Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his thanks to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, and the distinguished ranking Member, Mr. Stokes, For their efforts in bringing this bill before us today. This Member is particularly pleased that H.R. 3666 includes $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. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 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. This very limited Federal funding is money well spent, and this Member commends the appropriators for including it in this measure. The appropriators also should be commended for increasing an inadequate initial allocation for VA and HUD programs. However, this Member is still seriously concerned with a number of provisions in the HUD portion of this bill, specifically first, the restructuring of the section 8 project-based housing program which is also know as mark-to- market, which should be subject to hearings and legislation in the appropriate authorizing Committee second, the dramatically reduced funding levels for the section 202 and section 811 housing programs, and third, the reduction in Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funding levels. This Member is pleased to learn that Chairman Lewis is planning on striking the mark-to-market provisions during consideration of the bill. This will allow the authorizing committee adequate opportunity to investigate the issues. Mr. Chairman, this Member is supportive of the amendment to be offered by Chairman Lewis to raise the funding for CDBG to the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. CDBG is a Federal program which provides grant funds directly to large cities or indirectly to other communities through a State agency, for community development projects. The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on which I serve, has the oversight and authorization responsibilities for all HUD programs, including CDBG; therefore, I am interested to see these funds used effectively for eligible purposes. Additionally, this Member would like to express his support for the amendments to be offered by Representative Lazio increasing funding to the section 202 and section 811 programs. Although inadequate levels were requested by the administration for these programs, Congress must ensure sufficient funding to protect America's seniors and disabled. Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased that the legislation includes $12.5 million for rural water training and technical assistance. This is clearly a most cost-effective and beneficial Federal program aimed at assisting small and rural water systems to comply with Federal regulations and improve public health. In every State, on-site technical assistance is the backbone of small system compliance. Small systems have limited funds to operate and to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. Through technical assistance, small communities work together to conduct a statewide, peer-oriented, grassroots assistance program. In addition, through rural community assistance programs, multistate regional technical assistance providers provide assistance to small communities across the country on drinking water and waste water compliance issues. Small communities simply do not have the engineers, the laboratories, and the other necessary technical and financial resources of large cities that are needed to meet Federal requirements. Such technical assistance allows America's small communities to help each other outside of the regulatory bureaucracy. This results in a growing number of small systems moving into SDWA compliance. This leads to steady improvement in water quality and a long-term solution to public health problems.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation which was originally reported out of the Commerce Committee. Indeed, there is general agreement that the current drinking water law is badly broken and needs to be fixed. There is an urgent need to make the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulations more flexible, and common sense in orientation, and less costly. Although certainly not perfect, H.R. 3604 represents a very large improvement over the current law and this Member hopes that it can be further improved in conference with the other body. In particular, this Member is concerned about the Federal approach, H.R. 3604 takes with regard to issues such as operator certification and capacity development. A Federal one-size-fits-all approach is not the proper way to address these concerns. These are clearly matters better left to the States. This Member is further concerned with this bill's radon provisions. It is critical for communities throughout Nebraska and the rest of the country that a reasonable radon standard be developed. Without a common sense approach, communities across the Nation will be forced to spend billions of dollars to implement a regulation which would result in minimal health benefits since water contributes very little to the public exposure to radon. This Member expresses his strong desire that the conference acquiesce to the other body's more reasonable radon provisions which would provide adequate protection without unnecessarily burdening communities. Despite these flaws, this Member believes H.R. 3604 helps correct some of the serious problems and reduces the substantial local costs created by the current law. Clearly, many of the current SDWA requirements result in prohibitive costs without any real health benefit or increase in water quality. This is an issue on which this Member has been speaking out and seeking corrective actions by the EPA for some time, but without results. However, in large part, it is Congress which is to blame for the statutory direction we have given to the EPA. H.R. 3604 injects more reasonableness and common sense on this issue and allows States and communities to identify and focus on those contaminants which present an actual health risk in a particular area. Legislation enacted by Congress simply must take into account the economic and budgetary realities faced by States and communities. Blanket Federal legislation for this yet very diverse Nation is usually ineffective, overreaching, inflexible, and expensive for States and communities of all sizes. That surely is the case with various parts of the current Safe Drinking Water Act. Clearly, most Members and the informed American public now support an assessment of risks during the regulatory process. Clearly, some applications of environmental regulation has entered a phase of diminishing returns. Although great progress has been made in meeting threats to health and safety, a point has been reached where each new environmental regulation should undergo a cost/benefit estimate based on an analysis of risk. H.R. 3604 gives State and local officials greater responsibility in tailoring a safe drinking water program based on sound science. These officials certainly have a powerful incentive to provide safe drinking since they and their constituents will be drinking that water and they know full well where the buck stops. They certainly would not subject themselves and their family and friends to harmful water. Instead, they will focus their time and money on the problems unique to their community. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing financial crisis for small communities that becomes more evident each year as new testing and treatment deadlines are imposed. This Member's experience in visiting with local officials and listening to constituents at town hall meetings indicates that the regulations promulgated to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act have become a major Federal irritant to local government officials and terribly expensive--for no real benefit. These regulations often result in diverting scarce local dollars to address problems or contaminants which do not exist. It costs nearly as much for a very small community to go through the mandated testing procedures as it does for a large community. In most cases, therefore, residents in smaller communities will be forced to pay much more per person, since the costs cannot be spread out over a larger population. Without changes in the current law, though, communities of all sizes will be severely impacted. This bill also removes many of the rigid and arbitrary requirements of the current safe drinking water law. For instance, it eliminates the notorious and ridiculous current statutory mandate that EPA identify 25 contaminants every 3 years for regulation and replaces it with a system based on contaminants that, first, represent a public health concern, and second, actually occur in drinking water. The legislation also allows States to tailor monitoring requirements to particular circumstances, with responsible flexibility and reasonable exemptions made more easily available. Mr. Speaker, while everyone certainly recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking water for everyone, this Member believes it should be done in a realistic manner which does not inappropriately burden the communities affected. As stated previously, this Member does not support taking any action that will cause drinking water to become unsafe. For instance, where there is a problem with biological contamination, yes; treatment is obviously necessary. However, the Federal Government should provide more discretion to States so that they can use common sense and not be subject to arbitrary nationwide standards that have no relevance in a particular State. For instance, the nature of water testing in Nebraska should reflect the State's uniquely strong ground water dependency. This Member has consistently conveyed these views to current and former EPA administrators. Mr. Speaker, Nebraska relies far more heavily on ground water sources for both drinking water and commercial uses than any other State in the Nation. For example, only 6 or 7 of the more than 1,395 public water supply entities in the State use any surface water. In a great many Nebraska communities, individual wells are located at various points in a community without being interconnected. Since most Nebraska communities incorporate water from their wells directly into their distribution systems, a requirement for chlorination would have the effect of requiring centralization of their water supply systems or chlorination would sometimes have to be provided at each separate well site--an action which would be almost economically impossible for many Nebraska communities. It is also important to note that Nebraska has not had a water-borne disease outbreak attributed to a public water supply system since at least 1969. That particular situation involved a transient population with an undetermined source or cause of illness. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that the House is taking action on this important issue and hopes that the legislation will be further improved in conference and that includes a deletion of the earmarked or recommended projects which were added after the legislation was reported originally from the Commerce Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] to decrease funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] by $12 million. This appropriations bill provides $104.5 million for NEH, which is consistent with the agreement to eliminate Federal funding of NEH within 3 years. As you know, the amount appropriated by the committee is a 40-percent cut from fiscal year 1995 funding. An additional 11-percent cut would seriously undermine NEH and, most importantly, the State humanities councils that are already working diligently to replace decreasing Federal funds with private contributions. This Member is most familiar with the National Endowment for the Humanities in the form of the Nebraska Humanities Council which consistently provides high-quality humanities programming at very little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my State. Since 1973, they have funded programs in more than 200 different communities in all of Nebraska's 93 counties--reaching more communities each year. Some of those counties have fewer than 500 residents and have meager cultural resources. The Nebraska Humanities Council has been especially effective at reaching residents in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska. This Member's district encompasses Lincoln with its universities, colleges, and museums as well as small towns whose only educational assets are their consolidated schools. The council has developed a humanities resource center with a large speakers bureau, exhibits, films, and videos that enable the smallest communities to benefit from the cultural resources of Nebraska's metropolitan areas. The speakers bureau has been particularly helpful to Nebraska's schools as they comply with a new requirement for multicultural education. Of course, the humanities council does not charge the schools for this valuable educational service. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges the defeat of the Shadegg amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3662, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the floor. Extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult. This Member is pleased that the report includes language directing the National Park Service to develop a general management plan for Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, NE. Homestead National Monument of America commemorates the lives and accomplishments of all pioneers and the changes to the land and the people as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862. This monument was authorized by legislation enacted in 1936. However, a general management plan is needed to help ensure that Homestead is able to reach its full potential as a place where Americans can more effectively appreciate the Homestead Act and its effects upon the Nation. A general management plan is the first step in assessing and planning for new park development. The plan is used to identify the park's purposes, assess current situations, and plan new development and management directions. A general management plan also contains environmental and historical assessments. Public comment on the plan and proposed alternatives are required by the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws and policies. Before Homestead could embark upon any future projects, the general management plan process would have to be completed to ensure that mission-based objectives and public comment were properly considered. This process normally takes several years and it is this Member's understanding that it can be accomplished with base-funded staff with available funds. Homestead National Monument of America is truly a unique treasure among the National Park Service jewels. The authorizing legislation makes it clear that Homestead was intended to have a special place among Park Service units. According to the original legislation: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to lay out said land in a suitable and enduring manner so that the same may be maintained as an appropriate monument to retain for posterity a proper memorial emblematic of the hardships and the pioneer life through which the early settlers passed in the settlement, cultivation, and civilization of the great West. It shall be his duty to erect suitable buildings to be used as a museum in which shall be preserved literature applying to such settlement and agricultural implements used in bringing the western plains to its present state of high civilization, and to use the said tract of land for such other objects and purposes as in his judgment may perpetuate the history of this country mainly developed by the homestead law. Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. This Member believes that a general management plan would begin the process of realizing these goals. Mr. Chairman, this Member is also gratified that H.R. 3662 maintains last year's funding level of $250,000 from State and private forestry funds for the National Agroforestry Center at Lincoln, NE. The National Agroforestry Center--formerly the Center for Semiarid Agroforestry--was authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act [FACTA]. Section 1243 of the FACTA authorized an annual appropriation of up to $5 million for the center. The National Agroforestry Center is a partnership of the Research, State, and Private Forestry, and International Forestry branches of the USDA Forest Service. The center conducts research on developing tree varieties, especially adapted to the Great Plains, that will enhance crop and livestock production, protect surface and groundwater quality, create wildlife habitat, and promote environmental goals. The center is nationally and internationally renowned as the U.S. flagship for agroforestry due to its leadership in agroforestry research, development, and applications. The center, located in Lincoln, Nebraska is a key element of agroforestry research and technology transfer for the Forest Service. The center's mission is to accelerate the development and application of agroforestry technologies to attain more economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable ecosystems. To accomplish its mission, the center conducts agroforestry research and interacts with a national network of cooperators to conduct research, develop technologies and tools, establish demonstrations, and provide useful information to natural resource professionals nationwide and globally. The National Agroforestry Center is developing key partnerships with other agencies and institutions and catalyzing interdisciplinary teamwork. Since agroforestry bridges critical productivity, biodiversity, sustainability, and socio-economic issues, the National Agroforestry Center has become a focal point for interagency cooperation. The multi-agency initiative being developed includes the Agricultural Research Service [ARS], the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service [CSREES] and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The center seeks to increase the use of agroforestry in order to fulfill the following purposes: Make agriculture more sustainable; mitigate the adverse environmental side effects of agriculture; convert marginal farmlands to high-value tree crops and wildlife habitat; and enhance human environments Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 3662 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3525, the Church Arson Prevention Act, and would urge his colleagues to support this bill. This measure is necessary because of the recent rash of church burnings which has occurred across the Nation. Over 30 black churches have been the victims of arson this year alone, and Federal help has been asked in catching those responsible. In fact, there have been over half a dozen church fires this week. This must stop. The Church Arson Prevention Act will give Federal prosecutors specific jurisdiction to prosecute those who damage religious property. It will also eliminate any monetary damage requirement for Federal prosecution. This legislation will give prosecutors a great opportunity to fight these terrible crimes, as the arson-investigating resources of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can be called into play. The victims of these fires will be eligible under this bill to receive compensation from the crime victims trust fund. Mr. Speaker, it is this Member's hope that this legislation will quickly become law in order to help combat this rash of hatred and to punish those responsible for these crimes.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in light of the chairman's generous agreement to accept the amendment, as modified, I will not complete my entire statement. I will say, however, that this should save the American taxpayer and the taxpayers of Lincoln a substantial amount of money. And by the deletion of the three words, we remove any kind of direction to them about what kind of agreement the National Guard and the city of Lincoln acting through the Lincoln Airport Authority may agree to. I think it is appropriate to leave complete discretion to them regarding the amount of degree of responsibility that may be assured. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It would allow the Air National Guard to assume responsibility for providing firefighting and rescue services in response to all aircraft- related emergencies at the Lincoln Municipal Airport in Lincoln, NE. This amendment offers a commonsense, cost-effective solution to a long-standing problem at the airport. Currently, the Lincoln Fire Department and the Air National Guard both are stationed at the airport and respond to aircraft-related emergencies at the airport. This is clearly an inefficient and costly situation which does nothing to increase safety. The airport, the city of Lincoln, and the Nebraska National Guard all agree that it makes more sense to place the National Guard firefighting personnel with their matchlessly superb equipment--5 trucks and 30 personnel--in charge of all aircraft-related emergencies. Not only would this change result in no increase in costs to the National Guard, it would actually save them money. The airport has, preliminarily agreed, for example, to cancel the National Guard's $60,000 per year payment to the Lincoln Airport if the National Guard assumes the firefighting responsibilities. This would clearly be a win-win situation for everyone. Unfortunately, the interested parties are running into a bureaucratic roadblock because there is no explicit congressional authority to allow this arrangement. This amendment fixes the problem by making it clear with permissive legislation that the National Guard may assume responsibility for firefighting and rescue services at the Lincoln Municipal Airport.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified, that on line 2 of the amendment the words ``primary or sole'' be stricken.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the gentleman's concern about the activity that is going on and the complicity, at least among commercial interests there, perhaps involving the governments as well. I do appreciate the gentleman's statement that the IMET tool is a blunt instrument and probably not the way to proceed. I think we have perhaps a more effective way to pressure the parties concerned, and that might be through the international community's massive financial support for the Government of Cambodia. There is an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post on this very subject. In fact, this gentleman brought a resolution to the floor which was passed last March expressing the concern of what is happening in Cambodia. What I think we might focus on is that July 11 and 12 donors meeting, a donors conference on Cambodia. I think that offers the international community a golden opportunity. We could call on the United States to take the lead at this meeting to impress upon the leaders in Phnom Penh who clearly play a part in this continuing problem of logging the KR-controlled territory. We could call on them for the recognition that there is a need for sustainable logging practices and transparency in government contacting that I think could help resolve the KR's logging issue, and therefore avoid problems with Thailand and with the Government of Cambodia. So I offer that suggestion which I think all of us should pursue, and advance it here for the administration to consider making it a priority at that July 11 and 12 meeting.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. We have to remember always, when we approach these issues, what is in our national interest and what is not; what has a positive impact and what does not. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from New York began to make clear, Indonesia does not have an IMET Program from us, they have an E-IMET Program or an expanded IMET Program, and there is quite a difference. In fact, an expanded IMET Program is specifically oriented to focusing on improving human rights activities and practices within a military. We also have to get over the idea that the IMET or E-IMET Program is a grant of assistance to a foreign government. We do it because it is in our national interest to increase military-to-military cooperation, and because it is in our strategic interest to have this relationship. There are many economic and strategic reasons why the E-IMET Program should be continued for Indonesia, but I would like to focus on the Human rights concerns and why, in fact, the frustrations of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] are not well taken. He can certainly be frustrated with the failure, as he sees it, to improve conditions in East Timor, but, in fact, the E-IMET Program is designed specifically to deal with human rights issues and human rights policies within the military. The E-IMET Program improves their performance in that respect. It is to our advantage, if we are interested in improving the human rights conditions. The E-IMET Program is one of the most effective tools that we have for promoting both our security interests and improving human rights performance in other countries. The IMET or E-IMET Program in Indonesia enhances rather than diminishes our ability to influence the Indonesian military's policies and behavior. Now, I understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts, and both gentlemen from Rhode Island have very big Portuguese American populations in their districts. These are great people, exceptional Americans, but they have to, in fact, I think be educated to the fact that there are better methods for improving human rights performance than to deny E-IMET. Mr. Chairman, the E-IMET Program is bringing results within the military, and I will provide an example in a few minutes. The E-IMET Program exposes Indonesia's military students to western values, to civilian rule, and to the role of a professional military in a democracy. It will encourage efforts underway in the Indonesian military to improve professionalism, accountability, and respect for human rights. The E-IMET Program for Indonesia, which is a product of this gentleman's amendment in a foreign aid bill in the past, is all that H.R. 3540 allows for Indonesia. It is designed to address issues, again, in democracy, human rights, military justice, and the concept of civilian control over the military. We should support human rights training for Indonesia through E-IMET, and this Member urges his colleagues for that reason to vote ``no'' on the Frank amendment. As some of my colleagues know, one of the troubled areas in Indonesia right now is a part of the island that is a part of Indonesia called Irian Jaya. The legal adviser on the staff of the Kodam command in Jayapura, Irian Jaya, it has recently been revealed, is the author of a human rights handbook distributed to all troops in the command; it contains his innovations. They have also issued rules of engagement annexes to operational orders, which specifically says what troops should do and, more important, what they should not do when they engage in field operations in that respect. I am talking very specifically about how they treat the citizens of their country, regardless of religion. It has been said that since January when he started issuing these rules of engagement annexes, there have been no human rights violations in the Indonesian military in Irian Jaya. When asked where he came up with these innovations, he said it all came out of his experience at the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School, where he was an IMET student. Let me end by reminding my colleagues why the E-IMET Program is a positive step toward improving human rights in Indonesia. The United States engagement with the Indonesian military, through IMET and specifically through E-IMET and other programs, enhances our ability to influence Indonesian human rights behavior and serving our broader interests in the region. Second, it provides the Indonesian military with the human rights courses in the E-IMET Program that will contribute to their professionalism and the human rights sensitivity of the Indonesian military. Third, in 1991, Congress established the expand E-IMET Program with four explicit objectives, three of which directly relate to human rights issues: A, to foster greater respect for the principles of civilian control of the military: B, to improve military justice and military codes of conduct in accordance with internationally recognized human rights; and the third of the four points that relates to human rights, to enhance cooperation between the military and local police in the area of counternarcotics. Mr. Chairman, these elements in our E-IMET Program are exactly what we need to have happening within the Indonesian military. The human rights concerns that we have with Indonesia should be addressed by appropriate means. The E-IMET Program is an appropriate means to address human rights performance within the Indonesian military. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject the Frank amendment. It is not only a questionable amendment in its impact; it is a step in exactly the wrong direction.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3540 allows continued International Military and Education Training [IMET] for Thailand and Cambodia. The Obey amendment would prohibit IMET for these countries. Passage of the Obey amendment will not save the taxpayers one dime, but would merely force the administration to move the IMET funds to some other countries. This Member considers such a prohibition unwarranted and unwise. Here is why. Thailand is a long-time treaty ally with a democratic form of government, located along key strategic international waterways. American forces conduct more than 40 joint exercises with Thailand each year--more than any other country in Asia. These exercises are important to the readiness and training of American, as well as Thai, forces in Asia. Moreover, Thailand provides the Seventh Fleet with easy access to its military facilities when needed, most recently during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Particularly in light of the closure of our basis in the Philippines, use of Thai facilities allows us to maintain our forward deployed presence in the crucial Southeast Asia/ Indochina region. The close military-to-military ties we enjoy with Thailand are fostered by the fact that so many military leaders in Thailand have been trained in the United States through the IMET program. Not only does this American training provide us access to key Thai leaders, but it also engenders a natural preference for U.S. military hardware and supplies. The sale of defense equipment to Thailand allows important interoperability with U.S. forces in the region and creates high-paying American jobs in the important manufacturing sector. Just recently McDonnel Douglas won a $600 million contract for fighter aircraft to Thailand. thai-kr cooperation THe basis for today's Obey amendment is evidence of continued commercial cooperation between some Thai companies and the genocidal Khmer Rouge forces in neighboring Cambodia. This Member's staff has been fully briefed on this issue, and I know it would be naive to suggest that no such cooperation exists, particularly in the logging industry. Despite this commercial cooperation, however, there remains some question about the extent of Thai Government involvement and complicity in this trade. In this Member's view, the use of IMET funding, both for Thailand and Cambodia, as a stick against commercial cooperation with the KR is misguided. A much more effective way to pressure the parties concerned is through the international community's massive financial support for the Government of Cambodia. The upcoming July 11-12 Donors' Conference on Cambodia offers the international community a golden opportunity. This Member calls on the United States to take the lead at this meeting to impress upon the leaders in Phnom Penh--who clearly play a major part in the continued problem of logging in KR-controlled territory--of the need for sustainable logging practices and transparency in government contracting which would contribute much to resolving the KR logging issue. The international community still provides 40 percent of the national budget of Cambodia and should use this leverage to promote more responsible policies on Cambodia's leaders. cambodia human rights This Member also believes we should use the Donors' Conference to improve human rights and democracy in Cambodia. On March 26, 1996, this body passed House Resolution 345, which this Member introduced, which expresses serious concern about deteriorating human rights conditions in Cambodia. This Member remains concerned about government repression in Cambodia, particularly in light of the recent murder of an outspoken Cambodian journalist. We should not, however, use IMET as a club against Phnom Penh. Instead we should insist that the IMET courses offered to Cambodia contribute to human rights training for Cambodia's military and use the July Donor's Conference to pressure the Cambodian Government for a return to openness and respect for dissent. This Member urges his colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, with parliamentary elections set for tomorrow, Bangladesh is at a crucial turning point in its efforts to sustain a fragile democracy that has only been in place since 1991. Although calm prevails in Dhaka, the country is still reeling from jitters produced by the movements of provincial troops unhappy with the May 20 dismissal of the army chief of staff. Earlier this spring, the political opposition waged a general strike that paralyzed most transportation and businesses, was well as the country's crucial port of Chittagong. Although enjoying limited public support, the anti- government campaign took a severe toll on what was already one of the world's poorest nations. It kept frightened citizens away from school and jobs. It cost the country up to $80 million a day in lost production and exports. Over 120 Bangladeshis lost their lives in clashes between pro- and anti-government activists during the strike. It is pointless to try to assign blame for the turmoil that has characterized Bangladesh's political scene for past several years. The 1991 elections that brought Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia and her Bangladesh Nationalist Party to power were generally considered fair by international observers. Three years later, however, the opposition resigned en masse from the parliament after allegations of a rigged by- election. It then commenced a campaign of demonstrations and boycotts in the effort to convince Zia to step down in favor of a neutral caretaker government. Then, in February 1996 a legislative contest that dissolved into a one-party show plagued by egregious irregularities only worsened the situation. What has made Bangladesh's circumstances all the more tragic is that its party warfare has been driven more by the personalities of its key political leaders rather than policy differences in addressing the country's crushing poverty and improving the lives of its citizens. Former Prime Minister Zia is the widow of an assassinated president, and opposition Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina Wajeed is the daughter of the country's first prime minister, who was also assassinated. Despite their common history as survivors, their relationship over the years has been characterized by charges and counter-charges related to their long-standing rivalry for the country's top post. Nevertheless, a breakthrough in Bangladesh's stalemate occurred with the constitutional change approved by Parliament on March 26, which provided for Prime Minister Zia to step down and for a neutral caretaker government to be appointed. A few days later, Bangladesh's president appointed Habibur Rahman, a former chief justice, as head of a neutral caretaker government; new elections were then set for June 12. These actions appear to have answered many of the opposition's key demands. The catch is that Zia--who remains head of her party and has been actively campaigning--could conceivably recapture her position after the elections, a prospect that the opposition may not be prepared to accept with good grace--even in a fair contest. The very real possibility of no party attaining a majority would necessitate the formation of a coalition government, an arrangement that would pose the ultimate challenge of cooperation for Zia and Sheikh Hasina. Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's polls, developments leading up to them have brought relative law and order to Dhaka, including a much welcome respite from violence and labor strikes. With this period of calm comes an opportunity that should not be lost. It is now critical for the country's leading politicos to demonstrate to Bangladesh's citizens and to the world that they are both serious about learning to live with each other and eager to attract the international investment that Bangladesh so desperately needs. it is imperative that the two sides participate in and abide by the results of these elections which, of course, must be respectably fair and free of irregularities. All parties should then take their seats in the legislature and reengage fully in Bangladesh's political process. Finally, the United States and other friends should do everything in their power to morally support and encourage Bangladesh to follow such a course. We should make it clear that the international community will not recognize or assist a new regime unless it achieves power through the democratic process. We must reiterate that a military coup--a time- honored tradition in Bangladesh--is not an option. And, the United States should stand ready to at least maintain its modest bilateral assistance and to support legitimate requests for assistance from the World Bank and other international financial institutions. Outside financial assistance is desperately needed, but in the final analysis, it is the people of Bangladesh who will decide the nation's fate. The path to a brighter future can now be seen. Let us hope that the leadership of this long-suffering people, who already have endured more than their share of tragedy, can seize the political opportunity that lies before them.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3603, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. This Member is especially pleased that the earlier funding problems were resolved so that there will be full funding for the protection flexibility contracts authorized in the farm legislation enacted earlier this year. Clearly, this is good news for our Nation's farmers. This Member is also grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important projects of interest to the State of Nebraska. First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 3603 includes $15.7 million for hazardous waste management and that the report includes language regarding the need to conduct a private water well quality assessment related to the health risks of communities in Nebraska and other States due to the use of fumigants in Commodity Credity Corporation grain storage sites. This Member would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a potentially serious problem facing a large number of communities throughout Nebraska and Kansas, and undoubtedly elsewhere too--and including this Member's hometown of Utica, NE. These problems resulted from the use of fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride by the USDA through stored Commodity Credit Corporation grain in Nebraska and other States, primarily from the 1940's through the early 1970's. Carbon tetrachloride contamination of the groundwater at many of these sites is a serious problem. Approximately 290 communities in Nebraska and 268 in Kansas has USDA grain bin storage sites and potentially remain at risk because the problem has not been fully investigated and addressed in many of these communities. As previously mentioned, this Member's hometown of Utica, NE, is one of the sites which is contending with contamination of its water supply as a result of a carbon tetrachloride, a carcinogen, from a grain storage facility. In addition to the contamination of public water supplies, numerous private wells are also affected. Private wells known to be contaminated have had treatment installed or have been removed from service, but far too little has been done to help identify such wells. This Member has been actively involved in seeking solutions to this problem for a number of years. In fact, this Member worked with then- Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter to develop a hazardous waste management and response program within USDA. Sufficient Federal funding of this program is necessary to address this hazardous situation and to ensure the safety of drinking supplies of people living near, and downgradient from, old CCC grain storage sites. Although the carbon tetrachloride problems have begun to be addressed at many of these sites, the progress has been slow and somewhat random. An overall strategy needs to be developed. To ensure that a timely and comprehensive approach is taken, this Member joins with the State of Nebraska in recommending an accelerated response in a three-phased strategy: One, an immediate private water well quality assessment for those communities which have not yet had a complete assessment and providing emergency bottled water supplies as needed. Two, environmental site characterization to determine sources and the extent of soil and groundwater contamination. Three, remedial cleanup of contaminated sites and long-term groundwater monitoring. This Member is also pleased that the bill provides $423,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance. The alliance is an association of 12 leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and processing technologies. The alliance awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching funds. During its second year of competition, the alliance received 33 proposals requesting a total of $1,165,033, but it was limited to funding 10 proposals for a total of $350,000. Matching funds from industry totaled $1,268,937, with an additional $370,311 from in-kind funds. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the alliance has been in leveraging support from industry. Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing worldwide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good exports. In order to meet these changing worldwide demands, agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link between universities and industries for the development of competitive food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure that the U.S. agricultural industry remains competitive in an increasingly competitive global economy. This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund a drought mitigation project at the agricultural meteorology department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This level of funding will greatly assist in the further development of a national drought mitigation center. Such a center is important to Nebraska and all arid and semi-arid States. Although drought is one of the most complex and least understood of all natural disasters, no centralized source of information currently exists on drought assessment, mitigation, response, and planning efforts. A national drought mitigation center would develop a comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability to drought by promoting the development and implementation of appropriate mitigation technologies. Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and the University of Georgia. The mission of this alliance is to assist the development and modification of food processing and preservation technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue to receive the safest and highest quality food possible. The report also includes important language directing the Agricultural Research Service to continue to fund the perennial grass germ plasm project at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Unfortunately, the administration's budget deleted funding for the warm grass genetics and breeding project at the Lincoln ARS unit. However, the $270,000 called for in the report will ensure the continuation of this productive research project which has a tremendous record of accomplishment. Also, this Member is pleased that H.R. 3603 includes $1.2 million for the new section 538, the rural rental multifamily housing loan guarantee program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring 10 percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100- percent Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current section 515 Direct Loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, the only costs to the Federal government under the 538 Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults. Mr. Chairman, finally this member also appreciates the subcommittee's support for the very successful Department of Agriculture's 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program. The program has been very effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 25,000 residents in nonmetropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees for 30-years fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home. The loan amount may be up to 100 percent of a home's market value, with a maximum mortgage amount of $67,500. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this member supports H.R. 3603 and urges his colleagues to approve it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3400, legislation to designate the new courthouse in Omaha as the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Courthouse and urges his colleagues to support this bill. It is most appropriate that the new Omaha courthouse be named after Senator Hruska since he is highly respected for his expertise in judicial policy matters. During his long and distinguished career he served his State and his country in several capacities. While he is a native of David City in the First Congressional District, he began his public service career in Omaha on the Douglas County Board of Commissioners--serving as its chairman. Later he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952, and then to the Senate where he served from 1954 to 1976. He was the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also was the chairman of a Presidential commission to revise the Federal appellate court system. Additionally, he served on commissions to reform the Federal criminal code and to study the causes and prevention of violence. Mr. Speaker, for the foregoing reasons and many others, naming the new courthouse after Senator Roman Hruska would serve as a continuing tribute to his lifetime of service to Nebraska and his devotion to improving the judicial system. This Member strongly urges the passage of H.R. 3400.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Burton amendment. I know that some members of the committee may think that the debate is going on for some time here, but I think it is important for the sponsor of the amendment, the American people, the Congress, to understand the depth of support for India, for improved American-Indian relations, for Indian democracy and for improvements in civil and human rights that are underway in India. The Burton amendment should be opposed for many reasons. One important consideration is the fact that in April and May of 1996, as mentioned here, India conducted the largest democratic election in the history of the world. In a monumental undertaking of more than 640 million eligible voters, about 65 percent of whom took the time to vote, the Indian electorate chose a new parliament in elections that were widely judged to be free, fair, and largely peaceful. Mr. Chairman, for the United States to respond to this remarkable accomplishment by the world's largest democracy by passing the Burton amendment will send to India and to the rest of the world precisely the wrong signals about United States support for Indian democracy. This Burton amendment would prove to be the most expensive $8 million amendment ever approved. It is important that it be rejected overwhelmingly. In addition, the new Indian Government is headed by Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, the leader of the United Front, a coalition of center, center left, and regional parties. The leadership of this new government is at the very moment hammering out policies on a number of issues of great interest to the United States, including the fate of economic reform, India's nuclear program, its policies toward Pakistan, and other neighbors. Although the proposed change is a small one in dollar terms, for Congress to single out India in this fashion at this time will, for symbolic reasons, have a very negative impact on United States-Indian relations that would be disproportionate to the amount of money involved. At a minimum, any cut in United States development assistance to India at this critical juncture, apart from a broad cut in the overall development assistance account, could severely damage the spirit of cooperation the United States should be establishing with the new Indian Government. Although a number of parties which support the United Front government have a long tradition of left-leaning economic policies, Prime Minister Gowda has expressed strong support for the economic reforms begun under the government of former Prime Minister Rao. Early evidence of Prime Minister Gowda's intention have been the naming of a highly progressive U.S.-educated finance minister who is extremely supportive of the economic reforms begun in the 1990's as a commerce minister in the Rao government. Current and ongoing United States development assistance provides important support for India's effort to open its economy to trade and investment. Included are programs that promote private sector involvement in energy production and distribution, United States-India commerce, technology joint ventures, programs to provide urban areas with badly needed infrastructure, and assistance for Indian enterprises attempting to restructure and become competitive. Although India is beginning to push forward economically, it remains a very poor country with millions of people still well below the poverty line. In fact, half the world's poor people, very, very poor people, live in India today. The United States development assistance program focusing on family planning, preventive health care, and nutrition are very critical areas that support the Indian family. Now, the number of political parties that comprise the United Front represent the millions of people who make up India's poorest of the poor groups, minorities, members of the lower caste, those that were once called the untouchables. A diminution, symbolic or otherwise, of U.S. development assistance that would benefit these groups would certainly send a wrong message to a part of the leadership of the new government. There has been strong evidence that the Gowda government intends to hold talks with the leaders of the Kashmiri separatist movement to seek a peaceful and just solution to the Kashmir crisis. V.P. Singh, a major United Front leader and the former Indian Prime Minister, visited Kashmir during the election campaign. He has promised talks with the separatists as well as an offer of political, social, and economic peace package. Prime Minister Gowda has promised to take steps to improve relations with Pakistan. On May 31, Gowda said quote: ``As far as Pakistan is concerned, I have an open mind. I will definitely take an initiative to diffuse the tension between the two countries,'' end of quote. The United States should do nothing to undercut the new Indian Government's efforts to initiate rapprochement with Pakistan by sending a negative message via cuts in development assistance.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment. I do that reluctantly, because the gentleman and I agree on many issues. Here is one where we disagree. I think my chairman, the gentleman from New York, Ben Gilman, has given some very important reasons why we should have full funding for IMET and, indeed, it was this gentleman's amendment in the authorizing committee, debated and which raised the authorization level to the full amount requested by the administration. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to my colleagues that when Secretary Perry came to address a meeting of House Republicans some time ago, within the past year, and out of all the issues he might have spoken he focused his remarks primarily on the IMET program. He asked us to continue to give it full funding. He stated on another occasion, I believe, as the chairman mentioned, if in fact this IMET program was funded by the authorization of the Committee on National Security, it would be authorized at a higher level. But because IMET is found within the 150 account, it gets very tough and special scrutiny. I would also say to my colleagues that the IMET program is one of those programs that pays very big dividends in reinforcing the human rights concerns that this country and other countries. The officers and noncommissioned officers that take advantage of these IMET programs come to our programs, and they receive a very heavy dose of human rights and civil action training as a part of their IMET training programs. I think for that reason, too, the IMET program is a very good investment that we make in our foreign policy and in our military-to-military relationship. So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues, in this case, to reject the Obey amendment and go for the full amount requested by the appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I called our senior career ambassador to India today, Ambassador Frank Wisner. He said the Burton amendment would quote, ``send a very negative message,'' close quote, to a newly elected government in India, and as pointed out by the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], democracy, it would seem very specifically supportive of the dissident forces in Punjab, has been vindicated, a step in the right direction. The same is true of the direction of the vote in Kashmir. These are two very favorable signs for improving the situation there. Finally, let me close by quoting briefly from a letter from the political director of the American Conservative Union. He says about the Burton amendment: It would be interpreted as a gratuitous slap, and could even contribute to undermining the fragile coalition government that just assumed power--possibly bringing to power a government dominated by the very people Mr. Burton professes to opposes. I urge my colleagues to cast a strong, strong vote against the Burton amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, this Member introduced the Federal Deposit Insurance Funds and Regulatory Relief Act of 1996, which constitutes a comprehensive plan to: First, fully capitalize the Savings Association insurance fund; second, guarantee payment of interest on Financing Corporation bonds; third, merge the bank and thrift charters; fourth, merge the bank insurance fund and the Savings Association insurance fund into a new deposit insurance fund; and fifth, provide solid regulatory relief to all financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, this Member will be circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter explaining the provisions in the bill and he invites his colleagues to join in cosponsoring this comprehensive legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us on May 21, House Concurrent Resolution 154, congratulated the popularly elected President of Taiwan, Lee Ten Hui, as well as the courageous people of Taiwan for the overhwelming success of their March 23, 1996 Presidential elections. Action on the resolution by this body could hardly be more timely, in that President Lee was inaugurated on May 20, 1996. This Member commends the sponsor of the resolution, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], and the chairman of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for their leadership on this important resolution. First, on a personal level, this Member congratulates President Lee for his outstanding electoral victory and commends him for the bold inaugural speech he delivered yesterday in Taipei. There is no leader in the world today who has been more vilified by Beijing and no territory more bullied than Taiwan. So what does President Lee do in his inaugural speech? In a bold peacemaking gesture, President Lee seeks a face-to-face meeting with PRC President, Jiang Zemin. Is this call for a meeting a sign of weakness, a sign that Taiwan is bowing to Beijing's pressure? Of course not. President Lee's call is a sign of strength, a sign that Taiwan has the will to challenge Beijing face-to- face and attempt to work out their serious differences through direct and constructive exchange. Second, this Member believes the people of Taiwan have earned the respect and admiration of people throughout the world and deserve our greatest praise. They have embraced democratic reforms with the same enthusiasm and good sense that have driven Taiwan's economy to its current heights. In addition, the people of Taiwan conducted themselves with great courage and resolve throughout the crisis created by Beijing's heavy-handed effort to bully them through provocative live fire exercises and missile tests. Finally, this Member would make an editorial comment about the message that Taiwan's successful transition to democracy holds for all of Asia. Nothing belies the notion that democratic principles are alien to traditional Asian values better than what has transpired in Taiwan during the last 10 years. Taiwan joins Korea, Thailand, Mongolia, and the Philippines, in various stages of democratic development, as an important success story in Asian democracy and human rights. The success of Taiwan's democratic development demonstrates clearly that democracy and economic development are compatible and mutually reinforcing. Mr. Speaker, this Member, therefore, supports this important and timely resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Certainly, every responsible American wants and expects our allies to shoulder their fair share of the burden of defense. Unfortunately, however, this amendment helps perpetuate an underlying misconception regarding the rationale for the forward-basing of U.S. military forces. As the legislation itself acknowledges, U.S. defense expenditures primarily promote U.S. national security interests. The promotion of these interests are also the primary reason for the stationing of U.S. forces overseas. The fact that their presence also benefits our key allies is a secondary but important benefit to us. To risk a conflict in any of the regions where our personnel are now stationed--even those countries far from our borders--would mean jeopardizing U.S. lives and commerce, and contribute to global instability. This amendment's citation of Japan's burdensharing figure of 75 percent of nonpersonnel costs as a role model for other allies to emulate is very misleading. Following World War II, the United States compelled the Japanese to adopt the Peace Constitution, whereby they abandoned all but the most limited and parochial security responsibilities. For 50 years, we have been the guarantor of Japanese security. Our European partners, on the other hand, are full allies with a commitment to fight side-by-side to defend our common vital interests. What is the difference? The difference, Mr. Chairman, could be clearly seen when the United States sent two carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait and because of their Peace Constitution our Japanese friends stood back and watched. On the other hand, our NATO Allies are on the ground in Bosnia, forming the bulk of IFOR, and they were there before us as a part of UNPROFOR. This is a significant difference, one that this Member hopes his colleagues would recognize. There are also numerous extenuating circumstances at play in determining the appropriate allied burdensharing responsibility. This includes the expense that has been shouldered by many of our European allies on other allied priorities, including peacekeeping-- responsibilities not yet significantly assumed by the Japanese. In addition, disparities in construction and housing costs also factor into the burdensharing disparities between Japan and European allies. Finally, the amendment grants far-reaching discretionary authority to the President, who would be free to impose such measures as troop reductions and suspension of bilateral agreements in response to an individual country's failure to meet specified arbitrary goals. Mr. Chairman, such actions are unlikely to be in our national interest, and could in the long run result in considerable expenditure of U.S. lives and treasure. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Shays-Frank amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to take a brief moment to raise a point associated with a portion of the en bloc amendment, the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. The gentleman's amendment addresses legitimate concerns related to problems experienced at a military facility in his district; specifically, unnecessary regulatory requirements that impede the implementation of more cost-effective alternatives to providing municipal services at the facility. These problems are not unique to California. A military facility in this Member's district, the Lincoln Municipal Airport, has experienced cost-ineffective practices related to fire services. Although a commonsense solution exists to solve the problems involving the international guard unit, this Member has been told that their cost- saving initiative has been stalled at the national level of the National Guard. Clearly this is an issue that merits examination. This Member would ask the chairman of the National Security Committee, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], to work with him to address these concerns in a constructive manner.