Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I would say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman from Rhode Island, the gentlewoman from New York, and the gentlewoman from California, if it is not absolutely clear, we are not authorizing IMET for Indonesia. We are authorizing E-IMET, or extended IMET, and not, as one of the gentleman said, enhanced IMET. And, even ``extended IMET'' really does not convey what the program is, for it is quite different than the original IMET program. The Extended IMET program is the kind of program exactly designed to be used in a country like Indonesia where we do have some human rights concerns which are in part related to East Timor. Now, let me say first of all that the enhanced IMET program, or E- IMET, is strongly supported by the administration. If you listen to CINCPAC sources, as people in the State Department, the Defense Department generally and other parts of the administration, it is clear that this administration, the previous administration, are supportive of extending the ``Enhanced IMET'' program to Indonesia. It moves us closer to a positive defense relationship with Indonesia, and, more importantly, it is specifically geared, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] said, to dealing with a country that has human rights problems that trouble us a great deal. The E-IMET program is to foster greater respect for the principles of civilian control of the military. It is to improve military justice and military codes of conduct in accordance with internationally recognized human rights. It is to contribute to responsible defense resource management. It is to contribute to cooperation between the military and local police in the area of counternarcotics. This is the full scope of the E-IMET program. It is very different than the IMET program, about which objections have been expressed here today. Now, let me say that I, despite the fact that I believe that Indonesia is playing a very important role in Southeast Asia, that it is strategically located and is a country that has played the key, positive role in trying to resolve the Spratley Islands dispute in the waters off Southeast Asia, despite that, I would not be able to suggest to my colleagues that we ought to approve the traditional IMET authorization. But there is this to be said for what is happening in Indonesia: There are substantial signs of greater judicial independence, there is NGO activism in the last 12 months, there is a human rights commission that has been established, primarily because of outside interests, the human rights community, and the United States of America. Human rights practices remain certainly imperfect, but the E- IMET program is specifically designed primarily to push Indonesia and other countries toward better human rights practices. So I think that, in fact, our colleagues should feel very good about authorizing ``Enhanced IMET'' program for Indonesia. And by the way, it is identical to the existing law in the foreign operations appropriation bill as well as the authorization bills passed by both the House and the Senate. I understand a couple of my colleagues--the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman from Florida--might like to engage in a colloquy here. Is that correct? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida if he wishes to engage in this discussion.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member rises in opposition to House Joint Resolution 159, the so-called tax limitation amendment. Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in support of a Constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for any tax increases. However, this Member can not in good conscience cast such a vote. As this member stated when speaking in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S Constitution, there is a great burden of proof to deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proponents of this amendment have met this burden. There should be no question of this Member's continued and enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring such. Tax increases should not routinely be employed to achieve a balanced budget. That is why this member supported the inclusion of a supermajority requirement in the Rules of the 104th House which were adopted at the beginning of this Congress. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in this Members opinion, an unreasonable and dangerous action.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to invite his colleagues to cosponsor legislation which he introduced this morning. The measure, similar to provisions in the Balanced Budget Act passed in December, raises the annual contribution limit that State and local government and nonprofit corporation employees may contribute to their section 457 retirement plans to equal that which their private-sector colleagues may contribute to their 401(k) plans and requires that these plans be held in trust. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, State and local governments and nonprofit corporations were prohibited from offering 401(k) plans for their employees. Under the 1986 Act, section 457 plans were fixed or frozen at an annual contribution limit of $7,500 while the 401(k) limit was only $7,000 but was indexed for inflation. This indexing has increased the 401(k) limit to $9,240. This measure states that the limit for section 457 plans will mirror that of the 401(k). Also, by placing the assets in trust the employees retirement funds will be protected against claims by general creditors. The financial woes of Orange County, CA, are a recent example of why this is prudent. Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member invites his colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of this measure and to express his pleasure that this legislation has advanced to this stage and is one step closer to becoming law. This Member introduced the first product liability legislation in the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature in 1977. During this process this Member realized that this issue must be dealt with on the Federal level, because the vast majority of products and services move through interstate commerce. Addressing product liability at the State level is like patching 1 hole in a tire with 50 holes. Mr. Speaker, all Americans are paying higher prices for consumer goods and services because this legislation has been delayed for so very long. The insurance costs incurred by companies protecting against and paying for outrageous product liability suits are passed along to the consumer each and every day, in each and every product and service purchased. Perhaps even more outrageously, the current system unfairly imposes upon the American public product design standards, which are created in response to penalties awarded in a few States with the highest punitive and compensatory damages. Those States get to impose their juries' ideas of appropriate design and safety standards on the rest of the Nation. That is a perversion of federalism. National standards should be set by the national legislature. That is what this bill will do. Mr. Speaker, this Member has been a long-time cosponsor of product liability reform, dating back to at least 1986 when this Member was an early cosponsor of registration introduced by his distinguished colleague, Mr. Roth. This Member is pleased that this conference report is before the House for final approval and urges his colleagues to support it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act. This Member is particularly pleased that, as reported on the House floor H.R. 3136 included the Line-Item Veto Act. An important tool in the battle to reduce spending would be to give the President line-item veto authority. A line-item veto would enable the President to veto individual items in an appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill. With a line- item veto the executive could strike a pen to the pork-barrel projects that too often find their way into appropriations bills. This power is currently given to 43 of the Nation's Governors, where it has been a successful tool that discourages unnecessary expenditures at the State level. It is appropriate that the President have this authority as well. This Member has cosponsored legislation to institute a line-item veto since 1985, and is pleased that this initiative may soon be enacted into law. Legislation to provide for a line-item veto has been introduced in Congress for over 100 years. The time has come to recognize the need for more stringent and binding budget mechanisms. This Member is also pleased that H.R. 3136 raises the limit on income senior citizens may earn and still receive full Social Security benefits. In the last three Congresses, this Member cosponsored related legislation, and has consistently supported efforts to reduce or eliminate the Social Security earnings limit on senior citizens who must work to make ends meet. Seniors of modest means who have to work to supplement their Social Security checks should be allowed to work without paying an effective marginal tax rate higher than that of millionaires. In addition, this legislation also includes much-needed regulatory relief provisions that would inject some common sense into the current regulatory and bureaucratic framework which now exists. Federal regulations cost the economy hundred so billions of dollars each year. Too often, these regulations were not based on sound science and resulted in little or no benefit to society. This is an issue which must be addressed to provide relief from the plethora of Federal regulations. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3136 as reported to the House floor, in order to advance important initiatives to establish a line-item veto, provide regulatory relief, and limit an unfair tax on senior citizens.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 158) to recognize the Peace Corps on the occasion of its 35th anniversary and the Americans who have served as Peace Corps volunteers.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 158 recognizes the Peace Corps and its volunteers on its 35th anniversary year. Mr. Farr and the five other original cosponsors of this resolution are all former Peace Corps volunteers now serving their country here in the Congress. Their resolution recognizes the sacrifice and dedication of Peace Corps volunteers, both in their assigned countries and here at home after they return on the occasion of the Corps's 35th anniversary. I will note that since the first volunteer stepped off the plane in 1961 at a little airport in Ghana, over 140,000 Americans have become Peace Corps veterans in the service of peace, understanding and development. Today, Peace Corps volunteers are older, more experienced and specialized but their mission is still the same: development and basic American values in the developing world at the grassroots level. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time and for his support. Mr. Speaker, this Member introduced House Resolution 345 to put the Cambodian Government on notice that the House is increasingly concerned about the deterioration of democracy and human rights in that country. The resolution at the desk includes two minor technical corrections. the first corrects the date of upcoming elections; the second notes the fact that Cambodia has been added to the State Department's list of narcotics trafficking countries. Mr. Speaker, Cambodia has made tremendous strides toward democracy since the killing fields of Pol Pot and the Vietnamese occupation; but serious problems remain. House Resolution 345, while commending the Cambodian people for their commitment to democracy and stability, expresses serious concern about human rights problems in that country. This Member is concerned that the desire by the administration and the international community to cite Cambodia as a success story for U.N. peacekeeping has stifled the expression of concern about the deterioration of democracy and human rights conditions in Cambodia. On September 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific held hearings on internal stability, democracy, and economic development in Cambodia. At this hearing, several well-informed private witnesses, including the International Republican Institute, described a serious deterioration of democracy and human rights in Cambodia during the last 12 months. Few people have experienced as much suffering the last 30 years as the people of Cambodia. Cambodia was drawn into the Vietnam war. The country endured 3 years of tyrannical rule by the Khmer Rouge [KR], under which more than 1 million Cambodians perished. Cambodia was invaded by Vietnam in 1979 and then suffered another 12 years of civil war. Cambodia's road back from this horror began with the October 1991 Paris Peace Accords, under the auspices of the United Nations. These accords led to remarkably successful national elections in May 1993, during which 90 percent of Cambodia's eligible voters braved threats from Pol Pot and his henchmen and voted to install a democratic parliamentary system of government. Cambodia's national unity coalition government, which resulted from these elections, demonstrates the desire of the Cambodian people for representative government and stability. The 1993 elections, however, were only the first step toward democracy in Cambodia. The impediments remain formidable: the Khmer Rouge continues to fight a low intensity war against the Government; the former ruling party--the ex-communist Cambodian People's Party--has found it difficult to share power; the royalist party which won the elections has been charged with corruption; and, the Government seems to be drifting toward authoritarianism. Not only are there questions about the depth and staying-power of the current democratic system in Cambodia, but the Government of Cambodia has taken some troubling actions. As a parliamentarian, and Member of Congress, I am very troubled by what appears to be an increasing tendency toward intolerance of dissent in the Cambodian National Assembly. The expulsion from the National Assembly of the outspoken Sam Rainsy, the arrest and exile of former Foreign Minister Prince Sirivudh, and the threatened expulsion of other legislators is of particular concern. Moreover, the arrest of some journalists and the enactment of a restrictive press law raise questions about the Cambodian Government's commitment to free speech and a free press. Mr. Speaker, since the House acted to approve most-favored-nation trading status for Cambodia earlier this year, we certainly now need to balance that action with a straightforward message to Phnom Penh on human rights violations. That is exactly what House Resolution 345, as amended, does. One positive sign, which could make a long-term contribution to democracy and human rights in Cambodia, is the strong network of local and international nongovernment organizations. This Member commends the Government for its continued welcoming of NGO's in that country and hopes this positive attitude will continue. The resolution urges the administration to bring a larger effort to making democracy and human rights concerns among our primary objectives in bilateral relations with Cambodia, calls for close monitoring of important upcoming elections, supports democratization efforts of United States assistance programs, and urges that the United States and other donors raise democracy and human rights at the June 1996 meeting of the Donor's Consultative Meeting for Cambodia. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 345 represents a balanced and constructive effort to advance democracy and human rights in Cambodia. This Member wants to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York and chairman of the House International Relations Committee, [Mr. Gilman] and the distinguished Member from California and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, [Mr. Berman] for their assistance and support for this resolution. This Member urges all his colleagues in this body to support House Resolution 345, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member supports certain provisions of H.R. 125 that increase the mandatory minimum sentences for committing crimes while possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm. Tough penalties are certainly needed. However, these provisions are not enough to change his support for the assault weapons ban. This Member previously voted for a ban on the manufacture and import of certain assault weapons because that was the rational, responsible, and constitutional thing to do. Furthermore, over 72 percent of the residents of the First Congressional District of Nebraska supported this vote.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith-Schiff amendment. Not too long ago, the Congress of the United States established a U.S. Commission On Immigration Reform, or CIR. It was a very distinguished panel. They have made their recommendations to the Congress. Among the more active members of that Commission was our late distinguished colleague from Texas, Ms. Barbara Jordan. I think that we should pay attention to what they recommended. Mr. Chairman, here are the most important recommendations, and they are consistent with the legislation coming from the committee. The United States should allocate 75,000 refugee admission numbers in 1997 and 50,000 admission numbers each year thereafter to the entry of refugees from overseas not including asylum adjustments. Second, they said other than in an emergency situation, refugee admissions could exceed the 50,000 admissions level only with the direct and affirmative participation by Congress. That should occur instead of the current, and I think very ineffective, consultation process that actually works today, or does not work. Third, in the case of the emergency, the President may authorize the admission of additional refugees upon certification on the emergency circumstances necessitating such action. The Congress may override the emergency admissions only with the two-House veto of the Presidential action. That is what the Commission has recommended. The legislation before us, if we do not amend it, implements those kind of recommendations. Mr. Chairman, some time ago, there was a story about a very high official of the United States visiting with a very high official, the highest, of the People's Republic of China, and they were talking about Jackson-Vanik. Jackson-Vanik relates to immigration issues. The story goes that we were querying the Chinese about whether immigration was possible from their country, and they said, how many would you like? Would you like 5 million, 10 million, or 15 million Chinese a year? No problem. Mr. Chairman, now we have a very interesting kind of process underway today where some people are trying to suggest that refugee status should follow what is alleged to be, by a person, coercive abortion practices. Now, if that happens, I want to ask my colleagues, how many refugees do you think we will have in this country from China alone or from any place else that allegedly has these kind of activities, or which has them in some parts of their society? Do we expect to have 2 million, 3 million, 4 million? What is going to be the limit of the refugees we have coming in under that kind of situation? Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues about three very important points here. First, the provisions of this act that is before us today are consistent with the recommendations of the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. Second, they place Congress in control of determining U.S. refugee policy. Currently, the administration, I will say, unilaterally sets the numbers with very minimal congressional input. Third, the legislation before us provides sufficient flexibility in the legislation to allow the administration to increase admission numbers in an emergency, which is defined, or for Congress to take action to increase the numbers in any single year. 2015 That is what is in the bill now. That is what the Smith-Schiff amendment eliminates. My colleagues, I am urging that we stick with the Commission. It was a legitimate effort. It was conducted by very distinguished Americans. They made their best recommendations, and in this area I think the burden of proof should lie on those that want to reject the amendments of the Commission.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to recognize the millions of men and women who comprise the agriculture community. I will remind my colleagues that this week we celebrate National Agriculture Week, and thus it is certainly appropriate to take some time to recognize the importance of U.S. agriculture and agribusiness. This year's theme of ``Growing Better Everyday, Generation to Generation,'' truly captures the forward-looking spirit of agriculture today. This Nation's farmers and food processors have continued to make tremendous strides in recent decades in producing and distributing food in an efficient manner. This efficiency is reflected by the fact that today 1 American farmer produces enough food for 129 people. In addition to providing for the needs of today, farmers also have the responsibility of serving as stewards of our land and water resources for future generations and most are excellent stewards. Clearly, the American agriculture community is producing what the world needs to survive while preserving and enhancing our natural resources for the future. This Member commends the many individuals in the agricultural community for their hard work, perseverance, vision, and dedication. The following is an excellent editorial from the Norfork (Nebraska) Daily News relevant to these remarks. Agricultural Links Past and Future entrepreneurial spirit continues to be a guiding force for farmers and ranchers As one drives through the countryside in Northeast and North Central Nebraska, the sight of those familiar farms may seem to be unchanged from years and decades past. But appearances can be deceiving. Farming is anything but a static enterprise. Changes in technology and mechanization have profoundly changed family farming operations. In 1900, for example, the average farm size was 147 acres. Today, the average farm has almost 500 acres. Technology is helping farmers to track weather conditions through satellites and gain access to information and research through the Internet computer network. Computers are also helping farmers to maintain detailed records, thereby boosting efficiency and profitability. The Agriculture Council of America also points out that farming is also changing in response to consumer demands. Farmers and ranchers are producing meat lower in fat and cholesterol to fit with today's health-conscious consumers. Today's hog, for example, is bred to be 50 percent leaner than those produced 20 years ago. That results in retail cuts at the grocery store that are 15 percent leaner. Leaner beef cuts are also being produced. Meat with 27 percent less fat reaches the retail case than in 1985. Farmers have also met consumer demand for ethnic foods, such as corn chips and tortillas, by increasing production of food-grade corn. And through biotechnology, consumers can now enjoy a fresh tomato that is tasty--even when out of season. This week marks National Agriculture Week--a yearly occurrence that, for some, prompts memories of how it used to be in agriculture. We're all for that. The history of farming and ranching in this nation and elsewhere is an integral part of where we are today. But National Agriculture Week is also an opportunity to realize just how much farming and ranching is changing-- thanks to the foresight, flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit of those involved in production agriculture. This year's theme for the week is ``Growing Better Everyday, Generation to Generation.'' It's so appropriate because it links the past with the future, which is what agriculture is all about.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 148 addresses the highly volatile situation in the Taiwan Strait as the P.R.C. has crudely sought to intimidate the people of Taiwan on the eve of national elections. China's missile tests, live-fire exercises, and huge amphibious force opposite Taiwan have been quite rightly labeled as ``acts of terrorism'' by Speaker Gingrich. This Member commends the distinguished member from California, Mr. Cox for his initiative in drafting House Concurrent Resolution 148 in consultation with this Member and others, and the distinguished chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman for his successful effort to obtain quick committee action on the resolution unanimously reported from the subcommittee I chair. The resolution passed the committee by voice vote with overwhelming bipartisan support. At this precarious point, Mr. Speaker, miscalculation and recklessness by either party could lead to catastrophe. Many Members of this House--Republican and Democrat alike--were concerned that the administration's initial reaction of deliberate and calculated ambiguity did not convey an adequate expression of U.S. resolve. This Member and others believe it is necessary to send an unambiguous signal that the United States would not sit idly by were Taiwan to be attacked. The decision to send a second Navy aircraft carrier group to join the one already in the waters near Taiwan is an important demonstration of United States intent. House Concurrent Resolution 148 seeks to add some clarity and consistency in our policy vis-a-vis Taiwan's security and Chinese threats. This Member would emphasize that it is not the intention of House Concurrent Resolution 148 to be anti-P.R.C. when it criticizes Beijing's coercive activities. Nor does the resolution offer unequivocal support of all Taiwanese policies or actions. The United States is not seeking to create new adversaries where none need exist, and we must not be stampeded into adopting policies that are contrary to the U.S. national interest. For example, while we enthusiastically support and congratulate Taiwan's economic success and democratic progress, the United States is not endorsing the efforts of some Taiwanese politicians to enhance Taiwan's position in the United Nations and other international organizations which require statehood. Taiwan's leaders have been--and should continue to be--very careful about such statements. Unilateral actions to establish an independent Taiwan--which Taiwan's leaders consistently claim they are not seeking--would be extremely dangerous, and would be inconsistent with the policies of five successive United States administrations from both political parties. The purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 148 is simply to make very clear to Beijing that the United States is committed--consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act--to assist in the defense of Taiwan in the event of an invasion, attack, or blockade. It is hoped that this resolution will have a salutary deterrent effect by sending a clear and unequivocal expression of support for peaceful resolution of Taiwan's future status--something both sides say they support--and reaffirming our rejection of any attempt to resolve the issue through the use of force. This Member urges all his colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 148 to send a clear signal to Beijing that the United States will not tolerate bullying of our friends in Taiwan.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, this Member rises in the strongest possible support of this important legislative proposal. Mr. Chairman, the current U.S. immigration system is urgently in need of reform. It is inconsistent with the needs and capabilities of American society, and the citizens of this country know it first-hand. For the last 20 years, countless surveys taken on immigration reform have shown that the vast majority of Americans have consistently supported efforts to reform this country's antiquated immigration laws--95 percent of those who responded to a recent questionnaire sent to this Member's constituency agreed that border officials should be given more resources to crack down on illegal immigration. While this Member fully realizes the contributions of legal immigration on this State and the Nation, he also agrees with the American people that serious immigration reform is needed. An immigration system that burdens public assistance programs and that allows illegal workers to enter the American job market is a system that cannot be supported by the American taxpayer or the American worker. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, an immigration system with an official backlog of well over 1 million individuals seeking to legally gain citizenship in this country is a system that keeps families apart for undue lengths of time and encourages illegal immigration. On the issue of refugee admissions, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues not to be fooled by the alarmist rhetoric surrounding this debate.The refugee admissions provision of this act is consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late distinguished Member from Texas, Ms. Barbara Jordan. Moreover, contrary to what some people contend, the refugee levels in the bill are totally consistent with projected refugee levels. The Immigration in the National Interest Act sets refugee admissions at a target level of 75,000 for 1997 and 50,000 per year thereafter. What H.R. 2202 does, Mr. Chairman, is very simply to restore the Congressional prerogative in establishing American refugee policy, including in the area of annual admission numbers. While the bill precludes unilateral increases by the executive branch in determining refugees admissions, it nevertheless gives the President sufficient flexibility to meet humanitarian emergencies by admitting additional refugees. The legislation underscores an important principle contained in the recommendations of the Immigration Commission: That is, that the United States cannot abandon its commitment to resettle refugees as a key element of the international system to protect the persecuted. H.R. 2202 honors that commitment, Mr. Chairman, in a compassionate and balanced manner. This Member urges his colleagues to oppose any effort to diminish the legislative role in setting refugee admissions policy and to retain the refugee provisions in the bill. The Immigration in the National Interest Act will ensure that refugee admissions will be maintained at reasonable levels and that Congress will maintain its role in the admissions process. This Member would like to offer the most enthusiastic commendations to the chairman of the subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], for his steadfast efforts to bring comprehensive immigration reform legislation before the House and to see it enacted. Mr. Chairman, H.R, 2202 would take appropriate steps toward reforming U.S. immigration laws so that they reflect the interests and common sense of the American people.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support for the conference report on H.R. 1561. As vice chairman of the Committee on International Relations, this Member has worked over a period of some months with his colleagues to craft this conference report; however, no one has worked harder than the distinguished gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, who has skillfully navigated a difficult process to produce this legislation. There are many important provisions in this conference report, many of which my colleagues will discuss. This Member will discuss only a few key provisions. First, it should be remembered that many of the Members elected to the 104th Congress came to this body with a strong commitment to reduce government and eliminate unnecessary agencies. Attempt have been made, and overall spending has been reduced somewhat, but all sizable Federal agencies thus far have seemed impervious to elimination. But with this conference report, Mr. Speaker, the Congress will be consolidating and eliminating agencies. It is true that the President is given the discretion to decide which of three agencies--AID, USIA, or ACDA--would be folded into the State Department, but the net effect would be to eliminate at least one unnecessary and duplicative agency. Each Member of this body who votes for this legislation will be able to return to their district and point to the elimination of at least one agency while preserving those important functions now performed by ACDA, USIA, or AID. And, this Member would tell his colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the conference report's plan to reduce agencies is wholly in keeping with Secretary of State Christopher's initial proposals to overhaul the U.S. foreign policy apparatus--a plan that regrettably fell by the wayside early in this administration. Another major accomplishment of H.R. 1561 is the elimination of the Housing Guarantee Program as it operates in most countries. This program, which was created to guarantee loans made by U.S. investors to support shelter-related projects in developing countries, has evolved into a terribly inefficient and badly mismanaged fiasco that is losing tens of millions of dollars annually. Indeed, a recent study by the General Accounting Office estimates that the Housing Guarantee Program may end up costing the United States $1 billion in loan default and other costs. It is a program that deserves to die, Mr. Speaker, and enactment of this conference report would terminate it in most areas. Yet another major foreign policy concern drafted by this Member and by the H.R. 1561 conference report is aimed at ensuring that the Congress retains some measure of responsibility for our relations with North Korea. Mr. Speaker, in its haste to ensure that North Korea receives assistance in the construction of lightwater nuclear reactors, this administration has effectively bypassed the normal congressional review of foreign assistance. This legislation ensures that future funds for North Korea for this particularly effort receive proper congressional scrutiny. This legislation also ensures that further progress in United States-North Korean relations are also dependent upon progress in the North-South dialog, progress on the final accounting for American MIA's in the Korean war, and cessation of North Korea's proliferation of ballistic missiles and support for international terrorism. This is an important policy message that this body needs to deliver. Last, Mr. Speaker, this Member would point to the resolution of longstanding claims, against frozen Iraqi assets. The H.R. 1561 conference report ensures that American exporters and financial institutions with legitimate claims against the Government of Iraq for commercial activities initiated before the conflict will receive compensation out of Iraqi assets held since the Persian Gulf war. The result is that, after almost 6 years of arbitrary decisions, arrogance, and intransigence by the State Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, these outstanding claims will be resolved. This is a matter of basic fairness, Mr. Speaker, but these are also important pro-growth, pro-trade provisions. It also should be noted that these provisions are not mentioned as one of the President's listed objections to this legislation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member would urge his colleagues to support the conference report on H.R. 1561. There are certainly some provisions in this legislation, like some of the southeast Asia refugee provisions and the Tibet Envoy, which this Member cannot support. However, legislation is subject to necessary compromises and it is important that the Congress attempt to pass this authorization legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in opposition to the amendment by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] that would strike the language in the bill that clarifies the congressional intent regarding the interpretation of the Hyde amendment. This Member was one of the first Members of Congress to speak against the 1993 Clinton administration directive that required States to fund Medicaid abortions in cases of rape or incest. This directive is an unjustified and incorrect interpretation of the law and of congressional intent. It is certainly not the intent of Congress to mandate States to fund Medicaid abortions in the case of rape or incest, regardless of State law. The 1993 Hyde amendment to public law is clearly not a mandate, but an enlargement on the limitation on the use of Federal funds, allowing States to use Medicaid funds to finance abortions in the case of rape or incest and of course to save the life on an indigent mother. The language in the bill we are considering today, once and for all, clarifies the original congressional intent in statute. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to support H.R. 497, legislation to establish a National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission to study gambling in the United States and recommend any appropriate changes in public policy in light of the Commission's findings. The results will provide an objective body of data about the gambling industry which does not currently exist. This issue is certainly worthy of examination and H.R. 497 is a reasonable step on which to proceed. Over the past 10 years various types of gambling have spread to most every State. The expanded availability of gambling has greatly increased the number of people participating in and the amount of money spent on gambling on a regular basis. Such a large increase over such a short period of time certainly warrants a study of the issue. It should be noted that this legislation in no way targets one type of gambling over another. Nor, for example, is it intended to concentrate on Indian gaming more than charitable gambling or keno more than video poker. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges support for H.R. 497.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Cuba's shootdown of two civilian aircraft, resulting in the loss of four American lives just over a week ago, was a reprehensible and cowardly act. Certainly, a swift and decisive response from the U.S. Government is entirely warranted. Whether the Clinton administration has chosen the appropriate response is far less certain. This Member would call to the attention of his colleagues an editorial in the March 3, 1996 edition of the Washington Post, entitled ``The Great Cuban Embargo Scam''. A key intent behind the embargo legislation is to discourage foreign investment in Cuba by allowing Cuban-Americans to sue in U.S. Federal courts those foreign companies doing business on land once owned by these exiles. Author Louis F. Desloge argues that, conversely, companies are unlikely to abandon viable operations in Cuba because of lawsuits, and would be more than willing to settle out of court. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask that Mr. Desloge's editorial from the Washington Post be placed in today's record and urges that his colleagues read it. [From the Washington Post, March 3, 1996] The Great Cuban Embargo Scam (By Louis F. Desloge) Virtually everyone agrees that President Clinton should retaliate forcefully against Cuba's tragic and murderous downing of two civilian aircraft last weekend. But the least effective and most counterproductive punishment is Clinton's acquiescence to the Helms-Burton bill to tighten the U.S. embargo of Cuba. This legislation, which the White House endorsed last week, albeit with reservations, will only play into Castro's hands by creating an expansive loophole for property claimants, especially wealthy Cuban Americans, to circumvent the embargo. Jesse Helms and Dan Burton, conservatives whom I admire, are no doubt sincere in their motivation to subvert Castro's rule by applying economic pressure on his regime. However, they may very well achieve just the opposite of what they seek by buttressing, not undermining, Castro's support at home and weakening, not strengthening, the embargo's prohibition on trade with Cuba. The Helms-Burton bill is a slick stratagem. Its stated purpose is to tighten the embargo by allowing Cuban Americans to have the unprecedented right to sue, in U.S. federal courts, foreign companies doing business on land once owned by these exiles. The idea is to discourage foreign business investment in Cuba, thus undermining the island's financial recovery which, the bill's supporters naively hope, will result in a collapse of the Castro regime. The bill's practical consequences are a different story. A little-noticed provision in the Helms-Burton measure will enable a small group of Cuban Americans to profit from the economic activity occurring in Cuba. To understand this provision, one must first know who helped write it. As the Baltimore Sun reported last May, the bill was drafted with the advice of Nick Gutierrez, an attorney who represents the National Association of Sugar Mill Owners of Cuba and the Cuban Association for the Tobacco Industry. Gutierrez acknowledges his involvement, as does Ignacio Sanchez, an attorney whose firm represents the Bacardi rum company. Sanchez told the Sun that he worked on the bill in his capacity as a member of the American Bar Association's Cuban Property Rights Task Force and not as a representative of the rum company. It is not hard to surmise what these former sugar, tobacco and rum interests will do if and when the law takes effect: sue their competitors who are now doing business in Cuba. Gutierrez told the Miami Herald last fall as saying that he (and his clients) are eyeing a Kentucky subsidiary of British-American Tobacco (B.A.T.) that produces Lucky Strike cigarettes. B.A.T. has a Cuban joint venture with the Brazilian firm Souza Cruz to produce tobacco on land confiscated from his clients, Gutierrez claims. Bacardi would be able to sue Pernod Ricard, the French spirits distributor, currently marketing Havana Club rum worldwide. Bacardi claims that Pernod Ricard's rum is being produced in the old Bacardi distillery in the city of Santiago de Cuba. Here is how this vexatious scheme will work if Helms-Barton becomes law. The former landowner of a tobacco farm files a suit in federal court against British-American Tobacco and seeks damages. If both sides want to avoid prolonged litigation they can reach an out-of-court settlement whereby the former tobacco grower can now share in the profits of the ongoing B.A.T.-Brazilian joint venture in Cuba. Likewise, Bacardi could reach a settlement to get a share of Pernod Ricard's profits from sales of Havana Club internationally. These agreements do not need the blessing of the U.S. government. This is the million dollar loophole in Helms- Burton. The bill states: ``an action [lawsuit] . . . may be brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such action may be enforced, without the necessity of obtaining any license or permission from any agency of the United States.'' What will be the practical result? Foreign companies like Pernod Ricard and British-American Tobacco are unlikely to abandon viable operations in Cuba because of a lawsuit. More likely, these foreign businessmen will agree, reluctantly, to pay off Cuban exiles suing under Helms-Burton. Given the choice of forfeiting millions of dollars invested in Cuba or their financial interests in the United States, the practical business solution might be to give the exiles a cut of the action. Far better to have 90 percent of something than 100 percent of nothing, these businessmen will reason. Allowing Cuban Americans a share of their profits will just be factored in as another cost of doing business. Indeed, Helms-Burton gives the Cuban exile community a strong financial stake in Castro's Cuba. If the foreign businesses simply withdrew in the face of Helms-Burton, the exiled tobacco, sugar and rum interests would get nothing. But if British-American Tobacco or Pernod Ricard or any other foreign firm now doing business with the Castro regime offers an out-of-court settlement to Cuban American exiles, who is going to turn them down? Given the option, at least some people are going to choose personal enrichment over the principle of not doing business with Fidel. After all, Fidel has been in power for 37 years, and the exiles are not getting any younger. The Clinton White House is not unaware of the scam at the heart of the bill. Before the shooting down of the plane, the president had objected to the provisions allowing U.S. nationals to sue companies doing business in Cuba. During last week's conference with Congress, the president's men surrendered and asked for a face-saving compromise: a provision giving the president the right to block such deals later on if they do not advance the cause of democracy in Cuba. But how likely is Clinton to block Cuban Americans in Florida, a key election state, from suing Castro's foreign collaborators later in the final months of an election year? Now very. The bottom line is that Clinton, in the name of getting tough with Castro, has endorsed a bill that allows the embargo to be evaded and protects Cuban Americans who want to legally cut deals to exploit their former properties in Cuba while the rest of the American business community must watch from the sidelines. In fact, the legislation could encourage a massive influx of new foreign investment in Cuba. Armed with the extortionist powers conferred by the legislation, former property holders could shop around the world for prospective investors in Cuba and offer them a full release on their property claim in exchange for a ``sweetheart'' lawsuit settlement entitling them to a piece of the economic action. Thus, the embargo is legally bypassed and everyone laughs all the way to the bank. Actually, not everyone would benefit. The Clinton-endorsed version of Helms-Burton only exempts the wealthiest cabal of Cuba's former elites from the embargo's restraints. The bill will only allow those whose former property is worth a minimum value of $50,000 (sans interest) to file suits. And you had to be very rich to have owned anything of that value in Cuba in 1959. If you were a Cuban butcher, baker or candlestick maker, too bad. This bill is not for you. What could be more useful to Castro in his efforts to shore up his standing with the Cuban people? The spectacle of the U.S. Congress kowtowing to these Batista-era plantation owners and distillers provides Fidel his most effective propaganda weapon since the Bay of Pigs debacle. Castro surely knows that the overwhelming majority of the Cuban people--60 percent of whom were born after 1959--would deeply resent what can be characterized, not unfairly, as an attempt to confiscate their properties and revert control over Cuba's economy to people who symbolize the corrupt rule of the 1950s. Rather than undermining Castro's rule, this bill would drive the people into his camp. Where is the logic in denying the vast majority of the American people the right to become economically engaged in Cuba if it is extended to only a select, wealthy few? Is the concept of ``equal protection under the law'' served if non- Cuban Americans are now relegated to the status of second- class citizens? Or is the real intent of this bill to allow rich Cuban exiles the opportunity to get a jump start and thereby head off the ``gringo'' business invasion certain to follow the demise of the embargo and the inevitable passing of Castro. Let us put an end to this special interest subterfuge. Whatever obligation the United States had to my fellow Cuban Americans has been more than fulfilled by providing us safe haven and the opportunity to prosper and flourish in a free society. Providing us, once again, another special exemption which makes a mockery of the American Constitution, laws and courts, not to mention making a farce of U.S.-Cuban policy, is an insult to both the American and Cuban people. If we are going to lift the embargo for a few wealthy exiles then, fine, let us lift it for all Americans. To be fair and consistent, why not liberate the entire American community to bring the full weight if its influence to bear upon Cuban people? Implementing an aggressive engagement policy to transmit our values to the Cuban people and to accelerate the burgeoning process of reform occurring on the island has a far better chance of ending Castro's rule than the machinations of Helms-Burton.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in the strongest possible support for H.R. 2778, legislation designed to provide that members of the Armed Forces serving in Bosnia will be entitled to combat zone tax benefits. The benefits provided in this legislation are relatively modest. Enlisted personnel will not be taxed on their base pay, and officers receive a $500 exclusion. Servicemembers killed in Bosnia are granted a reduced estate tax. They are given a filing extension so that our peacekeeping operation does not shut down on April 15 while our troops are filling out returns. Telephone calls back home are not subject to a 3-percent excise tax. But while the provisions may seem modest, the effect on the morale of American troops serving in Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia will be significant. This Member recently had the opportunity to visit with General Nash, commanding general of the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division in Bosnia. He expressed the troops' strong support for the passage of H.R. 2778. It was, General Nash argued, at this point perhaps the single most positive and personally important expression of support that the Congress could send to the troops serving in IFOR. Mr. Speaker, the very least we can do is ensure that, when our troops return, they will not be met at the airport by the IRS. This Member urges swift passage of H.R. 2778.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2853, which would extend nondiscriminatory most-favored-nation treatment-- normal tariff status--to the export products of Bulgaria. This Member commends his colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee, especially the chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], for bringing this legislation to the House floor. This Member would also commend the ranking minority member, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], who has recently announced his retirement and who will be sorely missed by this Member and all Members of this body. He is among the first Members of Congress who took a deep interest in the nations of Eastern and Central Europe even before these countries emerged from behind the Iron Curtain. This Member first visited Bulgaria in the early 1980's as part of a Gibbons-led trade delegation. His good counsel and knowledge about these countries has helped us facilitate our relations with those emerging democracies and active trading partners. Finally, this Member congratulates the chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Crane, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Rangel, for their leadership on this important legislation. Their effort is appreciated by this Member. There are four major reasons that Bulgaria has earned most-favored- nation status. First, Bulgaria has received MFN treatment since 1991 through the waiver process, and has been found to be in compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Second, Bulgaria has reversed many years of Communist dictatorship and has instituted a constitutional republic, a democratically elected government and basic market-oriented reforms. The Bulgarian people enjoyed their first direct Presidential elections in 1992. Third, Bulgaria is in the process of acceding to the World Trade Organization [WTO] and extension of unconditional MFN would enable the United States to avail itself of all rights under the WTO with respect to Bulgaria. Fourth, finally, Bulgaria has demonstrated a strong desire to build friendly relations with the United States and to cooperate fully with us on trade matters. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member reiterates his strong support for H.R. 2853 and urges his colleagues to join in this support.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two important editorials which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on February 27 and February 28, 1996. [From the Omaha World-Herald Feb. 27, 1996] Cuban Attack Is U.S. Business; Clinton Too Quick to Call in U.N. Saturday, Feb. 24, 1996. Two American-based civilian aircraft, belonging to a Cuban exile group called Brothers to the Rescue, are blasted out of the sky by Fidel Castro's warplanes. Four people are missing and presumed dead. President Clinton's immediate response is to slink off and ask the United Nations to do something. By Sunday evening, the Security Council is meeting in closed session. Cuba asks for more time to give its version of the event. The question of whether the United States would respond unilaterally seemed to be on hold. Monday, Clinton belatedly came through. He halted charter air travel between Cuba and the mainland, places further restrictions on the movements of Cuban diplomats in the United States and threw his support to pending legislation to tighten U.S. sanctions against the island nation. He also allowed frozen Cuban assets to be used to help the families of the victims. But even as Clinton acted, the effectiveness of his previous policies toward Castro came under scrutiny. Under Clinton, travel between Cuba and the mainland had become easier. Telephone links were established. U.S. businesses encountered less resistance from their own government in establishing contacts with the Cubans--indeed, when a move originated in Congress to punish them for doing business on the island, Clinton was against it. When Castro wanted to attend the U.N. anniversary celebration in New York City, the U.S. government did not stop him. Moreover the U.S. government had urged Brothers to the Rescue pilots not to fly into Cuban air space during their flights to spot refugees at sea and notify U.S. authorities--a warning that the Brothers ignored when they dropped leaflets on Cuban cities, urging that Castro be overthrown. U.S. concessions made no more impression on Fidel Castro than they did on Gerry Adams, apparently. A few days earlier, it was the Irish Republican Army that repaid hopeful concessions with unspeakable violence. Clinton had given the IRA and its Sinn Fein partners a claim to respectability by inviting Adams to be a guest in the White House. The naivete of that approach became clear when the IRA went back to its old practice of planting bombs where dozens of innocent people were likely to be injured. The intentional destruction of unarmed airplanes was once considered an act of war. As Patrick Buchanan said Sunday, this was murder. U.S. citizens, flying the small planes, were the victims. Clinton was too quick, in our opinion, to turn to the United Nations. This attack endangers the peace of the Caribbean and is accordingly, America's business.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the export programs are terminated, yes, but it is in 2002. This is a train that is leaving the House. The House Members ought to have an opportunity to vote on it, not the conferees that are going to be facing the Senate version.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this amendment and recommendation should be noncontroversial, and, in fact, they are consistent with the House Committee on Agriculture's general food and trade goals. This amendment is in compliance with overall budget guidelines. It is not our intent, for example, to amend the House Committee on Agriculture recommendations on the support enhancement program or the market promotion program. Although we have indicated earlier we support full EEP funding to the full Uruguay round agreement allowed levels, we recognize the budget considerations require self-imposed caps. So we have accepted the advice of the Committee on Agriculture. Nevertheless, we give authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to spend agriculture export promotion funds more wisely. If the Secretary does not need all the money we provide for EEP, the Secretary can designate that it be used for the highly successful Foreign Market Development Program or even U.S. food assistance. To make sure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture remains focused focused on increasing U.S. agricultural exports, we establish realistic goals and require concrete trade strategies to meet those goals. To guarantee that the United States remains an innovative leader in the delivery of food assistance, we maintain our commitments of food assistance to the world's most deserving. However, we do not just stop with minimum tonnages of food assistance. We reform outdated burdensome regulatory requirements which have prohibited private voluntary organizations from implementing food assistance programs in countries where the Agency for International Development does not have a mission. In developing countries where U.S. market development food assistance is available, we permit private entities, with real know-how and ingenuity, to implement programs where only Government bureaucrats have been before. Today one-third of everything grown on the American farm is exported. Our hard-working farmers and ranchers will send over 50 billion dollars' worth of agricultural commodities to China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and the rest of the world. That is why we must continue to reauthorize and, in fact, reform legislation. Americans recognize the importance of these agricultural exports to the well-being of the agricultural industry and to the prosperity of rural America. In fact, an overwhelming majority--or nearly 75 percent of Americans--believe that the U.S. Government should help farmers and ranchers by providing necessary assistance to promote agriculture exports, counter subsidized foreign competition, and protect American jobs. But, Mr. Chairman, in contrast to this horn of plenty here in the United States, millions of children and people in the world's poorest countries do not have the necessary resources to purchase our agriculture commodities. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 800 million people do not have access to sufficient food to meet their needs for a healthy and productive life. Last year, UNICEF estimates that between 10 and 12 million preschool children died from hunger and disease related to malnutrition. Just as Americans recognize the importance of supporting agricultural exports, they also embrace U.S. food assistance programs. In fact, many Americans are greatly surprised when they discover that only 1 percent of the entire U.S. Federal budget is foreign aid. Many of them indicate that they would be willing to devote more if it was used wisely for things like U.S. food assistance. Today, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], and this Member offer an amendment that specifically targets foreign agricultural trade competition and world hunger. More importantly, our amendment shapes the fundamental policies of the Federal Government which are designed to combat them. The trade and foreign aid recommendations in this amendment reflect the fact that Americans support reasonable and effective agricultural export promotion programs and targeted food assistance. To attest to that, we have over 25 agricultural commodity groups and food assistance providers supporting our legislation. Organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives have embraced our trade policy recommendations. Private voluntary organizations like CARE and Catholic Relief Services, which perform the in-country relief work for the world's most needy, have also publicly supported our efforts. I would say in response to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] if he had a chance to visit in my State he would find that in a 100-mile radius around Crete Mills--which provides much of the enriched grain products for the Food for Peace Program--he would know that they are paying those farmers in a 100-mile radius approximately 10 cents more a bushel just because of the AID Food for Peace Program. The benefits do not all go to large corporations, they go to farmers and other food recipients and their governments. In closing, it is an extraordinary set of circumstances which forces us to offer the amendment today. In a typical farm bill year, our committee receives a sequential referral of the House Committee on Agriculture trade and food aid title of the farm bill. Then we act accordingly to prepare the farm bill conference. The arrangement has served both committees very well in the previous farm bills. However, in this instance, while we understand the House Committee on Agriculture's original intent not to address trade and food aid provisions in the upcoming conference, we strongly believe that, for reasons beyond our control, such provisions certainly will be discussed in the conference because the Senate has those provisions therein. Adoption of this amendment gives the House a voice in the upcoming conference on these two important issues. We have incorporated many of the recommendations for reform coming from members of the House Committee on Agriculture. This is a time to reform and improve our international programs for food assistance and exports. Nearly all of the major farm organizations and probably every one of the child survival and international food assistance nongovernmental organizations support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Roth-Bereuter-Hamilton-Hall amendment.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time. I will be brief in my comments. I rise in support of the House amendments to S. 1494. Overall, the bill is a very good piece of legislation, and this Member commends the leadership of the gentleman from New York and others on this subcommittee. I want to endorse specifically section 5 of the House amendments. This section authorizes a program which this Member sought for years, the Rural Rental Multifamily Housing Loan Guarantee Program. As a matter of fact, we already have conditional appropriations for this legislation. We have been waiting since the previous Congress when the Senate failed to act upon our legislation in order to have the authorizing legislation, but unless we pass this amendment to create what is, in effect, a new section 515 loan guarantee program, that appropriation will lapse. It is modeled after the 502 program for single-family housing. It is a very efficient use of our resources. Rather than relying on direct loans, we are relying on loan guarantees. The default rate of the previous program has been 2.33, an amazing success, having built 24,000 units. I urge support for the House amendments. Mr. Speaker, despite a conflict which requires this Member to chair a Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on Indian housing, this Member rises today to offer his strong support for the House amendment to S. 1494--the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995. Overall, the bill is very good legislation and this Member commends the committee for their hard work. Today, this Member rises to speak specifically to section 5 of the House amendment. This section authorizes a program which this Member has sought for years: the Rural Rental Multifamily Housing Loan Guarantee Program. Section 5 of this measure is identical to legislation passed by the House in the 103d Congress as part of H.R. 3838, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, passed July 22, 1994. This legislation would create a new Federal loan guarantee program for the construction of multifamily rental housing units. Because H.R. 3838 died when the Senate failed to act on it in the last hours of the 103d Congress, this Member reintroduced legislation to authorize the loan guarantee program. Currently, the only Federal program allowing development of this type of housing is the Rural Housing and Community Development Service's Section 515 Program, a direct loan program which has, unfortunately, been plagued with problems. Because of these problems and because Federal funds become more scarce every year, the direct loan program is almost certain to shrink. Therefore, there is a need for a new approach that would cost taxpayers less but still provide equal or greater housing opportunity in rural areas. The new program would be known as the Section 515 Loan Guarantee Program. At this point this Member is not advocating replacing the existing program, but only augment it, at a lower cost, in order to provide at least some more rental housing opportunities needed by a sizable segment of America's population living in smaller communities. The new program will provide 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 515 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. It should be noted that this program is based on the recent experience with the very successful FmHA 502 Middle Income Loan Guarantee Program for home ownership. That program, which this Member first proposed, has a default rate of only 2.33 percent with over 24,000 units financed since 1991. Also, Mr. Speaker, you should note that, with bipartisan support on the Appropriations Committee, this Member was successful in advocating the inclusion of $1 million funding for this program in the Department of Agriculture appropriation for fiscal 1996, making it possible to finance approximately $25 million in guarantees. Therefore, the program can move forward as soon as it is authorized, but the appropriation will be recaptured if the program is not authorized in fiscal 1996. In closing, history has proven that loan guarantees are a more cost- effective and expeditious use of scarce Federal dollars. As budgets are slashed, this type of program promises to continue to make Federal assistance available for housing development in America's nonmetropolitan cities. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this measure. general leave