Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but under my reservation I yield to the gentleman from New York to explain the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I like the intent of what the gentleman is attempting to do, but I would like to tell the gentlewoman that we cannot cut off aid through the multilateral development organizations. All we can do is direct our executive director to those multilateral development organizations what he or she should do in attempting to cause those organizations to stop aiding Cambodia. I do not, therefore, think that the gentleman's amendment is implementable when it comes to the multilateral development banks. That is why I believe, while well-intended, what he attempts to do, at least with the MDBs, is not possible. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, that is all I can ask. I do appreciate the distinguished gentleman for his cooperation on this effort and for his effort tonight in general.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific to offer an amendment to this legislation concerning provision of United States assistance to the Government of Cambodia. This Member's amendment would terminate United States foreign assistance to the Government of Cambodia, but is designed to allow continued humanitarian assistance to flow to humanitarian nongovernmental organizations and pro-democracy funds to flow through the National Endowment for Democracy. It would, however, prevent development assistance from going to the tyrants who have seized power in Phnom Penh. Mr. Chairman, the 4-year-old experiment with democracy in Cambodia is in dire straits, and a tyrant has seized power through the force of arms, intimidation, terror, and summary executions. Few people have experienced as much pain, suffering, and terror as the people of Cambodia have over the last 30 years. Ravaged by the war in Indochina, bled white by the genocidal regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and subjugated by a Communist government fronted by the leader of the coup d'etat, Hen Sen, a former member of the Khmer Rouge himself, Cambodia and the United States find themselves on all too familiar ground. After nearly $3 billion in aid and assistance in the first democratic elections in the history of this country, Cambodians are again facing the domination of a ruthless tyrant who murders his opponents, terrorizes the population, and profits from narco-trafficking and corruption. Yet, Hun Sen claims that he respects the rule of law and the wishes of the people, who roundly rejected him and his party at the polls, and tells the international community that supplies over 40 percent of the Cambodian budget to mind its own business and to stay out of Cambodian affairs. Mr. Chairman, the United States continually urges other nations to respect the rule of law, but in the case of Cambodia the Clinton administration is demonstrating that it will ignore a law that is inconvenient. Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997 terminates U.S. assistance to any country whose duly-elected head of government is deposed by a military coup until such time that the President determines that a democratically-elected government has taken office. The Clinton administration has refused to observe this law regarding Cambodia, claiming that what has happened earlier this month was not really a coup. This Member regrets to say that our articulate, plain- speaking Secretary of State does not at this point seem to have the word ``coup'' in her vocabulary when it comes to Cambodia. At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 2 weeks ago on the Cambodian crisis, the State Department witness stated that if the administration actually obeyed the law it would close off too many options for U.S. foreign policy. This Member submits that the administration does not have the option to ignore the provisions of Section 508. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to cut off all direct U.S. assistance to the Government of Cambodia. The U.S. cannot give any support, political, material, or otherwise, to the illegal regime of Hun Sen. This Member would also like to commend the efforts of the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the ranking member of that committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for joining this Member in leading the effort in the House to address the Cambodian crisis. This Member would also like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and the ranking minority member of the Subcomittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] for their efforts on this issue. With their support, this Chamber passed House Resolution 195 on Cambodia on Monday, which, among other things, expressed the sense of the House that such aid should be cut off to Hun Sen's regime by the invocation of Section 508. Therefore, this amendment is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment which prohibits aid to the Government of Cambodia.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member and all the staff here this evening for their indulgence. I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on two issues. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank first of all the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the subcommittee for its recommendations with respect to international agricultural assistance. This Member is pleased that the committee report recommends continued support for a number of collaborative research support programs and calls for increased support for the agricultural development assistance in USAID's budget. However this Member would request that the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee enter into a colloquy to further clarify this matter. Mr. Chairman, the committee report specifically mentions support for six collaborative research support programs. Certainly all of the CRSP programs make major contributions in helping agrarian-based nations develop their economies and increase their readiness for private investment through their contributions in human resource development, education, training, health and nutrition and in improving the human capital capacity of agricultural research and development institutions. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the six CRSPs specifically mentioned in the committee report, is it also the committee's intention to support the sorghum millet CRSP and the integrated pest management CRSP in their efforts to promote sustainable agricultural practices in the developing world?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to compliment him and the chairman on the understanding they have reached. As the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, I certainly agree with the premises of the gentleman's comments and colloquy from the chairman. I commend the gentleman on it.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much. I want to thank the gentleman for his clarification. On the second matter, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the report of the distinguished Commission on International Trade Development and Cooperation which calls for a funding level of at least $500 million for international agriculture and rural development programs in the USAID appropriation for fiscal year 1998. It seems like a reasonable goal to me, given the importance of the programs to the development of future markets for our U.S. farmers and the need to reverse the decline in these programs at USAID in recent years. Does the gentleman agree that there has been a relative decline in funds for this important program and that a target of $500 million or a relevant percentage increase in funding would be appropriate over the next several years?

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

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate now for the gentleman to offer an amendment to title V?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to the gentleman's amendment, offered for ideological reasons no doubt. It is devastating. It would do draconian levels of damage to the American economy, American exporters, American business and American workers. It needs to be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the authorization appropriations are funds that are very much in the American taxpayers' benefit. They come out positive as a result directly of these jobs.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to the Royce amendment. Mr. Chairman, they are laughing and gloating in Germany, France and Japan over this amendment to gut the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Those three countries, among others, will be fighting over the hundreds of thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars in infrastructure projects if the House votes to pass the Royce amendment and gut OPIC, United States foreign policy and investment insurance agencies. The Japanese Government already out-subsidizes our investment insurance 6 times to 1 as a percentage of GDP. Germany spends 5 times more, and France 4 times more than the United States to help their companies win lucrative infrastructure projects in the developing world, and those infrastructure projects lead to a whole series of other American job creating activities. Mr. Chairman, this Member finds it truly amazing that some of our well-intended colleagues would thus hurt our Nation in so shortsighted an effort to eliminate funding for an agency of the Federal Government which runs at no net cost and helps make our companies competitive in the global marketplace. At a time when the U.S. trade deficit is hitting record highs, supporters of the Royce amendment feel compelled to remain in those isolated, academic, ivory towers chastising government involved in overseas investments. Well, Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world governments would not have to be involved in subsidizing overseas investments. In fact, I have added an amendment to an OPIC authorizing bill moving through the House Committee on International Relations which requires U.S. officials to negotiate with foreign competitors and put an end to these subsidies, and that is what we try to do through the OECD. We are making progress, but we are nowhere close. But until that time, therefore, our workers, our exporters, our businesses cannot afford to have the U.S. House of Representatives vote like a bunch of isolationists in ivory towers. The fact remains that foreign governments will fight and spend money to rustle jobs away from hard- working Americans. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote for American workers and vote against the Royce amendment. Let me bring, finally, a few facts to the attention of my colleagues. OPIC makes a profit every year since its creation. Here is what the net, net annual income was for OPIC. Starting in 1971, $25.9 million. Today, last year, that particular year, 1996, $208 million, nearly $209 million. Here is the cumulative impact of U.S. exports generated, I hope, by OPIC. It has increased from $687 million the first year, and we believe this, $52,823,000,000 this last year. That is how much U.S. exports cumulatively was generated by OPIC. Finally, take a look at the cumulative U.S. jobs created and generated by OPIC, and I mean directly, despite what we heard a minute ago. It has increased from a relatively small amount, 4,800 the first year; this year, 225,000 plus. That is how many additional American jobs were created by OPIC. I urge my friends to oppose the Royce amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, both the gentleman from New Hampshire and the gentleman from New York have talked about the administrative cost increases. Let me point out that the size of the loan portfolio has grown dramatically because of the mandate of Congress in 1994. Take a look at the green bar chart. This shows the escalation of administrative costs from $19 to $32 over this period of time. But look at the loan portfolio they are managing: $160 up to $260, $310. Actually they have been very, very conservative in the amount of money they have spent for administrative costs. They have done that despite having an authorization to manage this well. They have managed it well. They are doing a good job. We ought to continue to support them, to implement the congressional mandate.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, we are allowing OPIC to spend money that they have earned. This is not a new appropriation.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say, with all that risk assessment we had from the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], that the recovery rate is 98 percent. Ninety-eight percent recovery rate.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and commend him for his remarks. The gentleman, of course, is currently serving as one of the vice presidents of the North Atlantic Assembly. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and myself, we have all been involved, with others, for quite some period of time. I recall my earliest involvement in this particular issue was back in 1982 or 1984, and it seems to me we have been pushing for burden sharing arrangements since that time, both on infrastructure and every other way. So before it became popular, we had been pushing for that, just as I continue to push for reasonable burden sharing on the United Nations. But I do think we need to keep in mind, regardless of our support for the Frank amendment, that the overriding consideration for us being in NATO is because it is in our national interest. And the overriding reason for us encouraging and participating and actually providing the leadership for expansion of NATO into the Czech Republic and Hungary and Poland, and thereafter, as the gentleman said, to other countries, including Slovenia, Romania, and the Baltic States, is because of our national interest. And that ought to be the overriding factor. We will push hard for burden sharing in every way. We expect the Europeans and Canada to bear their share of the cost, and especially the new countries, but I also think we need to be careful that we do not fall for the exaggerated cost. It is no longer reasonable for us to consider the full infrastructure we have in the front line states in NATO today, like we have in Germany, and these new states. So inheriting the infrastructure in places like Hungary, some of which I have seen in good shape, we can have a dramatic improvement and a protected environment for the citizens of these three countries without extraordinary costs. The defense industry, the opponents of NATO expansion, they put out some extraordinary costs that are not reasonable. But I do think that we need to take this step to try to push the Europeans to pay their share along with the Canadians, but I want to commend the gentleman for his statement and the chairman and the senior Democrat on the Committee on National Security for their comments here today, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts.