Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that assurance.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member heartily commends the distinguished senior Senator from Kansas, Senator Robert Dole, for his first-rate analysis of the failures of the Clinton administration in Asia and the Pacific. The Senator's speech yesterday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, however, went beyond criticism and outlined key policy principles that would drive the policy and actions of a Dole administration in this strategic and dynamic region of the world. This Member, for one, would welcome the opportunity to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific working with a Dole White House guided by the principles enunciated yesterday in the Senate majority leader's speech. This Member shares the concerns expressed by Senator Dole that the ``weak leadership, vacillation and inconsistency'' of the Clinton White House have brought American credibility in Asia to new lows and resulted in challenges to American interests with impunity. On the Korean Peninsula, we must put the interests of our allies first. We must hold North Korea to its long-standing commitment for North-South talks. We must work with our allies in Seoul, Tokyo, and elsewhere to formulate a coordinated response to security challenges from Pyongyang--yes, challenges--without allowing ourselves to be so focused on the nuclear issue that the conventional threat and proliferation threats presented by the North are ignored. This Member's greatest frustration, however, is with American policy toward China. Senator Dole said it right when he commented that ``extending MFN is not, in itself, a China policy.'' The President needs to articulate a coherent strategy for dealing with the many challenges--as well as opportunities--presented by China and then engage with the American people and the Congress to explain how MFN fits into that strategy. We in the majority need to warn the White House that they cannot continue to hide behind us on controversial trade issues, as they did on NAFTA and WTO, to ensure that Congress does the right thing. It is time for President Clinton to make the case, to invest the time and energy necessary to convince the American people that China must be engaged, not isolated, and to take the political heat from implementing this policy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today to express his opposition to the proposed changes to the Indian Child Welfare Act. I would grant that changes are needed, but this proposal was written with no consultation with American Indian tribes or organizations or the House Resources Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. You may be surprised to know that no tribe or Indian organization supports this provision. If there is a need to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act, hearings should be held, and tribes and Indian organizations should be consulted. The original law was written with great care and any potential amendments should be written in the same way. The proposal is just too broadly written, giving State courts subjective authority to define who is a member of an American Indian tribe, rather than the tribe, in child custody and adoption cases. The proposal amends the Indian Child Welfare Act to require the child's biological parent or parents of Indian descent to maintain a ``significant social, cultural, or political affiliation'' with his or her Indian tribe. A State court would determine what comprises the definition of this term. Additionally, the measure does not take into consideration extended members of the child's family. Generally, in adoption, foster care, or child custody cases, it is agreed to be better for the child to be placed with a relative than with total strangers, if possible. This proposal seems to give preference to total strangers rather than members of the child's own family. Madam Speaker, in closing, you should know that this Member is a very strong supporter of adoption and is in fact himself an adoptive parent. However, this provision, if left in the bill, subject to extensive litigation will only serve to needlessly delay adoptions of Indian children.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. McCollum], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Alaska if this will continue to apply to publicly financed housing and not apply to private?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of the Hayworth amendment. It actually does incorporate the provisions of H.R. 3219. Secretary Cisneros was reported to have been told by the Navajo, the best thing he could do for housing was to support the Republican bill, H.R. 3219. Actually, it is a bipartisan bill and has been from the beginning. amendment offered by mr. bereuter to the amendment offered by mr. hayworth, as amended

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has three rather simple but important provisions which make improvements in the section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, first enacted in 1992. The amendment authorizes funds appropriate to remain available until the next fiscal year or until expended, raises the maximum loan level to the same as FHA single-family loans, and provided that Ginnie Mae may purchase loans under the program. Mr. Chairman, I move for its adoption. Mr. Chairman, this Member's amendment, which has been drafted in cooperation with the administration, makes 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 Developments 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 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. This Member's amendment makes three simple changes to the current program. And this Member should note at this point that these changes were suggested and are supported by HUD. 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. I would like to note that the Nations largest housing secondary market, Fannie Mae, has been instrumental in the programs early successes. 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. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote for this amendment, and for H.R. 2406.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bereuter amendment to the Hayworth amendment. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of the Hayworth amendment. This amendment incorporates the text of H.R. 3219, the Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act of 1996. This Member, along with his colleagues from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lazio, and his colleague from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, introduced H.R. 3219. I say, perhaps immediately, but eventually, I believe that this bill and Mr. Hayworth's amendment is the most important and beneficial Indian housing initiative ever offered. The concepts contained in this amendment 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, the Hayworth amendment 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. HUD will enforce strict accountability standards, 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. Specifically, the amendment replaces the 20-year leaseholds under current law with a 40-year lease. Unfortunately, this Member understands this important amendment has been placed in jeopardy by the dubious opposition of big labor. The measure strives to keep the costs, including labor costs, of providing housing at its lowest possible level in order to provide maximum impact for very limited funds. In a lobbying effort as late as last night, big labor has equated a vote for housing Americas most underserved citizens as a vote against big labor. Not concerned with what is good for America, big labor has threatened to kill a measure which prohibits inflated contract costs associated with the prevailing wages required by the Davis-Bacon Act. With homelessness in Indian country at embarrassingly high rates, we can ill-afford to waste a penny on such questionable mandates as Davis-Bacon. Although this Member strongly believes the prohibition against applying Davis-Bacon to Indian housing should stay in the amendment, this Member will not block a move to strike the language because the urgent need to provide safe and adequate housing to Indians outweighs this Member's opposition to Davis-Bacon. Mr. Chairman, this Member again strongly urges his colleagues to support Native Americans and vote in favor of the Hayworth amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim 5 minutes in opposition.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the distinguished deputy whip. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as designee, I claim the final minute in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fields amendment. I am not quite sure what the gentleman is attempting to add but I think I am right in understanding some of the things that he is eliminating. He is eliminating, as I understand it, the exceptions which begin on page 15, subparagraph B, and specifically on lines 22 through lines 24, and on to page 16, lines 1 and 2. He is eliminating the exception for local housing and management authorities that own or operate less than 250 public housing units, including any authority that does not own or operate public housing. We have had substantial debate on this issue. This Member has strong objection from his own State--for example, from the city of Omaha--to in fact requiring, in contrast to State law, that a resident be a member of the public housing authority. But I certainly have strenuous objections to the smaller housing authorities also have this requirement. I think my colleagues should know that in my State, for example, we once had the second largest number of public housing units in the country. We started quite early in the process. Many of them are for senior citizens. A great many of them have less than 30 units across the whole State. That is especially true in my district and in the district of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett]. It would be not only difficult and in contrast to State law to have residents automatically being placed on the public housing authority for those units, it would be unworkable. We have had this debate before. I think we are bending an exceptional amount already in suggesting that in fact for the larger housing units you have a resident that becomes a member of the board, but to take it down to the small housing units is something that this member cannot accept in representing his constituents. It is unworkable in the small cities and the villages in my district that have these small housing authorities. It is in contrast to State law. We are exempting the State law. Therefore, I have to rise in strong objection to the gentleman's amendment which would remove this exception.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us already makes substantial improvements in the opportunity for citizens in the community or county to make their views known as the local management plan is prepared. First of all, under the legislation, of course, we have the mandate that larger communities with over 250 housing units will have a resident of a public housing authority on the local housing authority. That is one thing that is already in the bill. This amendment, I think, across the board, for every community in the country that has a housing authority, no matter how small that community might be, to require them to have a citizens advisory committee, it is another layer of bureaucracy with unclear consequences, particularly if the local housing management agency does not agree to follow the recommendations of the advisory board. I think it is unclear what the costs will be associated with that advisory committee but I would like to call our colleagues' attention to a section that is in the bill that provides specifically for additional citizen participation that is now not required by the operations of housing authorities today. The Chairman has already made reference to it but I want to bring out some of the details of the citizen participation section found on page 31. Before they submit the local management plan, the local housing authority shall make the plan or the amendments publicly available in a manner that affords affected public housing residents and assisted families and others an opportunity to review the plan, and then provides for a period of not less than 60 days for that review. Beyond that, the local housing and management authority shall consider all comments, and to make sure that anybody that reviews the plan has a full appreciation of the comments coming from the citizenry, including from public housing residents, the plan, once submitted, must contain a summary of such comments or views. It shall be attached to the plan, the amendments, or the reports submitted. Therefore, HUD will have an opportunity to look at the kind of citizen participation comments that came forward as a part of the local hearing process I think we have really made quite substantial improvements to the way citizens have an opportunity to express their views on the management of the local housing authority. This adds another layer of bureaucracy. I strongly oppose it because it applies across the board, and I think it is unnecessary.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana and myself have reached an agreement that satisfies my concern. He would simply remove the exemptions. But the first part of his amendment, he will provide for at least 25 percent of those housing authorities having over 250 units, whereas the existing bill provides 25 percent. Now, 25 percent of a five-member board, for example, of the city of Omaha, is one. Whenever State law calls for an 8- or 10-member board, the Fields amendment would actually increase the number of tenants. That will be controversial for some States. For others, like my own, that has a five-member board, it is the same, one member one way, one member the other way. So there is a possibility of us working out this last sticking point.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the Fields amendment in that case would provide for two members, and in the case of a smaller number of board members it would be only one. So there is the potential for a larger number of people who are tenants to be on the board under the Fields amendment than there is under existing language of the bill. I am not arguing the point. It is not relevant to my State. It is going to be controversial in some States. This is a matter that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] are going to have to work out.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the bill says that a minimum of one member must be a tenant on a housing authority, but the Fields amendment says at least 25 percent. So, you see, potentially more members would be on some housing authorities who are tenants than would be under the bill, which specifies only one minimum. That is the difference.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would say first of all to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, there is nothing in the bill that relates to pets. The bill is silent on the subject of pets. The debate here has been about whether or not we require housing authorities to accept pets. I think we have heard the expression of the chairman of the committee. He is quite willing to leave that authority to the housing authorities themselves, whether or not an under what conditions they want to have pets.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for House Resolution 416. This Member would say to his colleagues that there are serious issues involved here. The administration, and some on the other side of the aisle, would have you believe that this a political exercise--payback for the October Surprise investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The October Surprise fiasco was a conspiracy theorist's fantasy, concocted whole-cloth by a seedy mixture of arms merchants, convicted felons, and washed-up academics. Convicted scam artists were claiming that a decade earlier they had a direct role in deceiving the American public. Mr. Speaker, it was pure bunk. Eventually a strong consensus developed that the October Surprise charges leveled about President George Bush were wholly without merit. Mr. Speaker, I believe some people in the White House and top advisers to the President's foreign policy need to remember this is not a dictatorship. This is not a banana republic. In order for foreign policy to be sustainable over the long run, it must be supported by the American people and by the Congress of the United States. Now, clearly, despite what one reads in the papers, the Congress of the United States and the American people would not have found it acceptable to have arms coming in from either Iraq or Iran. The administration understood that. But, nevertheless, they proceeded with a wink and a nod to the knowledge of Iranian arms and fighters coming through Croatia to Bosnia. As a former member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I can tell you that about two-thirds of what you read in the paper is inaccurate. That fact it has been read in the paper that perhaps arms were coming from Iran is no confirmation and no real warning to Members of Congress that in fact the administration would do something so out of touch with what the American people would want. It was inconceivable for Members here to really believe that the administration would permit perhaps as many as 2,000 Iranians and weapons from Iran to come into Bosnia. Ridiculous. Out of the question. Unthinkable. Now, Mr. Speaker, a conscious policy to deceive Congress is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of our constitutional system of government. Willful deception of the Congress and the American people is a corrupting influence that can, and, if left exposed, will, unchecked, undermine our system of government. No one, regardless of political affiliation--not our Democratic colleagues--should be willing to tolerate such contempt for Congress in a constitutional system of government. This Member would be perfectly willing to exonerate the administration if the facts do not support those allegations. However, the Congress has a right and a duty to learn the facts regarding the administration's knowledge of and role in Iranian arms being sent to Bosnia through Croatia. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, the administration's response has been clumsy and a patronizing effort to stonewall us. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no question that President Clinton and his top national security advisers did indeed knowingly tolerate and perhaps encourage the shipment of Iranian arms and Iranian fighters to assist the Bosnian Muslims. There also seems to be little doubt that the administration was implementing this policy at the very time that it was telling Congress that it was fully supporting the arms embargo. The issue is quite simple--key policymakers in the Clinton administration deceived the American people and the Congress in order to implement a clearly intolerable policy, a policy that apparently resulted in the deployment of hundreds of Iranian fighters in Bosnia perhaps as many as 2,000 Iranians. Mr. Speaker, a conscious policy to deceive the Congress is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of our constitutional system of government. Willful deception of Congress and the American people is a corrupting influence that can, if left unexposed and unchecked, thoroughly undermine our system of government. No one, regardless of political affiliation, no not our Democrat colleagues, should be willing to tolerate such contempt for Congress in our constitutional system of government. This Member would be perfectly willing to exonerate this administration if the facts do not support such allegations. However, the Congress has a right to learn the facts regarding the administration's knowledge of and role in Iranian arms being sent to Bosnia through Croatia. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, the administration's response has been a clumsy and patronizing effort to stonewall. Resonses under oath to the initial inquiries made at the International Relations Committee hearing by this Member, together with the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, the distinguished chairman from New York, Mr. Gilman, and other demonstrated a remarkable case of selective amnesia by the administration on virtually every key point regarding the administration's complicity with the Iranian arms shipments. During repeated questioning, senior administration officials voiced no recollection of events that clearly transpired. Peter Tarnoff, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and hence the chief political liaison from the State Department to the White House, repeatedly insisted he was not privy to White House decisions on the Iranian arms and fighters that apparently were made. Regrettably, the Clinton administration's own actions make the creation of a select subcommittee inevitable and necessary. In fact, the representatives of the administration, on a wide variety of issues, seem to frequently ignore the requirement to tell the truth under oath by feigning an inability to recall details they surely do recall. The witnesses appearing before the committee may indeed not have thorough knowledge about the details we requested, but someone does have knowledge and the Congress, and the American people are entitled to the truth from those who are involved or otherwise knowledgeable. That is the objective of the select subcommittee proposal in House Resolution 416. Mr. Speaker, this Member does not relish the task that lies ahead for the select subcommittee. The integrity of this institution, the integrity of the American system of representational government, the integrity of the executive branch, and the integrity of the executive branch's relation with Congress demand that we fully investigate the Iran-Bosnia arms transfer fiasco. The Member urges adoption of House Resolution 416 and House Resolution 417.

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