Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, preprinted, amendment No. 1.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, my sister has been sandbagging in the gentleman's district the last 2 years and hopefully she will not have to do it the third year. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. (Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that as the elected Representatives of the people, they expect us to take action when appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment which simply 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. Such a commonsense amendment 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. [[Page H 6881]] 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 the mountain snow melt in the Rocky Mountain West and heavy spring rains swelling the immediate watersheds of the Missouri River tributaries in the four-State area. It's bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river have to contend with natural disasters. They shouldn't 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 corps' recent proposal was seriously flawed. At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River basin region, many hundreds of 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 proposed increase in its so-called ``spring rise.'' Mr. Chairman, 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. Hopefully, the corps has gotten the message loud and clear and now understands the devastation which would be caused by the spring rise they originally envisioned. However, this Member believes this common sense amendment is needed to make absolutely certain that the corps does not repeat this mistake. Mr. Chairman, I know a couple of my colleagues would also like to speak on this. I yield to a colleague and neighbor who has been working very diligently on this effort, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 1905 and would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [[Page H 6779]] [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to the floor. Extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult. The subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee and formally recognize that the energy and water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 includes funding for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska. Importantly, the bill provides funding for two Missouri River projects which are designed to remedy problems of erosion, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and sedimentation. First, the bill provides $5.7 million for the four-State 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 Missouri River Mitigation project addresses fish and wildlife habitat concerns much more effectively than the Corps' overwhelmingly unpopular and ill-conceived proposed changes to the Missouri River master manual. Although the Corps' proposed plan was designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, these environmental issues are already being addressed by the Missouri River Mitigation project. In 1986 the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri River Mitigation project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan. Second, the bill 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. In addition, the bill provides funding for flood-related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 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 committee agreed to continue 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 bill provides continued funding for a floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member strongly commends the subcommittee for rejecting the administration's proposed policy which would radically revise the Army Corps of Engineers' mission and severely restrict its role in local flood control projects. The rigid set of criteria proposed by the administration would greatly restrict the Corps' presence in numerous states. Under the new criteria, projects would be limited to those in which first, more than half the damaging flood water comes from outside the boundaries of the State where the damage is occurring; second, the benefit-to-cost-ratio is two or greater; and third, the non-Federal sponsor is able and willing to pay 75 percent of the first cost of the project. These requirements set an impossibly high threshold for many necessary and worthy projects. The administration's proposed changes would result in a seriously short sighted and misguided policy. They would delay urgently needed projects and result in unnecessary costs for states. Under such a policy, each state would be forced to obtain the contracting, engineering, and construction experience which the Corps already possesses. This Member is pleased the subcommittee firmly rejected this seriously flawed administration proposal. Again, Mr. Chairman, 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 projects which are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people living in the Missouri River Basin. Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished gentlemen and the subcommittee for their work. Their efforts have been appreciated by this Member and my colleagues from Nebraska and elsewhere in the Missouri River Basin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1854 and is pleased that this measure includes a reduction of $56 million for the General Accounting Office [GAO] below the fiscal year 1995 funding level. Mr. Chairman, 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 in H.R. 1854 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 $393 million fiscal year 1996 funding level for GAO included in H.R. 1854 represents a decrease of $56 million below the fiscal year 1995 level. During last year's deliberation of the legislative branch appropriations [[Page H 6178]] bill, the House approved a funding level of $439.5 billion, an increase of $9.4 million. In addition, the conference report then included $449 million for GAO, $10 million more than the House bill. This Member commends his colleagues on the Appropriations Committee 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 increasingly 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 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 Appropriations Committee 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 H.R. 1854.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 168 that would establish the Correction Calendar to expedite the repeal of outdated, unnecessary, and ridiculous laws and regulations. The need for such a Correction Calendar is readily apparent, has been for some time. Whether it is a rule that was irrational and unnecessarily burdensome to begin with or a law that has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had, the time has come to provide a mechanism to correct these regulatory and statutory errors. Mr. Speaker, I think that not only is this an opportunity for us to repeal regulations that fit that characterization, but it will also have a very salutary effect upon the agencies that write the regulations in the first part, and, second, I think it is likely to cause our constituents to give us their ideas repeatedly about regulations that do not seem to be too rational in their effect, and I think we are going to hear from our constituents, and they are going to have greater hope that we in the Government, the legislative branch, will be able to do something about inappropriate regulations. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of House Resolution 168, which would establish a Corrections Calendar to expedite the repeal of outdated, unnecessary and ridiculous laws and regulations. The need for such a Corrections Calendar is readily apparent. Whether it is a rule that was irrational and unnecessarily burdensome to begin with or a law that has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had, the time has come to provide a mechanism to correct these regulatory and statutory errors. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to highlight two examples of regulations which cry out for inclusion on the Corrections Calendar. The first is the DOT hours-of-service regulation as it applies to farmers and farm suppliers. The need to repeal this regulation is obvious--each year farmers and their suppliers must be prepared to move quickly and work long hours at planting and harvest time 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. 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.'' Of course DOT could correct this problem by a change in regulations but they are performing like an unyielding, arrogant bureaucracy unsympathetic to the necessary problems their regulations create for the farm community. 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. Last year, working with farm State colleagues in the House and the other body, this Member sought regulatory relief for farmers and farm suppliers from the DOT's unfair on-duty hours of service restrictions on this class of drivers and joined many Members in a letter to the DOT on this matter. Unfortunately, last year's legislative effort to provide an agricultural exemption was reduced to a mandated rulemaking which has now become a bureaucratic nightmare with no hope of regulatory relief in sight. The DOT proposed rulemaking includes a number of hurdles which will further burden farmers. This Member introduced legislation earlier this year along with the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to address this issue. Such a bill would be a perfect candidate for the first Corrections Calendar. Second, this Member has introduced legislation to correct a badly flawed interpretation of the law by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. That department has willfully flaunted congressional intent to promulgate a final regulation which burdens homeowners unnecessarily and undermines the intent of this Member to bring common sense to HUD's requirements for water purification devices in rural FHA insured properties. This Member's legislation, H.R. 69, is identical to legislation passed by the House in the 103d Congress as section 410 of H.R. 3838, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, passed July 22, 1994. The need for this provision arose when HUD promulgated extremely unsatisfactory regulations to implement section 424 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. The 1987 provision is one this Member introduced to provide for either point-of-use or point-of-entry water purification equipment in FHA insured housing. HUD's initial regulations did not allow point-of-use systems. Despite passage of section 424 in 1987, HUD took until 1991 to promulgate an inadequate proposed rule, and the final rule was not promulgated until March 19, 1992. After taking an outrageous period of time--nearly five years--to develop a new rule, the rule that was finalized is seriously flawed. That rule requires a point-of-use system on every faucet in an FHA insured house which has a water supply not meeting HUD's water purity standards, whether the faucet is used for human consumption or for showers, washing machines, and so forth. This Member's legislation provides that a point-of-use system is required on every faucet used primarily for human consumption thereby protecting the safety of the dweller without irrationally over- regulating at a great cost to the homeowner. The legislation also requires that for testing water purification devices, HUD use water-purification industry accepted protocols or protocols using technically valid testing methods of the Environmental Protection Agency. This take HUD out of the business of creating environmental standards and leaves those standards to those with expertise in the area. HUD has show complete intractability in meeting the original intent of this Member's legislation. This is a problem which should have been solved in 1987, but instead has lingered on for over 7 years. If ever there was a candidate for a correction of bureaucratic mismanagement, this foolish regulation is it. This Member hopes that his colleagues will [[Page H 6114]] lend their support to finally resolve this problem. Mr. Chairman, these are only two examples, but they highlight the much larger problems associated with a bureaucratic Federal Government which has grown too big. This Member urges his colleagues to strike a blow for common sense and vote for the Corrections Calendar to be established by House Resolution 168.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member cannot understand the reason why my colleagues and good friends, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] would offer an amendment to fiscally fence off the Nunn-Lugar funds which are used to reduce the Russian nuclear weapons threat against the United States. It is in our national interest that these nuclear weapons be reduced. There certainly are reasons for the United States and the world to be concerned about Russian chemical and biological weapons programs and stockpiles, and we must use every productive means to reduce and eliminate them. But linking these American efforts to the Nunn-Lugar program is indeed the absolutely wrong and harmful linkage--harmful to the United States. Mr. Chairman, adopting the Dornan-Tiahrt amendment is indeed cutting off our nose to spite our face. The motive and concerns of our two colleagues offering the amendment are very appropriate, but their amendment couldn't be more dangerously wrong. There are several other United States funding programs for aiding Russia which could be used as leverage or linkage to show our very legitimate concerns about Russian biological and chemical programs and stockpiles.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment to make further cuts in AID. If we adopt this amendment, we should forget about child survival programs, [[Page H5725]] microenterprise support and democracy promotion programs that are authorized in this bill. This amendment will make it almost impossible for AID to implement these and other activities that don't simply involve writing checks to foreign governments, but involve serious work of program design implementation and oversight. To accommodate such drastic cuts, AID would have to lay off nearly one-third of its direct-hire staff in the next year, throwing its operations into chaos. In addition, the costs associated with the mandatory retirement and separation benefits which would have to be paid to those employees under the Foreign Service and Civil Service Acts would be enormous. The Burton rapid cutback would entail termination costs in excess of $100 million in fiscal year 1996, which could not be borne by the reduced operating expenses account. These costs include severance for U.S. and foreign national direct-hire and PSC employees, contract termination costs, lease buyouts and transportation for American employees returning from overseas. AID would also have to close down between 15 and 20 overseas missions in addition to the 25 it is already closing down. This would compel the United States to make impossible choices about ending support for countries in which we have real interests and which are going through tough democratic and market reforms. While there may be some merit to streamlining the AID presence overseas, this kind of draconian cut would merely ensure that the assistance we are authorizing in this bill is not spent wisely or effectively. This cut would also mean that AID would have to stop its development and acquisition of new technologies that are designed to make the delivery of assistance more efficient and cost-effective--technologies which we in Congress have been pushing them to develop and use over many years. Shutting down all overseas operations and terminating all of the Agency's employees would leave no capacity to oversee the implementation of the $8 billion in funds obligated but not yet expended in the Agency's pipeline. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for operating expenses represents less than 7 percent of the Agency's overall appropriation request of $7.56 billion for fiscal year 1996, an extremely low overhead rate by any standard. Mr. Chairman, the bill already meets the category of AIP funding of $25 million in fiscal year 1996 and $55 million in fiscal year 1997. The Burton amendment would approximately cut a further $70 million in fiscal year 1996 and $25 million in fiscal year 1997. The distinguished chairman and ranking minority member of the International Relations Committee have already spoken against this amendment, as has the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Livingston. I strongly urge Members to approve the Burton amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ackerman amendment. Mr. Chairman, our colleague, the gentleman from New York, has put forth an amendment, but in reality what the amendment really does is to put a hold, to absolutely gut the provisions of the bill. This bill, as written in this section, will allow the consolidation of ACDA, AID and USIA functions within the State Department. Of the organizations that are in an unusual fashion expressing support for this bill today, the support is coming because we are in fact consolidating the agencies that now exist as separate agencies, AID, ACDA and, of course, USIA. That is the reason we are having the taxpayer groups and so many other conservative groups, who ordinarily would never come out and suggest that we ought to vote for a foreign assistance bill, but in fact it is one of the major ways that we are saving an extraordinary amount of money. I want to call my colleagues' attention to a couple of changes that the committee made in the course of deliberations on the proposal to consolidate [[Page H5675]] these agencies. One of the most important concerns I had early in the process was the fact that we may be burying ACDA, the arms control agency, and their recommendations, too deep in the bureaucracy of the State Department. So in fact we amended that and moved the placement so that the director of ACDA will be making recommendations not through some layer of bureaucracy but directly to the National Security Council, to the President. It cannot be delayed, cannot have his recommendations deferred or set aside by some assistant Secretary of State or even the Secretary of State. The other thing I wanted to mention is the fact that while the concept started in the other body and was once enunciated in the House bill at its earliest stage of having a separate foundation run what are now the programs of the Agency for International Development, that concept was jettisoned. Indeed, what we have kept is an assurance by the organization proposed that the programs of the Agency for International Development in its new home, it is not being eliminated, it is being placed and consolidated into the State Department, that those programs will in fact be a tool or set of tools to be implemented by the President of the United States. After all, the development policies and the other programs run by the Agency for International Development ought to be under the direction of the President so that they can indeed serve our national interests, our foreign policy objectives. So I would say to my colleagues, if they vote for the Ackerman amendment they are basically gutting the bill's savings provisions, the part that conserves our dollars and makes a better use of them, they are gutting the consolidation efforts that we have shown in this bill. Importantly, the Ackerman amendment gives the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an independent veto over this consolidation. A new statute would be required to override the veto. Now those are the kind of decisions I think properly are left to the Congress of the United States and not to CBO and not to OMB. I do not think we need additional studies. If there are savings in this approach, I think it is a rather extraordinary circumstance that they would have to demonstrate. It is very clear that the savings in the bill are in significant part because of this consolidation. So I urge my colleagues to reject the Ackerman amendment and to leave what we have crafted in the way of a consolidation effort. I think it focuses the programs, the decisionmakings that do relate to our foreign policy where it ought to be in the State Department but with careful placement of these three new subcomponents. I ask my colleagues to vote against the Ackerman amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, when people's lives and safety are involved no one should take pleasure in saying, ``I told you so'', and I take no such pleasure. But any Member who reads, in an objective manner, this morning's Washington Times article about violence in the refugee camps should feel some remorse for this body's role in the debacle currently unfolding in Southeast Asia. Let me briefly catalog the damage wrought so far by section 2104 of H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act and the rejection of my amendment to delete that section. Two days of rioting by 3,000 boat people in refugee camps in Malaysia have caused at least 13 injuries. Earlier riots in Hong Kong's camps caused more than 200 injuries; of the 1,400 boat people in Thailand camps who had volunteered to return peacefully to Vietnam, camps in Indonesia have withdrawn their requests to return, and voluntary repatriation has also ceased in Hong King with 196 of 200 volunteers now refusing to board a scheduled flight to Vietnam. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and other objective observers lay the blame squarely on this legislation for this violence and for the collapse of orderly voluntary repatriation. The repatriation of Indochinese boat people determined by the UNHCR to be economic migrants, not political refugees, was bound to be a contentious process under the best of conditions. But when this body refused to strike this dangerous and irresponsible provision, it gave the 40,000 plus boat people in the camps false hope of resettlement in the United States and, thus, created the conditions for violence that we see unfolding throughout Southeast Asia. This Member fully understands and shares the desire to provide fair and humane treatment to those in the refugee camps. But instead this legislation has led to violence in the refugee camps, caused the collapse of voluntary repatriation, and will also likely encourage another wave of boat departures from Vietnam, putting people at great risk on the high seas and swelling the refugee camp population.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, recently this body voted in section 2104 of H.R. 1561 to withdraw its support from the Comprehensive Plan of Action, the international agreement on the Indochinese boat people in Southeast Asian refugee camps. This Member's effort, along with Mr. Obey of Wisconsin and Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas, to strike this dangerous and irresponsible provision was unsuccessful. While this Member fully understands and shares the desire to provide fair and humane treatment to those in the refugee camps, the action of this body could well have the opposite effect. By giving these asylum seekers false hope of resettlement in the United States, this legislation presents the following dangers. It will likely encourage another wave of boat departures from Vietnam, putting people at risk on the high seas and swelling the refugee camp population at a time when the first asylum countries are attempting to close the camps. The legislation also increases the chance for violence in the refugee camps by causing discontent among the camp residents when their hopes of resettlement in the West are not realized. Finally, the bill has caused the collapse of voluntary repatriation, through which 72,000 Indochinese have already returned home without evidence of persecution, according to U.N. and American nongovernment monitors in Vietnam. Already there have been riots and violence in the camps of Hong Kong and several hundred camp residents have changed their minds and are refusing to return to Vietnam. For these reasons, this Member believes that, for the 40,000 camp residents whom the United Nations has determined to be economic migrants rather than political refugees, voluntary return to their countries of origin is not only the sole option available, it is also the most humane option. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask to insert into the Record an article from the May 24, 1995 edition of the New York Times, entitled, ``U.N. Links G.O.P. to Boat People's Riots,'' and an excellent letter analyzing the problems in section 2104 from the Refugee Policy Group, a nongovernment organization with much experience dealing with Indochinese refugees. U.N. Links G.O.P. to Boat People's Riots (By Philip Shenon) Bangkok, Thailand, May 23.--United Nations officials asserted today that a Republican-sponsored proposal to offer asylum to thousands of Vietnamese boat people in the United States set off riots last weekend that left more than 200 wounded in Hong Kong. They also warned that the bill could lead to a new exodus from Vietnam. Refugee officials say the riots last Saturday began when 1,500 Vietnamese, many of them carrying handmade metal spears, refused to be transferred from one detention camp in Hong Kong to another in preparation for their deportation to Vietnam. It was the most violent clash in years between the boat people and the Hong Kong police. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which oversees the detention camps in Hong Kong, said the Vietnamese were emboldened to riot by the recent move by Republicans in the House of Representatives to offer asylum to as many as half of the 40,000 Vietnamese still held in detention camps in Asia. ``Absolutely,'' said Jahanshah Assadi, head of mission for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when asked if there was a connection between the legislation and the riots. During the riots, he said, ``you saw U.S. flags all over the place, you saw portraits of President Clinton all over the place.'' At least 180 Hong Kong firemen, police and corrections officers were hurt in the clashes on Saturday in the Whitehead detention center, the largest of the Hong Kong camps used to detain the Vietnamese. Dozens of Vietnamese were also hurt in battles in which the camp was blanketed by thick clouds of tear gas. Representative Chris H. Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is a key sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement today in Washington that there was no evidence of a connection between the legislation and the violence in Hong Kong. It is ``grossly unfair to blame resistance to forced repatriation on the very people who are trying to come up with a peaceful and gentle solution to the problem of these refugees,'' he declared. Mr. Smith has said that many of the Vietnamese residents of the camps, including Buddhist monks and former soldiers of the American-backed South Vietnamese Government, are legitimate political refugees who could be persecuted by Vietnam's Communist Government if sent home. While the Republican-drafted legislation is opposed by the Clinton Administration and faces an uncertain fate in Congress, word of the Republican plan is already circulating in the camps in Hong Kong, where nearly 21,000 Vietnamese are now detained. Mr. Assadi said in a telephone interview that the Vietnamese who joined in the riots ``have the false hope of going to the United States.'' Even if the bill is defeated in Congress or vetoed by President Clinton, he said, ``the damage has been done,'' since many Vietnamese now believe that they can resist deportation because ``they have strong support from influential members of Congress.'' Mr. Assadi said the American asylum proposal could also lead to a new exodus of Vietnamese, taking to rickety boats and pushing off into the dangerous waters of the South China Sea in the hope of becoming one of the lucky 20,000 who might be offered resettlement in the United States. ``That risk is definitely there now,'' he said. The $30 million asylum plan is part of a foreign affairs appropriations bill now before the full House of Representatives. The bill, opposed by the Clinton Administration, has already been approved by the House International Relations Committee. While some of the Vietnamese rioters waved photographs of President Clinton last weekend, the Clinton Administration is in fact a strong advocate of a United Nations-backed plan to send virtually all of them home to Vietnam. While the United States granted asylum to most of the more than one million Vietnamese who fled their homeland after the Vietnam War, sympathy for the boat people has mostly run out. The State Department says that virtually all of the Vietnamese who remain in Asian detention camps are economic migrants who have no legitimate fear of persecution in Vietnam and are not entitled to asylum. The deportation program, known as the Comprehensive Plan of Action, was supposed to empty most of the detention camps around Asia--there are also large camps in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand--by the end of the year. The Hong Kong Government is clearly outraged that the moves in Congress may have contributed to the violence in the camps.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. That is exactly what it would mean with respect to the Hmong refugees. About 2 months ago, I wrote to the State Department in support of the Hmong. I now understand an agreement is being worked out with the Thai Government to grant us access to the Hmong in the camps later this year. But if we blow it up by this action today, that is gone. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the committee chairman, asked me in his absence to make a unanimous-consent request. I do that in concluding my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending amendments and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 7\1/2\ minutes, and myself, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], for 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman will yield one more time, the UNHCR I believe the gentleman understands, has screened in 125,000 Indochinese. And then when we had the appeals process for those screened out at least 1,500 were screened in. So in fact it is not a totally corrupt process and it isn't a hopeless process for legitimate political refugees.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate his expertise and his experience. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for the gentleman. I will ask them both first and let the gentleman respond. First of all, the gentleman said we may need a year, perhaps two years. What happens when the country of first asylum begins to fail to cooperate, an action which I fully expect to take place immediately? The second question: In light of the fact that even a small rumor floated that there were jobs available in Japan caused a boat flotilla of over 1,000 people to leave. They had to be rescued from the sea. Given that example, why does the gentleman think we are not about to launch a major exodus of boat people?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to offer an amendment to section 2104 of H.R. 1561, along with my colleagues, Mr. Lamar Smith and Mr. Obey, which would restore common sense to the bill's handling of the 47,000 Indochinese asylum seekers in refugee camps in Southeast Asia. While the issues here are, in one sense, emotional and complex, the justification for our amendment can be boiled down to one short sentence. Economic migrants have no claim to resettlement in the United States as political refugees and should return to their home countries. The Bereuter-Obey-Lamar Smith amendment would allow the repatriation of Indochinese in Southeast Asian camps who have been determined by the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees to have no, I repeat no, claim to refugee status. These migrants--at least 12,000 of whom are North Vietnamese--have been screened out by the UNHCR, i.e., they have been declared economic migrants, not political refugees. Let me make one crucial point so there is no misunderstanding about the intent of this amendment. Since our departure from Vietnam in 1975 the United States has resettled more than 1 million Indochinese refugees. This Member has always supported that effort and continues to believe the United States must offer refuge to bona fide political refugees who have a well founded fear of persecution in Indochina, as elsewhere. This Member will work with others concerned about fair treatment of legitimate refugees, but this Member cannot support a program to give non-refugees the rights and privileges of bona-fide political refugees. The language in this section appears to be doing just that by calling for the bulk of the 47,000 Indochinese in the camps to be, and I quote, ``offered resettlement outside of their countries or origin.'' Another fundamental issue in this debate is the role of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The legislation suggests that UNHCR can no longer be trusted to make fair and objective refugee determinations. If that is what the drafters intended, then I would ask them who should take over this international refugee determination role, the United States? Clearly, we cannot fill the breach. This is a very dangerous precedent, which could undermine future refugee efforts worldwide. Let me take a minute to point out the problems I see with the existing language in the bill. Section 2104 calls for the resettlement of tens of thousands of Indochinese economic migrants to the United States. While the language does not name the United States explicitly as the resettlement country, there should be no misunderstanding about it--no other country would take them. The Governments of Canada and Australia, also home to thousands of Indochinese refugees, have told my office that they and the other resettlement countries would not be willing to take any of the screened out from the camps. In addition to the immigration problems that this language would cause us, there are some real dangers in this legislation for the asylum seekers themselves. I must say that I have been somewhat surprised at the breadth and depth of concern about the legislation among the non-government organizations which advocate refugee rights and interests. Not only the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, but also the U.S. Committee on Refugees, Save and Children, World Vision, World Education, World Learning, and the Southeast Asian Resource Action Center have all make issued statements opposing major elements of this section. Many other groups have raised similar concerns with us orally. These NGO's with many years of direct experience working with Indochinese asylum seekers, have convinced me that the bill as written holds the following dangers. This provision could prompt a new exodus of Indochinese seeking entry into the United States, putting them at risk on the high seas and swelling the refugee camp populations. My colleagues, you should be aware that last year, as reported in the New York Times, more than a thousand Vietnamese took to the sea when a false rumor was spread that Japan was offering employment opportunities. The bill's message of hope for resettlement in the [[Page H5533]] United States would likely have a similar effect on large numbers of Vietnamese. The UNHCR and the refugee groups have expressed fears that the provision would increase the chance for violence in refugee camps by giving the 47,000 asylum seekers false hope for resettlement in the United States when the countries where the camps are located are unlikely to give us access to them and, even if they did, many of the asylum seekers would not be eligible for resettlement. The bill would cause the absolute collapse of voluntary repatriation through which 72,000 Indochinese have already returned home without evidence of persecution. Now asylum seekers who can demonstrate that the negative screening decision of the UNHCR was mistaken can request reconsideration from U.S. officials or other resettlement countries in Vietnam. Finally, for my colleagues who have an interest in refugee issues in other parts of the world, you should understand that this section would reduce the funds available for other refugee programs, such as for bona fide refugees from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, by earmarking $30 million dollars to resettle economic migrants from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Moreover, by conditioning use of these funds on unmeetable conditions, it is likely that the funding would disappear completely and not be available for any refugee programs. In closing, let me reiterate what the Bereuter-Obey-Lamar Smith Amendment would do. It would: Stop the resettlement of Indochinese economic migrants in the United States. Make full refugee funding available for bona fide political refugees, for example from the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Prevent a new outflow of boat people from Indochina seeking entry into the United States. Allow the international voluntary repatriation program to proceed with U.S. assistance and under close U.S. monitoring. Assist U.S. nongovernment agencies monitoring the migrants who have returned home to ensure that they are not persecuted. Maintain U.S. refugee policy that only bona fide political refugees enter as refugees. Support an international consensus on refugee determination and processing that prevents the United States from having to bear the full brunt of refugee programs all over the world. Stop yet another example of refugee decisions being made without regard to costs for local communities to educate, train and assist the refugees. I request your support for the Bereuter-Obey-Lamar Smith amendment to the refugee provisions of H.R. 1561 amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey to the amendment offered by mr. bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman my colleague and my neighbor for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have no objections to the additional flexibility he provides to USIA and where those cuts must come to make this basic amendment budget neutral. I thank him for his initiative.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his strong statement. He is exactly right. This is the program that ends up putting food in people's mouths across the world, in the most terrible situations that we have seen so much in our electronic media. The gentleman is a former ranking member of the Hunger Committee, he knows well how directly this food assistance has been provided in Ethiopia and Somalia and other places. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong ``aye'' vote. amendment offered by Mr. brownback to the amendment offered by mr. bereuter