Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. House Concurrent Resolution 16 does concern the need to improve the living standards of those South Asians living in the Ganges and the Brahmaputra River Basin. This bipartisan resolution was introduced on February 6, 1997 by this Member and cosponsored by the distinguished gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Gilman; the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman; the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman; and the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Royce. Other Members have subsequently cosponsored this resolution. This Member commends the help and cooperation these Members have demonstrated in moving forward on this important issue. The Committee on International Relations unanimously approved this resolution last Thursday and asked it be placed on the suspension calendar this week. The resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that there is an urgent need to improve the lives of those people of the Bangladesh, India and Nepal countries who live near the Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers and their tributaries. This river basin has the greatest concentration of poor people in the world, greater than any area in Africa, for example. The region has great potential, but, regrettably, it is beset by natural disasters, including flooding during the monsoon seasons, droughts during the dry seasons, and occasional cyclones. Members will recall, perhaps, that during the last Congress this Member and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, introduced House Concurrent Resolution 213, which expressed the hope that the countries of that region would work together to relieve the poverty of the region's residents, focusing primarily on the need to address the critical problems of flooding and drought. That resolution was favorably reported by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific just before the end of the 104th Congress. This Member is pleased to say that since that action, Bangladesh and India have signed a 30-year agreement on sharing the waters of the Ganges River. India and Nepal also have ratified a treaty that will permit their joint development of the Mahakali River water resources. These developments are very welcome. House Concurrent Resolution 16, therefore, congratulates the governments of Bangladesh, India, and Nepal for these achievements and respectfully encourages them to continue their cooperation, which could do much to relieve the poverty of those people living in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River Basins. This resolution also urges the world community, including the international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to provide whatever assistance is appropriate in this effort. Mr. Speaker, the Department of State has informed this Member that the agreement between Bangladesh and India on sharing the Ganges River water was signed on December 12, 1996, not January 13, 1997, as specified in House Concurrent Resolution 16. Therefore, the date has been changed to December 12, 1996. This Member urges his colleagues to vote for House Concurrent Resolution 16.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] recently announced that the estimated population of illegal aliens living in the United States increased by well over 1 million people to a total of 5 million in the last 4 years. This revelation should act as a call to action for all who serve the best interests of our Nation. The integrity and well-being of the United States continues to be under siege from a rising tide of individuals who, by entering the U.S. illegally and exploiting the rights and privileges accorded to legal residents, demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for this country's laws and the rights and commitments of American citizens who honor and abide by them. Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration continues to have a profound negative impact on our job market and workforce, our public assistance programs, our educational institutions, and our health care system. Moreover, massive illegal immigration places a tremendous strain on the social fabric of this Nation and our society's capacity to continue to welcome generous numbers of legal immigrants to America. The negative impact of illegal immigration is being felt by not just one or a few regions of the country in particular; it is being felt throughout the Nation--from the rural communities of Nebraska and Iowa to the metropolitan areas of New York and California. Last year, the 104th Congress took a major step toward stemming the tide of illegal immigration when it passed the most sweeping immigration reform legislation introduced in recent history, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. However, it is clear that further steps need to be taken. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial written by the Norfolk Daily News in Norfolk, NE. It touches upon some of the areas in which the U.S. Government can take additional positive steps in the effort to stop illegal immigration. If we as a nation are to stop illegal immigration, we must stop illegal aliens from using fraudulent documentation and acquire jobs and other benefits accorded to legal residents, and we must improve upon recent efforts to stop aliens from gaining long-term illegal residence in the United States by overstaying their visas. In implementing voluntary worksite enforcement and pilot programs in employment eligibility verification, reducing the number of work authorization documents, and making border crossing identification cards tamper-resistant, Congress and the administration has taken some necessary initial steps toward hindering the ability of aliens to illegally enter the U.S. for employment or other purposes. It is imperative that the establishment of tamper-resistant Social Security cards and the implementation of tested, effective, mandatory employment eligibility verification programs be among some of the next steps that this country takes in addressing the problem of illegal immigration. In this Congress, the Gentleman from the 8th Congressional District of Florida, Mr. McCollum, has introduced legislation of which this Member is proud to be an original cosponsor. This legislation would improve the integrity of the Social Security card and system and provide criminal penalties for fraud and related activity involving work authorization documents. Mr. Speaker, more time is needed to adequately measure the beneficial effects of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It is clear to this Member that the 105th Congress and the administration must work together and propose additional tough measures that will assist in closing the door to massive numbers of illegal aliens. A country that cannot effectively control its borders against illegal immigration is failing a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. [From the Daily News, Feb. 19, 1997] More Illegals Despite Reform--Numbers Much the Same as in 1986 When New Legislation Was Adopted There are 5 million illegal immigrants in America, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is an estimate only. That means the problem is the approximate equivalent of that which prompted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Under that act, 3 million long-termers were legalized and subsequent steps were taken to limit new illegal arrivals. Obviously, and despite strengthening border patrols and creating additional physical barriers, the flow continues. Many (41 percent by INS estimates) of the illegals are people who entered the United States legally but have simply remained in the country after their visas expired. A stab at immigration reform last year, which increased the enforcement manpower levels to create tighter border control, does not appear to have had much effect. Members of Congress continue to reject the idea of a mandatory identification card for workers. But with such a system, fake documents might not be quite so easy to obtain. Employers could be expected to exercise more control in hiring. Americans already carry driver's licenses; photo IDs are required for air travel these days. Social Security cards are needed, though there is no penalty for not having one in your billfold. Americans who want to travel abroad do have to prove citizenship and be issued passports. So the intrusion on personal freedom of an identification card for workers seems slight under the circumstances. And if it would be a help to employers to make sure they are not hiring illegals, and to all those officials being paid to enforce immigration laws, then it would be worthwhile. Injustice is done to all legal immigrants and to all American citizens and taxpayers by ineffective controls. Surely the requirement for ID cards is preferable to financing higher barricades or hiring more border patrol officers.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted in support of House Joint Resolution 36, a resolution to release funds for international family planning on March 1, 1997, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 220-209 on February 13, 1997. I made this decision after careful consideration and deliberation. Former U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, who is pro-life, sent a letter last fall to Representative Chris Smith expressing his concern about the detrimental effect of the delay in funding for these programs. * * * Chris [Smith (R-NJ), author of H.R. 581], you are contributing to an increase of abortions worldwide because of the funding restrictions on which you insisted in last year's funding bill. It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services are not available to women throughout the world, abortion rates increase. We have seen it in the former Soviet Union where women had no access to family planning and relied on abortion as their primary birth control method. Some women had between eight and twelve abortions during their lifetimes. This is unacceptable to me as someone who is strongly opposed to abortion. Based on this statement and other information from pro-life Members of Congress, including Representative Tony Hall, I voted in support of House Joint Resolution 36, a resolution to release international family planning funds on March 1, 1997. Since it is my objective to decrease the number of abortions, this pro-life vote is the only vote I could conscientiously cast. Those Agency for International Development [AID] international family planning funds are prohibited by law from being used for abortion services. This prohibition is carefully monitored by AID and by independent audits. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I also voted in support of H.R. 581, the Chris Smith resolution, which would release funds as early as March 1 as long as recipients abide by the Mexico City policy, which prohibits these funds from going to organizations that also provide abortion services. I have been a long time supporter of the Mexico City policy. I also support family planning which reduces abortion--and oppose the use of Federal funds for abortion except to save the life of an indigent mother. However, since President Clinton waits for H.R. 581 with his veto pen thus giving the legislation virtually no chance of becoming law, I had to support House Joint Resolution 36 in order to provide funding for family planning services that are proven to prevent abortion. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the resolution, House Joint Resolution 36, to release international family planning funds beginning March 1, as recommended by the President, and to oppose H.R. 581, which would place restrictions on international family programs that already exist in Federal law. The release of funds contained in House Joint Resolution 36 has been delayed 5 months, and a report by the administration states that further delay will cause serious, irreversible, and avoidable harm to family planning programs. The report further indicates that a delay of 4 months will increase the incidence of unintended pregnancies, maternal and child deaths, and abortions. Those who oppose this family planning program assert that U.S. funds are being used for abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Current Federal law prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortions or abortion counseling. The Agency for International Development, which administers these funds, has strict procedures to assure no U.S. funds are used for abortion. These procedures include legally binding contract provisions forbidding such activity, staff monitoring, and regular audits by nationally recognized accounting firms. Even a highly respected pro-life advocate, former Senator Mark Hatfield, has found no evidence to suggest U.S. family planning funds are used to fund abortions in other countries. In a September 24, 1996, letter to Representative Chris Smith, who is offering H.R. 581, Senator Hatfield said: I have reviewed the materials you recently sent to my office in response to my request that you provide proof that U.S. funds are being spent on abortion through AID's voluntary international family planning program. Unfortunately, I do not see anything in these materials to back up your assertion. I have received no evidence to contradict Senator Hatfield's belief. Those who say providing funds to family planning agencies increases abortions need to review the evidence to the contrary. Here are some examples: Russia: From 1990 to 1994, contraceptive use increased by 5 percent, and the total number of abortions fell by 800,000. Hungary: A dramatic increase in contraceptive use from the late 1960's to 1986 resulted in a drop in abortion rates from 80 per 1,000 women to about 30 per 1,000 women. Chile: From 1960 to 1990, an increase in contraceptive use resulted in a drop in abortion rates from 77 per 1,000 women to 45 per 1,000. By supporting the expedited release of these family planning funds, we in fact will decrease the incidence of abortions internationally. In a letter to congressional leadership, Reverend Leo O'Donovan, president of Georgetown University, said, Your vote to release these funds on March 1, 1997 rather than delaying until July 1, 1997 will make a tremendous difference to countless families. Our program and international efforts in natural family planning are dependent on these federal resources. The Smith bill, H.R. 581, would unnecessarily restate the existing abortion prohibition and would restrict the expenditure of family planning organizations' own funds. We have the right and the responsibility to place conditions on U.S. taxpayer moneys, but not on all the resources of these groups. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 36 and to oppose the Smith bill at this time. We will have numerous opportunities in this 105th Congress to cast votes on real abortion issues. Although H.R. 581 is cast as one, it fails the test.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial regarding funds for international family planning which appeared in the Omaha World Herald on February 5, 1997. World Needs Family-Planning Funds The United States government's commitment to population control and support for family-planning services around the world is headed for another test in Congress. Anti-abortion forces have slowed and reduced the U.S. role in the past. We hope they don't do so again. A vote is approaching on whether to release $385 million to provide family-planning services to women in the world's poorest countries. The funds were allocated last year but tied up by anti-abortion congressmen who demanded stronger restrictions on using the money to promote abortion. U.S. funding for family-planning programs around the world hit a record $547 million in 1995 but was slashed by 35 percent last year. Ironically, the cut demanded by anti- abortion leaders, which denied access to modern contraceptives to seven million couples, resulted in an estimated 1.6 million more abortions, the Alan Guttmacher Institute has said. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which handles the family-planning programs, said the funding delays have ``resulted in programmatic disruption, inefficiencies'' and an estimated $1 million in extra administrative costs. President Clinton has submitted a report to Congress summarizing the negative impact the lack of funding is having. The report notes the unintended consequences of more abortions and more infant and maternal mortality Congress must act on that report sometime this month, either reaffirming its decision to delay the money or allowing it to be paid out. Since 1973, Congress has forbidden the use of U.S. tax dollars for abortions or abortion-related services overseas. Money sent to the United Nations for family planning and contraceptive services is clearly and unequivocally segregated from any abortion-related expenditures. But anti-abortion forces have demanded that Clinton return to what is known as the Mexico City policy of the Reagan and Bush administrations. That policy barred funding for any organization that performs or promotes abortion as a means of family planning, even though U.S. money would not be used for those activities. Clinton canceled the policy when he took office. Werner Fornos, president of the Population Institute, has suggested that the wider availability of family-planning services in developing nations could actually reduce abortions, which now number 32 million a year. Further delays in family-planning funding would result in even more unintended pregnancies and more abortions. Anti- abortion forces will have caused the very thing they say they abhor most if they continue to delay the release of family- planning money. Population control is vital. Fast population growth underpins most of the worst problems facing the world-- pollution, erosion and soil depletion, loss of the rain forests and a growing shortage of fresh water for domestic and agricultural use. Modern, easily available family- planning services can make a big difference. Congress ought to release the funds needed to keep the international programs going.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in less than 5 months nearly a century of British rule will end and Hong Kong will become a special administrative region of China. Nobody knows exactly what will happen in Hong Kong on that night or in ensuing months and years. This reversion is unprecedented in its complexity. Hong Kong, one of the world's most efficient economies, will become part of an emerging giant that has yet to integrate itself fully into the world economy and the international community and which has only begun to experiment with democracy at the village level. The United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China have largely agreed upon the basic rules for Hong Kong's reversion in the Sino- British Joint Declaration of 1984. For its part, China has agreed to grant Hong Kong more autonomy than international law requires. In Hong Kong's Constitution, the basic law of 1989, the National People's Congress unveiled a one-country, two-system arrangement for 50 years. During that time, Hong Kong is supposed to enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in the areas of foreign affairs and defense. It is rumored that over 7,000 journalists from around the world will be on hand at midnight on June 30, 1997, to witness the official handover. Presumably those journalists will be there to observe whether the transition goes smoothly. Already the press coverage in Hong Kong has become intense. In large part, the attention focused on Hong Kong by the international press has been fueled by misguided or heavy-handed efforts by the Chinese Government to disband the current legislative council and replace it with the provisional legislature, to alter civil rights protections in Hong Kong, and to improperly influence the extremely efficient and extraordinarily important civil service of Hong Kong. Today, with a number of colleagues, I am introducing the Hong Kong Reversion Act that will aid Congress in wading through all of the important issues and this complex transition by building on the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. It will require assessments and reports by the Secretary of State in very specific areas so that the President can determine whether to maintain current United States law and policies involving Hong Kong. In addition, I am especially pleased to report that a team of specialists from the Library of Congress, led by Kerry Dumbaugh, has, at my request, just completed an excellent comprehensive report entitled ``Hong Kong's Reversion to China: Implications for the United States.'' This excellent report will also greatly assist the Congress in this important task, so I am allowing the Library of Congress to make this report publicly available today. Mr. Speaker, this Member invites the cosponsorship and support of this legislation by any and all of my colleagues. Original cosponsors include the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the committee, for his courtesy in yielding to me first. I am about to go lead the House welcome for the Speaker of the Polish Parliament. Several years ago, my State twice passed term limits by large margins, only to have those actions invalidated by the courts. But the first legislative day after the voters of my home State expressed their support for term limits, I cosponsored legislation to institute a 12- and-12 constitutional amendment to limit terms of service for the two houses of Congress. I think it is a close call whether or not it is in the national interest and necessary to institute term limits. Nevertheless, I bowed to the views of my constituents and the people of my State. However, it is very clear to this Member that I could support a constitutional term limitation only if such limitations were in the form of an amendment to the Constitution so that the congressional delegations of all States would be equally affected, and if such limitations were reasonable in length and identical for both the House and Senate. The organization that is referred to as U.S. Term Limits has, with extraordinary funding, largely out-of-State funding, and paid circulators who frequently misinform voters, pushed their ridiculous legislation to require only a 6-year term limit for Members of the House of Representatives, while providing for a 12-year limit on the Senate. This Member simply cannot in good conscience support such a 6-year term limit, as it is clearly contrary to the national interest. I might have a scarlet letter next to my name on the ballot next year. So be it. I am not going to vote against the national interest. I have never knowingly done it, and I am not going to start at this time. Despite such political threats as the proposed notation on the ballot, this Member will not do something that is damaging to the national interest. First, 6 years is a totally inadequate length of time for citizens elected to the House of Representatives to gain the maximum expertise in the legislative process in the House, and to gain sufficient experience to be more likely to consistently make informed decisions that our Founding Fathers expected from the House of Representatives. While over the years people have served in the House of Representatives for less than 6 years, it is foolhardy to expect the House to adequately perform its duties in this modern age when all representatives are limited to a maximum term limit of 6 years. Such an arrangement simply denies the country the crucial experience, good judgment, and informed action that our Nation and its citizens deserve. The House is now confronted by far more complex issues than in the early years of the Republic, and a 6-year term limit flies in the face of that increasingly complex agenda. Second, providing a 6-year term limit for the House and a 12-year term limit for the Senate disturbs the delicate balance of power between the House and Senate, as established by our U.S. Constitution. The implications of this imbalance would probably only become apparent over a period of years, but it clearly will lead to an ever more serious erosion of power in the House of Representatives vis-a-vis the Senate. This Member has yet to hear one good argument for setting different limits on total years of service in the House and Senate. When one tampers with this delicate system, one shatters not only the balance of power between the House and Senate, but also the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our Federal Government. Finally, Mr. Chairman, a 6-year term limit, by reducing the experience and influence of elected Members of the House, will dramatically increase the power of nonelected congressional staff over the legislative process, not to mention special interests. While this Member would be the first to agree that the power of the nonelected congressional staff is already an issue of concern, the 6-year term limit on the House will only compound that problem. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to consider voting for only one approach, if any. That is the McCollum proposal for a 12-year limit on both houses of Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, America's precious trade leverage is being eroded by outdated trade laws which undermine our Government's credibility and provide little incentive for countries to open their markets. These laws desperately need to be revised. Today, I have introduced legislation, the Fair Trade Opportunities Act, which abolishes the MFN trade status process while giving the President of the United States broad but flexible authority to raise tariffs on those countries which are not members of the World Trade Organization or which still prohibit emigration. American companies and workers deserve the right to compete for markets and consumers throughout the world. They deserve our best effort to pry open foreign markets so they can freely sell their products and services. Bluffing and posturing during Congress' annual MFN process does nothing to help them. Giving countries which are not members of the World Trade Organization a ``free-ride'' to our own markets without reciprocal benefits is not fair to American workers. The Fair Trade Opportunities Act responds to post-cold war realities by restoring U.S. trade sanction credibility and providing the President with the tools to open foreign markets. It should be considered in the 105th Congress if the U.S. Government hopes to reclaim America's precious trade leverage and give our export companies and workers equitable access to foreign markets. The Fair Trade Opportunities Act Introduced by Representative Doug Bereuter (R-NE) on January 7, 1996.--This legislation was introduced in the last few days of the 104th Congress as the Fair Trade Opportunities Act (H.R. 4289). It was slightly modified, and then reintroduced on the first day of the 105th Congress. Eliminates outdated U.S. trade law distinction between ``market'' and ``nonmarket'' economies and replaces it with a more appropriate distinction in the post-Cold War Era between member and nonmember countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO).--Under current U.S. trade law, market economy countries receive normal tariff status automatically and nomarket economy countries must go through an annual Jackson-Vanik certification process. The Fair Trade Opportunities Act replaces this Cold War Era distinction with two categories of tariffs--normal tariff status for WTO members and potential ``snap-back'' tariffs for non-WTO countries. Abolishes annual Most-Favored Nation (MFN) process for 17 countries which require annual waiver or certification of compliance with Jackson-Vanik requirements.--The President will no longer have to certify that these 17 countries meet Jackson-Vanik requirements before they are entitled to MFN or normal tariff status. Also, Congress' self-imposed, annual review of the President's certification is eliminated. [Congress retains Constitutional right (Article 1, Section 8) to raise tariffs on any country at any time.] Abolishes Smoot-Hawley (Column #2) tariffs for all countries except those countries which have not concluded commercial agreements with the United States (i.e. Vietnam).--Realistically, these Smoot-Hawley tariffs are only imposed on pariah, bad-actor states, or countries which do not have commercial agreements with the United States. For political, economic, and domestic commercial reasons, threats to impose Smoot-Hawley tariffs on other countries are hollow and not taken seriously by foreign governments. Despite the rancorous debates in Congress over the extension of MFN to some countries, Congress is also quite unlikely to impose Smoot-Hawley tariffs because of the harm it would inflict on U.S. companies and workers. Replaces Smoot-Hawley tariffs with broad and flexible Presidential authority to raise tariffs (snap-back) on countries which are not members of WTO.--On a one-time basis and within six-months of the enactment of the legislation, the President is required to determine if non-WTO countries are ``not according adequate trade benefits'' to the United States. If the President makes such a finding, then the President shall impose snap-back tariffs on that country six- months after the determination. In imposing snap-back tariffs, the President has wide discretion to determine both the amount of the tariff and on which categories of products the snap-back tariffs will be imposed. However, under no circumstances can the President exceed the legislation's snap-back tariff ceiling which is the pre-Uruguay round MFN tariff rates, i.e., the Column #1 tariff rates in effect on December 31, 1994. Enhances United States Trade Representative's negotiating leverage with countries which are not WTO members and provides a strong incentive for those countries to liberalize their trade laws and practices and to improve their WTO accession offers.--Between enactment of the legislation and the President's one-time, six-month determination and twelve- month imposition of snap-back tariffs, this legislation gives those non-WTO countries time to modify their trade regimes so as to give American exporters a fair chance to compete for consumers in their markets. After the President's determination and imposition of tariffs, the Fair Trade Opportunities Act gives the President the authority to withdraw the snap-back tariffs if that country either joins the WTO or the President certifies that the country is according the United States adequate trade benefits. In addition, the President can modify, but not eliminate, the snap-back tariffs for any reason. Provides President with discretionary authority to impose snap-back tariffs on countries which unduly restrict emigration.--The legislation's emigration standard which triggers the presidential snap-back authority is identical to the current freedom of emigration language in the Jackson- Vanik law. Does nothing to change current U.S. sanctions laws with regard to rogue or pariah states such as Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea.--Many countries, such as the pariah or bad-actor states, retain normal tariff status with the United States but are prohibited from some or all trading with the United States because of U.S. sanctions laws.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R 3219, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. This legislation was added by a bipartisan voice vote as an amendment to H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, which apparently and unfortunately will not be enacted this Congress. My understanding is that Secretary Cisneros was visiting one of the Arizona tribes and he asked them, what is the most important thing that could be done to assist you with your housing needs out here? And they surprised him by saying, Pass the legislation that has been reported out of the House subcommittee. It is true, as Mr. Kennedy suggests, that in fact Indian housing has been and continues to be underfunded in light of the needs that are there. But this legislation additionally will stretch the taxpayers money much further as a result of the loan guarantee programs. And I say without hesitation that this is the most important Indian housing legislation ever considered by this Congress or any other Congress. The concepts contained in this legislation are widely supported by Indian groups, including the National American Indian Housing Council. This revolutionary measure for the first time decouples predominantly rural Indian housing from the laws which were designed to govern urban public housing. Additionally, H.R. 3219 creates flexible block grants to tribes or their tribally-designated housing entity; recognizes and supports the unique government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. Government and restates the value of having local control by giving the tribes greater flexibility in providing housing; creates a consolidated Native American Housing Grant--HUD's Office of Native American Programs will be dedicated to helping Indian communities meet their housing needs, with a common goal of achieving economic self- sufficiency, and involves private capital markets and private lenders in improving economic conditions by removing the legal barriers which have kept private investors from participating in Indian country. Also, this Member is pleased that reforms to the section 184 Indian housing loan guarantee program, which he originally authorized in the 102d Congress, are included in this legislation. These reforms were drafted in cooperation with the administration, and make three very simple but important improvements to the section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, first authorized through the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This loan program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Native American Programs, has proven to be a highly popular and effective way to bring private market participation to meet the housing needs in Indian country. The current loan guarantee program allows Indians and Indian Housing Authorities [IHAs] access to private financing that otherwise would not be available to them because of the unique legal status of Indian trust land. The Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund is used to guarantee loans made to Indian families and IHAs for the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of 1-4 unit family dwellings. This must be standard housing and must be located on trust land or land located in an Indian or Alaskan native area. HUD works with tribes, lenders, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer the loan program. HUD issues prequalification commitments based on information received from the lender. The lender completes property underwriting, and then submits the loan to HUD for firm commitment. After the commitment is issued, the loan is closed and serviced by the lender. As mentioned a moment ago, this legislation makes three simple changes to the section 184 program. First, the maximum loan amount is raised to bring it in line with the widely used FHA single-family loan program. Specifically, for loans with appraised values of $50,000 or less, the maximum loan amount will be 98.75 percent of the appraised value. For loan on properties valued above $50,000, the loan may be 97.75 percent of the appraised value. The second change made by this amendment is simple yet very important. Because the construction process often does not conform to the congressional budget cycle, this amendment authorizes funds appropriated to remain available until expended. The final change made by this Member's amendment is an expansion of the authority of the Government National Mortgage Association, also known as Ginnie Mae, to purchase loans guaranteed under this program. Without this expansion, Ginnie Mae is not authorized to participate in Indian country. This Member would like to note that the Nation's largest housing secondary market, Fannie Mae, has been instrumental in the programs early success. However, now is not the time to limit the sources of capital for participating lenders. Rather, by adding Ginnie Mae as an additional source of funds, this amendment would expand the capital available in Indian country. Mr. Speaker, this Member again strongly urges his colleagues to support Native Americans and the American Taxpayers by voting in favor of this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress comes to its conclusion, this Member would take a moment to point out a major, unsung success story in American foreign policy. For 5 years the Former Yugoslav Republic has survived in a fragile and tenuous manner. Surrounded by adversaries and facing an embargo from Greece, the tiny Balkan State of Macedonia, which is formally recognized at this time in international fora as the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia [FYROM], has defied the odds and emerged as a viable state. FYROM has a democratically elected government, and with international assistance seems to have avoided much of the turmoil that has afflicted the rest of the former Yugoslavia. The United States can justifiably take some pride in Macedonia's success. For the past 3 years, American troops have served in the international peacekeeping force that monitors the border with Serbia. Together with Danish and Swedish troops, these forces have served as an important deterrent to ensure that the Bosnian conflict did not migrate into the southern Balkans. American diplomats helped resolve, or at least dramatically reduce, the longstanding differences the Government of Greece has had with the Skopje government. American foreign aid and technical assistance, including assistance provided by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Business Administration, has provided an important catalyst to develop entrepreneurs in Macedonia. Many obstacles remain. Greeks and Macedonians continue to have a number of differences, including the final name of the country. Ethnic Albanians has serious concerns that their special needs are not always adequately considered. And, there always is the grave risk that a crisis in Kosovo would spill over into Macedonia. These potential problems notwithstanding, Macedonia rightfully deserves praise. As Cord Meyer noted in a recent editorial, ``For the first time in many years, it is possible to look with some optimism at the future of the southern Balkans.'' This Member would ask that Mr. Meyer's editorial entitled ``Achieving Stability Macedonia's Way'' from the September 26, 1996, edition of the Washington Times be included in the Record. [From the Washington Times, Sept. 26, 1996] Achieving Stability Macedonia's Way (By Cord Meyer) On September 8, Macedonia celebrated the fifth anniversary of its vote for an Independent and sovereign Macedonia, as opposed to remaining part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is the only former member of the Yuguslav Republic that managed to declare independence peacefully and without bloodshed. Even Slovenia had 10 days of war before it broke free. Having survived an attempt to assassinate him last October, the 79-year-old president, Kiro Gligurov, has made an extraordinary recovery from his serious wounds, is now back in full control of the presidency, and presides over a coalition government. Having survived the glancing blow of United Nations sanctions aimed at Serbia and a year's embargo on its trade with Greece, the Macedonian economy is beginning to feel results from the rigorous privatization program that Mr. Gligorov has insisted upon. Mr. Gligoruv can also claim a large share of the credit for the timely deployment in 1993 of the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Macedonia's Northern border with Serbia. The assignment of 500 U.S. troops and 600 Nordic forces as an effective tripwire to discourage aggression remains a classic example of timely preventive diplomacy. It would be a serious mistake to withdraw these forces prematurely, as some of Congress are urging. Another example of effective diplomacy was the agreement reached last September by Macedonia with its southern neighbor, Greece. By agreeing to change its flag and modify its constitution, Macedonia with the help of Cyrus Vance as U.N. negotiator, managed to lift the damaging embargo on trade with Greece. The name issue was set aside for future negotiation and both countries claim to be enjoying profitable and peaceful relations. Perhaps the most serious and difficult unresolved problem. Macedonia now faces is the status of its 23 percent Albanian minority. In addressing that issue, we are fortunate to have available a number of recommendations made this week by a working group appointed by the Council on Foreign Relations to promote stability in the Southern Balkans. They urge as the first priority maintaining the U.N. force on Macedonia's border with Serbia, as proof of U.S. commitment to Macedonia's territorial integrity and to minimize military expenditures by the Balkan states. Second, the working group urges support of economic recovery in Macedonia, because no effort to reduce ethnic conflict is likely to succeed if economic conditions deteriorate. They recommend international support for ``construction of an East-West transportation corridor that would link Bulgaria to its Adriatic ports via Macedonia.'' They urge other efforts at economic integration of the region. Thirdly, the group found two key areas where reforms could make a difference: education and the political system. They urge the Macedonian government to end its opposition to Tetovo University, where the Albanian language is taught, and the expansion of Albanian language instruction at Skopje University. They call on the United States ``to accompany efforts to facilitate the satisfaction of Albanian cultural needs with efforts to support Macedonian cultural development.'' Finally, the working group heard several conflicting arguments about the ethnic composition of public sector employment with the Albanian minority claiming discrimination. In the long run, the conclusion was that economic progress in Macedonia will depend on the growth of the private sector. On the issue of electoral reform, they found a consensus that reforms should be designed ``to equalize the population of electoral districts and introduce some element of proportionality in the distribution of seats.'' The hope is that the probable increase in diversification of ethnic Albanian participation in parliament would encourage Albanian participation in coalition politics and legitimate the Macedonian political order in the Albanian community. The group suggested permitting the use of minority languages in the conduct of local business in state offices. Finally, Macedonia's political stability is to some extent at the mercy of events in Kosovo on its northern border. The 90 percent Albanian majority in Kosov has been kept under a brutal suppression by the 10 percent Serbian minority, and the danger of a violent revolt has been real. However, on Sept. 3 Slobodan Milosevic, the president of Serbia, seems to have reached a deal with Ibrahim Rugova, the longtime leader of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, to end the six-year Albanian boycott of state schools. Motivating Mr. Milosevic may have been the American warning to him that he could not expect to join the International Monetary Fund until he improved his treatment of the Albanian population. For the first time in may years, it is possible to look with some optimism at the future of the Southern Balkans.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's animal shelters and the tens of thousands of dedicated individuals who are employed by or volunteer in these facilities certainly deserve recognition for the work they have done in assisting animals. This Member is pleased that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has provided training and support to local animal shelters and humane organizations for over 40 years, has declared November 3-9, 1996, as National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week. The idea for a national day of recognition and appreciation for animal shelters actually started with a humane society in this Member's district, the Capital Humane Society in Lincoln, NE. Bob Downey, the executive director of the Capital Humane Society, contacted the HSUS and suggested that they work together to establish a week intended to recognize the positive roles that animal shelters play in their communities; to recognize the staff and volunteers of shelters; and to educate the general public about animal shelters and the work they do. The services offered by animal shelters are as varied as the communities they serve. Some handle animal control issues, such as controlling dogs running at large or sheltering unwanted or abandoned animals. Some conduct rescue operations by responding to calls regarding injured animals or animals that have fallen through the ice of a frozen lake or pond. Still others assist families who are considering adding a new four-legged member to the family by providing adoption services. There are many ways that individuals can help our local animal shelters and humane societies. Many shelters, just like the Capital Humane Society, both need and welcome volunteers who perform a variety of tasks such as walking dogs, grooming animals, cleaning cages or assisting with adoptions. Shelters can also use donations of supplies such as blankets and towels to provide bedding, food or cages, or just cash donations to help pay for the costs of daily operations. National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week is an appropriate time for people to visit shelters, thank the people who work there, and volunteer their time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 189, which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the importance of U.S. membership in regional South Pacific organizations. This web would congratulate the resolution's author, chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Gilman, for his excellent leadership on this issue. This Member is also pleased to join as a cosponsor of this important measure. I thank the gentleman from Guam for his very kind remarks, and I was very pleased that he joined us in a joint subcommittee hearing between the Committee on International Relations as a member of the Committee on Resources yesterday. He joined the gentleman from American Samoa and myself and other members of our two subcommittees to examine those parts of the Pacific that were once part of the trust territories assigned to the United States, now called freely associated states, and, of course, the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas. And the gentleman is right to recall that all the trust territories that we were assigned are a part of the Northern Pacific. I think that the gentleman from American Samoa represents the only American territory in the southern hemisphere. He is shaking his head in affirmation. House Concurrent Resolution 189 is indeed a bipartisan resolution with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] making very important contributions. Mr. Speaker, the South Pacific is a vast region where the United States has a myriad of commercial and strategic interests. Unfortunately this important region does not receive the attention it deserves. Perhaps, understandably, this body tends to focus on civil war, natural disasters, and nations in crisis. But in the process, many of our friends, those nations which are not experiencing societal upheaval, seem to be overlooked. This body seldom hears about the Pacific Island nations, in part because we have some good bilateral and multilateral relations, even though sometimes I think we neglect them. The United States productively contributes in a number of regional bodies, such as the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program and the South Pacific Forum and the East-West Center in Hawaii which serves as a major center of South Pacific policy studies as well as study on other parts of the Pacific and the Asian part of the Pacific rim. This Member would say that this sort of resolution where this body takes the time, makes a small amount of effort, very well conceived, commending the efforts of our long-time friends and allies, serves a very important function; people do pay attention. This resolution tells our Pacific Island friends that we do not take them for granted and that we value their friendship. When I was a member of the 42d General Assembly of the United Nations, a legislative delegate appointed, we took the time to meet with our South Pacific and Northern Pacific friends, and in fact we found that those were the countries that were voting with us the most often even though we sometimes, I am afraid, neglected them. So I think this resolution tells the nations of the region that the United States intends to continue working with them in the future. It says we are interested in their views on regional, environmental, and development matters. Mr. Speaker, these are important things to say, and this Member commends Chairman Gilman for saying them so eloquently. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3391, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Amendments Act. As a cosponsor of the legislation, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for introducing this bill and working for its enactment. Across the Nation, leaking underground storage tanks present a hazard which must be addressed. Unfortunately, less than half of the identified leaking tanks have been remedied. In addition, there are likely thousands of other unidentified leaking tanks which require action. This legislation improves the current situation by distributing more money from the existing trust fund to the States where it belongs. The trust fund was established by Congress in 1986 and currently contains about $1 billion. Although the trust fund is intended to provide assistance in the cleanup of underground storage tanks, far too much of the money in the trust fund has been used to offset general Federal spending. This Member certainly believes that the money in the trust fund should for used for the purposes for which it was originally intended; money simply accumulating in the trust fund obviously does not address the current needs. The large number of remaining leaking underground storage tank sites to be addressed is evidence that the States certainly could use this money which is currently accumulating in the trust fund. This bill would assist States in more efficiently receiving and disbursing money from the trust fund. It would also give the States increased flexibility in the use of money from the trust fund. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3391.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to support H.R. 3852, the Methamphetamine Control Act. Methamphetamine is a powerful drug that is relatively easy to manufacture. The use of this dangerous drug is escalating rapidly due to its low cost and highly addictive qualities. Methamphetamine use is expanding into the Midwest. According to the Nebraska State Patrol, in 1991, Nebraska had 25 arrests for possession of methamphetamine or delivery. In 1995, there were 374 methamphetamine arrests. This is a 350-percent increase. Communities along the I-80 corridor are the hardest hit. The severity of the problem in Nebraska was highlighted last spring by the tragic death of a teenager in York, NE, at his prom from an overdose of methamphetamine. It was a shock and wake-up call to this prototypical county seat community of 7,500 and to all of Nebraska. The Methamphetamine Control Act increases penalties for trafficking and manufacturing methamphetamine substances or other materials used to produce methamphetamines. It appropriately establishes mandatory minimum sentences for methamphetamine trafficking. For trafficking 5 to 49 grams of the drug there will be a 5-year minimum sentence. The bill requires a 10-year minimum sentence for trafficking 50 or more grams. These new penalties are crucial to efforts to decrease the availability of this dangerous and proliferating drug. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill in the short time left in this session of Congress. It must also be passed by the Senate with these tough but appropriate sentencing provisions so that it can be sent to the President for signature. The Nation must become serious and effective in combating this very serious problem. This bill must become law this year in order to do all we can to fight the use of this dangerous drug.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial regarding violent crime rates and the Clinton administration which appeared in the Omaha World Herald on September 20, 1996. [From the Omaha World Herald, Sept. 20, 1996] Suspicious Crime Report The Clinton administration claims that it has significantly reduced violent crime. So why don't Americans feel safer? For one thing, the administration's claim is based in part on a survey in which the methodology had been changed. For another, even if the crime rate had a one-year decline, a similar survey showed no significant decline in the 1992-94 period. Moreover, the statistics still don't reflect the evidence of the creeping chaos that is encountered by many citizens on their streets and in their neighborhoods. Researchers at the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics said this week preliminary results of a survey show that an estimated 9.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States in 1995, a 9 percent drop from the previous year, but a decline of only 3.7 percent from 1992. Attorney General Janet Reno said the figures demonstrated that the Clinton administration had found ``solutions that work.'' The Justice Department released the survey report at an odd time. Last year, no preliminary estimates at all were released. This year, though spring is the normal release time, the estimates were not made public until this week. It's just a coincidence, we suppose, that the election is only seven weeks away. President Clinton hailed the report as proof that ``we're moving in the right direction,'' implying that the administration had caused a drop in crime. However, the numbers don't reflect actual crimes. They are from an estimate based on a survey. Unreported crimes--a wildly speculative notion--are included. Moreover, the survey did not track homicides. The sharpest decline in violent crimes was in rape. The Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Study included date rape, and in the category of domestic violence and date rape it used ``enhanced questions'' to get a better estimate. The result was that in spite of reports of increased sexual assaults by rape crisis centers, the Justice Department estimated that rapes declined from 432,700 in 1994 to 354,670 last year. Crime experts were stunned. If rape figures--either in 1994 or in 1995--are treated with the skepticism that they deserve, and if homicides weren't even included, what is left is at best a slight one- year decline in aggravated assault, simple assault and robbery--as reported by victims, not as reported to the

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial regarding competition between the direct student loan program and the Federal guaranteed student loan program which appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star on September 20, 1996. The popularity of the direct student loan program is forcing private sector lenders to offer better deals--such as a prompt-payment incentive--to students. This competition is good for lending institutions and, most importantly, for students. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Sept. 20, 1996] University Should Pick Best Loan Program for Its Students * * * Changes made in federal law in 1993 allowed schools to choose a lending program in which students borrow all their money directly from the federal government. Especially at the larger universities across the United States, that is seen as the easiest way and ultimately the cheapest way to proceed. Unfortunately, the absence of a prompt-payment feature in the federal lending package means that it is not necessarily the cheapest option for students on this campus this school year. Parents and students have reason to be concerned. But they should not rush to the conclusion that this is another example of the government doing what the private sector should be doing and doing it worse. Besides demonstrating a new form of public commitment to higher education, and a cheaper form than grants, a federal presence in financial aid is a form of competition for an industry that needed some competition. When there is lively marketing competition, the advantage passes back and forth between the competitors and customers can count on coming out ahead. Before Congress authorized a direct lending program, there was no prompt payment program in the private sector. Loan origination fees were typically higher. Banks were collecting another type of middleman fee--federal payment of interest charges while students were in school--without much pressure to sweeten the deal for young borrowers. Now, in the words of another financial aid expert on another Nebraska campus, there is ``that very nice tension'' between the people in charge of the government's public lending program and the people in charge in the private sector. The one has to try to match what the other one does. * * * Any school's approach to financing a college education cannot be judged a success just because it is the cheapest for taxpayers or because it is generates the least paperwork. Whether through a government program or through partnership with private enterprise, success is only achieved when it is the cheapest choice for students.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.R. 2508, the Animal Drug Availability Act. As original cosponsor of this important legislation, I would like to commend the distinguished gentlemen from Florida and New York, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, the ranking member, for bringing this work to the floor today. Certainly I also commend my distinguished colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, for his initiative in introducing the bill. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is clearly needed to streamline the bureaucracy and improve the current, outdated process of approving new animal health products. Our Nation's livestock producers deserve to have the best new products available in a timely and efficient manner. This is commonsense legislation which has strong, bipartisan support in Congress and broad support in the agricultural and veterinary science communities. The need for change is obvious. Although research and development costs have increased dramatically in recent decades, the number of new animal health products being approved by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine has declined. The Animal Drug Availability Act modifies requirements for proving efficacy, streamlines the bureaucracy involved in approving new claims for products used in the treatment of minor species, simplifies requirements for combination drugs, and makes other improvements in the current process. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, this legislation will improve the ability of manufacturers to provide the animal health products needed by our Nation's farmers and pet owners, among others. Therefore, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2508, the Animal Drug Availability Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the members of the subcommittee for the work they have done. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises, as vice chairman of the relevant authorizing subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, to support the conference report and to express his thanks to the conferees who worked diligently in bringing this conference report before us today. This Member is particularly pleased that the conferees approved the $3 million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program at HUD. This very modest sum will guarantee the private financing of nearly $37 million in housing loans for Indian families. Mr. Speaker, there is a severe lack of decent, affordable housing in Indian country, due in large part to the lack of private financing in Indian country. This program provides a substantial means of bringing much needed private financing to Indian country. The very limited Federal funding for this new housing initiative is money well spent; therefore, this Member commends the conferees for including it in this measure. Mr. Speaker, this Member is also pleased that the conferees allocate $645 million for section 202 elderly housing and $194 million for section 811 disabled housing in the newly established development of additional new subsidized housing account. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to thank the conferees for including three reforms to the Federal Housing Administration's single family mortgage insurance program. These reforms will reduce regulatory red tape by allowing lenders who are authorized to underwrite loans under this program to also issue the mortgage insurance certificate, allow parents to lend money to their children for downpayment rather than being required to give the money as an outright gift, and reduce the up-front mortgage insurance premium. Finally, this Member is eager to see the effectiveness of the demonstration program authorized in Hawaii and Alaska under the conference report which streamlines the downpayment calculation. Should this program prove effective, as this Member is confident it will, Congress should expand it to the rest of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, this Member again thanks the conferees and urges his colleagues to vote aye on the conference report.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on September 11, 1966: [From the Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 11, 1996] Political Targets Easiest Ones to Spot in Iraq Missile Barrage The Butcher of Baghdad, The Bully of Baghdad. ``Saddamed if you do, Saddammed if you don't.'' Guess who's back in the headlines? Saddam Hussein. Again. The news types have dusted off the old cliches and come up with a few new ones to catalog his latest military indiscretions. Six years after he invaded Kuwait, six years after his forces were pummeled unmercifully in what he described as ``The Mother of All Battles,'' the Iraqi president has again put his meager military strength at risk. This time he chose sides among rival Kurdish factions and sent 40,000 troops in to assure a victory for his favorite in northern Iraq. This time, as last time, the president of the United States has cited our vital interest in peace and order in the oil- rich Middle East and ordered a military response. And its the sort of no-strings response that leaves voters looking ahead to Election Day with the maximum comfort level. Missiles from afar. No ground troops. Virtually no risk of American casualties. Little notice taken and little need to comment on Iraqi casualties, military or civilian. Plenty of room for the Pentagon to claim bull's-eyes for the finest in American technology. In the sort of analogy that Nebraskans always appreciate, the Tomahawk cruise missile is described as being so accurate that it can be fired from New York or Chicago and whiz right through a set of goal posts in Washington, D.C. Goal posts, touchdowns and extra points are also inviting terms for describing a political victory for the Clinton camp. In danger of being pegged, again, as a foreign policy lightweight by Bob Dole, of being called soft on Iraq, the president has yielded to aggressive temptation. When George Bush presided over victory in the 1990 Gulf War, his approval rating soared to 89 percent. Unfortunately for Bush, it was not time for an election. President Clinton, who knows approval ratings like a sports bookie knows the box scores, scored 69 percent in an early Time Magazine/CNN poll after pulling the military trigger. Hey, it's early yet. But what makes so much sense politically makes little sense strategically or in support of sound foreign policy. It's swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. This time, putting the best face on it, it's an exclusively American message to a meddler to mind his own business. But this time, unlike last time, the United States has no support among Iraq's neighbors, no support from the United Nations, and, with the exception of the British, no support from our traditional allies. There is no coalition of 32 countries joining in defense of an invaded country. This time, unlike last time, Saddam is operating within his own borders and intervening in a dispute between Kurdish elements sympathetic to either Iran or Iraq. This time, the United States has stepped beyond economic sanctions and pushed the launch buttons for nothing more serious than violating a no-fly zone in Saddam's own country--even though the Iraqi leader used ground troops and no airplanes. This time, the likely effect is to polish his image as somebody who stands up to the American aggressors and to tarnish our image for intervening militarily in regional disputes in which we have only the most marginal stake. This time, critics of presidential policy can speak their minds without having to worry about undermining ``our troops.'' This time, there are no troops. There are only anonymous warheads from afar and a chance to practice our marksmanship. Since their significance is almost completely symbolic, we could just as well have fired the missiles minus the warheads. We could have substituted leaflets and campaign signs that state matters plainly. ``Clinton in '96.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, even as this administration points to successes in the area of foreign policy, we are watching those alleged successes unravel. The administration's policy toward Ireland has totally backfired and nearly precipitated a rupture of our relations with the United Kingdom. In Haiti, police who have been trained by this administration are now implicated in a series of political murders. The Middle East peace process has collapsed. The administration's policy toward Bosnia is even more troubling. The Clinton administration repeatedly has assured this body that United States troops would not remain in Bosnia beyond the December 20, 1996 termination point. But our troops in Europe are now receiving orders to spend 1997 in Bosnia, and U.N. Ambassador Albright is backtracking as fast as she can on the administration's promises to the American people. And the United States now finds itself standing up to Iraqi aggression by itself. The alliance put together by former President Bush is now in tatters, and the administration seems to lack the elementary competence to preserve our few remaining allies. One would assume the administration would first consult with Kuwait before announcing the deployment of thousands of troops to that country, but that seems beyond this administration's capability. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask to insert into the Record an editorial from the September 17, 1996 edition of the Omaha World Herald entitled ``U.S. Involvement in Bosnia, Iraq Seems to Rely on Afterthoughts.'' As the editorial correctly notes, the current collapse of foreign policy is what happens when the voters elect a president who minimizes the importance of foreign policy expertise. This Member commends this insightful editorial to his colleagues. U.S. Involvement in Bosnia, Iraq Seems to Rely on Afterthoughts The foremost reasons that the Founders created the presidency was to give the country a head of state to command the armed forces and deal with other nations. The Clinton administration had not handled those responsibilities well, particularly in Bosnia and Iraq. President Clinton is reaping the harvest from his 1992 campaign slogan. ``It's the economy, stupid,'' which implied that George Bush's attention to foreign policy was a sign of detached elitism. The flaws in Clinton's approach are now showing. Certainly Bosnia had elections that were relatively free of violence. But U.S. troops were originally scheduled to leave Bosnia by Dec. 10. On Sunday, reporters asked Madeleine Albright the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of State Warren Christopher whether the schedule will be met. They said it was too early to say. The U.N. mission will end Dec. 20, they said, but an international police force will still be needed. Neither would respond to questions about whether the United States would be part of that police force. Serbs, Muslims and Croats seem as polarized as ever. The peace that emerged from the Dayton negotiations is artificial. From all appearances, the combatants are biding their time until international troops get out of the way. Then the violence and ethnic cleansing will resume. The risk and expense of U.S. involvement will have been for nothing. Flaws are also evident in American policy in Iraq. It has now come to light that Americans running a Central Intelligence Agency operation in the northern Kurdish zone disappeared in the middle of the night when Saddam Hussein moved his forces into the region. Surprised Kurdish and Iraqi associates of the Americans were left to fend for themselves. By some reports. 100 of those U.S. cooperators were captured and executed. Apparently as an afterthought, the administration persuaded Turkey to accept some of the others. Afterthought--that seems to be the way the White House developed policy in the Persian Gulf. Hey, someone in the administration seems to have said late last week, let's send 5,000 troops to Kuwait to show that President Clinton means business. The plan was flashed around the world. But apparently no one bothered to inform Kuwait. The result was the spectacle of a tiny nation--one that depends on its friendship with the United States to protect itself against Saddam--keeping the secretary of defense waiting until Monday, when clearance for the troop buildup was finally granted. Other allies in the region have demonstrated reluctance to support U.S. moves against Saddam. Sen. John McCain and other critics of the administration said the administration failed to lay the necessary groundwork among friendly nations for such a mission. The administration also failed to inform Congress. Speaker Newt Gingrich has said that the situation in the Middle East is almost too muddled to help Clinton find a way out. Gingrich said the White House should back up, consult with the bipartisan leadership of Congress and meet with the gulf war allies in the Middle East to develop a coherent philosophy for dealing with Iraq. He said the United States must know before it acts that other nations will come to its support. Of course it must know. Gingrich's view is self-evident. The fact that the White House does things differently shows what can happen when the voters elect a president who minimizes the importance of foreign policy expertise.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, if Members want to send high-paying export-related jobs to Japan, Germany, France, and Canada then they should vote today against, the Jobs, Exports and Growth Act of 1996. But if Members want to keep high-paying export-related jobs in the United States while generating over $600 million toward deficit reduction, then they should vote for this legislation. Revisionists have labeled the Overseas Private Investment Corporation as corporate welfare. Yesterday, this Member challenged their leader, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, to point to 1 year in the last 25 of OPIC's history where it lost taxpayer's money. You know what Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio didn't answer this Member's question because he can't. OPIC has generated positive net income for our Government very year since its inception in 1971--that's why it has $2.6 billion in reserves. Without OPIC, America would have sent $43 billion in United States exports and 200,000 American jobs to Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, and other industrialized countries. Political leaders in those countries don't call it corporate welfare, they rightly call export promotion a national priority.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the attached excerpts from an Economist obituary indicate, Loret Ruppe was an extraordinarily effective, dedicated, and public-service oriented leader for one of America's most optimistic programs, the Peace Corps. Her leadership of that Agency helped instill in it her own dedication and desire to help those most in need of America's can-do spirit. As Director of the Peace Corps, Loret Ruppe worked with this Member to facilitate cooperation between that important program and the highly successful, Farmer-to-Farmer Program. The marriage of these two American technical assistance programs insures that Loret Ruppe's outstanding legacy continues in all those villages and out-of-the way places where her Peace Corps and Farmer-to-Farmer soldiers spread the positive results of her optimism and determination. [From the Economist, Aug. 24, 1996] Loret Ruppe When Loret Ruppe was made director of America's Peace Corps in 1981, it was probably the least attractive of political appointments in the gift of the president. ``We called it the peace corpse,'' recalls a diplomat embarrassed by young Americans dumped in, say, an African village and expected to promote western ideas. Ronald Reagan, the new broom who in 1980 had swept away the Democrats, was prepared formally to bury the corpse. But Mrs. Ruppe, a prominent Republican who had been leader of the Reagan-Bush campaign in Michigan, wanted the job, and Mr. Reagan was happy, though surprised, to repay a political debt cheaply. If she finished it off, no one would be too bothered. To some, Mrs. Ruppe seemed as naive as her new charges. She was approaching middle age, a mother hen with five daughters, adept at Republican money-raising, but with no foreign experience. But delve deeper. Mrs. Ruppe's mother was an anti-nuclear campaigner who alarmed her family by camping out on the bomb-testing grounds in Nevada. And she had been an admirer of President Kennedy, like her (and Mrs. Ruppe) a Roman Catholic, who had created the Peace Corps in 1961. So there was a seed, and it germinated. Mrs. Ruppe decided that the Peace Corps was a good idea that had been discredited by its Kennedy-minded sloppiness. The Peace Corps had been the one fresh project that Kennedy had brought to the presidency. He called it his ``winning number''. He visualized the many thousands of students who had supported him during his election campaign as ``soldiers of peace''. He contrasted them with ``ugly American'' ambassadors who ``lacked compassion.'' In his inaugural address in 1961 Kennedy said that the Peace Corps would help those ``in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery.'' For poor countries this was a hurtfully condescending message from a fat cat. They wanted money and investment, not what a critic of Kennedy called ``some Harvard boy or Vassar girl'' who ``lives in a mud hut and speaks Swahili''. kennedy's children In fact, few in the early days of the Peace Corps had equipped themselves even with fluency in a second language before setting forth. Many were innocents abroad. Wise minds in the Kennedy circle did advise caution in the selection of recruits. Notwithstanding, they said, the admirable enthusiasm of the thousands of Americans who applied by every post to be allowed to help the miserable Africans and Asians, they should have appropriate skills and a degree of maturity. But the average age of Kennedy's Peace Corps ``children'', as they came to be called, was an unmatured 21. The corps that Mrs. Ruppe took over in 1981 had shrunk from 15,000 in the 1960s to about 5,000. In the previous decade seven directors had come and gone. The corps budget had been cut, and cut again. The Soviet Union said, perhaps correctly, that the corps was a weapon in the cold war; in those days nearly everything was. The corps, Mrs. Ruppe recalled later, was in ``the least liked, least supported, least respected'' part of the United States budget. At first Mrs. Ruppe took no salary. This was no hardship for her--she came from a wealthy family of brewers--but the gesture was well received. The many liberals in the corps, initially hostile to a Reagan appointee, were won over by her clear belief in the movement and her sensible management. She ensured that anyone sent to the 90 or so countries served by the corps had a skill to offer, most commonly in agriculture as the majority of the world's poor are peasants, but there was, too, a wide range of expertise available, from nursing to computers. These days the average age of members is 29. Some are over 50, bringing to their tasks years of experience. Under Mrs. Ruppe the corps gained flexibility: sometimes a farmer, or a doctor or an engineer, will take a sabbatical from his regular job to spend some useful time overseas. The present director, Mark Gearan, said that Mrs. Ruppe was ``the driving force'' in its revitalization. Kennedy's ``winning number'' has spread far beyond the bounds of his New Frontier. These days all the rich countries have dozens of organisations that send volunteers abroad to poor and not-so-poor countries. Some of them are government- supported, although many are private, relying on charity. In France, voluntary work abroad has been acceptable as an alternative to military service. Such schemes are generally regarded as a Good Thing, perhaps suspiciously so. This year, keeping 6,529 Peace Corps people in the field will cost America $219m, about $33,500 a person, a good deal less than the expense of running the most junior diplomat. Neither is Peace Corps work solely altruistic. For a Peace Corps scientist specialising in, say, pest control, Africa is a laboratory not available at home. As a result, the rich world becomes subtly richer. In 1989, after eight years as director of the corps, Mrs. Ruppe became ambassador to Norway, Washington's reward to one of its least-ugly Americans.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, in the 25-year history of OPIC, have they ever failed to generate a net operating surplus? Have they ever?