing H.R. 34 to the House Floor. Chairman Thomas also independently introduced similar legislation on the first day of this 105th Congress. As many of this Member's colleagues know, this Member has long been a supporter of campaign finance reform. It is clear to this Member that effective campaign finance reform is of fundamental, even crucial, importance to our political system. Our failure to reduce the disproportionate impact of money in elective politics is having a corrosive influence on the American political process contributing to suspicion and cynicism in the American people. Furthermore, there is more than enough blame to go around, as this Member believes it is deplorable that the two political parties have been unwilling to come together to reform this process by relinquishing the elements of our current campaign finance system that favor each particular party. However, this Member has not given up the fight and remains committed to such reform and will continue to be active in pursuing it. In the past, this Member introduced legislation that included a number of campaign finance reform provisions including a provision requiring that a majority of campaign funds raised by Congressional candidates must come from residents in their own state or district. However, while this Member has always been concerned regarding the influence of out-of-state money in congressional elections, it is apparent that a serious problem that really for the first came to the attention of the American public during the 1996 presidential election season--campaign contributions from foreign sources. On December 16, 1996, during a meeting with the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, this Member announced his intention to introduce specific campaign finance reform legislation which would prohibit foreign individual campaign contributions when the 105th Congress convened in January of 1997. This Member kept his promise as on the very first day of the 105th Congress this Member introduced H.R. 34 (i.e., January 7, 1997). Many Americans believe that it is already illegal for foreigners to make Federal campaign contributions. The problem is that they are both right and wrong under our current Federal election laws. The fact of the matter is that under our current Federal election laws, you do not have to be a U.S. citizen to make campaign contributions to Federal candidates. Under our current Federal elections laws, you can make a campaign contribution to a candidate running for Federal office if you are a permanent legal resident alien--a permanent legal resident alien and you, in fact, reside in the United States. This Member believes that this situation is wrong, this Member believes that most Americans would agree it is wrong, and this Member believes that it is a problem begging for correction. Therefore, this Member introduced H.R. 34 on the very first day of the 105th Congress to change our current Federal election laws so that only U.S. citizens are permitted to make an individual contribution to a candidate running for Federal office. To this Member it's very simple--if you want to be fully involved in our political process, then you must become a citizen of the U.S. If you don't make the full commitment to our country by becoming a U.S. citizen, then you shouldn't have the right to participate in our political system by making a campaign contribution and affecting the lives of American citizens--you shouldn't have a role in electing American officials. This Member believes it is a very obvious conclusion that the process of electing our officials should be a right reserved for citizens. It is wrong and dangerous to allow even the potential to exist for undue foreign influence in electing our government, and H.R. 34 is one of the numerous important steps to do so. The abuse that allegedly resulted from foreign campaign contributions in the recent presidential campaign is a terrible indictment of our current campaign finance system. Indeed, the Congress must be concerned about the issue of legal and illegal foreign campaign contributions. Everyone here today should be concerned about this recent insidious development in our presidential election process, and should understand that these statutory and procedural changes like the passage of H.R. 34 are necessary to protect the integrity of the American electoral process. We must insure that it is Americans who choose our President and Congress. We simply cannot allow foreign corporations and foreign individuals to decide who is elected to public office at any level of our government. Therefore, my legislation (H.R. 34) to require that only U.S. citizens be allowed to make contributions to candidates for Federal office is one of my priorities for the 105th Congress. This issue must be addressed and this Member intends to push for this change until successful. With regard to soft money from American subsidiaries of foreign corporations, we must, as a minimum, enforce the current law that such contributions can only come from the profits of their U.S. subsidiaries until greater and appropriate changes can be made. This Member would ask his colleagues to support H.R. 34 as an important step toward campaign finance reform.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this March 19, 1998, Lincoln Journal Star editorial on President Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Mar. 19, 1998] Expanding Medicare Means Bigger Problems in Long Term President Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare has immense sugar-coated appeal. It would allow those age 55 through 64 to obtain Medicare coverage as long as they paid the full cost of the federal health insurance program. There would be no cost to taxpayers for providing this new option to a supposedly needy group. Congress, however, should reject the idea. This is no time to broaden a program already facing fiscal collapse in a few years when baby boomers start to retire. In pushing for his program Tuesday, Clinton released a report showing that 4.6 million Americans are uninsured or rely on expensive individual insurance policies. That represents 22 percent of Americans age 55 through 64. Nebraska, North Dakota and Texas were listed as states with the highest percentages of people with difficulty finding health insurance, a factoid that is not surprising because many self-employed farmers and ranchers have individual policies. The biggest problem with the expansion of Medicare is that it would increase the role of government in health care. Government history here does not encourage optimism that good things will result. In 1996, for example, the government overpaid health providers by $23 billion. That represents 14 percent of all the money spent in the program. It represents about $88 for each of the 260 million people in the country. Obviously, the entrance of government into an entirely new market segment will hurt private insurance providers. But providing a government option also could have unintended effects on the private sector. It might encourage employers, for example, to drop insurance plans. Rather than offer post- retirement health insurance plans to early retirees, companies could rely on Medicare to supply the coverage. Eventually, of course, as Sen. Chuck Hagel and Rep. Jon Christensen have predicted, there would be efforts in Congress to provide financial help for those in the new, lower age bracket. Instead of covering the full cost of the Medicare premiums, financial aid would be granted to those supposedly unable to afford Medicare premiums. The likelihood of that expansion happening is greatest in today's era of possible budget surpluses. As it is, officials estimate that only about 10 percent of those eligible will buy into the Medicare program, because the premiums are expensive. People between 62 and 65 years old could buy in for a base premium of about $300 per month. Those between 55 and 62 would pay about $400 a month. Despite its surface appeal, expansion of Medicare to those 55 through 64 would be only the first chapter in a script with an unhappy ending. Congress should refuse to start something destined to turn out badly. Medicare already is facing fiscal trouble. The expansion will only make its future more bleak.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, only to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) for his kind remarks toward me.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the sponsor of this legislation, who has done an outstanding job in working with the committee and in crafting this legislation.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. The world's tropical forests, which are biodiverse, economically crucial and ecologically irreplaceable, are now disappearing faster than any other natural community. We heard the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on that subject. Most of these forests are located in developing countries. Most of these countries are poor, many with crushing debt burdens. This body should view this legislation as a creative opportunity to address the twin problems of Third World debt and deforestation. Mr. Chairman, one of the benefits of seniority is seeing some ideas gain acceptance after a period of time. Mr. Chairman, this is to trace a little bit of legislative history. But this proposal is, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) indicated, based to some extent on the success of the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative from the Bush administration. We saw good results from that. It is a creative variation of the EAI theme. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member would like to note that the forests and jungles of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand are rapidly disappearing. Vietnam, for example, has only 19 percent forest coverage today, compared to 43 percent 50 years ago. The legislation before this body today will go beyond the Latin American focus of EAI to offer protection in tropical forests in Africa, East Asia, and the south Asian subcontinent, among other parts of the world. Mr. Chairman, this Member was particularly interested in Bangladesh, which is one of the world's poorest nations. It is struggling with both overwhelming PL 480 debt and severe environmental problems. This Member would ask the body's indulgence to describe how today's legislation is likely to affect Bangladesh and what would be required of a country such as Bangladesh to participate in the proposed debt swap. Now, to its credit, Bangladesh continues to service their debt, with great difficulty I might add. This, however, puts the United States in the rather embarrassing position of receiving almost as much money back as it is giving humanitarian assistance because of the PL 480 debt interest. To be eligible for debt reduction under this legislation, a country must contain an appropriate tropical forest and meet specific and economical and political criteria. At the March 10, 1998, markup of this legislation by the Committee on International Relations, the administration testified that Bangladesh did indeed possess the requisite tropical forests of global importance. This was particularly true with regard to the forest's importance of habitat for various endangered species which we described, and the specific area in Bangladesh was noted. The political eligibility criteria of this legislation requires the debtor country to have a democratically elected government which is not pursuing egregious policies in the area of human rights, narcotics or terrorism. The State Department has confirmed that Bangladesh would meet these political criteria, and that is a very important part of this bill. The economic eligibility criteria required of a debtor country is to have in place or be making progress towards an IMF arrangement, World Bank structure, or sectoral adjustment loans if necessary, to have put in place major investment reforms and, if appropriate, to have agreed with its commercial bank lenders on a satisfactory lending program. It is this Member's understanding that the International Monetary Fund is negotiating a potential staff-monitored program with Bangladesh, for example. In addition, as evidence of major investment reforms, Bangladesh has concluded a bilateral investment treaty with the United States. On a preliminary basis, the Department of the Treasury has determined that if Bangladesh concludes its negotiation on an IMF staff-monitored program, it should meet with economic eligibility requirements for debt reduction under this legislation. Based on the above, it is my sincere hope that serious consideration will be given to Bangladesh within the provisions of this legislation. Debt buy-back such as envisioned in this legislation would permit Bangladesh to address its lingering debt problems while preserving its tropical forest. Mr. Chairman, I bring this specific country's example to our attention, but it is an example of how it will work elsewhere. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman from the State of Ohio (Mr. Portman) for introducing this important piece of legislation with creativity, with original cosponsorship, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). I commend the efforts of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership demonstrated over the years on environmental matters and for helping, with the cooperation of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), to bring this legislation to the floor. As other Members in this body have noted, this legislation enjoys bipartisan support and is not opposed by the administration. The bill was favorably reported by a voice vote of the full Committee on International Relations without any discernible objection. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong adoption of H.R. 2870; and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the new dollar coin receives further consideration, this Member encourages his colleagues to read the following opinion piece by Harold W. Anderson which appeared in the November 20, 1997, Omaha World-Herald. The article highlights the contributions of Sacagawea during Lewis and Clark's expedition to explore the Louisiana Purchase and the important role she played in the development of the country. [From the Omaha World-Herald, November 20, 1997] (By Harold W. Andersen) Sacagawea's Likeness Good Choice for Coin It's not often that I find an opinion on The Washington Post editorial page with which I agree. (To be fair, I must concede that I doubt that my friend Kay Graham, former publisher of The Post, would find very many opinions in my column that she would agree with). There was a letter from a Post reader that caught my eye--a letter with a suggestion well worth considering. The letter writer, a resident of Washington, noted that there was a debate in the Senate over the likeness that should appear on the new dollar coin that is to be minted. The competing proposals include one for a replica of the Statue of Liberty and a proposal for a likeness that would depict a ``woman of historical significance.'' The Post's correspondent said this is his opinion. ``The introduction of the new coin provides a unique opportunity to give the recognition that is long overdue to Sacagawea, a great American woman of historical significance, a woman of indomitable spirit and undaunted courage whose image on a coin would be an inspiration to American women of all races.'' The letter writer recalled that Sacagawea was a young Shoshone Indian woman who, with her newborn baby, accompanied Lewis and Clark on their epic expedition to explore the Louisiana Purchase. The letter recalled some of the details of Sacagawea's remarkable contributions to the success of the Lewis and Clark expedition--details recounted in Stephen Ambrose's beautifully written ``Undaunted Courage, an Account of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,'' and told also in a recent splendid PBS documentary, ``Lewis and Clark: the Journey of the Corps of Discovery.'' The Post correspondent summarized his case for recognizing Sacagawea on the new dollar: ``To put her likeness on the dollar coin would be a tribute both to the contributions that women and Native Americans have made to the development of our nation and would be an inspiration to women from all facets of our society to be as great as they can be.'' Sounds like a good idea.

Mr. BEREUTER

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 House Resolution 361.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.Res. 361, this Member rises to urge the government of Cambodia to create conditions which would ensure a free, fair, and credible election in that troubled country. Mr. Speaker, this Member would tell his colleagues that 7 months after a violent coup ousted the democratically elected First Premier Prince Ranariddh from power, Cambodia's prospects for democracy remain a shattered dream. Those democratic hopes were considerably brighter in 1993 when an international effort led by the United Nations oversaw Cambodia's first democratic elections. Nearly 90 percent of the eligible electorate took part in that contest which chose FUNCINPEC's Prince Ranariddh as Prime Minister. Hun Sen, however, refused to accept the people's verdict and threatened a coup if not allowed a major role in the new government. Hun Sen's stand resulted in an unnatural, and ultimately unworkable, coalition government. The fragile coalition finally disintegrated last July when Hun Sen violently expelled Prince Ranariddh from the government. Many prominent opposition leaders fled into exile. Many of these politicians have now returned to Cambodia to prepare for the elections scheduled for July 26. However, because of continued intimidation by forces close to the Hun Sen regime, these politicians have not been able to conduct normal political activities. The media, as well, has been cowed by the same forces of intimidation. Within Cambodia, human rights workers persevere in their difficult task, often at considerable personal risk. Today, 7 months after the fact, Hun Sen's regime has yet to investigate the many instances of extrajudicial killing that took place at the time of the coup and since, despite repeated calls for accountability from domestic and international groups. H.Res. 361 cites the coup d'etat of July 1997 and subsequent extrajudicial killings, the ongoing atmosphere of political intimidation, the questionable impartiality of the election law and the newly created National Election Commission, and the failure of the Hun Sen regime to facilitate the expeditious return of Prince Ranariddh and his full participation in the election process as indications that conditions do not yet exist to conduct free, fair, and credible elections. In response to these problems, H.Res. 361 urges the Cambodian government to fully enforce the Paris Peace Accords; to restore a nonviolent and neutral political atmosphere; to allow all exiled opposition leaders, including First Premier Ranariddh, to return to Cambodia and engage in political activity without fear of political or physical reprisal; and to take further measures to ensure a credible election. H.Res. 361 then also calls on all sides in the domestic dispute to abide by the cease-fire of February 27, 1998. It commends the work of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the U.N. Centre for Human Rights for their ongoing efforts to restore democratic governance to Cambodia. It calls upon the United States Government to continue its support for human rights NGOs in Cambodia. Finally, H.Res. 361 states our unwillingness to accept as legitimate or worthy of U.S. assistance a Cambodian government resulting from a fraudulent election. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations unanimously adopted H.Res. 361. This Member believes that H.Res. 361 represents a balanced assessment of the situation in Cambodia and our prescription for advancing democracy and human rights in that beleaguered nation. This Member also thanks the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, for moving this initiative in such 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. This Member also thanks the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for his assistance in speeding this resolution before this body. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.Res. 361. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for their comments regarding Cambodia. The gentlewoman from Texas also made very commendable comments on Botswana. Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support and a recorded vote for the Cambodia resolution to do what we can to ensure free and fair and credible elections in Cambodia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from New York for his comments. He is absolutely right. The people of Cambodia have been very long suffering. They deserve better. We are headed for a noncredible, disastrous election unless the world community lets the Hun Sen regime know that we will not accept election results, that we expect better, that we expect that candidates for office, including Prince Ranariddh will be able to come back and to campaign unimpeded by physical intimidation. This House will be asked to vote in a recorded vote in a few minutes. I would hope that my colleagues will give a unanimous positive vote for this resolution. This is a resolution where we may indeed have an impact on Cambodia and on the international community. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H.Res. 361) calling for free and impartial elections in Cambodia, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. As an original cosponsor of H. Res. 364, this Member rises in strong support of this resolution which urges the introduction and passage of a resolution on the human rights situation in the People's Republic of China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. The Commission began its annual session on March 16th. This administration seems to believe strongly in using the United Nations where appropriate. This is the appropriate place for the human rights abuses in China to be brought to the attention of the world community. I regret the fact that it is not going to be pursued by the administration. The resolution we have before us today, crafted by the gentleman from New Jersey, with input from many people, including this Member, quotes from the State Department Human Rights Report of 1997 noting that the Government of China continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, which included extrajudicial killings, torture, forced abortion and sterilization, as well as expanded attempts to control religion. Certainly Beijing is annoyed that year after year the United States has raised this issue at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. But for many in this body who are genuinely interested in Sino-American relations, human rights is an entirely appropriate U.S. concern. Thus, this Member regrets that late last week the administration decided not to press for a U.N. resolution censuring China for human rights abuses, citing that the Beijing Government is gradually changing it is progressive practices and may be ready to make new releases of political dissidents. That may be a correct conclusion. I hope it is. But I do believe it is the wrong approach. I think we use this Human Rights Commission forum whenever appropriate. And while it is true that during the past year China has made some concessions, such as the release of dissident Wei Jingsheng from prison, this Member urges the administration to continue to press China on human rights even if the U.N. meeting in China, very unfortunately, is not to be the forum by the choosing of this administration. As the Members of this body are aware, this Member supports engagement with the People's Republic of China. This year's summit represented expanded engagement of the PRC, which this Member believes will successfully promote Democratic ideals and standards throughout this country. That said, this does not mean that we should remain silent regarding human rights abuses in China. The gentlewoman from California has brought up the European Commission and the European Union, and I think that is entirely appropriate. They say we are not going to pursue this in the U.N. Human Rights Commission because we believe in constructive engagement. Well, so do I, and so do many Members of this body, and so do the administrations of both parties, but that does not mean that we fail to use the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I think it is a shameful lack of courage on the part of the Commission. I am talking about the European Commission and the European Union. It is true, as the gentlewoman said, that members are free to go their own way and support and introduce such a resolution before the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Denmark had the courage to do that last year. China threatened repercussions on Denmark when they took that stance, and perhaps they delivered on that. But I do not think that should be any excuse for the lack of courage on the part of the Europeans in this respect. And they are very quick to give us advice gratuitously. Let it be said that this Member, and I think many Members of this body, are discouraged and very upset with their decision. This resolution, therefore, is an important statement on the part of the U.S. House of Representatives. It puts, through H.Res. 364, us on record that the very real human rights questions and concerns that the American people have raised regarding the PRC are certainly voiced in this body. This Member again commends the author of the resolution, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for this initiative. He has pursued it previously, as already mentioned. This Member also thanks the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for assisting us in moving this initiative in such an expeditious manner. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for the adoption of H.Res. 364.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, for yielding me the time. I want to commend him and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and all the cosponsors of this resolution. As the gentleman from California mentioned a few minutes ago, sometimes it appears we only bring resolutions which criticize other countries. Here is an example of a country which has moved in a very exemplary fashion in so many areas. Since its independence in September of 1996, Botswana has been a successful multiparty democracy. It has consistently scored high in human rights reports by the State Department. It has been a long- standing ally of the United States, and it has consistently supported U.S. positions in international fora. Through increased adherence to free-market principles, Botswana has experienced remarkable economic growth, it has made U.S. economic assistance unnecessary, and it has done it in a part of a continent where that is not always the case. We often encourage African countries to spend money on social concerns such as education and health, and the President Masire government has done exactly that. Unlike so many other leaders in many countries and certainly in Africa, the President is stepping down voluntarily. The ruling Botswana Democratic Party offered him the chance to be exempt from new term limits on the presidency, but he refused. I think he is setting an outstanding example for the future in this multiparty democracy. It is entirely appropriate that we do commend Botswana for the very impressive progress they have made. I commend my colleague for bringing this to the attention of the House.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to reiterate, this legislation is not a zero sum game. Adding Morocco as a country, the President may consider to meet all of the criteria, including human rights and everything else that is in the bill; to make a recommendation that it is in our national interest to ask the Congress to approve it is all this legislation does. It sets in place a requirement that Congress take action. It should not be closed. We should not send that message to North Africa. This is an excellent bill. The amendments that have been adopted and this amendment will make it an even better one. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this simply narrows the scope of the original amendment to include Morocco. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois and all of his leading cosponsors for introducing this important legislation. There is not a better time than on the eve of the President's visit to Africa to send an important message to many countries of Africa that we want them as trade partners, and that we are going to be assisting them in that respect. The message this legislation sends to governments of the country of Africa is clear: Undertake sustained economic reform and trade liberalization policies, and we will trade with you, and you will benefit. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this message is so important I think it should not be lost on the countries of North Africa. That is why this Member, along with the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), have proposed this amendment covering Morocco. It still, of course, would permit the President to make a determination that this is in our national interests, that they meet the criteria, it would still come to Congress for approval. Our amendment simply permits that. Mr. Chairman, it is clear to this Member that there is really no valid reason to exclude Morocco from the scope of this act. For example, there are many sub-Saharan countries with per capita incomes higher than that of Morocco, which desperately needs the direction provided by this act. Secondly, since the 1990s, the Moroccan government has pursued economic reform programs supported by the IMF and the World Bank. It has restrained spending, revised the tax system, reformed the banking system, lifted import restrictions and lowered tariffs. Also, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that our amendment has no direct effect on revenues because any future eligibility designation would require implementing legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification, and I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be permitted to read the modification to the amendment and that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time. I rise in very strong support for H.R. 1432, a bill to authorize new trade and investment policy for Sub-Saharan Africa. First, let me commend the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and many distinguished, informed and thoughtful colleagues on both sides of the aisle for sponsoring this bipartisan initiative. This act is a much-welcome initiative for a continent in need of our focused attention, and I am very proud and pleased to be an original cosponsor. We hear a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration around here, but I tell my colleagues, in my judgment, without fear of responsible contradiction, this is the most important foreign policy initiative of this Congress. Beyond that, this is the most important thing that we have done potentially for Africa in post-colonial times, and I believe that the potential will be shown to be a reality. Why do I say that? Well, first of all, we know, of course, that the United States has been committed to Africa in terms of foreign assistance for many years now, but our commitment to Africa in terms of trade has been less steadfast. In fact, our trade policy at times discourages private sector enterprises in Africa. These trade barriers can negate the benefits of U.S. foreign assistance to some of the same African countries that we are trying to help. Oftentimes, we hear from these countries, ``We want trade,'' and they even go on to say, ``We do not need aid if you give us adequate trade opportunities.'' This is a win/win situation for the United States and these African countries. As a strong supporter of the aid to Africa through the Development Fund for africa, in fact, Mr. Wolpe I think was the original initiator, and other mechanisms, I believe this legislation finally coordinates and sufficiently focuses America's resources on both trade and aid in Africa, and there are a number of amendments made in order that will improve this legislation. By requiring African countries to show their commitment to market reform, this bill lays the proper foundation for a very positive, cooperative relationship between the United States and these many countries of Africa. By proposing a framework for investment assistance, export promotion, free trade arrangements, and the abolition of trade barriers, this legislation creates a reward system that ensures those market reforms in Africa are more likely to continue. Finally, by maintaining our foreign assistance program for sustainable development and humanitarian purposes, this legislation commits us not only to economic liberalization in Africa, but also to equitable and efficient development that does not overlook the poor or those most in need. Mr. Chairman, I find it very hard to imagine how someone could oppose this legislation once they have examined it. This legislation has received widespread attention both inside the United States and outside this country from our allies and friends. Ask the African countries and their leaders and their people how they feel about it. If they know about it, they are in favor of it. It has been received well as a coordinated, thoughtful component to our foreign policy toward the individual countries of Africa. I say to my colleagues who know about my involvement in Africa and foreign affairs issues for some time, I say to them, this legislation is a very positive contribution to Africa and to the United States. I strongly urge that my colleagues support the most important foreign policy initiative of this Congress, one that has bipartisan support.