Doug Bereuter

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 158, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

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, located at the southern tip of the South Asia subcontinent, the tiny Indian Ocean island nation of Sri Lanka has, for the last decade and a half, been the site of one of the bloodiest ethnic wars. The conflict has pitted the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam--or Tamil Tigers--against the democratically elected government in Colombo, with at least 30,000--and possibly as many as 50,000--Sri Lankans of all ethnic persuasions perishing in this bloody conflict. With both sides weary of the unrelenting bloodshed, a cessation of hostilities went into effect at the beginning of 1995, and the government and the Tamil rebels entered into a series of peace talks. Regrettably, this peace that was short lived, and the Tamil Tigers unilaterally resumed their attacks on April 19. The recent attacks have been particularly brutal, with a pair of transport aircraft being shot down, and a fishing village burned to the ground with massive loss of life. In retaliation, the government has launched its inevitable offensive against Tiger-held territory, with government forces cutting a broad swath through positions long controlled by the rebels, thereby causing hundreds of casualties and displacing thousands of noncombatants. This pattern of rebel offensives and government counteroffensives is all to familiar. Over the past dozen years, this cycle has been repeated time and time again. House Resolution 181 calls on the parties to break out of this vicious cycle of death and destruction. The resolution recognizes the good faith efforts of the Sri Lankan Government to work for peace, and commends the dramatic improvement in the government's human rights practices. It also denounces all acts of violence and terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator. House Resolution 181 calls on the parties to negotiate in good faith with a view to ending the conflict and finding a just and lasting peaceful settlement to the ethnic divisions while assuring the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. The resolution also encourages the United States to lend its good offices to help in resolving the conflict, if so desired by the combating parties. Mr. Speaker, this resolution passed unanimously out of the International Relations Committee. I would congratulate the ranking Democrat of the full committee, Mr. Hamilton, for his initiative in drafting this resolution. First, it recognizes the very real efforts made by the ruling government to respect basic human rights and achieve a just peace. As House Resolution 181 notes, the resolution recognizes that improvements have indeed occurred. Second, the resolution places the House squarely on the side of peace in a conflict that has been every bit as brutal as the war in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to cosponsor the excellent resolution of [[Page H 9040]] the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and would urge its passage. This Member would also note the thoughtful and important contribution made by the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. 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 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 agree to the resolution (H. Res. 181) encouraging the peace process in Sri Lanka.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member rises in support of the conference report on H.R. 1854 and is pleased that this measure includes a reduction of $75 million for the General Accounting Office [GAO] below the fiscal year 1996 funding level. This Member is particularly pleased that the House and Senate conferees further reduced the funding level for GAO by $19 million below the House- approved fiscal year 1996 level. Mr. Speaker, during the first days of the 104th Congress, this Member wrote to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, as well as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Budget Committee, to express this Member's strong support for reduced funding levels for GAO. This Member is pleased with the action taken which confers with this Member's request for reducing funding for GAO. For some time, this Member supported a reduction in funding for GAO. In fact, during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 legislative branch appropriations bill, this Member offered an amendment to cut funding for GAO by 5 percent below the fiscal year 1994 level. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a close vote. The $374 million fiscal year 1996 funding level for GAO included in the conference report represents a decrease of $75 million below the fiscal year 1995 level. During last year's deliberation of the legislative branch appropriations bill, the House approved a funding level of $439.5 billion, an increase of $9.4 million. In addition, the fiscal year 1995 conference report then included $449 million for GAO, $10 million more than the House bill. This Member commends the conferees for reversing this outrageous trend in funding for GAO. This Member strongly believes that GAO is an agency where growth has been out of control, and that it is an agency which has not been responsive to individual Members, especially to the requests of Republican Members during our long tenure in the minority. This Member also believes that the quality of work produced by the GAO is shoddy. While the quality of the work varies dramatically, all products are given the same kind of credibility simply because they are GAO products. The level of resources provided to produce these products has been excessive and has grown disproportionately when compared with other congressional support agencies. In addition, GAO resources have also been used for consultants, training, and other unnecessary expenses. Concern has also been expressed that GAO is more interested in getting headlines than in supporting the Congress with the required information. This Member has also been concerned by the funds that have been spent to lavishly renovate GAO's offices. This renovated space includes plush conference and meeting rooms which seem excessive for the scope of work performed at GAO. The leadership and staff of the GAO ought to visit the staff here on Capitol Hill to understand something about crowded staff office conditions and about the absence of required conference rooms for meetings with constituents. Now let's examine the GAO workload. From 1985 to 1993, GAO investigations doubled from 457 per year to 915. In addition, GAO's budget jumped from $46.9 million in 1965 to our current spending level of $449 million, a nearly 1,000-percent increase in unadjusted dollars. While the number of full-time equivalent positions at GAO has been reduced additional cuts are still needed to account for the past growth at this agency, which this Member will outline. In 1980, funding for GAO staff cost $204 million. By 1985 that had grown to $299 million. In 1988 it was $330 million, and in 1989, $346 million. The average increase between 1980 and 1990 was 8 percent per year. Then, in 1991, GAO was increased by 14 percent, to a total of $409 million. In 1992, GAO received another 8 percent increase to $443 million. According to a Democratic study group [DSG] special report issued on May 24, 1994, January 1994 personnel totals for GAO were 4,597. This level was nearly as large as the staffing level of 4,617 for the entire Library of Congress--the largest library in the world--which also includes the staff of the Congressional Research Service. According to this same study, in 1994, GAO's staffing level was nearly 2\1/2\ times as large as the 1,849 House committee staff members during the 103d Congress, and more than one-half as large as the 7,340 individuals employed by Members of the House. The DSG study also compared funding levels for the legislative branch from 1979 to 1994, in inflation-adjusted dollars. According to the DSG, the General Accounting Office received one of the largest increases in funding for the entire legislative branch at an inflation-adjusted 13.5 percent during this time period. Funding for other areas of the legislative branch have actually declined since 1979, according to this study. For example, the Library of Congress received a 17.6 percent reduction, CBO was reduced by 3.8 percent, and Members' staff was reduced by 6.4 percent in inflation- adjusted dollars since 1979. Again, this Member would like to thank the conferees for their good judgment in facing the long-term reality of GAO and reducing funding for that agency. This Member urges his colleagues to support this funding level included in this conference report.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in support of the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. Unfortunately, H.R. 2127 eliminates funding for this office. Rural areas have vastly different health care needs than other parts of the country. The Office of Rural Health Policy provides many forms of assistance to rural communities and health care providers. For example, it directly assists rural communities through the provision of telemedicine grants and rural outreach grants. The telemedicine grants administered by the Office of Rural Health Policy make it possible for rural providers to initiate telemedicine systems now rather than wait for urban-based systems to eventually extend such services later. It also administers the important rural health outreach grant program. These grants are perhaps the most effective of any rural health grants because they require organizations within rural areas to work together to improve and strengthen the provision of health care. The Office of Rural Health Policy also produces important annual reports through the National Advisory Committee on Rural Health. The most recent report focused on the impact of Medicare reimbursement policies on rural health providers. Finally, the Office of Rural Health Policy supports research centers that address rural health policy problems. This research assists rural providers and policy makers on a local, State and Federal level in determining the best course of action to take to ensure that rural communities have adequate health care available. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Rural Health Policy is not an unnecessary bureaucracy, but an important organization that works to improve available health care in rural areas. This Member urges his colleagues to support the continuation of this office in conference.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of the Ewing amendment. Without this amendment, on September 30, 1995, all guaranteed student lenders will be required to submit to unnecessary, expensive, and counterproductive audits. Small community lenders will be forced out of the guaranteed student loan program. They will not be able to offer this service to their customers in their small towns because the compliance costs will simply be too high for the lenders to be able to afford the program. One lender has been informed that an audit of their $3.5 million portfolio will cost eleven thousand dollars. Costs that high will outweigh any profit a lender could make and will drive lenders from the program. Students will face a lack of loan availability, and small lenders will lose one more avenue to serve the credit needs of their communities. Even the Department of Education admits that these audits are unnecessary for lenders with small portfolios of loans. The Department of Education, Federal and State financial institution regulators, and student loan guarantee agencies already conduct financial and compliance audits of lenders. And now, unless this amendment is passed, those lenders will be required to submit to expensive, retroactive audits for student loans made in 1993 and 1994. As a lender in this Member's district wrote, ``This is a classic example of legislation that inequitably impacts independent businesses by capriciously forcing us to retroactively pay charges that were completely unknown to us at the time.'' Mr. Chairman, the audit requirements for lenders with small portfolios will reduce loan availability, harm small lenders' ability to serve their communities, and will gain nothing for the Federal Government. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois is to be commended for this commonsense amendment. This member is pleased to support him, and urges support for the Ewing amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in considering this resolution we are faced with a terrible dilemma. A great many of us have long felt it is morally indefensible to deny the Bosnian Moslems adequate arms to defend themselves through the ill-advised multilateral arms embargo that is so one-sided in its effect. Yet beginning the process of unilaterally lifting the arms embargo today will surely place the UNPROFOR peacekeeping troops from France, the United Kingdom, and other countries in far greater danger. Extracting those UNPROFOR personnel will surely require the use of American ground personnel. In fact, without adequate consultation with Congress, President Clinton has already committed up to 25,000 U.S. troops for that task. Just as surely there will be American casualties in this difficult operation--probably substantial casualties to the scattered UNPROFOR personnel and to the American and NATO allies' troops who are sent in to extract them from this difficult terrain. Under those circumstances the possibility for tragic events to cause an escalation of our actions and reactions into an Americanization of the conflict are very high. The countries providing the UNPROFOR troops and our NATO allies, all urging and warning the United States not to unilaterally lift the arms embargo, will surely blame America for the tragedy and hold us primarily responsible for such additional actions as the unfolding tragedy demands. And what will become of the Bosnian Government and its Moslem population after UNPROFOR withdraws? The necessary quantities of adequate armament will not appear overnight and personnel are not instantly trained in their use and the military tactics to properly employ them. It certainly can be expected that the Bosnian Serbs will accelerate their onslaught before the Bosnian Government can increase their combat effectiveness. All restraint the UNPROFOR forces have been able to impose will be absent. There will be a countrywide killing field of Bosnia Government forces and the Moslem population. In this total conflict the relatively latent conflict between Croatian and Serbian forces will surely erupt and the resultant conflict and abandonment of the Yugoslavian area by UNPROFOR will make it even more difficult to keep this bloody warfare from spreading south into a larger Balkan war that would jeopardize the integrity of the NATO alliance. Of course, the status quo is not acceptable and finally there is recent evidence of change. Some of my colleagues have asked what could be worse than seeing this ethnic cleansing and genocide continuing? The answer to ``What could be worse'', my colleagues, is the probably general scenario I have just outlined. That would be worse and the approval of S. 21 by the House today will be a step down this road to a greater series of tragedies which clearly do affect our national interest. American actions must not be unilateral but framed and implemented in concert with our key European allies who have the troops on the ground in the Yugoslavian region. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, despite our horror with the events in Bosnia, despite the lack of confidence most of us have in the policies of the Clinton administration, and despite the dangerous incompetence of the civilian leadership of UNPROFOR, I urge my colleagues to set aside those emotions and vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, this Member has spoken several times regarding the [[Page H 7994]] damage done by section 2104 of H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act, passed by this body on June 8. The section, dealing with the issue of Indochinese boat people, is causing all the problems that this Member and others predicted. More on that subject now. On June 20, the Washington Post cataloged the devastating impact of this legislation in an article datelined Hong Kong. This Member quotes. At first, no one knew exactly why a riot erupted at the Hong Kong refugee detention center on May 20th. Thousands of Vietnamese violently battled back with stones, makeshift spears and anything else they could throw, leaving 168 police officers and 73 Vietnamese injured. Refugee workers soon got a clue as to what was happening when they spotted some of the rioting Vietnamese waving tiny American flags and portraits of President Clinton. Quoting from the Post: The evidence became ironclad about a week later, when 200 Vietnamese who had volunteered to go home unexpectedly changed their minds, just 48 hours before their scheduled June 1st departure. They told UN officials that they would rather wait in Hong Kong camps until the U.S. Congress decided on a House-passed bill providing for the rescreening of up to 20,000 Vietnamese refugees for possible admittance into the United States. This Member had predicted before this body that this provision in H.R. 1561 would raise false expectations of resettlement among Indochinese boat people, causing violence in the camps and stopping voluntary repatriation. Unfortunately, as the Post article amply demonstrates, this prediction has come to pass. Whether this ill-advised provision ever becomes law--and the Clinton administration has already made it clear that this issue is among those certain to provoke a Presidential veto--the damage has already been done. The article continues, and I quote: A carefully constructed global agreement signed six years ago in Geneva, which laid out a formula for screening the Vietnamese boat people and sending home those not deemed genuine refugees fleeing persecution, seems in danger of collapse. And a more recently agreed-upon timetable for finally resolving the two-decade-old ``boat people'' crisis by year's end now looks unlikely. A Hong Kong refugee official is quoted in the article saying: Like a bolt of lightening, initiatives were taken in Congress that have thrown this program out of gear. This provision is an unhelpful intervention which has raised false hopes. The official concludes that resolving the boat people crisis was ``not easy before Congress. It is even more difficult now.'' Mr. Speaker, this body must understand that amendments we approve or reject, bills we approve, laws we enact, actions we take, and statements we make oftentimes do have an important and sometimes immediate impact in the real world, outside the beltway. The best intentions, Mr. Speaker, do not necessarily make good legislation. At the time this body debated this provision and rejected the Bereuter- Obey amendment, we had ample warning of the dangerous situation we were creating. Despite pressure brought to bear on them, several refugee advocacy groups with years of experience dealing with Indochinese refugees had already publicly denounced the provision as dangerous and irresponsible, as had the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the State Department, and many interested refugee resettlement and host governments. The same article continues that the problem goes beyond Hong Kong, which is the host of more than 22,000 Indochinese asylum seekers-- incidently, more than one-half of whom come from North Vietnam and have no claim to refugee status based on close ties to the United States military from the Viet Nam era. The article quotes UNHCR officials stating that the legislation has stopped voluntary repatriation at camps throughout the region--not only in Hong Kong, but also in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia. This Member again quotes the Post. There also has been violence elsewhere. In Malaysia, many thousands of Vietnamese broke through the fence around the camp on June 5th and paraded through the streets waving banners. Police fired tear gas to disburse them, and 23 people were reported injured. Violence flared again in Hong Kong on June 7, when Vietnamese rioted, torched a building, stole police uniforms and looted rations. Police fired 800 rounds of tear gas to quell the disturbance. Six Vietnamese and two police officers were injured. Mr. Speaker, this misguided provision in H.R. 1561 was based on the view that there were serious flaws in the screening process by which the boat peoples' claims to political refugee status were evaluated. The intent of this provision is to force a massive rescreening in the camps of all 40,000 camp residents to give them another chance to demonstrate their claim to refugee status. Many objective observers, including some refugee advocates, reject this contention and oppose massive rescreening. Moreover, the Southeast Asian nations where the camps are located have made it clear that they will not countenance a lengthy rescreening process which will delay closure of the camps and could prompt another refugee outflow from Vietnam. It would be naive to think that the screening of tens of thousands of boat people by local officials, even though under close supervision by the UNHCR, could have been accomplished without error or abuse. In fact, this Member has requested UNHCR reconsideration of 15 cases of Vietnamese asylum seekers who would seem to have a plausible case for refugee status. While this Member certainly is willing to intervene when specific cases of possible error are brought to his attention, he opposes strongly massive rescreening of asylum seekers in the refugee camps. Moreover, it appears from information provided by UNHCR and nongovernment organizations monitoring boat people who have returned to Vietnam, that massive rescreening in the camps is not necessary. These organizations attest that there is no credible evidence of persecution of returnees in Vietnam. So why shouldn't the screened out asylum seekers in the camps return to Vietnam? Recent testimony by the American nongovernmental organization [NGO], World Vision, concludes that screened out boat people have been able to return to Vietnam in safety and dignity. The World Vision witness added that, in addition to the official UNHCR monitoring, the presence of American NGO's throughout Vietnam has provided returnees ``a number of options should they wish to raise a question or register a concern.'' The problem the international community now faces, however, is that the damage caused by this legislation has already been done. The Bereuter-Obey amendment which would have deleted this highly problematic section of H.R. 1561 was rejected and, as predicted by this Member, the damage was done. Therefore, this Member calls on all parties: UNHCR, resettlement and first asylum countries, Vietnam, the administration, NGO's, and Members of Congress to work out a pragmatic solution to the current impasse. The question we are now facing is how to get the 40,000 plus screened out asylum seekers to return voluntarily to Vietnam. While this Member does not have a concrete solution to offer at this time, it seems that some system of reinterviewing asylum seekers after their return to Vietnam could offer an incentive for the boat people to return, while at the same time maintain the international consensus on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this Member pledges his support for efforts to devise concrete and pragmatic solutions to this intractable humanitarian problem which the House by its unfortunate action helped to create. This Member calls on other Members of this body, including those who disagrees with him on this legislation and supported the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], to make a similar pledge.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Arizona about Indian housing and the comments I expect to be made by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] expressing concerns over the funding level for Indian housing new construction in this measure. Mr. Chairman, housing in Indian country is among the worst and most scarce in the Nation. There exists a great need for new construction, as there is a very limited stock of existing housing in Indian country. Still, this Member recognizes that we are facing severe fiscal constraints and that there is a need to scale back even on needed programs like this one. I am concerned about the degree of the cutback or the scale-back. Funding for the program the last several years has been at $280 million. The measure before us today provides for only $100 million. That is a nearly two-thirds reduction, and I believe it is too severe a cut. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, to seek to increase this funding level at conference. Having said that, I also want to say to the chairman and ranking member, as well as the members of the subcommittee, that I am appreciative of the $3 million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program at HUD. I think this modest sum will leverage up substantially and guarantee the private financing of nearly $37 million in housing loans for Indian families. One of the problems on Indian reservations has been, I think, potentially resolved by a change approved by this House in recent times; and this money will give us a chance to see if, in fact, we can solve this deficiency of loan funds being available to Indian families who live on Indian reservations. I believe this very limited amount of Federal funding is well spent, and it will be seen as well spent. I commend the appropriators for including it in this measure.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his thanks to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Stokes, for their efforts in bringing this bill before us today. In particular, this Member wishes to express his thanks to the chairman for accommodating the concerns of this Member and many others in the manager's amendment, by increasing the bill's funding levels for several housing programs for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by approximately $300 million with appropriate offsets to meet the established budget restraints set for the subcommittee. This Congress faces serious fiscal restraints and this measure, with the adoption of the manager's amendment, faces those restraints in an admirable way. This Member is also particularly pleased that H.R. 2099 includes $3 million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee program at HUD. This very modest sum will guarantee the private financing of nearly $37 million in housing loans for Indian families. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is a severe lack of decent, affordable housing in Indian country, due in large part to the lack of private financing in Indian country. This program provides a substantial means of bringing much needed private financing to Indian country. This very limited Federal funding is money well spent, and this Member commends the appropriators for including it in this measure. This Member would also like to express his appreciation for the inclusion in the bill of $8.5 [[Page H 7840]] million for the National Rural Water Association's training and technical assistance program which the Members had specifically requested of the subcommittee. In every State, on-site technical assistance is the backbone of small system compliance. Small systems have limited funds to operate and to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. Providing on-site technical assistance has been the most cost-effective way to improve drinking water quality in rural areas and to assist small towns with SDWA requirements. Through technical assistance, small communities work together to conduct a statewide, peer-oriented, grassroots assistance program. Small towns do not have the engineers, the labs, and the resources of large cities to meet Federal requirements. Technical assistance allows small communities to help each other outside of the regulatory bureaucracy, results in a growing number of small systems moving into SDWA compliance, and assures steady improvement and a long term solution to small water system public health problems. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide the funding levels many, including this Member, might like to see for many programs. However, at a time when difficult choices are necessary, the crafters of this measure have attempted to make those choices in a responsible way. For that they are to be commended.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the long United States partnership with the Republic of Korea spanning nearly five decades will be celebrated this week in two major events. The first is the visit of South Korea's democratically elected President, Kim Yong-sam, and his address today to a joint session of Congress. The second will be the dedication of the long-awaited Korean War Memorial. It is a great pleasure to have President Kim here with us, and a source of immense satisfaction that those who fought our most forgotten war are finally being appropriately remembered and honored. Meanwhile, South Korea has emerged as a robust industrial power and a fully functioning democracy, and a steadfast United States friend. celebrating south korea's democracy How South Korea moved with United States encouragement into the family of democratic nations, and the pivotal role played by President Kim, deserves reiteration. In 1987, South Korea began a transition to democracy after 26 years of military-dominated governments. A new constitution was adopted, and free elections for President and a National Assembly subsequently were held. President Kim Yong-sam had fought for a democratic South Korea since the 1960's. He had endured constant harassments and periods of confinement from the military-dominated regimes. Elected President in December 1992, Kim Yong-sam is the first South Korean leader since 1961 from a purely civilian background. strength of United States-Republic of Korea Security Ties United States-Republic of Korea security relations were forged in blood during the Korean war and formally established in 1953. The dedication of the Korean war memorial during President Kim's visit to Washington symbolizes the long, intimate United States-Republic of Korea security relationship, including participation in the Korean and Vietnam wars. The United States stations 37,000 troops in South Korea as the embodiment of its defense commitment to South Korea. These and other United States forces stationed in the western Pacific area are an essential element in maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific region and in ensuring that North Korea will never dare to attack the South. threat posed by north korea At present, our security relationship faces its strongest test in dealing with the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. South Korea has supported the United States-North Korean agreed framework despite the mixed impact the agreed framework has on North Korea-South Korea relations and the security situation on the Korean peninsula. This commitment includes up to $3 billion to finance the light-water reactor project. Analysts contend that North Korea views the agreed framework as a window of opportunity to isolate South Korea diplomatically, divide South Korea and the United States, and draw the United States into a bilateral peace agreement. I am committed to seeing that this does not happen. This issue has been addressed in House Joint Resolution 83, the first legislation reported out by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific since I became chairman in January. The resolution has been reported out favorably by the full House International Relations Committee. I am confident that this statement of congressional policy can materially assist the administration in removing any illusions that North Korea might entertain about American determination to demand full adherence to the essential provisions of the accord--if they properly use this expression of congressional views. united states-south korean trade relations South Korea has grown during the past decade as a market for United States exports. In recent years trade has become increasingly more balanced. Between 1985 and the end of 1994 United States exports tripled to $18 billion, while our imports of South Korean goods doubled. The United States had a relatively small $2 billion trade deficit with South Korea in 1994 on total trade of $38 billion. Thus far during 1995 the United States enjoys a surplus. South Korea has taken steps to remove many barriers to imports and otherwise to improve the environment for foreign trade and investment. During the past 5 years the Republic of Korea Government has significantly lowered import tariffs and has liberalized its import licensing regime to permit a greater range of products to enter the country unimpeded. South Korea also has been one of the most important countries supporting the 18-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] organization. Problems remain in United States-South Korean economic relations, for instance in discriminatory treatment of automobile imports, and in the use of standards, certification, and testing requirements to discriminate against foreign goods, especially agricultural products. Mr. Speaker, I remain persuaded that these and other problems can be resolved and that both our political, security, and economic ties will continue to grow and flourish. It is a privilege to play a role in welcoming President Kim Yong-sam to Washington.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. This amendment would eliminate an important and successful aviation program. The Military Airport Program encourages a more efficient use of existing airports by facilitating the conversion and joint use of military airports for civilian purposes. In addition to avoiding unnecessary duplication, the Military Airport Program helps relieve congestion and enhances safety. This Member believes it would be a serious mistake to eliminate a program which has provided significant benefits since its creation and offers tremendous potential in the coming years. As additional military bases are closed, there will be an increased need to facilitate their conversion to civilian uses. The Military Airport Programs will help meet this need. This Member urges a ``no'' vote on this harmful amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner]. This amendment would restore funding to fiscal year 1995 levels and help correct some of the current funding inequities which disadvantage rural transit programs. Without the funding called for in this amendment, many rural transit agencies would be forced to deal with steep reductions in service and face enormous financial obstacles just to survive. Relief is clearly needed to ensure that residents in rural areas are not isolated due to a lack of access to transit. Rural residents currently receive a disproportionately small share of transit funding, despite the significant need for such assistance. The amendment helps close this substantial gap and ensures that rural residents receive a more fair share of the transit dollars. Clearly, rural transit agencies are much more dependent on Federal assistance than those in urban areas. Unfortunately, the proposed reductions would have an immediate and detrimental effect on many of these rural transit agencies which often provide vital transit service for many individuals, including the elderly and the disabled. This Member urges support for this important amendment which would offer some much needed assistance to America's rural residents. point of order

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong opposition to this misguided amendment which would eliminate the Market Promotion Program. If the other agricultural producing nations of the world did not grossly and unfairly subsidize the production and sale of agricultural and food products, this member would be more than willing to support this amendment. Unfortunately, free and fair trade does not exist in world agricultural trade. Even with the Market Promotion Program, U.S. producers are being out-subsidized by their competitors, including the very aggressive member countries of the European Union. The United States Department of Agriculture has determined that the United States would have to increase its current funding of the MPP by approximately 500 to 600 percent in order to catch-up with the European Union in consumer food exports by the year 2000. The USDA recently concluded an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis of the MPP and the results are absolutely clear that a modest MPP Program greatly enables American agriculture to compete for high-value agricultural export markets. Mr. Chairman, competition for agricultural markets in bulk commodities, intermediate, and high-value products is a high-stakes battle for good paying jobs here in the United States. Because of agricultural export programs like MPP, the U.S. agricultural industry currently enjoys a $19 billion trade surplus. With the help of the MPP, U.S. high-value agricultural exports have expanded by 75 percent over 7 years. However, statistics and studies about the MPP do not reveal its total value. As the chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, this Member witnesses daily the proliferation of nontariff barriers specifically designed to keep U.S. high value agricultural products out of developing markets. In Taiwan and Korea for example, MPP circumvents a host of trade barriers by creating consumer demand for United States products. This demand in turn leads to relaxation and reform of the tariff and nontariff barriers which deny consumers in those countries access to U.S. exports. Mr. Chairman, MPP is an important export tool and a good lesson for other export-related industries; MPP enables our agricultural industry to sell directly to the consumers of some of the world's most protected markets. This Member acknowledges that MPP is not perfect and agrees that certain reform of the MPP is necessary to ensure that it does not allow Federal dollars to replace rather than augment private sector market development efforts. Nevertheless, as the General Accounting Office has suggested, while reform of the program may be necessary, elimination of the program could substantially affect our ability to compete for lucrative and emerging markets throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my neighbor, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois who has been so crucial in helping me with the 502 loan guarantee program.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina's support, and I know how important her interest is, and successful, in housing.

Mr. BEREUTER. It is almost identical, but that is of course a single- family program, and this would be for five units or more multifamily unit construction.

Mr. BEREUTER. It is a supplementary program to the 515 program which is a direct loan program, and it would be for those people whose income is 80 percent to 115 percent median area income, just as the 502 loan guarantee program, which is now 2 years old, serves this category, economic category, above the 80 percent by meeting income level.