Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on January 5, 1996. Budget Ball Is in Clinton's Court, and Public Knows It's His Play Finally the public seems to be beginning to see through President Clinton's rhetoric on the federal budget impasse. For too long, public opinion polls indicated that Clinton was being rewarded for refusing to negotiate with congressional Republicans over a seven-year balanced budget agreement. In a Nov. 19 ABC News poll, for example, 49 percent of the respondents approved of the way Clinton was handling the budget dispute, while 42 percent disapproved. In the most recent poll, however, the president's approval rating on the handling of the budget had dropped to 39 percent. His disapproval rating had risen to 56 percent. Fewer respondents blamed Congress--51 percent in November, 44 percent this week. In November, 45 percent supported the statement that Clinton was ``honestly trying to resolve the budget issue,'' while 52 percent said he was ``just playing politics.'' This week, 33 percent still viewed him as a sincere budget negotiator, while 66 percent said he was playing politics. Congressional Republicans have given significant ground in an effort to reach a budget compromise. Clinton has given them no credit for this movement, instead battering them with emotional claims that their budget would cause serious harm to the poor, the weak and the underprivileged. House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas has called attention to congressional Republicans' significant concessions. At one time, he said, they had pushed for $101 billion in savings on welfare programs over the seven years. Now they are willing to settle for $65 billion. Originally, they targeted 300 government agencies for elimination. Now the goal is about 30. A major element of the GOP budget plan was a $354 billion tax cut. Armey noted that Republicans have allowed the tax cut to be scaled back to $245 billion. Pete du Pont, a former Republican presidential candidate, has pointed out that the House Republicans--the same people painted by Clinton as zealous, unbending revolutionaries-- have already given up more than half of their pro-growth tax cuts. He said that in all likelihood they will give up half again to get a budget deal. That's something you don't hear when Clinton tromps into the White House press briefing room to trash the Gingrich Republicans. And it's not something the television networks point out when they fill their newscasts with sobbing federal workers who can't pay their rent. Armey demonstrated that congressional Republicans have made ``a good-sized mountain'' of concessions. Still, the president lays the full blame for the government's being without a budget and partially shut down at the feet of House Republicans. He whines that he is being blackmailed by intransigent Republicans in the House who place politics ahead of the national interest. The government is shut down because the president vetoed a budget bill that included the funds to pay the federal workers now on furlough. Clinton is pressing Republicans to approve another continuing resolution to fund the government through Jan. 12. They've already been there, done that. The national interest, not to mention our children's security, would be best served by enactment of a balanced budget--not another stopgap spending measure. To resolve the impasse, it will take a president who quits posturing and makes concessions of a magnitude similar to those made by congressional Republicans.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, last night the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers firmly convinced all of America that they are still the No. 1 college football team in the country. The Huskers' complete domination of the University of Florida Gators in the Fiesta Bowl for a 62 to 24 win was truly one of the most impressive displays of offensive and defensive talent in college football history. It is also important to note that this awe-inspiring victory was Nebraska's 36th win in a 3-year period, establishing a new record. The Cornhuskers, under the extraordinary coaching and steady leadership of Coach Tom Osborne, demonstrated remarkable persistence and consistency in their drive toward a second consecutive national championship. Their committed efforts show that the reward of success is won by dedication, teamwork, exceptional conditioning, high motivation, and the superior efforts of Coach Osborne and his coaching and support staff. As an alumnus of the university and the Representative in Congress from Lincoln, the home of the Huskers, this Member enthusiastically congratulates the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers and Coach Osborne on another well-deserved national championship.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the override of the Presidential veto. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for an override of the Presidential veto of H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act. For those in this body interested in putting Federal employees back to work, this vote presents an opportunity to immediately restore funds for three extremely important agencies. Tens of thousands of Government workers will go back to work if we override the President's ill- conceived veto. My colleagues have offered excellent reasons to vote in favor of the Justice Department provisions of H.R. 2076. It provides bloc grants to get cops on the street while avoiding the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits- all Federal bureaucracy, and funds an additional 1,000 border patrol agents to combat illegal immigration. As my colleague, the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], has noted, it is a good, tough, anti-crime bill. But this Member, as vice-chairman of the Committee on International Relations, would alert his colleagues to some of the implications of the continued shutdown of the Department of State. We have sent representatives to every country on earth, and now we are refusing to support them. High-risk posts, such as Lebanon, Pakistan, and the Central Asian Republics, can no longer pay for personal security. In many of these locations, American diplomats are open targets. Two State Department employees were recently assassinated in Karachi. And now we cannot pay guards to protect these employees. My colleagues, this is just plain wrong. Certainly most congressional offices have been contacted by angry constituents unable to get a passport. According to today's Washington Post, we now have a backlog of 200,000 passport applications waiting to be processed. In some cases, people with real family emergencies are finding it impossible to reach their destination because the State Department passport office is closed. Likewise, individuals seeking to come to the United States are finding it impossible to get visas from our overseas Embassies. My colleagues, the Untied States is losing hundreds of millions of dollars daily because foreign tourists are unable to fulfill their vacation plans. This Member has been to American consular sections in places like Seoul, Korea, where even under normal conditions the line to get an American visa can be blocks long--with each visa applicant ready to spend thousands of dollars in the United States if given the opportunity. In addition, our Embassies are beginning to face litigation or loss of basic services because of failure to pay our bills. This is not a trivial matter. Licenses for the sale of high-technology equipment are not being processed, and American commercial service centers have closed their doors. The United States compound in Vietnam is having its electricity cut off for failure to pay its bill. Drinking water is being shut off at the United States special interests section in Cuba. The Government of Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations on Earth, has offered us a loan to keep operations up and running. The United States simply cannot continue to function in this way--we are abnegating our basic international responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to support H.R. 2076. Overriding the Presidential veto will restore a range of basic services that currently are denied to the American people. Overriding the Presidential veto will get Federal employees back to work. Overriding the Presidential veto is just, plain good Government. This Member urges his colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2076.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following two excellent editorials which appeared in the Norfolk Daily News on January 2 and 3, 1996. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Jan. 2, 1996] Medicare Outlays Must Have Limit Medicare was not conceived as a welfare program. But those who now argue for taxpayers to make up any differences between actual costs of Medicare and the premiums that beneficiaries pay are treating it that way. If a similar philosophy prevails early in the next century when there are too-few workers to sustain benefits at projected levels without turning to Uncle Sam, then Social Security will also be in that ``welfare'' category. It is important not to accept either of those programs as general welfare obligations of the U.S. Treasury, financed by taxpayers either through higher taxation or by more borrowing. Social Security and Medicare were conceived as programs that would depend on contributions by the beneficiaries themselves, who could afford to pay the equivalent of insurance premiums during their working years, and, in the case of Medicare, pay modest premiums during retirement. In the case of Social Security, that has worked. It has been a struggle, however, to make sure that political promises to beneficiaries were matched by legislative action to adjust ``premiums''--in the form of payroll taxes--to keep the system solvent. The struggle continues. More than a difference in total outlays is involved in the contest between the White House plan for Medicare, which proposes spending of $97 billion less than would otherwise be projected and the plan proposed by Republicans in Congress, which projects spending about $200 billion less. The difference is that the GOP plan puts a ceiling on the outlays, and fixed specific dollar amounts that would not be exceeded. That would bar further tapping of taxpayer resources. The White House plan takes a different approach, though also claiming to slow spending growth. It projects some savings but includes no provisions to enforce them. Greater demands on the system than projected would simply be made up by shifting the extra costs to taxpayers at large. That has become the traditional way for the prevailing majorities in Washington to handle federal programs: Enact a formula for benefits, then tax or borrow to meet the overall demand. Setting and enforcing a ceiling on expenditures has been something to resist. If that pattern were to be followed in the future in the government's other major insurance program--Social Security-- trillions in debt limits would not be enough. The budgeteers would have to begin thinking in quadzillions. Better to fix limits right now.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the December 13, 1995, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Dec. 13, 1995] The ``Real Friend'' of U.S. Education Who is helping education in the United States more? President Clinton, is resisting Congress' balanced-budget plan, says that federal lawmakers are being too zealous in cutting government education programs. By resisting those cuts, the president said he's making a strong strand for education. Members of Congress, on the other hand, say their budget plan does much more for education in the United States by providing all American families with a $500-per-child tax credit--even if some current government education programs are reduced in scope. So, who's right? We'll side with Congress on this one. Consider this. If an average American family saved the entire $500-per-child tax credit for a period of 18 years and invested it, that same family would be able to accumulate an amount of money equal to what $14,000 buys today. That's a long way toward paying the cost of education at a public university. Or, that same American family would be able to use the tax credit to pay a portion of tuition at a typical private elementary school. What's more, Congress' balanced-budget plan--if passed-- would cause interest rates to drop by at least one-half percentage point. That kind of reduction in rates would save a student more than $400 on the cost of an average student loan. That kind of money can pay for books, some tuition costs or a big portion of a personal computer. The reality is that Congress' plan would cut less than 2 percent per year during the next seven years from a federal education budget that represents only a tiny fraction of the total amount of dollars spent on education in the United States, according to figures from the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. So, here's the real choice: Cut a tiny portion of a budget that itself is a small fraction of America's educational effort or deny 28 million American families a financial gain that would help provide for a better education for their children. We shouldn't have to struggle long on this one. We hope President Clinton realizes the same, too.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on December 20, 1995: [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 20, 1995] Message to Clinton Grows Louder: End Impasse, Balance the Budget Wall Street may have accomplished something that the public--which, in opinion surveys, tilted toward President Clinton's position on a balanced budget--had failed to do. Traders and investors sent a strong message to Washington about the urgency of ending the impasse over a balanced budget. The message came in the form of a decline in the value of stocks and bonds as the street expressed its concern over the collapse of budget negotiations between the White House and GOP congressional leaders. By the end of the day Monday, the White House was setting a new round of talks in motion. For such indications of urgency have come from the general public. Clinton's approval rating has risen to a two-year high since he began characterizing the GOP budget as an act of cruelty against the poor, the sick and the elderly. Republicans, in effect, have been punished in the polls for trying to keep their 1994 campaign promise to balance the budget. Not all Democrats, however, were buying the White House line. On the same day that Wall Street roared its disapproval of the impasse, a bipartisan group presented a position paper at a symposium in Minneapolis. The group included former office-holders Paul Tsongas, Richard Lamm, Gary Hart, Tim Penny, Lowell Weicker and John Anderson. All but Weicker and Anderson are Democrats. Their statement included this ``core principle'': ``We can no longer stay the course, spending more than we earn.'' They said, ``We are maintaining our standard of living by borrowing from our children.'' They urged that the nation's leaders commit to a policy of economic stability, which means no inflation and no federal budget deficits ``to soak up an already inadequate national savings pool.'' Sacrifice will be necessary, they said. Among other things, Social Security and Medicare must be reformed to prepare them for the retirement of large numbers of baby boomers after the turn of the century. Clinton has described even the modest adjustments the Republicans have proposed as draconian. He simply must compromise on Medicare and Medicaid, bring himself to take the decisive actions that moderates in his own party are increasingly coming to consider necessary. Another message was leveled at Washington Tuesday morning. In a ``bipartisan appeal from business leaders,'' published as a newspaper advertisement and carrying the names of more than 90 business executives, Clinton and Congress were urged to remember that the health of the economy rests on the ability of the government to agree on a credible plan. Among other things, the business leaders said, it's time to accept the economic projections from the Congressional Budget Office--projections that Clinton has opposed because they would allow less spending than the more optimistic White House figures. The bipartisan business leaders also said long-term entitlement spending should be ``on the table'' for reconsideration, as should any proposed tax cuts. Little by little, Clinton's attempts to exploit the situation for political gain are being called to account by members of his own party. Something has been needed to neutralize his tacky insistence that the struggle has been between an enlightened, compassionate White House and an evil gang of GOP extremists. Some Democrats have helped set the record straight by adding their voices to bipartisan messages.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274, the resolution concerning Burma and the U.N. General Assembly that this body is considering today is both important and timely. Recent developments have heightened tension in Burma. Burma's democratic opposition leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi recently announced that she and her party, the NLD, would boycott the national constitutional convention organized by Burma's military junta, the SLORC. SLORC responded by expelling the NLD from the convention, thus foreclosing any chance for dialog between the Government and the opposition. Without dialog between the democratic opposition and the SLORC the prospects for democracy and stability in Burma are bleak. Clearly, conditions in Burma are once again on a downward spiral. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the House International Relations Committee, for his tireless efforts in promoting democracy in Burma and other parts of Asia and, specifically, for his initiative in drafting this resolution. House Resolution 274 addresses the human rights and narcotics problems in Burma in a constructive way. This Member hopes that Burma's generals understand that the Congress of the United States wants to promote cooperative ties between our two countries, but that would only be possible if they take effective action to expand human rights and democracy in Burma and to clamp down on Burma's massive opium production. The Committee on International Relations unanimously approved House Resolution 274 on December 14. This Member understands the administration has no objections to the resolution as amended and approved by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Committee on International Relations, which I chair. This Member urges all of our colleagues to support House Resolution 274.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 11, 1995. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 11, 1995] Bosnia Shouldn't Get an Easy Nod Just Because Service Is Voluntary A detestable idea has crept into the discussion of President Clinton's Bosnia mission. Some defenders of the president's position stress the fact that the U.S. armed forces are all-volunteer. The implication is that volunteers asked for it if they wind up in an unpleasant or dangerous situation. Any such thought should be put aside immediately. The safety of the armed forces is one of the primary concerns whenever they are sent into the field. The fact that the troops are volunteers instead of draftees should make no difference. It apparently makes a difference to some people. The idea that Vietnam was bad because draftees were used, while Bosnia is of little concern because the armed forces are all- volunteer, has appeared in forums including broadcast talk shows and the Public Pulse. Jack Germond, a liberal syndicated columnist, mentioned the volunteer status of the troops on ``The McLaughlin Group.'' Indeed, President Clinton, in his televised speech asking for support for the Bosnia mission, said that ``my most difficult duty is to put the men and women who volunteered to serve our nation in harm's way when our interest and values demand it.'' Why was it necessary to remind his audience that these were volunteers? Does Clinton, who avoided the draft, see volunteers as something different? Certainly it doesn't come as news to the public that the armed forces consist of career and professional soldiers as opposed to draftees. That has been true for more than 20 years. When Americans lay wreaths on Memorial Day, they don't ask whether each fallen soldier was a volunteer or a draftee. Their deaths are equally profound. Mothers, fathers, wives and siblings of volunteers grieve no less. Their children suffer an equal loss. Clinton is sending American troops into a harsh and dangerous land. Booby traps and land mines litter the countryside. The potential for terrorism is high. Roads and airports are in ruins. Water supplies are undependable. The terrain is rugged, with deep mountain valleys and dense forests. Winter brings bone-chilling cold and almost impenetrable fog. Many Serbs who live in Bosnia have vowed to fight until the lawful government of their country is brought down. The Muslims who control that government have brought in shadowy fighters from Iran, Afghanistan and Libya, among other places. The government has agreed to ask those fighters to leave. But will they leave? The question is whether Americans should be sent into this impossible situation. Even those who volunteered to serve.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member has spoken previously about the plight of the 40,000 Vietnamese boat people languishing in refugee camps in Southeast Asia. This Member has described the damage wrought by the ill-conceived Section 2104 of H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives on May 24. This legislation has given these boat people, most of whom have been determined to be economic migrants rather than political refugees, false hope of resettlement in the United States directly from the camps. This false hope has led to rioting in refugee camps and has stopped a very successful program of voluntary repatriation under which more than 70,000 of these boat people have returned to Vietnam. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and many objective observers lay the blame squarely on this legislation, the House passed provisions in the American Overseas Interests Act for outbreaks of violence in the camps and for the collapse of voluntary repatriation. In an effort to break the current impasse the State Department is negotiating with Vietnam a program, called ``Track II,'' under which any boat people who volunteer to return to Vietnam will be entitled to an interview by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine once and for all if they qualify for refugee status under U.S. law. In this Member's opinion, the Track II proposal offers some hope of restarting the voluntary repatriation program, thereby decreasing the numbers of boat people languishing in the refugee camps and diminishing somewhat the pressure for massive involuntary returns which would lead to a humanitarian nightmare next year. In a recent State Department briefing, we learned that the negotiations with Hanoi face some serious obstacles. I would urge my colleagues to lower the Congressional profile on this issue and allow the negotiations to run their course. Further action on the harmful legislative provisions contained in H.R. 1561 would only exacerbate the problems facing this program. Mr. Speaker, finally this Member would insert into the Record an article from the November 29, 1995 edition of The Asian Wall Street Journal, entitled, ``Why Prolong the Boat People's Suffering?'' This article, written by Mr. Robert Van Leeuwen, the retired chief of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Hong Kong, makes a most convincing case that the biggest losers from the ill-conceived Section 2104 of H.R. 1561 are ``precisely those Vietnamese whose fate is the object of the proposed legislation.'' I commend this article to all my colleagues on both sides of Capitol Hill. [From the Asian Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 1995] Why Prolong the Boat People's Suffering? (By Robert Van Leeuwen) In June 1989, the United States and 50 other governments at the U.N.-sponsored International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees agreed on a Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) to provide humanitarian solutions for the continuing exodus from Vietnam. Six years later, CPA's achievements include tens of thousands of former ``boat people'' safely back in their country. But legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress by Representatives Chris Smith and Ben Gilman pretends that history simply did not happen. Proposed last May, the legislation suggests that the last 40,000 Vietnamese in camps, all of them already determined not to be refugees, should now go through re-screening by an entirely different and far broader set of criteria to see whether they could be admitted to the United States as refugees. In other words, the congressman would have us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars spent to implement the CPA, the continued provision of asylum in Southeast Asia, 75,000 persons determined not to be refugees safely back in Vietnam, 89,000 others resettled in third countries and a continuing flow of non-refugees back to Vietnam, was all in vain. That all this, achieved in a framework of internationally accepted humanitarian principles and standards, should be seen as null and void, and all the result of a biased and sinister design implemented by equally biased and sinister people. This is clearly not credible. But who pays the price of this ill-conceived initiative? Ironically, the biggest losers are precisely those Vietnamese whose fate is the object of the proposed legislation. Second in line are the U.S. taxpayers asked to subscribe to expenditures initially set at some $30 million, to settle in the U.S.A. some 20,000 Vietnamese already determined after elaborate evaluation of their stories not to be refugees. Then there are the returnees to Vietnam who would see thousands of those who chose to hold out in the camps suddenly and inexplicably rewarded by a new chance for a free ticket to the U.S.A. And after them, the still shadowy figures of those around the world who would be paying for an inevitable perception of lack of consistency and credibility in U.S. foreign policy. Of course, no one ever doubted that implementation of the CPA would be difficult and controversial. For 14 years, following the collapse of the Republic of Vietnam in April 1975, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese ``boat people'' had been given temporary asylum in Southeast Asian countries of arrival pending their permanent resettlement elsewhere. Since all were automatically considered eligible for resettlement, the momentum of the exodus was huge. Then Hong Kong, inundated by arrivals from northern Vietnam, and in cognizance of changed realities in that country, imposed a cut-off date on June 15, 1988, after which eligibility for resettlement was no longer a given. Countries of the region followed suit. So it was that, a decade and a half after the end of the war, a young fisherman in northern Vietnam or those with older ambitions in the South could no longer hop along China's coast to Hong Kong with the assurance of finding there the gate to a permanent home in the West. Instead, they had to tell their story to government and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) officials charged with the task of determining by internationally accepted criteria and through elaborate and expensive procedures whether their inability or unwillingness to return to Vietnam was based on a well-founded fear of persecution. Essential to the international consensus on the CPA was a clearly stated agreement on the fate of those determined not to be refugees: ``Persons determined not to be refugees should return to their country of origin in accordance with international practices. . . . In the first instance, every effort will be made to encourage the voluntary return of such persons.'' In 1988, the UNHCR signed crucial agreements with Vietnam and Hong Kong that guaranteed standards of treatment for new arrivals and for returnees to Vietnam, including full access by UNHCR staff to both categories of persons. And by 1992, difficulties notwithstanding, an honorable end to the long saga of the ``boat people'' was in sight. The stream of new arrivals had dried up. Voluntary returns to Vietnam from Hong Kong alone, temporary home to the largest number of Vietnamese in search of resettlement, averaged more than 1,000 a month in 1992 and 1993, and continued at almost 500 monthly throughout 1994. Last May, though, immediately following press reports of the Smith-Gilman proposal, those figures for Hong Kong and the region as a whole dropped to an all-time low since 1989 of 156 returnees in September of this year. A similar precipitous drop in volunteers for repatriation was observed in the spring of 1991 just after published statements by Orange County Representative Bob Dornan and the then Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle holding out false hopes of resettlement for Vietnamese regardless of the necessary distinction between refugees from persecution and non-refugees in search of better economic prospects. People still in Vietnam took to the boats again and looked in vain for the U.S. aircraft carrier rumored to be waiting for them in the Tonkin Gulf. It never came, but arrivals in Hong Kong, down to 6,595 in 1990 from over 34,000 in 1989, soared to 20,206. Today the search for refugees among the Vietnamese has been completed for some time. The number of new arrivals dropped to virtually zero in 1993. The future for the 40,000 non- refugees left in Southeast Asia's camps lies in return. Over the six years of the CPA, those responsible worked under the most intense international scrutiny imaginable. No one hesitated to jump to the press with criticisms and allegations of human rights infractions, nor did the press, governments, private voluntary agencies and a colorful variety of individuals hesitate to dump these on UNHCR's doorstep. Inherently, no system of procedures for refugee status determination anywhere in the world can be perfect. Reasonable criticism and allegations based on fact helped to improve and strengthen a humanitarian framework for action designed to alleviate, not to prolong or deepen human suffering. No one, least of all UNHCR officials, stood to gain by ignoring them. Unfortunately, reason, vision and recognition of the facts do not always have a louder voice than easily heard outcries of wrong-doing based on ideological convictions, emotion or narrow personal agendas. It is everyone's responsibility to see to it that the former, not the latter, prevail. It is both quick and easy to make statements or propose legislation from positions of public trust. It may be far less so to live with the consequences. In the case of the Vietnamese that means with virtual certainty yet another prolongation of their dehumanizing stay in detention camps surrounded by endemic crime, the torn-up papers of vain hopes and children who have yet to see a world beyond barbed wire. That is the price they pay.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, tonight this Member will address two very different subjects in the time available under this special order. First, the subject of NCAA volleyball championship. Mr. Speaker, a year ago when the University of Nebraska Cornhusker women's volleyball team lost in the Regional finals, the team set a goal. The title on their media guide this season read ``One goal, one focus, one champion.'' All season the Huskers were determined to meet that one goal, keep that one focus, and be that one champion. This past Saturday in Amherst, MA, the Nebraska Cornhusker women's volleyball team ended a 32-1 season by capturing its first national championship. The Huskers' victory is only the second time in the 15-year history of the NCAA volleyball tournament, that a team east of California has won the national title. Since 1982 Husker volleyball teams have never lost more than six matches in a season, nor has any Husker team since that time fallen out of the American Volleyball Coaches Association top 25 poll. And obviously their accomplishments continued this year. In his 19th season, Terry Pettit coached two Academic All-Americans, three first team All-Americans, and the National Co-Player of the year which is the award that is equivalent to the Heisman Trophy. One goal. One focus. One champion. This Member and all Cornhusker fans are very proud of the accomplishments of these superior student- athletes. Congratulations to the Nebraska Cornhuskers--the 1995 Women's Volleyball National Champions. vietnamese boat people: don't prolong their suffering

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for the remainder of the first session of the 104th Congress, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to have a summary of what the Buyer-Skelton resolution really does for I think it is being lost in some of the rhetoric here. It has two parts. First is a reiteration of votes that the House has already taken on October 30 and November 17. The second is a policy statement which I think all Members should be able to support. First of all, it is an expression of confidence, pride and admiration in members of the U.S. armed services. Second, it reinforces the need to respect the judgment of the military leadership in the field. After Somalia, that kind of debacle suggests this kind of policy advice from the Congress is essential. Third, it reinforces the policy that proper weaponry and logistical support must be provided to our troops in the field. Again, after the Somalia debacle, that kind of advice from the Congress is entirely essential and appropriate. Mr. Speaker, there is no vital interest for the United States in Bosnia. I very much approve of the Buyer-Skelton resolution, and ask all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago one of our Members stood up and said that he was opposed to sending ground troops to Bosnia, but once and for all the President has made the decision, so he is not going to be involved in abandoning our troops. That is pure nonsense, and I am sorry to say it came from this side of the aisle. I am appalled to hear something like that. It can be stipulated that everyone in this body supports our troops, but we have a constitutional responsibility. It is to serve as a check on this President or any other President from the inappropriate deployment of American troops abroad. That is what we are here discussing in the Bosnia resolution that follows. We will support our troops. That is clear.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on December 5, 1995. GOP Support on Bosnia Differs From Democrats' Balking on Gulf In January 1991, the U.S. Senate voted 52-47 to approve a resolution authorizing President George Bush to use force in liberating Kuwait. Forty-five of the Senate's 55 Democrats voted against the resolution, including some of the party's top leaders. Among the Senate Democrats casting ``no'' votes were George Mitchell, then the majority leader; Claiborne Pell, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; and Sam Nunn, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Sen. Edward Kennedy voted against the resolution. So did Daniel Moynihan and Lloyd Bentsen. So did Bob Kerrey. In the House, which approved the resolution 250-183, Democrats voting no included Speaker Tom Foley and Majority Leader Richard Gephardt. A number of those same Democrats in 1995 support a mission in which the U.S. interest is much less clear: President Clinton's commitment to send troops to Bosnia, But this time something is different. Clinton has support--qualified in some instances--from key members of the other party. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said he will support Clinton's position. So has Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign relations Committee. In the House, Speaker Newt Gingrich has discouraged Republican congressmen who wanted to try to stop the Bosnian operation. For those GOP leaders, apparently, partisanship still ends at the water's edge, as it should. How, was it possible for the Democrats in 1991 to say no to the liberation of Kuwait and just about five years later support a vague mission in Bosnia that has little to do with America's vital national interests? Certainly the issues weren't identical. The 1991 vote gave Bush authorization for a ground war against what was then widely reported to be a formidable Iraqi army. Clinton's intended dispatch of 32,000 troops to Bosnia is based on the assumption, although it's debatable, that combat can be avoided. Some of the Bush critics in 1991 said it was wrong to go to war for oil. Kerrey, as a presidential candidate in October 1991, told a New Hampshire audience that he rejected the Kuwait resolution 10 months earlier because the main reason was to protect an oil source. (Some Americans thought that preserving an essential source of fuel for the industrial West was a good reason to liberate Kuwait and make sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't fall to Saddam Hussein.) If Bush had emphasized the restoration of freedom in Kuwait, Kerrey said, he might have supported the action. However, the 1991 resolution that the 45 Senate Democrats voted against did not mention oil. It stated that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was unprovoked, illegal and brutal and that the United Nations had authorized its members ``to use all necessary means'' to ensure that ``Kuwait's independence and legitimate government be restored.'' Whether or not one agreed with Bush, the mission was clear: Beat back an illegal aggressor threatening to roll over a region that had a direct impact on American interests and would continue to have an impact. Iraq had overrun Kuwait and was poised to move into Saudi Arabia. There was an immediate danger that the war would spread throughout the region, perhaps drawing in Israel. Contrast that with the Balkan situation. Ethnic and religious passions have fueled centuries of hatred, bitterness and wartime atrocities. None of the parties to the current conflict--the primarily Catholic Croatians, the Orthodox-Christian Bosnian Serbs or the Muslim majority in Bosnia--has an unblemished record. They are waging what amounts to a religious and territorial civil war. Some are angry that their leaders signed a truce. As to the danger of an expanded war, few indications exist that any outside powers were planning to come to the aid of the warring factions. Yet the Clinton policy would place U.S. troops on the ground in that situation. And for what national interest? The president should be grateful that his Republican opponents aren't guided by the way the Democrats behaved in 1991, when the threat to the national interest was genuine.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on December 5, 1995. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 5, 1995] Congress Is Ready; White House Drags Congress has gone further toward a balanced budget than many people thought possible just a few months ago. It happened in part because of the political courage of Republicans in Congress. They have agreed among themselves on a seven-year plan to balance the budget. They stuck to it even when public opinion polls rewarded President Clinton standing in their way. Talks broke down last week. The two sides were trying for an agreement by Dec. 15, to avoid another partial shutdown of the government. Each side accused the other of being inflexible. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, referring to President Clinton's people, said, ``They owe us a counteroffer.'' A White House spokesman said the Republicans failed to show how they would keep a Nov. 19 agreement to propose a budget that would acknowledge White House concerns about social and environmental programs. Republicans displayed flexibility. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said that ``everything is on the table,'' meaning everything is negotiable, including a seven-year, $245 billion tax cut that the Republicans want and many Democrats oppose. Senator Domenici said that serious talks awaited only a gesture from Clinton, which Domenici said would consist of a proposal that would allow good-faith negotiating to begin. Robert Reischauer, a Democrat, said that his party must eventually face the fact that a good many Americans have had it with $170 billion annual deficits and a $5 trillion national debt. Reischauer, who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office when the Democrats controlled Congress, said: ``The vast majority of Americans agree with the Republicans when it comes to bottom-line budget policy.,'' ``They favor a balanced budget or a substantial reduction in the deficit,'' he said. ``The President can't appear to be walking away from that. He can't be seen as defending the status quo.'' But will that message get through to the White House? Clinton's resistance to a slower rate of increase in Medicare and other domestic programs was rewarded when polls indicated that his position attracted twice as much support as that of the GOP leaders. The determination of the Republicans to persevere has been demonstrated. But if they are willing to put everything on the table in the pursuit of a balanced budget, what's keeping the White House?

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 29, 1995. Speech Didn't Build Confidence; Questions About Bosnia Remain People who looked for a specific, confidence-building explanation for sending American troops to Bosnia were entitled to be disappointed with President Clinton's speech Monday night. Clinton addressed the nation to seek support for his proposal to send 20,000 troops into an arena where political, ethnic and religious factions have been waging war for centuries. He said 20,000 troops are needed to help NATO enforce the peace agreement negotiated at Dayton, Ohio, by the presidents of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. The president was unconvincing even on the central question of why the national interest requires placing American men and women on the ground in the middle of this ancient conflict. (The U.S. Air Force and Navy already are heavily involved.) Yes, as he said, America has ideals. Yes, it has fought in Europe twice before to ``triumph over tyranny.'' Yes, it has certain international responsibilities that come with being the world's most powerful nation. And certainly the suffering of innocent civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina has touched hearts around the world. But a recitation of those facts doesn't constitute a reasoned argument for putting American ground troops in extreme peril. This isn't World War I, when America came to the aid of Western democracies to prevent their being crushed by imperial powers. Neither is it World War II, when America entered and ultimately led the great struggle to prevent the Nazis and fascists from enslaving a good part of the world. The conflict in the Balkans is a regional problem. No one has demonstrated that it is a threat to Western civilization in general or to America's national interests. The president said, ``We're all vulnerable to the organized forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized crime and weapons on mass destruction and drug trafficking. Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And they, too, demand American leadership.'' Few would question the world's vulnerability to those forces. But what does any of that have to do with sending U.S. troops to Bosnia? If these ``organized forces'' are the primary reason for committing troops, why doesn't the United States have an infantry division in Rwanda, in Northern Ireland, in India, in Pakistan? Clinton said the Americans would fight back if attacked. ``We will fight fire with fire, and then some,'' he said. Clinton said the mission would take about a year. How does anybody know that? As * * * noted, animosities have been known to lie dormant in the Balkans for years, then break out in bitter, bloody warfare. What guarantee does Clinton have that fighting wouldn't resume as soon as the Americans left? What assurances does he offer that the mission won't go on indefinitely? How could anybody be sure that the fighting wouldn't escalate if American troops were attacked and forced to defend themselves? In promising that the troops would help restore normal life for the people of Bosnia, Clinton made it sound as though the people of Bosnia were one society. They are badly divided, however. What Clinton didn't say is that the peace treaty, to accommodate the fact that the factions detest each other deeply, provides for the partition of the country into a Bosnian-Serb sector and a Muslim-Croat sector. * * *

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in opposition to H.R. 1788. Amtrak provides an especially important long-distance transportation alternative for sparsely settled States such as Nebraska and others in the northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West. This Member supports the continuation of Amtrak and believes that long- distance train service should maintain its role in the Nation's overall transportation strategy. Unfortunately, this bill facilitates the elimination of routes and increases the likelihood that long-distance rail service will be impaired or eliminated in many areas, especially sparsely settled States. This Member does not want to see passenger train service confined only to high-density corridors. If Federal subsidies are provided to Amtrak, then it should continue to serve as a truly national system. Federal subsidies from taxpayers from throughout the Nation for a limited, regional system would not be justified. Although H.R. 1788 contains some positive reforms, this member is concerned that it will hasten the demise of long-distance routes. Mr. Chairman, for that reason this Member must oppose the legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 25, 1995. Good reasons exist for the courts to punish crack cocaine possession more severely than possession of a comparable amount of powdered cocaine. Some of the reasons haven't received the emphasis they deserve. Crack is a form of cocaine that has been processed to allow it to be more easily ingested. Federal sentencing guidelines make it a more serious crime to push crack than to push a comparable amount of cocaine powder even though the chemical composition of the two is the same. Because crack trafficking is mostly a black crime, some people claim that the longer sentences are racially discriminatory. Crack is by far the more dangerous product because it fuels gang warfare, drive-by shootings and the breakdown of inner- city families. Cheap and potent crack is ripping apart black neighborhoods in Omaha and elsewhere across the country. Crack is less expensive and is easier to use. It causes a quicker ``high.'' It is more readily addictive. The toll in human suffering is therefore greater. The punishment for selling and distributing crack is greater, too, as it should be. The crack debate is like some other matters in which race has been illogically inserted. Activist lawyers have taken to arguing that any law is discriminatory if it doesn't produce results that are perfectly colorblind. In New York, a subway fare increase was recently struck down on the grounds that it discriminated against black people. It did nothing of the kind. But the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that more black people used the subways and therefore to raise the fare was discriminatory. Melanie Kirkpatrick, a Wall Street Journal writer, has written that such thinking is a ``perversion of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.'' She said, ``Under this philosophy, it doesn't matter who did what to whom and for what reason; all that matters is outcome.'' More should matter. In the case of crack cocaine, it matters what the pushers do to their families, their neighborhoods and their communities. Of course the criminal laws should be colorblind. But that doesn't mean they should be twisted to produce a racially perfect mix of defendants. The idea is to punish people the most who are doing the most harm to society. That shouldn't change.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Wayne Herald of Wayne, NE, on November 16, 1995. [From the Wayne Herald, Nov. 16, 1995] Just Balance It Who should we believe in the current federal budget impasse between the legislative and executive branches of our Government? On one hand we have a Republican Congressional leadership claiming their plan will put the nation on the road to fiscal solvency within seven years. On the other hand we have the President telling us the GOP budget plan will ruin the country and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients in the process. We tend to be a little skeptical of both sides in this debate. Congressional leaders of both parties have been trying to convince us for fifty years that they are working hard to balance the federal budget yet they keep approving pet projects and expenditures that mortgage the future of our children's children's children. The President, when he was known to us as ``Slick Willy'', campaigned on a promise of bringing us a balanced budget in five years. Now, three years into his presidency, he's saying he still wants a balanced budget, but he can't accept the GOP seven year plan. He thinks it should be nine, or ten or twelve. And to win his argument with Congress he has used the despicable tactic of trying to scare the elderly by telling them their Medicare program will be ruined--a blatant falsehood. The furlough of nonessential government workers has served to focus national attention on the debate, which is good. It should cause us all to demand an end to the political gamesmanship. We hope the focus will cause the American public to stand, borrow a phrase from the Clinton campaign and shout with one voice. ``Balance the budget, stupid.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following two editorials which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 16, 1995, and November 17, 1995. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Nov. 16, 1995] House-Senate Tax Credit Pact Has Good News for Middle Class Republicans in the House and Senate have worked out of sensible compromise on the GOP's proposal for a family tax credit. The compromise would permit families to reduce their federal income-tax payment by $500 for each child under age 18, sources said. The credits would be available for single parents with an annual income up to $75,000 and for two- parent families who earn up to $110,000 a year. An earlier version passed by the House set the income-limit at $200,000. The income has been capped at a lower level to make the tax cut more palatable to moderate Republicans. Democrats had made it sound as if the majority of families with children were rich. That, of course, is nonsense. The government already spends billions on welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing and income supplements for children in low-income families. But just above them are middle-class families in which one or two working partners earn a total of $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000, paying taxes, having Social Security contributions withheld and carrying the added responsibility of securing good child care. Federal tax policy has for years been tinkered with to improve people's lives. But the benefits have not gone to households that looked like a traditional family. Married couples where the wife was not in the labor force saw their median income, in constant dollars, plateau at about $30,000 from 1967 to 1992. Meanwhile, couples where both partners worked for pay enjoyed a rise in median income from $38,500 in 1967 to $50,000 in 1992. The value of the personal exemption, one of the main tax benefits for families with children, has declined. Sponsors of the 1995 Republican tax credit say the credit is designed to restore fairness. Other provisions of the compromise tax package would reduce taxes on capital gains. Farmers and small-business owners would be able to pass more of their holdings to their heirs. The ``marriage penalty,'' a tax quirk that discriminates against married couples, would be made less onerous. The compromise version of the child tax credit was based on a plan approved by the Senate in which families with children would receive about 60 percent of the $245 billion total over the next seven years. Senate sponsors said this includes 29 million families with about three-fourths of the nation's 69 million children. For the Democrats to portray this as a tax cut for the rich is to use the irresponsible rhetoric that increasingly makes their party's positions appear irrelevant. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Nov. 17, 1995] Democrats Ignore Kerrey's Wise Advice Congressional Democrats and President Clinton should have taken to heart the advice that a member of their party, Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, offered recently. In the midst of rhetoric over emergency spending and borrowing legislation, a statement made Tuesday by Kerrey stood out: ``Democrats need to accept the idea that we are going to balance the budget in seven years. Republicans have the majority, and they have won that argument.'' Kerrey told an audience of moderate Democrats Monday that their party needs to lead by proving that it can make difficult decisions on spending and taxes. He said the party's leaders need to accept spending cuts, restructure government and decentralize government power. As the world watches in amazement while a great country embarrasses itself, Clinton has dug in his heels and, as of late yesterday, was refusing to accept the GOP goal of balancing the budget in seven years. As Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa put it, ``everything else'' in the Republicans' budget plan was negotiable. But the seven-year goal for reducing the deficit to zero is now the reason for Clinton's refusal to sign a temporary extension of the debt ceiling and spending authority. Kerrey is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He has a major role in next year's elections. Digging in left of center and shouting about Republicans ``destroying'' Medicare and showering ``the rich'' with windfall tax breaks at the expense of the elderly and working class has been the strategy for some party leaders. That tactic is working, regrettably, in part because the baseless charges are seldom held up to examination by news organizations. Kerrey has proposed a more honest approach--one that could make the 1996 campaign a genuine referendum on how far the government should go in the way of reform and how fast. Unfortunately, the president and other leading Democrats still are defying the Republican budget plan and behaving with a stubbornness which they hope will pull their poll numbers higher.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman knows that this bill is going to be vetoed. Now is the time to try to impact the plan that is being prepared over there in Dayton.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for H.R. 2606, and commends the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] for his leadership on this vitally important question of national security. Mr. Speaker, when I was trained as an infantry platoon leader, I was prepared to take those 40 men up any hill and accomplish any mission, because, first of all, it was a duty. Second, I had the conviction that the people in the military and civilian command structure in the Pentagon, the White House and Congress would make responsible decisions. Now, 30 years later, I am here, one of 535 people in the Congress and I think it is imperative that we not send ground troops to Bosnia--not send ground troops. Mr. Speaker, read the President's letter of November 13. It says, ``After initialing of a peace agreement communications and supply troops will be sent almost immediately to Bosnia.'' We are talking about the dispatch of a minimum of 1,000 or 2,000 American troops immediately, and that is upon initialing. Then the President's letter repeatedly mentions expression of support being welcome by the Congress. Well, my colleagues that is what we are facing. Therefore, this is the right time to take on this issue. To do otherwise is irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, in the very short time available, this Member wishes to make three points regarding the President's announced intention to unilaterally deploy 20,000 American ground groups to Bosnia. First, the mission lacks clear achievable objectives. Second, there is no exit strategy worthy of the name. And, third, legislative actions to halt the deployment of U.S. ground forces will not, contrary to the Clinton administration's allegations, will not undermine U.S. leadership role in NATO or the world. In fact, a failed NATO mission to preserve a Bosnian government will damage the United States global leadership role and NATO. First, look at the question of whether the proposed mission has clear objectives. The Clinton administration repeatedly has stated that NATO's mission would be to enforce an end of the hostilities that have plagued Bosnia for centuries. We would be injecting our troops between heavily armed factions that tragically seem incapable of living in peace. Presumably we are to serve as neutral honest brokers to prevent the three sides and the paramilitary groups from killing one another. This Member would note that this is a peace enforcement mission, practically an impossible one, and not a peacekeeping mission. Mr. Speaker, we have been informed by the administration that American troops also will train Bosnian forces and try to bring about a parity of weaponry so that the Bosnian state might survive after the year of NATO occupation is over. In contrast to the peace enforcement mission--which presumably is designed to avoid taking sides--the arming and training of Bosnian Moslem or Bosnia federation forces is taking sides. Arming the Bosnian federation is not the act of a neutral. This Member can appreciate the desire to level the playing field, but one can hardly expect the Bosnian Serbs to quietly sit back while our peace-enforcers are training and arming their declared ethnic enemy. This Member would also say, as a former infantry officer, that it is almost inconceivable that rules of engagement can be crafted which will permit us to act as neutral peace enforcer at the same time that we are training and arming one specific faction. It is this type of dangerous, fuzzy logic and contradictory objectives that can lead to mission creep and, regrettably, the unnecessary loss of American lives. Now let me turn to the notion of a proper exit strategy. The Clinton administration has announced that its exit strategy is to withdraw in a year. Out in ``approximately 12 months'' * * * that is the sum totality of their exit strategy. But this commitment is not linked to strategic objectives. Indeed, it seems that the only criteria in this exit strategy is the belief that 1 year is the extreme outer limit of American tolerance and beyond our next presidential election. They may be right about that, but specifying an exit time frame is a critical error, and probably a very tragic one. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested most importantly, by a range of military specialists, including some of NATO's leading planners and operations people, that this 1-year peace enforcement mission will at best provide the region with a brief, NATO-enforced respite during which time the Serbs and Croatians fine-tune plans for the ultimate dismemberment of Bosnia. Then, as soon as the United States and other NATO forces depart, war returns and the final vestiges of Bosnia will be divided up in violent warfare. This body should say ``no'' right now to a mission that lacks strategic objectives, and to one that is likely, at best, to buy only a bloody lull in Balkan warfare. Unfortunately, American, British, French, Canadian, other allied lives surely will be lost in the process. This Member, for one, cannot justify this inevitable and ultimately futile loss of life. Last, Mr. Speaker, this Member fails to see the clear United States national interest in deploying 20,000 American troops to Bosnia. Pointing to our role as an international leader and the critical role importance of preserving NATO misses the point. Does it serve our reputation and that of NATO to briefly restore order and then permit the violent dismemberment of Bosnia as soon as we depart? No, it most emphatically will have the opposite effect. Of course this Member is aware of the charge that damage will be done to United States prestige in the event of a congressional failure to support the President's unilateral, hasty, and ill-advised decision to deploy American land troops to Bosnia. But I will tell my colleagues that it is the Clinton administration, through its ill-conceived proposal, and not the Congress, that will ultimately do the greatest damage to the U.S. international reputation as leader of NATO and as a superpower if we cannot deter it. The American people should be under no illusions--if damage is being done to NATO, it is occurring at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Speaker, this Member would urge support of H.R. 2606.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on Nov. 15, 1995. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Nov. 15, 1995] Partial Shutdown of Government Result of Democratic Scare Tactics Government workers and the public were plunged into unnecessary inconvenience by a partial government shutdown Tuesday. The reason: President Clinton put politics ahead of the public. Clinton vetoed a stopgap spending bill that would have temporarily kept the museums open, the passport office functioning and the national parks in full operation. The ``continuing resolution'' that would let the government go on spending was needed because the White House and Congress haven't passed a final budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The president had been saying for days that he couldn't sign the stopgap spending bill because it contained an increase in the monthly premium paid by retirees for Medicare. Then, as Republican Sen. Pete Domenici offered a compromise on the Medicare premium issue, Clinton added that he also objected to decreases in some other spending programs, including his pet, Ameri-Corps. Of the Medicare change, he said that the price of signing the bill was too high ``if America must close down access to . . . affordable health care for our seniors.'' Of course the legislation would do nothing of the kind. Clinton's words were a reflection of a cynical and deceptive campaign that Democrats are waging. They try to scare retirees by saying that the Republicans are out to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. This cruel Democratic distortion deserves strong condemnation. In addition, as Republican Sen. Bob Dole pointed out, Clinton has been ``playing the Medi-scare game all weekend. That wasn't their real problem. It was cutting spending.'' Republicans are proposing a reasonable change. They want to cancel a 1990 Democratic-sponsored measure that, left alone, would have the unintended effect of reducing the monthly premium for Medicare. Without action, the monthly payment would drop from $46.10 to $42.50 as of Jan. 1. The GOP wants to raise the payment to $53.50, thereby keeping the current recipient-funded portion of the program costs at 31.5 percent. Domenici came a long way around by offering to freeze premiums at $46.10. The increase to $53.50 would prevent a larger burden from shifting to the taxpayers and prepare the way for the long- term adjustments that the public is going to have to make to keep Medicare solvent. Taxpayers should applaud this responsible suggestion. General-fund expenditures must be cut wherever possible if the budget is ever going to be balanced. Certainly this is no time to be reducing the amount of money that retirees are asked to contribute to the insurance program from which they benefit. Furthermore, the logical time to make the change is now. To leave it until Clinton and the GOP hammered out all their differences could mean that the rate would drop in January. That would make it even harder to raise it later. The increased payment by retirees would not be substantial. An average Social Security recipient would be $10.60 ahead each month after collecting the Social Security cost-of- living increase and having the higher Medicare premium withheld. But Clinton said it was preferable to furlough hundreds of thousands of federal employees Tuesday, suspending a wide variety of services for the public. He made it sound as though he did that to preserve hospital care for the elderly, or to avoid driving them into bankruptcy. He said he cast the veto because he refused to ``destroy'' Medicare. Such talk is highly misleading. It frightens people unnecessarily. It tarnishes public debate by creating anger and suspicion that are unwarranted by the facts. President Clinton is known to have advisers who want him to project a more centrist, more reasonable image in the hope of winning moderate support in the next election. If he is ever to succeed at that, he must first learn to keep his Medicare demagoguery under control.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it was this Member's intent to vote ``aye'' on October 31, 1995, on H.R. 1905, the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Appropriation Conference Report. This Member was present and attempted to vote in favor of the conference report, but apparently for some technical reason the vote was not recorded.