Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman form Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing his conference report to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this Member would begin by expressing appreciation that the fiscal year 1996 energy and water development appropriations legislation includes language which prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from revising the Missouri River master water control manual in such a way that it would increase the likelihood of springtime flooding. This Member offered this provision as an amendment when the House approved the appropriations bill on July 12, 1995. This commonsense provision is needed to ensure that the Corps does not repeat its previous mistake--a proposal which would have devastated farms, businesses, landowners, and countless communities along the Missouri River. Last year the Corps issued its proposed changes to the master manual and made a colossal blunder by proposing to drastically increase the flow and water level of the Missouri River during the months of April, May, and June. These obviously are the very months when States such as Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri are already most vulnerable to flooding due to snow melt and heavy rainfall. It's bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river have to contend with natural disasters. They should not be forced to deal with the kind of man-made disasters which would have been caused by the Corps' proposal. The floods of 1993 and the heavy rains this spring offer clear and convincing proof that the proposal was seriously flawed. At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River basin region, participants expressed very strong, even vociferous and nearly unanimous opposition to a number of provisions in the Corps' preferred alternative. One of the most detested provisions was the increased spring rise. Following this massive opposition to the proposed changes, the Corps acknowledged the flaws in the original proposal and expressed a willingness to reevaluate the issue. However, this Member believes this commonsense provision is needed to make absolutely certain that the Corps does not repeat this mistake. Mr. Speaker, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget constraints currently facing the Appropriations Committee. Difficult funding choices were necessary in order to stay within budget allocations. In light of these limitations, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important water-related projects of interest to the State of Nebraska. The conference report provides funding for flood-related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 flooding temporarily closed Interstate- 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, NE. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased the conference committee agreed to provide $441,000 in funding for the Lower Platte River and tributaries flood control study. This study should help to formulate and develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and tributaries. Additionally, the conference report provides continued funding-- $90,000--for a floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. This Member is responsible for initiating the 1994 House-passed appropriation for Antelope Creek and for coordinating the city of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's work with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify a flood control system for downtown Lincoln. Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream, became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and created an unstable situation. A 10-foot by 20-foot closed underground conduit that was constructed between 1911 and 1916 now requires significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A dangerous flood threat to adjacent public and private facilities exists. The goals of the study are to anticipate and provide for the flooding of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the underground conduit and provide for any necessary repair, stimulate neighborhood and UN-L city campus development within current defined boundaries, eliminate fragmentation of the city campus, minimize vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts while providing adequate capacity, and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems. The conference report also provides funding for two Missouri River projects which are designed to remedy problems of erosion, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and sedimentation. First, it provides $5.7 million for the Missouri River mitigation project. This funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in predevelopment days. The conference report also provides $200,000 for operation and maintenance and $20,000 for construction of the Missouri national recreation river project. This project addresses a serious problem in protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous work on the river by the Federal Government. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member recognizes that the conference report also provides funding for a Bureau of Reclamation assessment of Nebraska's water supply--$75,000--as well as funding for Army Corps projects in Nebraska at the following sites: Wood River; Papillion Creek and tributaries; Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; Harlan County Lake; and Salt Creek and tributaries. Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their continued support of these projects which are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people living in the Missouri River Basin.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1691, the Homesteading and Neighborhood Restoration Act. This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman of the House Banking Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking member of the House Banking Committee, for bringing this measure to the House floor. This Member also extends his special appreciation to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for their support for this legislation. This Member is pleased to be here today supporting legislation which contains the authorization of a program this Member has proposed to provide multifamily housing loan guarantees in rural areas. On Tuesday, January 4, 1995, this Member reintroduced legislation to authorize a demonstration program for a new Federal loan guarantee program for the construction of multi-family rental housing units in small cities, towns, and rural areas. The text of that legislation (H.R. 66) has been incorporated into the Homesteading and Neighborhood Restoration Act of 1995. The language in this measure is in effect identical to this Member's legislation which was 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 have created a demonstration program for 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 in the 104th Congress. Currently, the only Federal program allowing development of this type of housing is the Rural Housing and Community Development Service's-- formerly the Farmers Home Administration--Section 515 program, a direct loan program which has, unfortunately, been plagued with problems. Because Federal funds become more scarce every year, the direct loan program is almost certain to shrink. Therefore, this Member saw the need for a new approach that would cost taxpayers less but still provide equal or greater housing opportunity in rural areas. The new program will be known as the Section 515 Loan Guarantee Program. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two or three major parts to it. The one I am most interested in speaking about today has been made reference to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and it is the loan guaranty program called the 515 Loan Guarantee Program. It has been a part of the Farmers Home Administration, now renamed a component of the United States Department of Agriculture. We have had a direct loan program, the 515 Program, for multifamily rental housing. This legislation will make some reforms in that program, and we intend, I am sure, to try to do further work in the 515 direct loan program next year. However, Mr. Speaker, the initiative on which I am pleased to have the support of my colleagues is an effort to establish a 2-year demonstration 515 Loan Guarantee Program, for 25 projects per year. At this point this Member is not advocating that this demonstration program replace the existing program, but only augment it, at a lower cost, in order to provide adequate rental housing opportunities for a segment of America's population living in smaller communities. The demonstration program will provide a Federal guarantee on loans made to eligible persons by private lenders. In fiscal year 1996 25 new developments will be guaranteed by the Rural Housing and Community Development Service. 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 515 Loan 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 41,000 units financed since 1991. Also, this Member ask you to note that, with bipartisan support on the Appropriations Committee, H.R. 1976, the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which was signed by the President on October 21, 1995, appropriates $1 million in credit subsidy for the Section 515 loan guarantee demonstration program. Therefore, the program can move forward as soon as it is authorized, but the appropriation will be recaptured if the demonstration is not authorized in fiscal 1995. This Member is convinced by experience that loan guarantee programs for housing are typically a much more effective use of scare Federal dollars than existing programs. As budgets are slashed, this type of program promises to continue to make Federal assistance available for housing development in America's non-metropolitan cities. Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member supports H.R. 2491 and asks that his colleagues also vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and emphasize that this Member is deeply troubled by a number of aspects of the proposed troop deployment that is being proposed today. Let me use President Clinton's own words to emphasize my concern. I rise in support of the resolution. It is important that Congress express its view at this time, because the plan that is presented by the Administration as it has been described to committees of this Congress is tragically flawed in many respects, and we need to make it precisely clear now that we are not on board. We are not on board on this tragically flawed plan. The Congress should have a role in discussion of this important issue. Let me give you two major examples of why it is flawed. The one proposal is that we train and arm the Bosnian Federation. That violates the cardinal rule of peacekeeping or peace enforcement. You cannot be anything other than neutral if you expect to implement that peace enforcement policy. The second problem is that we have been given a specific period of time when our peace enforcement are to be pulled out, 12 months hence. Maybe they are going to change that time period. But an exit strategy, which is admittedly all-important, as the President himself said at the United Nations, must be strategically linked. It must be linked to strategic objectives not to a time certain. I cannot imagine, as a former infantry officer, putting our troops in harm's way when we are both involved in arming one side while we are also supposed to be neutral or peace enforcers. It is important Congress express its view on this issue at this time. We want the Congress of the United States involved in this issue before American troops are deployed. We want to be involved in the composition of this plan. In the President's 1993 speech to the United Nations--delivered only days after the loss of United States lives at that infamous ambush in Mogadishu--President Clinton laid out several basic criteria that he claimed would be the standard for future U.S. peacekeeping activities. The criteria set forth by the President included: ``Does the proposed mission have clear objectives?'' ``Can an end point be identified for those who will be asked to participate?'' ``How much will the mission cost?'' In addition, a later criteria was wisely added--Is it in the U.S. national interest? At the time that President Clinton made that speech, it seemed to this Member he had laid out pretty sensible criteria. What has troubled me, and what has troubled a great many in this body, is that these criteria seem to have been addressed in only the most superficial manner. There are a great many defects in the administrative plans to involve America land forces in Bosnia. First, look at the question of whether the proposed mission has clear objectives. As Secretary of State Christopher has made clear, our mission is to enforce an end of the hostilities that have plagued Bosnia for centuries. It is proposed that we are going to interject ourselves between heavily armed factions that seem incapable of living in peace. Presumably we are to serve as neutral honest brokers to prevent the three sides from killing one another. Again, this is a peace enforcement mission, not peacekeeping. But Defense Secretary Perry has testified that we will be prepared to train Bosnian forces and try to bring about arms control if the Bosnian state is to exist after the year of NATO occupation is over. In contrast to the peace enforcement mission--which presumably is not designed to take sides--the arming and training of Bosnian Moslem or Bosnian federation forces is taking sides. Arming the Bosnian federation is not the act of a neutral. I understand the desire to level the playing field, but one can hardly expect the Bosnian Serbs to quietly sit back while their peacekeepers are arming their enemy. This Member would also say, as a former infantry officer, that it is almost inconceivable to me that rules of engagement can be crafted that will permit us to act as a neutral peace enforcer at the same time that we are arming one specific faction. It is this type of fuzzy logic and contradictory objectives that can lead to mission creep and, regrettably, the unnecessary loss of American lives. Now, second, let me turn to the notion of a proper exit strategy-- again, one of the fundamental criteria laid out for any United States peacekeeping operation in the President's speech to the United Nations. This body has been told the exit strategy is to withdraw in a year. But this commitment is not linked to strategic objectives; nor is it linked to any tangible political results. 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. The administration may be right about that, but it is entirely beside the point. In moments of candor it has been suggested to be by 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 United States and other NATO forces depart, war returns and the final vestiges of Bosnia are dismembered. This Member must tell his colleagues that there is no reason to take comfort in a mission that lacks specified strategic objectives, and is likely at best to buy a year of tenuous and imperfect peace. Unfortunately, American, British, French, other allied lives surely will be lost in the process. This Member, for one, cannot justify this inevitable loss of life. Last, Mr. Speaker, this Member just does not see the clear U.S. national interest in deploying tens of thousands of American troops [[Page H 11403]] to Bosnia. Pointing to our role as an international leader and the critical role importance of preserving NATO seems to me to miss the point. If our pre-announced goal is to stay in Bosnia for no more than 1 year, then are we to be world leader only for a year? Does it serve our reputation to briefly restore order and then permit the violent dismemberment of Bosnia as soon as we depart? This Member is concerned about the damage to U.S. prestige that could be done by the Congress failing to support the President on such an important foreign policy decision, but I must tell you that this administration went out of its way to avoid consulting with the Congress. It has avoided consulting with Congress because the Clinton administration is fully aware that Congress does not support the proposed adventurism. And I must say that it is the Clinton administration, and not Congress, that threatens deep damage to U.S. international prestige by launching a tragic failure. It is for these and numerous other reasons, Mr. Speaker, that this Member supports their resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today I want to continue the discussion which began in a joint subcommittee hearing of the House International Relations Committee on trade issues regarding Chile and other Latin American countries in light of the North American Free Trade Act [NAFTA] experience. No doubt, we will continue to hear a plethora of statistics and anecdotes about the benefits and costs of NAFTA as well as increasing information about the benefits and costs of Chile's possible accession to that agreement. As a Member, I strongly supported NAFTA. Now, I strongly support Chile's accession to NAFTA. In fact, this Member said at the time, and will repeat it here today, that in a straightforward economic decision, it would have been more appropriate to accept Chile into a free-trade agreement with the United States even before Mexico because of Chile's dramatic economic progress and liberalization. It is very easy to get lost in all the statistics about the benefits of NAFTA or Chile's accession. But those statistics don't reveal one thing. One should ask: ``What would have happened if we had not passed NAFTA?'' There can be no doubt that many American companies have relocated to Mexico recently. Undoubtedly, many Americans have lost their jobs to cheaper Mexican labor. But that does not mean that many Americans would have kept their jobs if we had not adopted NAFTA. No, instead, Americans would have lost many low-wage jobs to Southeast Asia, South Asia, and other parts of Central and South America. This situation has been greatly exacerbated by the peso crisis in Mexico which itself, this Member emphasizes, was in no way caused by the NAFTA agreement. Mr. Speaker, when this body courageously adopted the Uruguay Round implementing legislation, this Member said that many opponents of that historic trade legislation were in essence saying, ``Stop the world, I want to get off.'' Well, this Member stands by that comment and believes it still applies here today. The simple truth is that the United States, and the American people, have no good economic choice but to push for expansion of NAFTA gradually and appropriately to the entire Western Hemisphere or risk being excluded from a rapidly liberalizing world economy. Economic integration and trade liberalization is occurring in nearly every part of the world including Europe, Asia, and South America. For example, the European Union [EU] has already created the world's largest free-trade zone and has recently expanded this block by adding three members of the European Free Trade Association (Austria, Finland, and Sweden). The EU's single market includes 369 million consumers and a gross domestic product [GDP] of about $6.3 trillion (1993). This ``Fortress Europe,'' as some call it, is seeking to add the low-wage Eastern European economies of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia by the year 2000 and the North African and Middle Eastern countries of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel by the year 2010. Together, this free-trade zone of low-wage labor Eastern European and Mediterranean countries and such high-tech, high-wage economies of the EU as the countries of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom represent a very formidable competitor to U.S. businesses and service industries which are attempting to compete in the new world economy. Similarly, East Asian countries have begun the process of integrating their economies through such regional free-trade groups as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC], which recently agreed to establish free trade in the region by 2020 for all of its 18 members, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN], which currently has seven members but is seeking to incorporate other countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Burma. ASEAN has rapidly become the world's largest regional trade area (with over 400 million people) and its members recently announced they would lower their tariffs from 0-5 percent shortly after the year 2000. If the United States fails to continue to insist on its inclusion in these regional groups, supporters of the East Asia Economic Caucus (ASEAN plus China, Japan, and South Korea), which has been proposed by the outspoken Malaysian Prime Minister Mr. Mahathir, may be successful in excluding the United States from Asia and the Pacific region--the fastest growing market in the world. Not to be left out of trade liberalization, South and Central America and the Caribbean have recently fragmented into several regional free- trade groups including: Andean Pact: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. Mercosur or Southern Common Market: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay. Central American Common Market: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica. Caricom: Antigua, Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, the Grenadines, Trinidad, Tobago. Clearly, the United States will suffer economically, politically, and strategically if it chooses to isolate itself from global and regional trade liberalization efforts. History is replete with examples of countries, like China, who turned inward instead of facing the difficult but necessary challenges of adapting to new circumstances, and therefore greatly suffered. With only 250 million people, the United States cannot afford to refuse to trade with emerging markets in the world's developing countries. Through the year 2025, developing countries are expected to account for 95 percent of the world's population growth. More staggering is the fact that only 10 markets--those of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Poland, Turkey, China, South Korea, Indonesia, India, and South Africa will produce one-half of the world's goods and services by the year 2010, but will account for $1 trillion in incremental U.S. exports during that same period. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly believes Americans can compete to sell their innovative products and services anywhere in the world provided they are given a fair and equal opportunity without excessive Government interference. Consequently, I vigorously oppose unilaterally surrendering these future markets to our industrialized competitors in the Asia and Pacific region and in Western Europe by isolating ourselves from regional and global economic liberalization. Accordingly, this Member urges his colleagues to support free-trade agreements, such as an enlarged NAFTA, which help ensure that American exporters will be able to compete on a level playing field.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased that the leadership has agreed to improve the AAPCC formula used to determine county capitation payments for the MedicarePlus program. This change is critically important and will ensure that rural Americans have the same access to the options in the MedicarePlus program as citizens in urban areas. This change will greatly improve the health care options in rural areas by creating a formula floor of $300 per month the first year for all counties now below that level. It would rise to at least $320 the next year. Almost all counties in Nebraska fall in this category. In fact, in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska, 21 out of 25 counties, including Lancaster County, will benefit because they are now well under the $300 county capitation rate. This change also rectified the problem experienced in some metropolitan areas such as Seattle and Minneapolis whose medical communities are more efficient providers of health care than other urban areas. Mr. Chairman, since this improvement was made in the bill, this Member is pleased to support it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and commendation to an exceptional public servant and a member of the congressional staff. After nearly exactly 10 years on my staff, my scheduler and personal secretary, Marcia Smith, will be leaving today. She has been prototypically an exceptional congressional employee, and I wanted to bring that fact to the attention of the House. Her performance here, her skill, the way she has met people from across the world who have come through my office, has been absolutely an outstanding reflection upon this institution, on this Member, and on my constituents in Nebraska. I thank her for her tremendous service in what is undoubtedly one of the most hectic jobs for all of us, the scheduler-secretary. Her performance here has been exceptional, and I will miss her greatly in my work and life. We wish her well and great success and joy in her new career and life in Chicago. Good luck to you, Marcia.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today, this Member would like to recognize the 25th anniversary of Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance, known as VOCA. Since 1970, VOCA has been indispensable in promoting sustainable development throughout the world by harnessing the American spirit of volunteerism to teach people in developing countries how to help themselves. Thousands of VOCA volunteers, including agricultural, commercial, and environmental experts, have donated their time and expertise in 112 countries in the last 25 years. These volunteers, from this Member's congressional district and many others, are in Washington this week to take part in their organizations' 25th anniversary ``Celebration of International Cooperation.'' VOCA's ambassadors of good will represent a growing cadre of Americans who have participated in a small, but powerful program to provide technical assistance to the developing world and emerging democracies. In 1985, this Member led the congressional effort to authorize the Farmer-to-Farmer Program, and in 1986, it began as a pilot project focusing on development efforts in Latin American and the Caribbean. Because of its early success, the Farmer-to-Farmer Program, still modestly funded, has since mushroomed into a program of global dimensions that is also now a major component of United States assistance to the struggling republics of the former Soviet Union. At a time when our taxpayer dollars are scarce and our foreign assistance programs are under increasing scrutiny, VOCA and the Farmer- to- Farmer Program represent a cost-effective and efficient delivery mechanism for important U.S. aid. The Farmer-to-Farmer Program is simple in design and execution and it avoids Government red-tape by contracting the administration to VOCA and similar organizations. Federal funding goes a long way because administrative costs are limited to volunteers' travel expenses, food, and lodging. Therefore, while U.S. foreign assistance efforts generally remain controversial, the Farmer-to-Farmer Program and VOCA's volunteers have demonstrated that U.S. foreign aid can achieve enormous successes and build international good will with a relatively small investment of taxpayer dollars. Usually volunteers are encouraged to live with host families--not just to cut costs--but as another means of building friendship bonds and maximizing the likelihood of success. The short-term nature of the assignment has also encouraged the volunteers to begin work immediately and maximize every day until the job is done. But for VOCA volunteers, the work never seems to be done. Often these outstanding individuals return from their assignments and continue to assist their overseas clients at their own expense. VOCA volunteers have come from every sector of the farming and food community: cattlemen, ranchers, dairy farmers, vegetable and fruit growers, peanut farmers, canners and food processors, beekeepers, and agricultural cooperative representatives. Some are active farmers at the time they volunteer for the program; others are retired from farm or land grant universities, eager to share a lifetime of experience with their counterparts in host countries. VOCA volunteers inject a spirit of private enterprise into the farming community. By suing personal initiative and individual responsibility, volunteers support private enterprise activity as opposed to government activity. They encourage farmers to assume responsibility for their own operations, rather than depending on Government support or control. Oftentimes, too, involvement of the local people in a farmer cooperative is their first and crucial experience in participatory democracy. Quite amazingly, small or simple suggestions by VOCA volunteers often achieve significant results in lesser developed countries. For example, the late John Tesar of Bellevue, NE, went to Honduras in 1988 to help the El Marranito Company--The Little Pig--improve its processing techniques and help them introduce new products into the local market. Within a few weeks of his arrival, the company had reduced its spoilage losses by 100 percent. How? Tesar discovered that the fans on the back walls of the plant were clogged with grease, thus cutting cooling efficiency and causing pork fat to become rancid almost immediately. A simple recommendation to clean the fans solved the temperature problems. The generosity of VOCA volunteers helps both their overseas clients and the United States. It isn't accidental that some of our largest customers for U.S. agricultural commodities are former benefactors of this program. For example, the California raisin industry now sells $500,000 of raisin concentrate each year to Uruguay because a VOCA volunteer provided information to a United States business colleague on marketing opportunities. Over the years, this Member has spoken to many returning volunteers. Their stories are more than heart-warming and inspiring. They reinforce this Member's belief that the strength of our American democratic and economic system can best be demonstrated through positive contacts between individual American citizens and our foreign neighbors. VOCA and the Farmer-to-Farmer Program give people around the world an opportunity to meet and work side by side with ordinary Americans who are generously putting their special talents and experience to work helping them in their struggle to survive, prosper, and escape oppression. Since 1985, VOCA has implemented more than 1,200 Farmer-to-Farmer Program assignments. As the author of that original legislation, this Member strongly supports that successful partnership and will try to ensure that it continues. Congress certainly appreciates the enormous efforts of the VOCA volunteers and staff who have given many Members a reason to say they support this country's efforts to help those less fortunate throughout the world.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act. Mr. Chairman, this Member would begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking member of the committee, for their work on this bill. This Member would also like to direct commendations to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their exceptional work on bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, it's been said that if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. This Member is pleased, however, that this legislation not only gives direction to the surface transportation needs of the future, it also designates which roads will get us there. The National Highway System will provide a blueprint for this Nation's highway needs by identifying the roadways most important for defense, commerce, and travel. This Member is pleased that the National Highway System includes a number of routes which are of great importance to Nebraska. Of particular significance is the inclusion of a generalized representation of a new connector route linking Highway 20 to the expected site of the new Newcastle area-Vermillion bridge over the Missouri River. The exact route will be finalized following more careful study. The addition of this route was included due to this Member's recommendation and the approval of the Nebraska Department of Roads. The bridge and its access road will serve as a connector for one of the major north-south routes across Nebraska. This Member has long expressed concern that an adequate access road be provided for this project. It is also encouraging that State Highway 2 and U.S. Highway 81 in Nebraska are designated as components of the National Highway System. Another important addition to the National Highway System is the highway mileage for what will eventually be a south and east bypass around the city of Lincoln, NE. The current transportation network in Lincoln, NE, a city of nearly 200,000, is under stress and the implementation of a new transportation system must be studied. The approach which seems to make the most sense is the completion of a circumferential roadway system by the development of highway segments south and east of the city. This completed circumferential roadway would help meet current needs and accommodate future growth before such highway development becomes prohibitively expensive. Completion of a beltway highway for Lincoln has been discussed for more than three decades and the need to implement such a plan becomes more apparent each year. A recent city of Lincoln task force looking at the possibility of the beltway determined that the development of such a system would be a crucial component of the regional transportation network which would accomplish the goals of moving traffic around congested urban areas and providing for an expanded capacity of the urban system. [[Page H 9274]] This Member would also like to stress that he has received written assurances from the city of Lincoln and the Nebraska Department of Roads that the current National Highway System designations are surrogate or temporary designations that will be replaced by new route designations when the bypass study identifies the desired route locations. This Member is voting for this legislation with that understanding. This Member would further stress that the eventual corridor designation must be exclusively outside the city limits of the city of Lincoln. Although the study will determine the optimal corridor zone, this Member would like to reiterate what he stated before the Committee on Public Works' Subcommittee on Surface Transportation on March 8, 1994. This Member believes it would be preferable to locate the eastern segment on or between 96th and 134th Street and the southern segment on or between Yankee Hill Road and Saltillo Road. With respect to the southern route, this Member believes the corridor should be located no farther north than Yankee Hill Road and possibly south of Saltillo Road. This Member is also very pleased that the bill includes a provision he introduced to provide regulatory relief for farmers and farm retailers. The provision specifies that regulations regarding maximum driving and on-duty time for motor carrier drivers will not apply to agricultural drivers transporting agricultural commodities or farm supplies within a 100-mile radius during the planting and harvesting seasons, as determined by each State. The need for this change is obvious--each year farmers and their suppliers must be prepared to move quickly and work long hours when the weather permits. During certain weeks of the year, there is a small window of opportunity in the crop planting and harvesting season when the demand for farm supplies escalates. Unfortunately, this demand runs headlong into the Department of Transportation's regulations for the number of hours a driver can be ``on duty.'' To address this problem, this Member introduced H.R. 526, which exempts farmers and retail farm suppliers from these requirements when operating within 100 miles of their farms or distribution points. DOT's hours-of-service regulations are highly impractical, burdensome, and costly for farmers and farm suppliers because the law can require them to take 3 days off--at the peak of agricultural production--and wait in order to accumulate enough off-duty time to resume driving. This is because DOT regulations define ``on duty'' time as ``all time from the time a driver begins work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time he/she is relieved from work.'' The hours-of-service regulations are directed toward long distance truck drivers. However, they also apply to the local distribution of farm input materials even though driving is incidental to the farm supplier's principal work function of servicing farmers. Over 80 percent of our Nation's farmers utilize farm suppliers to help them cope with environmental regulations; develop, implement, and manage precision agriculture; and harvest profitable crops that produce safe, abundant and affordable food for Americans and the world. A specific exemption is certainly not without precedent. DOT has already recognized that the on-duty time of certain occupations is subject to special demands and DOT has granted seasonal waivers from hours-of-service requirements for small package delivery drivers during the holiday season and for the oil and natural gas industry. Farmers and farm suppliers engaged in the transport of fertilizer and fertilizer materials, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, seed, animal feeds, crops, and other essential farm supplies also deserve regulatory flexibility. As harvesting season draws closer, the agricultural community will once again be confronted with the hurdles presented by the unreasonable hours-of-service requirements which were obviously not designed to accommodate the special circumstances faced by farmers. This legislation resolves the problem in a responsible manner. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4385 addresses the current and future highway needs of the United States and this Member urges his colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I have great respect for the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking minority member of the committee. I regret the fact that he rises in opposition to the resolution, but I appreciate his kind words, and I would have to say in response just a reminder to my colleagues. The gentleman from Indiana; I know he is aware of this fact, that the elements to which he objects are contained in a sense-of-the-Congress section, section 3, and in fact those items that we list as being important, things that should not be forgotten in this whole process, such as the continued focus on accelerating North-South dialog, all of these are existing policy supported by this administration and previous administrations, and I dare say the majority in Congress, and I would say further that in a sense-of-the-Congress resolution, it does not in any fashion object to the diplomatic relations that have been established with North Korea, although many Members do object to that fact. It says that the President should not take further steps toward upgrading diplomatic relations. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I regard this resolution as strengthening the hand of the administration in negotiating with the North Koreans and assuring that we keep their feet to the fire and that we do verify their compliance with the agreement. I think it strengthens the hand of the administration in this respect. In fact, I would not offer it if I did not feel very strongly that it was the case, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], who by his experience and involvement is quite an expert on the Korean Peninsula.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] for his kind remarks and for the information that he conveyed to our colleagues, which is [[Page H 9050]] very important, about our resolve to see that North Koreans live with the agreement and that we not backpedal in any way on our commitment that there be a North-South dialog and that we not permit the North Koreans to divide the Republic of Korea, South Korea, and the United States.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the behavior of the isolated, authoritarian Communist regime in North Korea continues to remind us that important American nonproliferation and regional security interests remain at great risk notwithstanding the October 1994 United States-DPRK Agreed Framework. North Korea remains an outlaw state that will not easily adapt itself to international norms. This has been underscored by Pyongyang's bitter resistance to accepting light water reactor technology from South Korea under the October 1994 accord, recent steps by North Korea that would have the effect of unilaterally undermining the Military Armistice Commission [MAC] that supervises the truce along the demilitarized zone [DMZ], and continued refusal to engage in normalization talks with the Republic of Korea, in the South. In theory, the October 1994 framework agreement provides a mechanism for reining in Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program and addressing other United States security concerns regarding the Korean Peninsula. With the North Koreans, however, nothing is ever simple or settled. In June, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord noted at a regional security hearing before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that ``We're going to have a very arduous journey in the next 10 or 15 years in implementing the Agreed Framework.'' North Korea's confrontational behavior continues to raise fundamental questions about whether Pyongyang is acting in good faith. North Korea has diverted some of the United States-supplied heavy oil that we already have delivered under the terms of the agreement, and the North has continued its relentless political attacks against our ally, South Korea. North Korea continues to make new and outrageous demands, including a demand for a billion dollars in additional assistance to enhance its power grid and for other purposes. Its implicit agreement that a South Korean firm will be the prime contractor for the project under the management of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization [KEDO], negotiated at Kuala Lumpur this summer, remains to be tested. House Joint Resolution 83 was introduced by this Member, together with my friend and distinguished subcommittee colleague from California, Mr. Kim, and was marked up by the full House International Relations Committee on June 29, The resolution provides policy guidance to the administration as it seeks to engage with North Korea. Not incidentally, the resolution will also send a signal from the Congress to Pyongyang that there can be no deviation from the terms of the United States-DPRK agreement. The resolution is similar to language adopted by the full House in action on H.R. 1561. The most important exception is a small but important change to section 4, which is intended to alleviate the administration's concerns that the resolution not impose a reprogramming notification requirement in regard to funds specifically authorized and appropriated by Congress for KEDO. Despite the fact that the resolution is imbedded in the American Overseas Interests Act, there are compelling reasons to adopt it separately. Passage of the resolution will be a fitting expression of congressional support for our ally of more than five decades, the Republic of Korea, recently commemorated during the visit of President Kim Yong-sam to attend the dedication of the Korean War Veterans Memorial last July. I believe that there is nothing on this issue that we in Congress can do which is more important than to go on record to emphasize the continuing concern of the United States for maintaining the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, and to categorically insist that South Korea must be allowed to play a central role in arrangements negotiated by the United States to address the problem of North Korea's nuclear program. Because this issue is so important, this Member will take a moment to explain more precisely what this legislation does. House Joint Resolution 83 has 4 major sections, addressing 4 concerns: First, it spells out minimum objectives for United States nonproliferation policy in regard to North Korea's obligations under the United States-DPRK Agreed Framework. This is necessary to make explicitly clear that there can be no retreat from what is in the agreement regarding North Korea's obligations, and to clarify where Congress stands on issues that the administration may possibly consider as still subject to future negotiation. Second, it insures that our longstanding ally South Korea remains a key player in the accord by reaffirming that the Republic of Korea is the only acceptable source for the light water reactors that are to be provided to North Korea under the accord. Third, House Joint Resolution 83 establishes minimum preconditions for further moves toward relaxing United States trade sanctions and normalizing relations with North Korea. These include a requirement that North Korea engage in dialog with the South per a 1992 North-South Agreement, and also the North-South agreement on Korean Peninsula denuclearization. It also conditions further steps toward normalization on progress toward the achievement of longstanding United States goals of reducing the military threat posed by North Korea's excessive military forces, its ballistic missile programs and its exports of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. This latter point is important. In my view and that of many other Members of Congress and security policy experts, the administration has been understandably focused but unduly focused on containing North Korea's nuclear program and avoiding the need to seek international economic sanctions, and not enough focused on broader United States security concerns regarding the North. Fourth, House Joint Resolution 83 imposes notification requirements on the use of reprogrammed funds to support the agreement, by establishing the same terms and conditions regarding authorizations and appropriations from non-Foreign Assistance Act sources as would apply to assistance provided to North Korea under the Foreign Assistance Act. This includes the notification of any reprogramming actions to the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no matter from what source the funding is obtained, and full justification for assistance provided under waiver authority to provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act that otherwise would prohibit such assistance. Mr. Speaker, this Member thanks the chairman of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for his support and assistance in crafting this legislation. The chairman's staff provided invaluable assistance in addressing many of the issues in House Joint Resolution 83. In addition, this Member would assure all of his colleagues that every effort has been made to make this a bipartisan initiative. This Member would point to the very constructive additions made by the ranking Democrat [[Page H 9049]] on the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very important, long-term policy issue that merits a firm statement of congressional will. The North Korean nuclear issue is certainly, quite arguably, the most dangerous and unpredictable challenge facing us today. The resolution provides needed policy guidance to the administration, protects the interests of our ally, South Korea, broadens the scope of United States policy concerns, and protects the jurisdictional interests of this body. I urge the House to adopt the joint resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) relating to the United States-North Korea Agreed Framework and the obligations of North Korea under that and previous agreements with respect to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and dialogue with the Republic of Korea, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, having walked the blue line that divides Greeks from Turks in Cyprus--a line frozen in time for over 20 years--this Member is well aware of the need to move forward in achieving a just settlement of the Cyprus issue. This is a line where Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces have faced off, sometimes only 20 to 30 feet from one another, ready to resume hostilities at a moment's notice. The current division of the island of Cyprus serves the interests of no one, and hampers the development and prosperity of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. In the meantime, the painfully slow negotiation on confidence building measures [CBM's] has run into additional difficulties. House Concurrent Resolution 42 seeks to break the diplomatic logjam by proposing the demilitarization of the entire island. This Member would make the obvious point that demilitarization would have to be part of a comprehensive negotiated settlement, for demilitarization in and of itself would not resolve all the island's political problems. This Member would make one final point: It is over 20 years since the island was forcibly partitioned. This Member has met with Republic of Cyprus President Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Raulf Denktesh. This Member sincerely believes these men are working for what they believe are the best interests of their people. While they are on opposite sides, they know one another, and at a basic level, I believe they respect one another. These men, and those like them, are of a certain age. When they were young, they attended the same schools. As young men, they fought the Nazis together. Later, they belonged to the same clubs and ate at the same restaurants. In short, they speak from common experience. But Mr. Denktesh and President Clerides are not young men. And those who will follow them do not have this common history. The next generation lacks those common experiences that were forged in World War II. The next generation of Cypriot leaders is likely to have far less appreciation of the unique contributions of multicultural society. And this Member fears that the next generation of leaders is likely to be less committed to a fair and equitable settlement. It is for this reason that efforts must now be redoubled to achieve a resolution to the longstanding dispute on Cyprus. This Member would urge that all parties work toward an honorable peace, and I note the efforts of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] to achieve that peace. I commend him for crafting House Concurrent Resolution 42. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 42), supporting a resolution to the long-standing dispute regarding Cyprus, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 181, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the joint resolution just passed.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today has one simple objective--to commend the people of Mongolia for the remarkable progress that country has made since 1990. Mongolia has [[Page H 9041]] made great strides from a one-party Communist country with a command economy to the multiparty free market democracy. In the last 5 years, Mongolia has also freed itself from Soviet domination. Within a year from the fall of the Berlin Wall, the popularly elected Mongolian legislature--whose election we are commemorating in this resolution-- enacted a new constitution which declared Mongolia an independent, sovereign republic with guaranteed civil rights and freedoms. These changes were not only dramatic in scope and speed, they were also accomplished without firing a shot and with little concrete support from the outside. These accomplishments are worthy of congressional commendation. That is why we are here today. The political changes of 1990-91 also marked the beginning of Mongolia's efforts to develop a market economy. Mongolia continues to press ahead with economic reform, including privatization of the economy, price deregulation, and the establishment of a single exchange rate. More needs to be done to consolidate these reforms. The best hope for accelerated growth in Mongolia is to attract foreign investment, further liberalize the economy, and expand trade with nontraditional partners. The United States has sought to assist Mongolia's movement toward democracy and market-oriented reforms. The First Lady, on her recent visit to Mongolia, announced a $4.5 million aid package for that country. We accorded Mongolia most favored nation trading status. We have concluded a bilateral tax treaty and an Overseas Private Investment Corporation agreement. We have supported Mongolia's entry into the IMF, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. In short, Mongolia represents a good example of the universality of civil and political rights and provides evidence that political freedom and economic development are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Speaker, this Member would thank the chairman of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for his assistance in moving House Resolution 158. This Member would also thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking Democrat on the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Berman, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, for their help and support in moving this resolution forward. With their help, the committee has crafted a truly bipartisan message of support for the Mongolian people. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of House Resolution 158. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 158) congratulating the people of Mongolia on the 5th Anniversary of the first democratic multiparty elections held in Mongolia on July 29, 1990, as amended.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

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