Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. Con. Res. 81.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 81) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China should immediately release Rabiya Kadeer, her secretary, and her son, and permit them to move to the United States if they so desire.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member stands in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 81, which was introduced by the senior senator from Delaware, Senator William Roth, and approved by the Senate on May 2. On June 27, S. Con. Res. 81 was approved by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, which this Member chairs, and was subsequently approved unanimously by the Committee on International Relations on June 29. The resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the People's Republic of China, PRC, should immediately release Rabiya Kadeer, her secretary, and her son, and allow them to move to the United States if they so desire. Rabiya Kadeer is a prominent ethnic Uigher from China, who was arrested as she was attempting to meet a congressional staff delegation visiting Urumqi as part of an official visit to China organized under the auspices of the Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange Program of the U.S. Information Agency. Subsequently, on March 10 of this year, Rabiya Kadeer was sentenced to 8 years in prison for the crime of ``illegally giving state information across the border.'' Previously, her son was sent to a labor camp for 2 years in November of 1999 for supporting Uighur separatism and her secretary was recently sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp. In Ms. Kadeer's case, the so-called ``state information'' appears to have consisted essentially of a collection of publicly available Chinese newspaper articles and speeches and a list of prisoners. As the resolution notes, this case appears to constitute a clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Chinese Government's action in this case has been reprehensible and must be reversed. This resolution makes clear the strong sense of the Congress that Ms. Kadeer should be immediately released and allowed to join her family in the United States. Madam Speaker, approving S. Con. Res. 81 sends a strong message that while this body approves of improved trade relations, we are, nonetheless, mindful of the serious human rights problems that exist within the People's Republic of China. This is an entirely appropriate message to send, for the United States cannot turn a blind eye to the abuses that continue to exist in the PRC. Madam Speaker, this Member urges adoption of S. Con. Res. 81. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reiterate my request that this be given strong support by my colleagues.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, this Member rises in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 232. This resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress regarding the safety and well-being of United States citizens who are traveling in Mexico, was introduced by our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). It is the result of a particularly unfortunate incident involving a California resident caught in a conflict between Mexican law and sound medical treatment provided to U.S. citizens as well as to other foreign citizens while traveling in Mexico. Last August, California resident Donald Craft, his wife, and three children were vacationing in Baja, Mexico, when they were involved in a serious automobile incident. Mr. Craft broke his neck and was in critical condition when he was taken to a local Mexican hospital where doctors advised his family that he be immediately transported to a trauma center in San Diego for more intensive life-saving medical care. There was, however, one problem. Under Mexican law, foreigners involved in traffic accidents being investigated for possible criminal action or who do not have Mexican automobile insurance cannot leave Mexico until a bond is posted. Mrs. Melody Craft, the victim's wife, was required to find and pay $7,000 before her critically injured husband would be allowed to leave the country. After what must have been a very confusing and unbelievably excruciating period of almost 18 hours, the bond was raised and Mr. Craft was released and sent back to the United States. Regrettably, on September 6, 1999, Mr. Craft died of complications reportedly associated with that accident and the delay in providing him adequate medical attention. Sadly, this tragedy has been repeated on several additional occasions since Mr. Craft's death, including a case involving a Florida constituent of our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Madam Speaker, I would also like to indicate that in 1998, one of my constituents, Gregg Gahan, the adult son of Mr. and Mrs. Duane Gahan of Oakland, Nebraska, Mr. Gahan being the editor of the Oakland Independent, a newspaper serving that area, was also involved in a similar accident with also extraordinary things that happened that really defy a rational explanation and amount to an abuse of the legal or ethical process by Mexican officials. Grave concerns arose as a result of the treatment of his son by law enforcement officials, health care officials, and the driver of the car who hit him. There are legitimate questions about the judicial process that was implemented, how culpability was determined, the punitive actions taken, and the damage settlement. Madam Speaker, we know and appreciate the fact that Mexico has its own laws and procedures and that those should be known and respected by foreign visitors. However, in these kinds of very serious accident cases, flexibility and accommodation of the special circumstances ought to be in order. Since the Craft incident, this Member has been told that the U.S. and Mexican Governments have initiated a dialogue on how to address this issue. This resolution is designed to support these efforts to seek a reasonable solution to a situation under Mexican law which places the health and well-being of Americans and other foreign visitors to Mexico in question. The State Department has been consulted on this legislation and has no objection to it. The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations and, subsequently, the full committee, reported the legislation by voice vote. Madam Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to join him in supporting adoption of H. Con. Res. 232. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Request to be Added as Cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 232, S. Con. Res. 81, H.R. 4002, and H.R. 4919

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 232) expressing the sense of Congress concerning the safety and well-being of United States citizens injured while traveling in Mexico, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 232.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam 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. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4002) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to revise and improve provisions relating to famine prevention and freedom from hunger, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, because of the current discussion of the conference report for H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, this Member encourages his colleagues to read the following editorial, which he highly commends, from the July 19, 2000, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. This editorial highlights why the House of Representatives should pass the H.R. 4810 conference report. In particular, this editorial correctly addresses the following weak arguments of those who oppose the H.R. 4810 conference report: the lopsided percentage of relief for one-income couples; the benefits of this tax cut would go to couples who are already well-off; and the projected surplus may not materialize. Marriage Penalty Needs To Be Axed: Tax-and-Spend Proponents Have Weak Arguments To Oppose GOP Legislation (Daily News, July 19, 2000) The left-of-center, tax-and-spend folks are aghast that the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate has passed legislation to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty. But being largely bereft of solid arguments for their position, they have taken to leaning on shallow arguments. Some Democrats, for example, have pointed to an editorial in the Washington Post that said it is no penalty at all if two people with jobs get married and suddenly find themselves paying a higher tax. Of course, neither the editorial nor the Democrats explain why this isn't a penalty; they just say it isn't and point out that two incomes considered as one income make for a higher income and higher taxes under a graduated system. That's nothing new. The point is that it is, in effect, a penalty to make people pay more when they wed--and it is wrong, especially considering the embattled condition of the crucial institution of marriage today. But the tax-and-spend proponents aren't through. They note that the Republican legislation would also lower the taxes of a spouse who provides the only income or a lopsided percentage of the income and who already has a tax advantage over a single person. The legislation does indeed accomplish this, and anyone who has followed this issue knows why. When past bills aimed to eradicate the marriage penalty were considered, opponents inevitably pointed out that two-income families would then have a tax advantage over one-income families. Such an inequity was taken by many as sufficient grounds to keep the penalty intact until, finally, the tax cutters figured out they could kill the penalty and have a degree of equity in different marital situations, too. All that was needed was to simultaneously reduce taxes for one-income couples. The tax-and-spend folks don't much like it, either, that the benefits of the tax cut would go to people ``already quite well off''--a position that should make everyone groan. The fact is that it's people who are ``already quite well off'' who pay most of the income tax in this country. To oppose giving them a break is to oppose giving any income tax reductions at all, and to make reductions sound unjust is roughly akin to saying that it is unfair to relieve pain in only those who happen to be experiencing it. A final argument against reducing the penalty does have some validity--namely, that projected budget surpluses may never materialize and are largely spoken for by endangered entitlement programs. The problem is that, in the absence of tax cuts, the money could well be spent on new programs that encroach further on American lives. History shows that while Congress will seldom do away with programs, it is not nearly so reluctant to raise taxes as needed. Given that, the marriage penalty needs to be eliminated.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this month, without warning or provocation, hundreds of thousands of North Korean troops invaded South Korea, pouring across the 38th parallel and precipitating the Korean War. Unprepared South Korean, or ROK, forces and the handful of Americans on the ground were incapable of halting this swift and brutal assault. In a matter of days, the badly battered U.S. and ROK units had been pushed back to a tiny toe-hold on the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. It was only with determination and unbelievable courage that American forces, together with South Korean and allied troops, were able to push back the attacking North Korean Army. The break-out of the Pusan perimeter, the Inchon landing, battles like Pork Chop Hill and Heartbreak Ridge, the terrible fight against overwhelming odds at the frozen Chosin Reservoir, on these and countless other unnamed battlefields we beat back the invaders. The Korean conflict reflected the absolute determination of the United States to halt the spread of tyranny and totalitarianism, but the cost was high. The war that North Korea started resulted in 39,000 U.S. deaths and over 100,000 wounded and severely undermined U.S. relations with Russia and China. It took decades for our South Korean ally to recover. In the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the DPRK, there is certainly a very different and distorted interpretation of the events that occurred 50 years ago. Incredibly, according to the North Korean news agency, quote, ``the U.S. instigated the ROK Army to start a surprise armed invasion of North Korea on June 25, 1950. It was commanded by the U.S. military advisory group,'' end of quote. The newscast goes on to explain that in precipitating this unprovoked attack, the U.S. supposedly indiscriminately carpet bombed throughout North Korea. Mr. Speaker, these lies from North Korea newscasts are not from some ancient historical record. No, this was the broadcast in the last several weeks. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that this slanderous pack of lies was broadcast right after the recent historic meeting between South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. It was broadcast the day after the United States had announced the delivery to North Korea of an additional 50,000 tons of grain. And about the same time that North Korea was reinventing history, Secretary of State Albright was announcing that North Korea is not a terrorist state or even a rogue state, but merely a state of concern. This member points this out because of the recent changes in perception regarding North Korea. On the verge of collapse, the hermit kingdom is at least attempting to give the impression that it is reaching out to South Korea and to the West. If North Korea is in fact sincere in its peaceful overtures, that certainly would be a dramatic, positive development. However, it would be premature to assume that the DPRK has irrevocably reformed its behavior. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that a few gestures constitute a reversion of 50 years of violently confrontational behavior and terrorism, and it would be foolish to pretend that North Korea no longer deserves to be labeled as a terrorist state. In recent days, a historic meeting has occurred between the North and South Korean leaders. Kim Dae Jung went to Pyongyang and promised to open the spigots of foreign assistance, although at the North's insistence, it is called economic cooperation. That is, the South gives and the North cooperates by accepting. In return, the North has promised to permit some long-awaited family reunions of those who have been torn from their families 50 years ago. From a public relations standpoint, North Korea scored a remarkable victory. Kim Jong Il was described as cherubic in the New York Times and, amazingly, senior administration officials called him courageous and visionary. But the question remains, has Kim Jong Il and the totalitarian elite that rules North Korea made a commitment to peace? When one examines North Korea's record on weapons of mass destruction, missiles and support for terrorism, it is not at all clear that it has made a permanent commitment to peace. Despite the 1994 Agreed Framework that was touted as capping the North Korean nuclear threat, there is ample evidence that Pyongyang continues to pursue an undeclared nuclear program. An unclassified 1998 CIA report concludes that North Korea possesses between 6 and 12 kilograms of plutonium which it acquired before the Yongbyon nuclear reactor was shut down in 1995. This weapons-grade material has not been accounted for. In addition, press reports from publications such as Jane's Intelligence Review suggest the DPRK has continued its efforts to acquire uranium enrichment technologies. In 1998, a secret underground facility was discovered that certainly seemed like it was related to nuclear activities. I hope that North Korea has made a change, Mr. Speaker, but we need to see exactly what it has done before we reach any new conclusions about its intentions. According to the Congressional Research Service, Russian and former East German nuclear scientists are operating in North Korea. In contrast to the time when the 1994 Agreed Framework was signed, North Korea seems on the threshold of being able to attack the United States with a missile that could deliver chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons. It has produced, deployed and exported missiles to several countries of great concern to the United States. The DPRK has launched a three-stage (Taepo-dong 1) missile and continues to develop a larger, longer-range missile (the Taepo-dong 2). Not only does North Korea now possess a missile capable of reaching U.S. soil, but it is clear that it intends to sell such fully developed weapons systems to the highest bidder. According to a 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, ``the proliferation of medium-range ballistic missiles--driven primarily by North Korean No Dong sales--has created an immediate, serious and growing threat to U.S. forces, interests, and allies, and has significantly altered the strategic balances in the Middle East and Africa.'' While individuals in the Executive Branch argue that North Korea has agreed to halt its missile program, it is important to note that the North only has agreed to a moratorium on flight tests. Design, rocket motor tests, production, and sales to other so-called ``states of concern'' can continue. It was just last week, at negotiations that took place between U.S. and North Korean officials, that the DPRK flatly refused to halt development of missiles. Instead, they made it clear that development of new and more capable missiles will continue. In addition, North Korea demanded $1 billion to impose a ``moratorium'' on new missile exports. Unfortunately, this is all too typical of the North's pattern of threats and extortion. North Korea insists that it is not a terrorist state, but its past and even recent actions certainly suggest otherwise. The DPRK has remained a haven for the terrorists of the Japanese Red Army faction. Pyongyang regularly has infiltrated training and resupply teams into South Korea and Japan. Other actions include border violations, infiltration of armed saboteurs and spies, hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, and threats against media personnel and institutions. To finance these terrorist activities, North Korea uses counterfeit U.S. currency. Recently a Japanese Red Army terrorist was caught while traveling in Southeast Asia with a North Korean diplomatic passport. This terrorist was carrying over $100,000 in counterfeit currency. In short, Mr. Speaker, North Korea has not to date behaved like a country wishing to join the international family of nations. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry, a truly outstanding public servant, was tasked with reviewing U.S. policy toward North Korea. He concluded that North Korea had two options. The first option would be the path of engagement. If the DPRK really sheds its rogue behavior, the United States should respond with a reduction of sanctions, and gradual extension of normal political and commercial activity. If, however, the DPRK chooses the path of confrontation, the Perry- recommended policy is that the United States and our allies must meet the North's aggressiveness with firmness, resolve, and military might. It must be clear that America would respond in that fashion. Mr. Speaker, it is far too early to tell which path the DPRK will choose. It is possible that they will opt for peaceful engagement. America and South Korea obviously hope that it is the path the DPRK will choose, but we must end the cycle of extortion which the North has successfully pursued with the United States. One insubstantive summit meeting does not guarantee such a sea change in behavior. This nation must maintain its resolve to preposition 100,000 troops in the Asia- Pacific area, with 37,000 on the Korean Peninsula. We must resist the temptation to throw even more money at the North without demonstrable progress in reducing the threat. And, we must continue to aggressively pursue the development of ballistic missile defenses capable of defending this nation against the emerging ballistic missile threat--a threat made ever-more immediate by the North Korean missile development program and its missile exports. Mr. Speaker, this Member genuinely hopes that North Korea will one day become merely a ``state of concern.'' But until this Member sees ample evidence to the contrary, he must continue to view North Korea as a ``terrorist state'' and to regard the Korean Peninsula as the place on the globe where American forces might again be attacked and a tragically costly war begun again.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the July 12, 2000, Omaha World Herald editorial entitled ``Another Reason to Hold Off.'' As the editorial correctly notes, this President should not make a decision on deployment of a missile defense system and should leave the decision to the next President. This Member has long supported the concept of a limited missile defense, however, a decision on deployment is premature. Ultimately a limited missile defense system is likely to prove feasible, especially in a sea-based deployment mode. A sea-based capacity can be readily deployed to an area of increased tension and directed more effectively at the missiles of a threat country, thus making it more feasible to destroy these missiles in the launch phase. This Member urges his colleagues to heed the admonition in this insightful editorial. Another Reason to Hold Off If the proposed U.S. missile defense system were a demo model on a car dealer's lot, the average American wouldn't buy it--at least in its present condition. You step on the accelerator and it doesn't go. Or you try to make a sharp turn and the steering wheel comes off in your hands. That isn't to say it can't be made right. We hope it can. But it certainly calls into question whether President Clinton ought to put in motion the process that would ultimately lead to its deployment. Our view is that the final decision can wait. A choice not to decide is, after all, a decision in itself. And at present, given the killer missile's sputtery test record--last Saturday, the booster rocket somehow failed to turn loose of the interceptor--it's the right one to make. It's a decision made easier by the fact that North Korea, frequently mentioned as a ``rogue'' state that might try to fling a nuclear missile or two at the United States: (1) Is generally judged not to be able to deploy one for at least five years (probably quite a bit longer, in reality); and (2) is currently making enough friendly noises about cooperation and even reconciliation with the West and with its sister state to the south that America may well come to view it with far less concern. That still leaves other countries--Libya, Iran, Iraq, maybe even Pakistan--that might someday pose such a threat. But seasoned observers put their chances for fielding such missiles in a much longer time frame than was ever projected for North Korea. This system, if built, is estimated to cost $60 billion. That may well be low; when did we last hear of a weapons system coming in either on or under budget? Of its three currently scheduled tests, it has now failed two. Mr. President, this important and costly device plainly needs more work. Either Governor Bush or Vice President Gore, as the next president, is more than capable of making the decision. Let George or Al do it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, this Member rises in opposition to House Joint Resolution 103. Despite the recent supercharged and misleading claims by opponents to NTR that this vote is about rewarding China, it is not that at all, but instead, a vote for our national interests, just as was the case with the successful passage on May 24 of legislation to provide permanent normal trade relations for China and the context of its accession to the World Trade Organization. This Member strongly supports the continuation of normal trade relations, NTR, status for China because it is unmistakably in America's short-term and long-term national interests. First, the continuation of NTR directly benefits American economic prosperity, just as it has done for the past 20 consecutive years. Regardless of what this body does, China will join the WTO and be required to take major actions to open up its vast markets of 1.2 billion consumers. However, if this body recklessly disrupts current trade by failing to continue China's current NTR status during this interim period, we certainly jeopardize our ability to take advantage of the benefits of China's WTO accession and give an unfair advantage to our international competitors. Second, continued NTR supports the U.S. national security objective of maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Expanding trade with China and supporting further economic liberalization, and eventual political reform in China provides a means of giving China a stake in the peaceful, stable economically dynamic Asia Pacific region. If China, on the other hand, concludes that we have concluded it as our adversary, resources China currently devotes to economic reform could easily be reallocated to military expansion and modernization with adverse consequences for Taiwan and for our allies in Korea and Japan, and a destabilized region. A rejection of NTR could well trigger such a reaction from Beijing. Confronting China in this scenario will require much more than the 100,000-person military force we presently have in the Pacific area. Mr. Speaker, this particular annual debate, triggered again this year by H.J. Res. 103, has become highly counterproductive. It is very damaging to Sino-American relations, and importantly, with little or no positive results in China on human rights or freedom, or any positive impact on our relationship with that country and its people. Given the strong support and 40-vote margin this body provided in passing PNTR on May 24, denying the continuation of NTR during this interim period is self-evidently neither in our short- nor long-term national interest, and therefore, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to join him opposing House Joint Resolution 103. This Member, in contrast to what the gentleman from New Jersey says, does not intend that this have a low-key atmosphere. If Members are convinced of the rightness of their position in opposition to the resolution, let it have full public scrutiny. The gentleman from Michigan and I have established, by our action, in the House, at least, and we expect that the other body will consider it soon, an opportunity for a full review of what China does in human rights by the creation of an executive-legislative branch Helsinki-type Commission. We in the Congress are going to have plenty of opportunity to scrutinize what they do with respect to their people. That is a better mechanism than we have now. It is a better mechanism than this annual debate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher resolution. Mr. Speaker, as this Member mentioned, this body passed H.R. 4444, legislation granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China in the context of China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) by a strong margin of 40 votes: 237-197. As the other body has not yet acted on this important legislation and China is still negotiating its WTO accession protocols, the continuation of normal trade with China during this interim requires another annual Presidential waiver as contained in the Trade Act of 1974. Unfortunately, despite the support in the House for Normal Trade Relations with China, as reflected by the successful passage of PNTR, the introduction of H.J. Res. 103 requires the House to vote on extending Normal Trade Relations status for China yet again. There is perhaps no more important set of related foreign policy issues for the 21st century than the challenges and opportunities posed by the emergence of a powerful and fast-growing China. However, today we are not having a debate focused on those important challenges. Instead, as we have in the past, we are debating whether to impose 1930s Great Depression-era Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs on China that the rest of the world and China know for our own American interests we realistically will never impose. This Member again points out that this particular annual debate has become highly counterproductive as it unnecessarily wastes our precious foreign policy leverage and seriously damages our Government's credibility with the leadership of China and with our allies. It hinders or ability to coax the Chinese into the international system of world trade rules, non-proliferation norms, and human rights standards. Moreover, Beijing knows the United States cannot deny NTR without severely harming American workers, farmers, consumers or businesses, or do it without devastating the economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is true, as NRT opponents argue, that ending normal trade relations with China would deliver a very serious blow to the Chinese economy, but the draconian action of raising the average weighted tariff on Chinese imports to 44 percent instead of the current average of 4 to 5 percent would severely harm the United States economy as well. China is already the 13th largest market abroad for American goods and the 4th largest market for American agricultural exports. If NTR is denied to China, Beijing will certainly retaliate against the over $14 billion in U.S. exports to China. As a result, many of the approximately 200,000 high-paying export jobs related to United States- China trade would disappear while the European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and other major trading nations would rush to fill the void. Regardless of how this body votes on NTR, China will soon join the WTO and be required to take major actions to open up its vast market of 1.2 billion consumers. As part of China's WTO accession process, the U.S. negotiated an outstanding export-oriented, market access agreement which significantly lowers China's high import tariffs and allows for direct marketing and distributing in China. For example, the tariff on beef will fall from 45 percent to just 12 percent. Quantitative restrictions on oilseeds and soybean imports are abolished. Indeed, it is projected that by 2003, China could account for 37 percent of future growth in U.S. agricultural exports. Prior to the agreement, China frequently required manufacturing offsets--most products sold in China had to be made in China. This export-oriented agreement abolishes that unfair offset and eliminates currently required industrial technology transfers allowing products made in America to be sold in China. This agreement makes it less likely that American companies need to open foreign factories and thereby export jobs. Given that America's markets are already open at WTO standards to Chinese exports, the U.S. has effectively given up nothing with the new agreement; all the concessions have been made by China. However, during this interim period as China continues to take the steps necessary to join the WTO, it is necessary to provide continued, uninterrupted NTR status to China on an annual basis to help ensure that American commercial interests remain engaged in China in preparation for the opening of China required when China joins the WTO. For the past 20 years, the U.S. has provided China with NTR status on an annual basis. It appears to make no sense to this Member to revoke China's NTR status now and only for an interim period thereby significantly jeopardizing the ability of the U.S. to take advantage of the benefits of China's forthcoming accession to the WTO. To elaborate on our own national security interests, the continuation of NTR for China, indeed, supports the U.S. national security objective of maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Sino-American relations are increasingly problematic and uncertain. In the wake of our accidental bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade and China's confusion about U.S. continuing support for Taiwan, rejection of NTR, if only for an interim period, could result in a resurgence of resentful nationalism as hard-liners in Beijing characterize a negative NTR vote as an American attempt to weaken and contain China. Resources China currently devotes to economic reform could easily be reallocated to military expansion with adverse consequences for Taiwan and our allies in Korea and Japan, and a destabilized region. Confronting China in this scenario will require much more than the 100,000 strong force we presently have in the Pacific. China is not a strategic partner; it is increasingly as economic competitor that is growing as a regional power. However, it is not an adversary. If the United States is astute and firm--if America increases our engagement with China and helps integrate it into the international community--it is certainly still possible to encourage China along the path to a complementary relationship with America instead of an incredible level of conflict. China is emerging from years of isolation and the future direction of China remains in flux--more than any major country. WTO accession and continued--and hopefully soon to be permanent--NTR are critical for the success of China's economic reform process and those Chinese leaders, like Premier Zhu Rongji, who support it. These reforms, being pursued over the formidable opposition of old-style Communist hardliners, will eventually provide the foundation for a more open economy there, a process that, in the long term, should facilitate political liberalization and improved human rights. In the near term, China will be required more and more to govern civil society on the basis of the rule of law, clearly a positive development we should be encouraging. Rejection of this standard annual renewal of NTR prior to providing China with PNTR would, indeed, jeopardize the pace and scope of these reforms in China. Continuing to provide China with NTR and China's accession to the WTO does not guarantee that China will always take a responsible, constructive course. That is why the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] and this Member proposed an initiative which was attached to the recently-passed legislation providing PNTR that incorporates special import anti-surge protections for the U.S. and other trade enforcement resources for our government to ensure China's compliance with WTO rules. This initiative also proposes a new Congressional-Executive Commission on Chinese Human Rights that will report to the Congress annually on human rights concerns, including recommendations for timely legislative action. Mr. Speaker, this Member believes that these additional provisions, particularly the Commission on Chinese Human Rights with the guaranteed review of its findings and recommendations by the appropriate standing committee in the House, do, indeed, address the multi-faceted concerns of our colleagues. The Levin-Bereuter initiative assures that China's compliance with their commitments and their human rights record will certainly not be ignored by the Congress or the Executive Branch. The Commission will be a far more effective way to address human rights issues than the noisy but ineffective annual debate on extending NTR. Some have advocated the revocation of NTR status for China in order to punish Beijing for weapons proliferation and its espionage operations against the United States. As one of the nine members of the bipartisan Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China which investigated and reported on Chinese espionage, and as a former counter-intelligence officer in our military, this Member adamantly rejects such linkage. The United States has been and will continue to be the target of foreign, including Chinese, espionage. We should have expected China to spy on us, just as we should know that others, including our allies, spy on us. While our outrage at China for spying is understandable, that anger and energy ought to be directed on correcting the severe and inexcusable problems in our own government. Our losses are ultimately the result of our own government's lax security, indifference, naivete and incompetence, especially in our Department of Energy weapons laboratories, the National Security Council and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The scope and quality of our own counter-intelligence operations, especially those associated with the Department of Energy's weapons labs, are completely unrelated to whether or not a country like China has NTR status. Indeed, revoking NTR status for China does absolutely nothing to improve the security of our weapons labs or protect militarily sensitive technologies. However, this feel-good symbolic act of punishment would inflict severe harm on American business and the 200,000 American jobs that exports to China provide. It makes no sense to punish American farmers and workers for the gross security lapses by our own government of which the Chinese-- and undoubtedly other nations--took advantage. Similarly, revoking NTR status during this interim period before China's accession to the WTO for proliferation reasons will have minimal, if any, impact in halting Chinese proliferation. On the contrary, China's likely reaction would be refuse any cooperation on this issue to the detriment of U.S. national security interests around the globe. The United States has convinced nearly every other country in the region that the best way to avoid conflict is to engage each other in trade and closer economic ties. Abandoning this basic tenet of our foreign policy with China--as H.J. Res. 103 would certainly do--would be a serious shock and would be an extraordinary setback from much of what our nation has been trying to achieve in the entire Asia-Pacific region. It would send many countries scrambling to choose between China or the United States. We should first do no harm to our own nation and America's citizens. Rejecting annual NTR status for China is self-evidently neither in our short term nor our long term national interest. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Member is strongly opposed to H.J. Res. 103 and again urgently urges its rejection.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 531, for it properly places the U.S. Congress on record in marking the tragic occasion of the sixth anniversary of the July 18, 1994, terrorist bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. Eighty-seven people lost their lives, and 200 to 300 people were injured in that attack. This Member thanks his colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), from the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Policy and Trade, for introducing this resolution. Last year, the Argentine Congress passed important legislation that allows Investigating Judge Juan Jose Galeano to engage in plea bargaining. Nonetheless, the trial of the Argentinian citizens charged with complicity in this terrorist bombing has, regrettably, been much delayed. During a recent visit to the United States, Argentina's president, Fernando de la Rua, made a point of visiting the Holocaust museum and issuing a public apology for the role Argentina played in harboring Nazis during World War II. President De la Rua said, ``Today, before you and before the world, I want to express my most sincere pain and to ask forgiveness that this happened, that Nazis were hidden among us.'' Solving this terrible crime and bringing those responsible to justice is the proper way to bring healing to the still open wounds in Argentina. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to join in unanimously supporting this resolution. Again, I commend my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his outstanding statement and especially the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for her eloquant statement and for her introduction and able movement of this legislation to the House floor.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 728. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for his outstanding initiative and effort in introducing this legislation and the leadership of the two committees for advancing it. As a cosponsor of this legislation, this Member certainly supports the goals of this measure. It is clearly appropriate to provide necessary resources to aid in the rehabilitation of the small watershed structures which have been constructed over the past 50 years. These small dams and other structures, constructed under the P.L. 566 program, have provided numerous benefits over the past decades, including flood control, wildlife habitat, recreation, irrigation and water supplies. This program has been especially important to Nebraska. Over the years, the P.L. 566 program has resulted in the installation of 880 dams and other structures in Nebraska. In fact, this Member is proud to point out that his district, the First Congressional District of Nebraska, has more P.L. 566 dams and structures than any other district in the Nation. The more than 700 structures in this Member's district provides flood protection, reduces erosion and provides many useful benefits. Throughout Nebraska, it is estimated that the State realizes a minimum of $27 million in annual direct benefits as a result of these structures. Documentation and examples of those benefits are found in the report by the National Resource Conservation Service, the NRCS, of the USDA, entitled ``Protecting the `Good Life' through P.L. 566; The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act across Nebraska.'' As just mentioned, during the previous 50 years, more than 10,000 upstream flood control dams have been built throughout the United States. The NRCS has provided cost-sharing and technical assistance while local sponsors have assumed responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the structures when they were completed. Unfortunately, many of those structures are now reaching the end of their 50-year designed life. Without significant rehabilitation, much of this investment could be lost. This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to cover a portion of the total costs incurred for the rehabilitation of those structures. The bill does not allow any assistance to be provided to perform operation and maintenance activities, a limitation this Member strongly supports. During a hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this Member shared with the subcommittee a letter from Dayle Williamson who, until very recently, was the outstanding, highly respected director of the State of Nebraska's Natural Resources Commission, he just retired, which emphasized that the sponsors of Nebraska's projects have been providing adequate maintenance over the years for the structures. Therefore, he suggested, and this Member agrees, that they should not be penalized for their stewardship by allowing other States to tap into scarce resources to perform routine operation and maintenance which they routinely should have been providing. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) has taken that fully into consideration. Another outstanding feature of this legislation. This Member additionally asked for specific safeguards to ensure that funding would not be used for the purposes of routine operation and maintenance. I am pleased, therefore, to note that a provision was added to the legislation which states that the Secretary of Agriculture may not approve a rehabilitation request if it is determined that the need for rehabilitation of the structure is the result of a lack of adequate maintenance by the party responsible for the maintenance. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are a great many instances where assistance is appropriate and necessary. This Member believes that H.R. 728 recognizes this growing need and provides a far-sighted approach in addressing these problems. By providing additional assistance now, we can ensure that the original investments will continue to pay dividends well into the future. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 728 and again commends the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for his outstanding initiative.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his remarks earlier, and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), as I said, for his leadership and his outstanding statement. I take particular pleasure in being able to manage this legislation. Not only do we have a significant Lithuanian community in both Lincoln and Omaha, and a small Estonian one in Lincoln; but we have a relatively larger community of Latvians in Lincoln. They came to Nebraska in the early part of the 20th century for freedom, to escape religious persecution, and for economic benefits. As a part of that immigration, shortly following them was a young dissident from Latvia. His name was Karlis Ulmanis. After receiving his bachelor's degree from the University of Nebraska, he worked for some time in Nebraska and Texas before returning to Latvia. There he became the president of Latvia between World War I and World War II. He was long-tenured, and an outstanding and benevolent leader of Latvia during that period of time. When the Soviets came in, they seized him; and that is the last the world knew of what happened to Karlis Ulmanis. Later, it was only justice that his grandnephew became the recent president of Latvia. For a period of time, his mother and he had to change their name in order to escape persecution from the Soviets. But the second Ulmanis did became a very distinguished and able president, and the Lincoln community is very pleased and proud of both the Ulmanises for their outstanding leadership of Latvia. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I thank my Latvian-American constituents for their outstanding support for the cause of freedom over the years for the Baltic states.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in very strong support for H. Con. Res. 319, a resolution congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the 10th anniversary of the reestablishment of its independence from the former Soviet Union. This Member is pleased to be a cosponsor of this important statement of support. Mr. Speaker, the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia had been prosperous and progressive independent nations, a set of three nations, prior to the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an agreement that heralded 5 decades of repression. The United States, of course, never recognized this unlawful act of international aggression. By 1990, the Soviet terror machine no longer held sway, and the long-standing courage and determination of the Latvian people was finally rewarded with freedom. Again, it was the United States that was among the first to recognize their independence when they broke free. No one could have predicted the rapid reintegration with the West. Free elections have now become the norm, and the Saeima acts as a fully-functioning parliament. Inflation has been reduced, and Latvia has made major strides in privatization. While the export market to Russia has collapsed, important new trading partnerships have been found in Poland, Germany and the West. Much remains to be done, but Latvians and Latvian-Americans can take justifiable pride at what has thus far been accomplished in Latvia. For our part, the United States continues to work for the Baltic nations to deepen and broaden our relationship. As but one example, NATO military officers, including Americans, continue to work with the Latvian military directly and through NATO's Partnership For Peace program. Latvia-Americans should also be proud of their contributions, with some retired military officers actually serving in key positions in the Latvian Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defense. As the NATO Summit in Washington, D.C. last year concluded, Latvia joined in the Enhanced and More Operational Partnership, EMOP, a program designed to speed the day when Latvia can become a full contributing member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The goal, which this Member strongly endorses, is to move beyond the expressions of support and facilitate the concrete steps that will result in Latvia's further integration into the West. In other areas of cooperation, Peace Corps volunteers now teach Latvian schools and help Latvian small businessmen and women with such basic tasks as accounting and marketing. This Member is particularly pleased that the United States has created a Baltic American Enterprise Fund designed to underwrite fledgling entrepreneurs from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Finally, this Member would point out that the House of Representatives has been and is assisting the Latvian Saeima with such basic necessities as law books and computers, various kinds of library assistance. In 1995, this Member was part of a bipartisan House task force which approved and oversaw this assistance to this parliamentary body, as we did in the other two Baltic States, and visited Latvia for that and other foreign policy security purposes. It should be noted, additionally, that such assistance most assuredly is not a hand-out. Rather, we are offering a helping hand to a nation with historically close ties to the United States. We are helping Latvians build a future where their country can continue to progress in its rightful place as a full member of the European family of democratic nations. Mr. Speaker, this Member congratulates, in particular, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for crafting a resolution that merits the support of all Members of this body. This Member urges support for H. Con. Res. 319. 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, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished gentleman who gave a very articulate extemporaneous remark. He has followed the history of these Baltic states, and he has certainly followed their evolution since in fact they have gained their freedom; and I thank him for his outstanding remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the distinguished gentleman who, by his activism, by his leadership, and by his heritage has been recognized already in his time here in the House as a leader on matters related to the Baltic states. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 H. Con. Res. 319.