Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 4718, which extends Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code for three additional months until October 1, 2000. Chapter 12 bankruptcy, which allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets, will expire on July 1, 2000, without the passage of this measure. This Member would thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nick Smith) for introducing H.R. 4718. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), and the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee from Michigan (Mr. John Conyers, Jr.) for their efforts in expediting this measure to the House Floor today. Chapter 12 bankruptcy has been a viable option for family farmers nationwide. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, this will have a drastic impact on an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only wail many family farmers have to end their operations, but also land values will likely plunge downward. Such a decrease in land values will affect both the ability of family farmers to earn a living and the manner in which banks, making agricultural loans, conduct their lending activities. This Member has received many contacts from his constituents regarding the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the serious situation now being faced by our nation's farm families--although the U.S. economy is generally healthy, it is clear that agricultural sector is hurting. The gravity of this situation for family farmers nationwide makes it imperative that Chapter 12 bankruptcy is extended for at least this three-month period. Beyond this extension, it is this Member's hope that Chapter 12 bankruptcy is extended permanently as provided in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 (H.R. 833) which on May 5, 1999, passed the House by vote of 313-108, with my support. This Member is an original cosponsor of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, that was introduced by the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law from Pennsylvania (Mr. George Gekas). Moreover, the Senate also passed a version of bankruptcy reform. Unfortunately, at this time, bankruptcy reform is caught in the tangled web of an informal conference; therefore, the three-month extension for Chapter 12 bankruptcy is a necessity for our family farmers I closing, this Member would encourage his colleagues support for H.E. 1718, which provides a three-month extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member supports and is deeply appreciative of the efforts of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State, to address the many concerns within their jurisdiction. However, this Member rises to address a particular concern that is considered by the legislation before this body today. In particular, it is important to understand the security risks faced by U.S. embassy personnel and other public servants who are tasked with advancing America's interests overseas. Following the devastating embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) was created. This Panel's recent report concluded that the U.S. overseas presence is near a state of crisis. Insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete information technology, outmoded administrative and human resource practices and poor allocation of resources threaten to cripple our nation's overseas capabilities. The percentage of the U.S. budget devoted to international affairs has been declining for four decades. The international affairs budget is now about 20% less in today's dollars than it was on average during the late 1970's and 1980's. The legislation before this body today recommends a level for the Department of State and international broadcasting at $6.6 billion. Although below the Administration's request, it represents a $300 million increase over last year's enacted level. However, in a number of key areas recommended appropriations still fall far short of what is needed. However, this Member would emphasize that he has serious doubts about the level of this Administration's commitment and progress in improving security for our overseas facilities. In past years the Administration's request for Embassy security funding has been woefully inadequate. This year, the Appropriations committee fully funded the Department's FY 2001 request of over $1 billion for Embassy security ($410 million for diplomatic and consular programs and $648 million for the embassy security, construction and maintenance account.) However, the American Foreign Service Association is urging that Congress appropriate $200 million more than the Administration requested for overseas security. AFSA notes that 80 percent of our 260 posts abroad do not even meet current, much less Inman, security standards. With an additional $100 million the Department could more than double the number of posts with upgraded perimeter security. The other $100 million could provide enhanced protection from exploding glass windows at posts which are considered highly vulnerable. Otherwise, the level of precaution will not be reached under current circumstances for at least five years. Mr. Chairman, there is a crying need for wholesale reform of the way our Embassies are financed and constructed, starting with changing OMB's scoring rules to allow lease/purchase and lease/buyback arrangements. It defies logic to constrain the leasing of secure, modern diplomatic facilities only for arcane budgetary scoring reasons--yet that is the case. The OPAP report provides an excellent series of recommendations that could help us build new secure facilities more quickly, which the Administration should seek to implement in their entirety as soon as possible. Another area in which additional funds are needed is the capital investment fund which provides for new information technology and capital equipment. The Congress authorized $150 million for this purpose, even though the Administration requested only $97 million. Regrettably, the Committee provided only $79.7 million, which is below even the current year's level. The OPAP report correctly notes that this is a critical need if we are to bring our representation abroad into the modern age. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member notes that on May 26th the President signed H.R. 3707 (P.L. 106-212), introduced by this Member, which authorizes $75 million for the construction of a new facility for the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). The current AIT is a dilapidated, rundown collection of buildings, or in some cases Quonset huts, that fails to meet even minimal security standards. The current AIT also fails to provide the necessary facility to adequately represent our country or to reflect the importance our country attaches to our long-standing, critically important relations with Taiwan. Construction of a new, secure facility will be an important indication that the U.S. presence will be maintained on Taiwan through the AIT for as long as it takes to assure that any reunification of China and Taiwan will be only by peaceful, non-coercive means. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member hopes the Appropriations Committee will in the future note the importance of this legislation, and that in turn the Department of State will act quickly to begin design and construction of a new facility.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford). The Asia Foundation has a 45-year proven track record. Helping Asia develop into a stable market-oriented democratic region is an important American national security objective. Mr. Chairman, the developing countries in Asia are in desperate need of legal reforms. American commerce and local human rights are early beneficiaries of such rule-of-law programming. By defeating the Sanford amendment the foundation will be able to support new legal reform initiatives for Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and China. The Asia Foundation is a small, cost-effective, private institution that plays a very important complementary role in advancing U.S. foreign policy interests around the world. There are some things it can clearly do more effectively and cost efficiently than can our government agencies. We need the Asia Foundation's efforts. This Member urges his colleagues to support the work of the Committee on Appropriations, maintain the modest funding for the Asia Foundation, and oppose the Sanford amendment. Though this Member certainly shares his colleague's interest in reducing wasteful Federal spending, the institution targeted by this amendment certainly does not fall in that category. On the contrary, a closer examination of the Asia Foundation and of its successful programs will confirm its cost effective contributions to American interests around the world. Indeed, our modest investment in the Asia Foundation is money well spent. Programs and investments in reform minded individuals in Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines directly supported and influenced the incredible democratic and economic transformations there. The Asia Foundation remains on the front lines doing the same today in Asia's new, emerging democracies like Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Mongolia as well as helping lay the foundation for positive change in authoritarian countries like China and Vietnam. Fundamental changes are happening in Asia as a result of the recent economic crisis. One need not look any further than Indonesia, a keystone of American national security policy in Southeast Asia. Now is the time to take advantage of this climate of change and expand programs advancing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, economic reform and sustainable recovery. The Sanford amendment would completely eliminate all funding for the Asia Foundation. The pending appropriations bill does not increase funding for the Asia Foundation--in fact, unfortunately it freezes it at last year's modest level of $8.2 million, some $7 million below its authorized level and $1.7 million below the President's request. Last year, during consideration of the American Embassy Security Act, this body strongly rejected the effort by the gentleman from South Carolina to severely cut the Asia Foundation. Indeed, this Member urges his colleagues to reject this even more draconian amendment which would completely zero out funding. The programs of the Asia Foundation support this national security objective. The Sanford amendment would severely cut this NGO's programs and further restrict our ability to influence positive change in a region with over one-half of the world's entire population. The long- term cost of this amendment to U.S. foreign policy objectives certainly outweighs any short-term savings it may have.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment. There is nothing fair or equitable about the current VERA allocation formula. If you are from the Northeast, if you are from a sparsely settled part of the country, like my State, veterans are getting the back of hand by the VA. That is what you are getting. There has to be a more equitable distribution of funds. I will tell Members this, we must have a basic threshold level of quality health care for veterans, no matter where they live. They have to have adequate facilities, they have to have adequate services, and when you have a formula, like VERA strictly distributing funds on a population basis, with major outmigration from some areas, with sparsely settled populations of veterans in others like Nebraska, our veterans are not being treated fairly on VA health care. I can tell you what is happening in Iowa and Nebraska, in our area. We are being cut dramatically in funds, to the point that veterans are not being served in our part of this country. This formula has been unfair since it started. They simply will not listen to us down there in the Veterans Affairs Department. They simply go on and treat us unfairly. It is time to stop the use of this inequitable VERA formula. Support the Hinchey amendment. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentlemen from New York (Mr. Hinchey) which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Unfortunately this has turned into a regional legislative battle between northeastern states and especially low-population Great Plans and Rocky Mountain states' delegations on one hand, and the Sunbelt states with larger numbers of veterans retirees on the other. Those of us representing the former see our veterans left out in the cold while the money flows to the populace Sunbelt states. Once again, we may be out-voted but it certainly isn't fair to veterans in our states. From the time the Administration announced this new system, this Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA because of its inherent flaws in inequitable distribution of funds, and has supported funding levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the President recommended. Continuing action in previous years this Member has also recently co- signed a letter to the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on VA/HUD expressing frustrations and concerns with VERA and VISN 14 shortfalls. This Member was proud to support the increase in funding Congress provided for veterans health care in FY2000. Congress provided $1.7 billion over the President's request which was far more than ever provided for VA health care in one year and the highest level of increase over a President's budget request for veterans health care. However, the veterans health care system in Nebraska continues to experience growing service and funding shortfalls each year even after the forced closing of two of our three inpatient facilities, reducing the number of full time employees fourteen percent and completing integration of all three VA Medical centers. In FY1999, the VISN 14 area (consisting of Nebraska and Iowa) experienced a $6 million shortfall, and in FY2000 the shortfall is $17 million and the project shortfall for FY2001 will be between $35 and $45 million. While VISN 14 continues to experience shortfalls in funding, the number of patients continues to increase. Despite the regrettable ruling of non- eligibility for in-patient care for large numbers of Nebraska veterans, the number of patients grew from 59,412 in FY1996 to 75,101 in FY1999. Clearly the VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska and other sparsely populated areas of the country and on the northeast part of our nation. All members of Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, that the VA must provide adequate services and facilities for veterans all across the country regardless of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals. The funding distribution unfairly reallocates the VA's health care budget based strictly on a per capita veterans usage of facilities. There must be at least a basic level of acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel, and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our veterans wherever they live. There must be a threshold funding level for VA medical services in each state and region before any per-capita funding formula is applied. That is only common sense, but this Administration has too little of that valuable commodity when it comes to treating our veterans humanely and equitably! In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Hinchey amendment and fulfill the obligation to provide care to all those veterans who have so honorably served our country--no matter where they live in this country.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 90. Certainly, passage of H.J. Res. 90 would send a completely wrong signal to our trading partners around the world, and it would be very much contrary to both the short-term and long-term interests of the United States. The United States gains nothing from withdrawal from the WTO. We would, however, be at the mercy of other countries' desires to erect highly discriminatory and prohibitive tariffs and nontariff barriers against U.S. exports. The U.S. would not have access to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to challenge these new barriers, but instead, we would only have limited and ineffective bilateral defenses. The U.S. would have no leverage at all in setting agendas for future trade and investment agreements having unilaterally surrendered our seat at the table through withdrawal from the WTO. The end result of H.J. Res. 90 is hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of lost American exports for no discernible benefit. Since the creation of the WTO, our exports of goods and services have increased over $250 billion. Though estimates vary, implementation of the current WTO agreement is estimated to boost U.S. gross domestic product by a minimum of $27 billion per year. While there are legitimate concerns about some of the WTO operations, the WTO system, certainly they can be and are being improved. Replacing this successful rule of law-based system of trade fairness which has directly benefited the United States with some undefined form of trade anarchy that discriminates against American competitiveness is simply reckless. Mr. Speaker, to withdraw from the WTO system is, in fact, both reckless and counterproductive. It is significantly harmful to our short-term and long-term economic and national security. Accordingly, I urge strong support for the WTO, our involvement in it, and opposition to H.J. Res. 90. I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, we are not losing sovereignty, this is not unconstitutional; there are no significant scholars that suggest it is. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which legislatively approved the United States' membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), requires that the United States Trade Representative submit to Congress an annual report which includes a thorough analysis of the effects of the WTO Agreement on the interests of the United States, the costs and benefits to the United States of its participation in the WTO, and the value of continued participation of the United States in the WTO. As the most recent Report to Congress clearly states, ``The WTO is a crucial vehicle for maximizing the advantages from, and managing our interests in, a global economy. To ensure that Americans receive fair treatment in the global economy, the U.S. has negotiated a framework of clear, transparent rules that: prohibit discrimination against American products; safeguard Americans against unfair trade; and afford commercial predictability. As the world's largest exporter and importer, we need such a system more than any other country.'' Indeed, the consequences of withdrawing from the WTO would be so severe as to be unimaginable. As this Member previously noted, since the creation of the WTO, our exports of goods and services have risen by over $250 billion. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that exports currently represent approximately 12 percent of the entire United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Overall trade represents one-third of our entire economy. Clearly, the strength of the U.S. economy today is due in very substantial measure to our ability to competitively sell U.S. goods and services abroad. If the United States were to withdraw from the WTO, as directed by H.J. Res. 90, then foreign countries would be free to impose whatever trade barriers they want on U.S. exports. For example, U.S. agricultural exports would face prohibitive tariffs and be allocated tiny import quotas, if any at all. Contrast this to the present situation within the 136-member WTO system which has offered important market access opportunities through the first enforceable commitments to reduce barriers, limited the use of export subsidies and established science-based rules for any import restrictions pertaining to animal or plant health and safety. This Member reminds his colleagues that the far-reaching agricultural trade benefits the United States recently negotiated with China--the reduction of meat tariffs from 45 percent to just 12 percent and the elimination of quotas on soybeans--were within the context of China's accession to the WTO. A key benefit of participation in the WTO is America's access to its multilateral dispute settlement process. A new study released this month by the General Accounting Office (GAO) shows that the U.S. has won or resolved disputes 92 percent of all cases in its favor--that is 23 of 25 times since the dispute settlement system was created in 1995. In three-quarters of the 25 cases filed by the U.S., other WTO members agreed to remove their trade barriers, rather than face an adverse judgment, leading to millions of dollars in increased U.S. exports. For example, one of the settlements in favor of the U.S. was related to Korea's discriminatory standards for food imports. As a result, this market is now open to $87 million in U.S. chilled beef and $79 million in pork exports. As a defendant in 17 WTO cases, the U.S. has prevailed or was able to resolve the case without an adverse WTO ruling in 11 of 17 cases. The outcome of all of these cases had limited or no commercial effect. On balance, the WTO settlement dispute process has proven to be a powerful instrument in bringing down barriers to American exports. House Joint Resolution 90 would eliminate American access to this successful dispute resolution mechanism leaving us with only very limited and largely ineffective bilateral defenses. Contrary to the misleading arguments of protectionists in the United States, the WTO has certainly not made America poorer. In fact, during the last five years living standards have been rising for all Americans, low- and high-income workers alike. More than 80 percent of jobs created since 1993 are in occupations that pay above the median wage. Many of these jobs are in the high-technology export sector. Yet, for example, if the U.S. were to withdraw from the WTO, the U.S. economy would no longer enjoy the benefit of the WTO Information Technology Agreement, which reduced tariffs to zero for American high- technology exports to 54 countries. These export opportunities would be lost to our European and Japanese competitors at disastrous expense to American jobs here at home. This is only one example of the many American economic sectors which would be badly damaged by a withdrawal of our country from the WTO. The WTO has not eroded America's manufacturing base. Manufacturing in America today is thriving. It is true that this base is constantly evolving as we gain comparative advantage in some sectors and lose it in others. However, since 1992, studies show that the manufacturing output of the U.S. has risen by 42%, all against a backdrop of record imports. United States participation in the WTO most assuredly does not have a negative effect on the U.S. trade deficit. It is, indeed, disappointing, as well, that WTO opponents always reference the U.S. trade deficit in terms of manufactured products only, ignoring the service sector. Yet, in 1997-98, the U.S. services sector represented three-fourths of the U.S. national economic output and employed 80 percent of the U.S. workforce. In 1998, services exports constituted nearly 30 percent of all U.S. exports totaling over $260 billion and achieving a trade surplus of almost $80 billion. Among the important trade benefits of the WTO system is the Financial Services Agreement which covers nearly $60 trillion in banking, insurance and securities transactions each year and has opened the doors for U.S. ownership and investment in foreign institutions. H.J. Res. 90 would slam that door shut. Like any new institution, the WTO can and should be improved. There is certainly the need for greater transparency and for undertaking the other institutional reforms raised during the WTO ministerial meeting last December in Seattle, Washington. More expedient, efficient and effective dispute resolution is warranted. A new trade round that would further open foreign markets to American exports would strengthen the WTO system and the American public's understanding of its importance. Yet, all of these objectives can only be pursued if the United States is part of the rules-based system itself, not a lonely outsider.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 495, which is a sense of the House regarding support for the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, on money laundering, and in support of the timely and public identification of noncooperative jurisdictions in the fight against international money laundering. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her initiative in introducing this resolution and for her efforts in moving the legislation. Additional appreciation is also expressed to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for expediting consideration of the legislation. As a member of both the House Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Banking, this Member is committed to reducing the global pervasiveness of money laundering. According to an International Monetary Fund, IMF, estimate, as already mentioned by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), international money laundering is at least a $600 billion industry, and that represents at least 2 to 5 percent of the world's annual gross domestic product. This Member intends to focus his remarks on H. Res. 495 in four different sections today. They are as follows: The history and impetus for H. Res. 495; second, the main provisions of H. Res. 495; third, the support for H. Res. 495; and, fourth, the exigent circumstances explaining why immediate passage of H. Res. 495 is needed. First, to illustrate the history behind the resolution, in February of this year, three of the five committees of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, including this Member and other Members of the House, met, as usual, at the headquarters of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and, of course, the House delegation to the NATO PA attended that meeting. A major topic of that discussion was FATF, which predominantly includes the representatives of the member States of the OECD. As mentioned, FATF is an intergovernmental effort whose function is the development and promotion of policies to combat money laundering. The FATF currently consists of 26 countries, including the major financial center countries of Europe, North America and Asia. During the aforementioned NATO PA meeting, after the presentation of the subject of international money laundering conducted by the FATF and given by the OECD staff, and other private conversations with OECD staff and the parliamentary delegations from the other NATO countries, the U.S. House delegation became concerned whether the FATF actually would publicly name those countries which were identified in their draft report as noncooperative jurisdictions in the fight against international money laundering. There were indications that the FATF would not name names unless pressure was brought to bear in favor of the naming of noncompliant jurisdictions. Second: provisions. As a result of that NATO PA meeting, the distinguished chairwoman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a long-term and active member of the Economic Committee of the NATO PA, along with this Member and other Members of the House delegation, as original cosponsors, introduced this resolution which expresses the U.S. House's firm support for the public release of the names of noncooperative jurisdictions identified by the FATF. Because of the possible public release of these names, according to media reports, as mentioned by the chairman, Austria had already recently abolished its controversial anonymous bank accounts, and I am going to include that article from the June 16 edition of the Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, the expression of the sense of the House in this resolution also states that the U.S. should encourage the adoption of the necessary international actions to encourage compliance by these identified jurisdictions. Plus, it specifies that the U.S. should put in place necessary countermeasures against money laundering and encourage other nations to do the same. Three: the support for it. In addition to the distinguished chairwoman from New Jersey and this Member, there are seven additional cosponsors. Moreover, very similar language, as mentioned by the gentleman from New York, was successfully added by the gentlewoman, the chairman of the subcommittee, during the Committee on Banking and Financial Services' markup of H.R. 3886. That is a more comprehensive bill, which was advanced by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on June 8 of this year. Lastly, exigent circumstances. Due to the planned release by FATF of some type of report on this subject later this week, it is timely and essential that H. Res. 495, this sense of the House Resolution, be approved today and the results of our action conveyed to the FATF and to the OECD. Madam Speaker, I include this article from the Wall Street Journal for the Record: [From the Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2000] Austria Escapes Censure by Ending Secret Accounts (By Michael Allen) A week before a multilateral task force is scheduled to ``name and shame'' world money-laundering havens, Austria has escaped censure by agreeing to abolish its controversial anonymous bank accounts. The 26-nation Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, the world's leading anti-money-laundering group, had warned it would expel Austria from its ranks if it didn't abolish the anonymous passbook accounts, which date to the Austro- Hungarian Empire. The accounts had become a major concern for law-enforcement authorities--and a major irritant in U.S.- Austrian relations--because they offer an impenetrable way to disguise the source and ownership of criminal proceeds. Passbook accounts could be used by anyone who knew the coded number and possessed the book, meaning they could be opened by one person, then traded on the Internet to someone else, who could then use them for any number of illegal purposes in complete secrecy--and even access the funds from ATMs around the world. ``Anonymous passbook savings accounts have been a major problem and a critical loophole in the international consensus to combat money-laundering,'' said Stuart Eizenstat, deputy U.S. Treasury secretary. ``This victory represents a clear demonstration of FATF resolve and credibility.'' Forcing Austria to either clean its own house or leave the FATF was viewed as an essential step before the organization releases a list next week of money-laundering havens, or offshore centers deemed to have inadequate laws and financial supervision. The composition of the list has been kept secret, but observers believe it will be heavily weighted with Caribbean and South Pacific island states. Another possible candidate is Liechtenstein, which a French parliamentary report described as Europe's ``most dangerous money-laundering center.'' The Liechtenstein government, which has already sent some leading citizens to jail, says it is trying to clean up its banking industry. According to U.S. Treasury officials, Austria has 24 million anonymous passbook accounts, or three for every man, woman and child in the country, signifying that many of them are in the hands of foreigners. The accounts are believed to hold about $100 billion. The U.S. and other nations have been trying to get Austria to eliminate the accounts for a decade, but it was only in February that the threat of FATF expulsion prompted Vienna to agree to changes. Initial legislative proposals didn't appease the U.S., and the Austrian government--already under heavy diplomatic pressure because of its inclusion of the right-wing Freedom Party in the ruling coalition--quickly relented. On May 25, the financial committee of the lower house of the Austrian Parliament passed the revised bill, to go into effect this fall. The law calls for anonymous accounts to be eliminated by June 30, 2002. In the interim, many transactions will be prohibited unless the account holder is first identified. ``Austrian books will have to make a fundamental change in the way they do business,'' said Mr. Eizenstat. In a move parallel to the FATF initiative, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is drawing up a list of tax havens that the group believes unfairly divert tax proceeds from developed countries, through the twin lure of low taxes and strict bank secrecy. That list is expected to be released by the end of this month. Madam Speaker, for the above stated reasons and others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.Res. 495.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished Ranking Member from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and all members of the Subcommittee for the work they did under the tight 302(b) allocation. This Member would like to focus his remarks on the following four areas: Housing, Community Development Fun--Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), America's Private Investment Companies (APICs) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on repetitive loss. housing First, this Member would like to comment favorably upon the treatment of the Section 8 and Section 202 programs, which were funded as adequately as we can under the budgetary restraints. The Subcommittee correctly recognizes the demographic shift to a more aging population with the funding for Section 8 contract renewals. In addition, this Member commends the $6 million appropriation for the Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which this Member created in consultation with a range of Indian Housing specialists. This seems to be an excellent new program which this Member says without appropriate modesty and recognition of his colleagues support, is providing privately financed homes through a government guarantee program for Indian families who are otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. The above appropriation supports loan guarantees totaling $72 million which should assist an estimated 20,000 families. Moreover, this Member would like to specifically comment the Subcommittee for reducing duplicative efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. After a funding level of $25 million in fiscal year 2000 for rural housing and economic development efforts in HUD, the Subcommittee appropriated $20 million for fiscal year 2001 for HUD's rural housing and economic development efforts. This Member would prefer that no money is appropriated for HUD for this purpose. In fact, this Member testified before the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in opposition to HUD's duplicative efforts in rural housing. As a long-term advocate of rural housing during his tenure in the House, this Member believes that we need to be careful of duplication in the efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. In the past, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through their Rural Development offices has successfully implemented numerous rural housing and economic development programs. As a result, this Member disagrees with HUD's efforts to duplicate USDA Rural Development staff. community development fund (cdbg) Second, this Member would like to emphasize a concern over the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill which in large part results from budgetary restraints. The Community Development Fund, which includes the CDBG program, is provided $4.5 billion, which is $295 million less than the fiscal year 2000 level. This reduction is of deep concern to this Member. The CDBG program has been a model of local-Federal partnership. The CDBG program not only is valuable to the larger entitlement cities, it gives assistance to those communities under 50,000 through state administering agencies. It is a government program with minimal overhead and bureaucracy. Moreover, CDBG has provided invaluable dollars to cities and rural communities for such things as affordable housing, public infrastructure, and economic development. apics Third, this Member does applaud the Subcommittee for providing no new budget authority to HUD for the APIC program. APICs would be companies which are licensed by the Department of Housing and Urban development (HUD) pursuant to a national competition for venture capital firms. Currently, HUD does not have the proper capability to administer APIC. To illustrate this, the Inspector General has labeled HUD a ``troubled agency.'' Rather than focusing on new initiatives like APIC, HUD should focus on its existing projects. nfip repetitive loss Lastly, this Member supports the language included in the appropriations measure which provides FEMA with up to $50 million to be obligated for pre-disaster mitigation activities and repetitive loss buyouts following disaster declarations. This Member believes that this appropriation is just a first step in eliminating repetitive loss under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by FEMA. In fact, this Member has introduced a measure, H.R. 2728, Two-Floods-and- You-are-Out-of-the-Taxpayer's-Pocket-Act, which authorizes FEMA to offer buy-outs to repetitive loss properties and to increase the NFIP rates to actuarial for those properties who refuse a publicly funded mitigation offer. Because of the necessity to fund important housing and community development programs, this Member would encourage his colleagues to support H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations bill and wishes to particularly thank the chairman of the Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard work on the bill. This Member understands that the Members of the Subcommittee were extremely limited by the 302(b) allocation received and as a result were forced to make tough spending decisions. However, this Member is pleased that continued funding was made available for the next phase of construction of the replacement facility for the existing Indian Health Service hospital in Winnebago, Nebraska. As the members of the Subcommittee know, this on-going project has a long and difficult history, and the Subcommittee's support is greatly appreciated. In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to acknowledge and express his most sincere appreciation for the extraordinary assistance that Chairman Regula, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee staff have provided thus far on this important project and urges his colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of this resolution recognizing the long and glorious history of the United States Army. On June 14, 1775, ten companies of riflemen were authorized by a resolution of the Continental Congress. Since that time our citizen soldiers have carried the banner of freedom around the globe. This Member is proud to have been one of those soldiers, having served as an officer in the ``Big Red One,'' the 1st Infantry Division. Today's soldier is in many ways very different from those first authorized in 1775. Today's soldier is male, or female, of all races and ethnic origins, far better educated and better equipped, and a professional in every aspect of the word. Yet, they are not so different. Each is as dedicated to protecting the freedoms and rights of Americans as were those first soldiers in our Army. They endure the same long hours, separation from loved-ones, and low pay. This body has embarked on a path to make life better for our soldiers. The FY2001 Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations bill have made the first steps in returning the attraction and retention of the finest soldiers. These young Americans by their service demonstrate that they truly believe in the principles of this Nation. This body must show its belief in them. This Member hopes that the marking of this very significant birthday will help those Americans who have not had the privilege the serve to understand the difficulties and hardships that our soldiers carry, almost always without complaint, in the name of freedom. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges all of his colleagues to join in honoring the men and women of our nation's great Army by adopting this resolution. Happy 225th Birthday to the United States Army.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 8, the ``Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000.'' This Member's vote for this legislation today is based on his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward by dramatically increasing the Federal inheritance tax exemption level. However, this Member does not support the complete repeal of the Federal inheritance tax. This Member is a long-term advocate of inheritance tax reduction, especially in regard to protecting small businesses and family farms and ranches. This Member believes that inheritance taxes unfortunately do adversely and inappropriately affect Nebraskan small business and family farms and ranches when they attempt to pass this estate from one generation to the next. Accordingly, to demonstrate this Member's very real support for inheritance tax reform, this Member supported the Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997 which passed on July 31, 1997. This Act phased-in an increase in the unified credit exemption from the current level of $675,000 to $1.0 million in 2006. Also, it provided an immediate exclusion of $1.3 million (not in addition to the broader exclusion) for a limited variety of eligible closely-held family farms and businesses. At the current time, this Member does not support the complete elimination of inheritance taxes. It would be a great political error and controversy to eliminate the inheritance tax on people like Steve Forbes or the billionaires or mega-millionaires. Also, the very negative impact on the largest of the charitable contributions and the establishment of charitable foundations cannot be underestimated. The benefit of these foundations to American society are invaluable. Our universities and colleges, too, would see a very marked reduction in the gifts they receive if the inheritance tax on the wealthiest Americans was totally eliminated. Despite the legal talents the super- rich can afford, such an inheritance tax change would have major consequences. The total elimination of the inheritance tax is a bad idea. This Member's vote for this legislation only should be regarded as a demonstration of his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward by increasing dramatically the exemption level to the Federal inheritance tax. In addition, there is overwhelming support among his constituents for inheritance tax reform. Specifically, this Member does not support repealing the inheritance tax, with the final step completed in this legislation to zero percent inheritance tax from the year 2009 to the year 2010 as proposed. Instead, this Member prefers the Ewing approach which he enthusiastically support. This Member is an original cosponsor of H.R. 4112 which was introduced by Representative Tom Ewing on March 29, 2000. This measure (H.R. 4112) would immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption from a rate of $675,000 to $5 million and would then increase this exemption annually over the next three years until it reaches a total of $10 million in 2003. After reaching the $10 million level in 2003, the exemption would be indexed annually thereafter to account for inflation. Essential inheritance tax relief is provided by H.R. 4112 for even wealthy business and farm families. This Member is even willing to raise the exemption level beyond $10 million to, for example, $15 million. By the way, most Nebraskans pay more state inheritance taxes than Federal inheritance or estate taxes so Nebraskans should also consider pushing for reductions or reforms in their state taxes. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 8, if passed by the House, goes to an uncertain future in the Senate. In addition, if any legislation is reported from the Congress this year which totally eliminates the Federal inheritance tax, it is assured of a Presidential veto. Thus, this vote for H.R. 8 should be regarded as only demonstrating my firm conviction that we need to dramatically increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption level. Finally, Mr. Speaker, if a conference report comes back to the House that totally eliminates the Federal inheritance tax, this Member will vote against it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would commend to his colleagues the following editorial from the May 12, 2000, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. As the editorial correctly notes, the Omaha District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which serves Nebraska and Iowa, has experienced a dramatic increase in demand for the services it provides. Despite the on-going efforts of the Nebraska and Iowa Congressional Delegations, on behalf of their constituents, to bring attention to this untenable situation and also to the lack of resources committed to the enforcement of immigration laws in this country's interior states, INS officials at the Federal and regional levels remain unresponsive. This Member and several of his colleagues from Nebraska and Iowa feel that the problems must now be addressed through the appropriations process. This Member hopes that his colleagues in the House of Representatives will favorably review the requests outlined in the editorial and that they will increase assistance to INS operations not only in Nebraska and Iowa but in this country's interior region as a whole. [From the Omaha World-Herald, May 12, 2000] Show Them the Money The figures are as solid as they are daunting: The Omaha office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service has a backlog of more than 5,000 cases. Over the last five years, it has seen a 400 percent increase in the number of documents processed. Workloads like that can't be handled with smoke and mirrors. Warm bodies must be in place, and that place needs to be safe and efficient. Some members of Congress clearly understand the problem, and they are commendably committed to solving it. Last week the entire Nebraska congressional delegation, joined by Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, wrote to colleagues whose committees oversee spending for the INS. The request was for them to earmark enough money (about $119,000 yearly) to add two immigration information officers and two clerical positions to the local office. This request for a direct appropriation wouldn't have been necessary if Mark Reed, director of the INS Central Region, had responded to these officials' 1999 request to flesh out the office's ability to respond to public needs. It's hard to fathom why he didn't. Now, Nebraska's three House members have approached the chair of the appropriate subcommittee about getting a one- time injection of $2 million to relocate the Omaha INS branch to new quarters, possibly near Eppley Airfield. If the lawmakers are successful in these efforts, that will address the local agency's two biggest problems: a personnel shortage and an inadequate physical plant. It's about time something was done. The modern-day trend toward more and more newcomers argues that from an operational standpoint, things are likely to get worse before they get better. For years, the local INS has operated piecemeal out of four buildings, the main one being at 3736 South 132nd St. Until last fall, clients had to wait outside in all kinds of weather. That was addressed when the local INS officials leased a 2,400-square-foot waiting area, but even that was a stopgap measure. Getting the 65,000-square-foot building envisioned by the local officials and community activists, along with an adequate number of people to staff it, would be the right thing to do. What the lawmakers are attempting amounts to a fiscal end- run, asking for improvements the INS should already have requested on its own. There's no telling it will work, but let's hope so. Certainly, the intentions are honorable. The INS overload here has gone beyond embarrassing and is edging toward intolerable.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act, which provides for the reform of our Federal crop insurance program, and urges his colleagues to vote for it. This Member would like to begin by expressing appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the Ranking Member of the Committee, for their hard work on this important legislation. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2559, this Member is pleased that this conference report is being considered today. Agricultural producers throughout the country continue to suffer from disastrously low commodity prices and in some regions from adverse weather conditions. For instance, Nebraska farmers are confronting one of the most serious droughts in decades. This Member believes that this conference report is an important step toward developing a more effective long-term approach to assisting agricultural producers. Improving crop insurance is certainly not the only solution to the current problems, but it does provide a more adequate safety net to farmers who are too often confronted with natural disasters and low prices. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act will make crop insurance coverage more affordable at every level. It will offer producers significant incentives to purchase higher levels of protection and provide farmers with the flexibility to purchase the coverage that best meets their needs. It is important to note that this crop insurance reform bill also improves the current risk management structure by providing better coverage for both production and revenue. It does so by making possible more affordable policies to protect farmers against price and income loss. The legislation also initiates a livestock pilot program to test the effectiveness of risk management tools to protect livestock producers. This Member's constituents have made it clear that crop insurance is a necessary risk management tool. Unfortunately, it is often too expensive or offers too little protection to be of real value. This legislation takes these concerns into account and offers agricultural producers what they need--meaningful and more affordable crop insurance. This Member is also pleased that this conference report includes funding for emergency payments to farmers. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act was based on the premise of expanding international markets for the commodities produced by our nation's farmers. This clearly has not happened. Certainly, one of the root causes of the current low commodity prices was the drop in exports, especially to Asia as a result of the region's economic down-turn. Nobody could have predicted the Asian financial crisis or the contagion effect which is still being felt. Also, because of the strength of our national economy relative to most other countries, the value of our currency compared to others now makes our exports less price-competitive in Asian markets than our competitor exporters like Canada, Australia, Brazil, or the nations of the European Union. Thus, there is not only a dramatically reduced agricultural export market in Asia, we are also getting a reduced portion of the remaining Asian import business. Clearly, an emergency agriculture relief package is needed immediately. Producers are in desperate need of a quick infusion of cash to help them deal with low prices and increasing costs. However, as important as that relief is, it is only a temporary fix. A long-term approach is clearly needed. This conference report, which includes significant improvements in the crop insurance program, is an important component of that effort. This Member urges his colleagues to vote for the conference report for H.R. 2559.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 231, I inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present on the floor I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for his work on the commission.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I did want to say, with respect to the gentleman from Tennessee, that first of all the commission established by the initiative of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this member gives Congress this annual report and recommendations not just annually but on any occasion during the year. And the House International Relations Committee would be required upon receipt of an annual report of findings and recommendations to hold at least one public hearing, within 30 days, to make a decision within 45 days whether to advance legislation to the floor and to have such resolution available for House action within 60 days from the receipt of the annual report. This OSCE-type commission is a far more effective mechanism than the annual ineffective harangue during the NTR extension vote that goes on here once a year. Mr. Speaker, this Member would also say that action on the recommendation of the OSCE-type Commission, the China Human Rights Commission, takes only the action of this Congress, unlike the Helsinki Commission, which effectively requires the action of over 50 nation members.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the points brought up by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). First of all, some of the agricultural and other export subsidies are eliminated by the agreement or substantially reduced and that will affect the trade statistics be offered now and in the future. Additionally, of course, in the PNTR agreement that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and I offered, we have strong compliance and enforcement resources made available to our executive branch to better assure that China does keep its promise and promote the rule of law. China does have a mixed trade record on compliance. But I would remind the gentleman, that just very recently, kept their promise to buy citrus products from the gentleman's State. However, I say most importantly, China's entry into the WTO subjects them to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. That is the big advancement to require compliance with the trade promises in its accession agreements. Mr. Speaker, extending my remarks this member reminds his colleague that today this body will cast one of its most significant votes affecting American national security and economic prosperity when it determines the fate of permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status for China. Despite the supercharged and misleading claims by opponents that this is a vote about rewarding China, it is not that at all, but instead a vote for our own national interests. And, PNTR is, indeed, in America's short- and long-term national interest for three crucial reasons. First, PNTR benefits American economic prosperity. Regardless of how this body votes on PNTR, China will 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 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. Given that America's markets are already open at WTO standards to Chinese exports, the U.S. has effectively given up nothing; all the concessions have been made by China. 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. Approval of PNTR makes it less likely that American companies need to open foreign factories and thereby export jobs. To access all of these benefits, WTO rules require the U.S. to provide China with permanent Normal Trade Relations status, something that is granted to all the other 135 members of the WTO and have provided to China on an annual basis for over 20 years. The failure to provide PNTR to China will remove the legal obligation for China to provide any of these hard-sought benefits to the United States even as China is required to open up its market to our foreign competitors and all other WTO members. Without PNTR, America is unilaterally giving away the Chinese marketplace to our Japanese, European and other international competitors at the disastrous expense of U.S. exports and the jobs they create at home. Second, PNTR 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 PNTR could result in a resurgence of resentful nationalism as hard-liners in Beijing characterize a negative PNTR 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. Third, China is emerging from years of isolation and the future direction of China remains in flux--more than any major country. WTO accession and PNTR are critical for the success of China's economic reform process and Chinese leaders, like Premier Zhu Ronghi, 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. China's accession to the WTO with PNTR status 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 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. When it is time to cast the vote, Congress must ask, ``is PNTR in America's long and short term national interest?'' On all accounts, the answer is clearly, ``yes.'' The levin-bereuter proposal Mr. Speaker, following the signing of the ``Agreement on market Access Between the People's Republic China and the United States of America'' on November 15, 1999, it became apparent to this Member that the House would finally consider providing China with Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) in the context of China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) sometime during this Congress. However, the concerns in Congress about Sino-American relations continue to multiply in scope and seriousness. These concerns are strong enough with enough of our colleagues so as to make the passage of a simple, clean PNTR bill uncertain. Something else would be needed to help address these concerns in a meaningful way and replace what has become an annual debate on China resulting from the annual NTR renewal process. This Member concluded that there would be a need for PNTR-compatible parallel legislation. The distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) was of the same mind-frame and working on his won parallel proposal. About a month ago we combined our efforts and have worked closely together in a very cooperative and bipartisan manner to produce the China-specific Levin-Bereuter proposal. Mr. Speaker, the special 12-year important anti-surge protections in our original package were incorporated into H.R. 4444 by the Ways and Means Committee during its mark-up of the bill. The remainder of the Levin-Bereuter proposal was incorporated into H.R. 4444 by the Rules Committee. This includes: 1. The Congressional-Executive Commission on the people's Republic of China. This Commission is based on the OSCE Commission model and would be comprised of nine Members of the House, nine Senators and five appointees from the Executive Branch. The Commission would produce an annual report to the President and Congress evaluating human rights in China with, should it deem appropriate, recommendations. Within 30 days of the receipt of this report, the House International Relations Committee would be required to hold at least one public hearing on the report, and on the basis of recommendations in the report, decide, in a timely manner, what legislation to report for House action. 2. Monitoring and Enforcement of China's WTO Commitments. Included in this section of the legislative proposal is a direction to the U.S. Trade Representative to seek an annual review by the WTO of China's compliance and commitments to the WTO. We authorize additional staff and resources to the Department of Commerce, State, and Agriculture and to the USTR to monitor and support the enforcement of China's trade commitments. The establishment of a Trade Law Technical Assistance Center to assist businesses and workers in evaluating the potential remedies to any trade violations by China is also authorized. We also require an annual report by the USTR to the Congress evaluating China's compliance with its WTO commitments. 3. Task Force on Prison Labor Exports. The Levin-Bereuter proposal establishes a new inter-agency task forced to improve the enforcement of our own laws preventing the importation of prison labor products. It also directs the U.S. to enter into new agreements with China to improve the ability to investigate prison-labor export concerns. 4. Trade and Rule of Law Programs. The proposal authorizes new commercial, labor, legal and civil society rule of law programs for China. 5. Taiwan and the WTO. Incorporating the language of H. Con. Res. 262, the Dunn-Bereuter resolution, we call for the accession of Taiwan to the WTO as the next order of business at the same general counsel meeting after China's accession--in other words, the near simultaneity of accession by Taiwan. 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 after China receives PNTR. The Commission will be a far more effective way to address human rights issues than the noisy but ineffective annual debate on extending NTR. Now, to respond to some of the points that have been raised in this debate, this Member will offer the following rebuttals: on granting pntr versus granting ntr China has been provided with Normal Trade Relations (previously known as Most Favored Nation) status since 1979--for over 20 years. During the first 10 of those years, no one objected even though the economic and human rights situation in China was worse than today. Since the U.S. gives up nothing and China makes all the concessions with the new bilateral WTO accession agreement, what is the real difference between providing NTR and PNTR for China? The removal of what has become a noisy but ineffective debate on China. Indeed, with PNTR, we will replace this one-day debate with a Congressional-Executive Commission on Chinese Human Rights that will concentrate on China every day--365 days a year, will report annually to Congress and whose report and recommendations are guaranteed to be considered in the Congress annually. on the transfer of u.s. jobs to china Since, in the U.S.-China bilateral trade agreement the U.S. gives up nothing, who benefits most from PNTR? U.S. exporters. Since the bilateral agreement requires China to halt its current practice of requiring technology transfer and manufacturing offsets, who benefits most from PNTR? American workers. This provision makes it much less likely that U.S. companies build factories in China. With PNTR, American products can be exported, distributed and marketed directly in China. That means jobs STAY in America. Opponents reference to an International Trade Commission (ITC) study purportedly stating PNTR will result in job losses is wrong. Here in writing is a letter from the ITC itself verifying that it did not generate any forecasts regarding jobs. The ITC itself says that its study has been misrepresented and its methodology misunderstood by the special-interest supported Economic Policy Institute reported opponents are quoting. on the concern that pntr only benefits communists The claim is made that PNTR only rewards the Communists in China. That is inaccurate. Up 40% of the Chinese economy, according to the State Department, is now privatized and corporatized and this sector of the Chinese economy is growing every day. These are private enterprises, non-communist entrepreneurs and American investors. This is the economic sector that will IMPORT American products, services and ideas. In contrast, the Communist hardliners are opposed to PNTR and China's WTO accession because they accurately see PNTR and WTO accession as foundations for building a strong private sector--the nemesis of Communist control! on the concern that china has never complied with trade agreements China's record is admittedly mixed. Failure to provide PNTR guarantees that America's Japanese, European and other foreign competitors have access to China's market at the disastrous expense of U.S. exports. Even a deal honored in a patchy manner would help American business more than no deal at all. Allowing Airbus rather than Boeing to export to China hurts American workers. That's why Boeing's 40,000-strong machinists union endorses PNTR. The Levin-Bereuter addition to PNTR has important China trade compliance monitoring and enforcement resources. Access to the WTO dispute settlement process, availably only with PNTR, gives us a significant multi-lateral trade agreement enforcement mechanism. China HAS complied with trade agreements--note the recent Bilateral Agricultural agreement. China has already purchased wheat from the Northwest, Citrus from Florida, California and Arizona and hogs from Nebraska. on the u.s.-china trade deficit Opponents are taking the ITC study way out of context. The ITC does not take U.S. services or distribution into account. Services now represent \2/3\ of the U.S. economy. The ITC only examines \1/3\ of the U.S. economy. While the ITC report stated that the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China would likely increase at first with China's accession to the WTO, it also continued stating that ``at the same time the U.S. global trade deficit would decrease as a result of larger exports to other East Asian countries.'' Overall, we benefit and our deficit decreases. China will join the WTO regardless of our vote today. Failure to provide PNTR unilaterally gives away the Chinese market to our Japanese, European and other foreign competitors at the expense of American exports--our outstanding and hard-sought agreement with China is export-oriented allowing products made in America to be sold and distributed in china. Restricting U.S. exports, which denial of PNTR would do, would increase our deficit with China. Giving American exports a fair chance to compete in china will help lower the deficit. on concerns with regard to religious freedom Religious freedom is repressed in China. Promoting economic reform and rule of law in China, which PNTR and engagement does, is superior to isolating China and turning our back on religious followers. voting NO on PNTR only bolsters the position of the hard-liners in Beijing-- the very element repressing religion. That is why religious leaders, including the Dalai Lama, and especially those in the underground in China support China's accession to the WTO and reliable U.S. engagement. The Helsinki-type Human Rights Commission in the PNTR legislation is required to monitor and report on ``religious freedom, including the right to worship free of involvement of and interference by the government''. Voting no on PNTR is a rejection of this Commission. When asked whether the new Commission on Chinese Human Rights truly addresses the concerns raised by the current Religious Freedom Commission, Commissioner Elliot Abrams responded, ``I think it does address the kind of concerns that we've raised. We're looking for some kind of mechanism for constant monitoring, and it does address that.'' (Ways and Means Committee testimony, 5/3/00) on taiwan and wto President Chen of Taiwan has endorsed PNTR for China (LA Times Interview, 3/22/00). It appears a little self-presumptuous for us to claim to know and care more about Taiwan's position than Taiwan's own democratically-elected President. The Levin-Bereuter addition to the PNTR legislation calls for the near simultaneity of WTO accession by Taiwan-as the next order of business at the same general council meeting after China's accession. Given Taiwan's significant investment in China, it is in China's own self-interest to allow Taiwan's accession. If China threatens or attacks Taiwan, the President of the United States already has the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to suspend PNTR benefits. He can even go much further and restrict imports from or even embargo China! IEEPA is fully consistent with Article 21 of the WTO. Remember, Iran, Iraq and Libya all have PNTR and Cuba is a member of the WTO, yet we have WTO- consistent embargoes against all of them! Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges adoption passage of H.R. 4444.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I want to commend, the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for this excellent rule. While providing China with permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, it is very clearly and overwhelmingly in America's short-term and long- term national interests; and a convincing case can be made for passing PNTR on its merits alone. Legitimate specific concerns in Congress about China and Sino-American relations continue. That is why the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and this Member have offered a PNTR compatible parallel proposal in order to address those concerns which, I emphasize, this rule self-executes into H.R. 4444. During the markup in the Committee on Ways and Means of that legislation, the important special 12-year import anti-surge protections for the U.S. as originally proposed in the Levin-Bereuter package were incorporated into the PNTR bill. This is an effective deterrent and defense against any huge import surges from China that could cause specific American business or agricultural sectors some damage. It is a special 12-year anti-surge provision that goes above and beyond that which we have with any other of the 135 members of the WTO. With this rule, the PNTR legislation is expanded to incorporate the remainder of the Levin-Bereuter proposal which includes, first, the congressional executive commission on the People's Republic of China. This commission is based upon the OSCE or Helsinki Commission model and would be comprised of Members of this body, the other body, and of the executive branch. The commission would produce an annual report to the President and Congress evaluating human rights in China with, should it deem appropriate, recommendations. Within 30 days of the receipt of that report, the House Committee on International Relations would be required to hold at least one public hearing on the report, and on the basis of that recommendation or recommendations in the report, decide, in a specified time frame a short period what legislation to report to the House floor. Secondly, we enhance the monitoring enforcement of China's WTO commitments, and that is very important. The U.S. Trade Representative is directed to seek the annual review by the WTO of China's compliance with its commitments to the WTO and is required to report annually to the Congress on China's compliance record. Additional staff and resources are authorized for the Departments of Commerce, State, and Agriculture and the USTR to monitor and support enforcement of China's trade commitments. A trade law technical assistance center would be established to assist businesses and workers in evaluating the potential remedies to any trade violations by China. Third, a task force is created in the executive branch on prison labor exports. This would improve the enforcement of our laws preventing the importation of prison labor products. It would be authorized and the administration will be directed to enter into agreements. Then, of course, we express the sense of the Congress that Taiwan should enter the same General Council meeting of the WTO when China is provided WTO membership as provided in an earlier Dunn-Bereuter bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4444.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday this body is scheduled to consider H.R. 4444, the legislation that would provide the People's Republic of China with Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status in the context of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. This Member believes that Sino-American relations are increasingly problematic and uncertain. China is not our enemy, though certain forces in the U.S. and China want it to be. China is certainly not our strategic partner, either. China is a strategic competitor with whom responsible engagement and cooperation is necessary to ensure peace and stability in the East Asia region. This Member believes that the forthcoming vote on PNTR will have significant ramifications for Sino-American relations and how successfully we manage the challenges posed by China. It is in this regard that this Member recommends the following article from the Financial Times, a respected international newspaper, which provides an insightful analysis of the impact of the PNTR vote. [From the Financial Times, May 18, 2000] Trade Status May Hold the Key to End of Roller-Coaster Ride in US-China Relationship (By James Kynge) The last 21 years of US-China relations have been a roller coaster ride. Periods of bright optimism have swiftly subsided into mutual acrimony and, in 1996, a military stand- off in the Taiwan strait. But rarely, if ever, has a potential tear in the fraying fabric of bilateral ties been so visible--and avoidable--as now. The decisive test will come next week, when the US House of Representatives votes on President Bill Clinton's proposal to safeguard China's US exports against possible discrimination by giving it permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status. The proposal, which would abolish Congress's annual review of China's trade status, is prompted by the country's imminent admission to the World Trade Organization. If Congress rejected PNTR, China could still enter the WTO but foreign diplomats and Chinese officials say rejection could cause a rupture in relations with the US more enduring and perilous than that which followed NATO's bombing of China's Belgrade embassy last year. The most obvious impact would be felt by US corporations exporting to and operating in the world's most populous country. Beijing would be likely to exercise its right, under WTO rules, to deny them the unprecedented trade liberalisation and market access concessions that it has promised to make once it joins the WTO. Adding insult to injury, the European and other companies that compete so intensely with US companies in China would enjoy the full benefits of the WTO package. ``[It] would be absolutely disastrous for US companies. There is no other word for it. Disastrous,'' said a US executive. US multinationals are not the only potential victims. For a Chinese leadership facing crucial challenges at home and in foreign policy, a congressional ``no'' would deal a harsh blow to the very people seen as relatively pro-US, reformist and supportive of a faster integration into the wider world. Zhu Rongji, the premier, has already endured the opprobrium that flows from being seen as too pro-American. His political career languished for several months last year after he returned from Washington having failed to clinch a WTO deal despite offering concessions so deep that many Chinese saw them as ``traitorous''. This time, Mr. Zhu, President Jiang Zemin and hundreds of other lower level officials who have displayed their reformist colours are This is mainly because one of the main arguments that reformers in China employed last year to persuade conservatives of the wisdom of WTO accession was that it would mean the end of an annual review of Beijing's human rights record in the U.S. Congress. If PNTR is not awarded, the review--an annual humiliation for Beijing--would stay. Sandra Kristoff, a former White House staff member and now senior vice-president of New York Life, said after meetings in Beijing this week that there was potential for the whole U.S.-China relationship to become unhinged. ``[If there is a no vote] there would be no way that we could convince them that this does not mean that the U.S. wants to contain them,'' she said. A resurgence of resentful nationalism, evident in Beijing after the Chinese embassy bombing, could add to the already unstable mix of emotions that conditions China's responses on Taiwan, diplomats said. Beijing has sworn to prevent Taiwan independence, by using force if necessary. To many Chinese officials, U.S. hostility towards Beijing and Taiwan's steady drift towards independence are two sides of the same coin. Thus any hopes of the U.S. acting as an honest facilitator for talks between Taipei and Beijing would be undermined if PNTR was rejected. From the perspective of China's economic reforms, however, the effects of a decision not to award PNTR are less clear. A recent acceleration in free market reform is being driven by the prospect of WTO accession and by the objective requirements of an economy in urgent need of restructuring. Neither of these two factors would, in theory, be affected by a refusal to normalise trade relations with the U.S. But in practice, there are distinct risks. One is that conservatives and military hawks, empowered by a rupture in relations with the U.S. could convince Mr. Jiang to stall WTO accession and defer some of the more painful and controversial aspects of reform. Such a scenario is far from unthinkable. Mr. Jiang is a master of compromise politics, and there is already some internal opposition to crucial reforms that appear to be whittling away the economic power base of the Communist party. Perhaps that is one reason why Chinese dissidents such as Dai Qing are so in favour of PNTR. ``Permanent normal trade relations would send the Chinese people a powerful message: the most powerful industrialised nation today will work with the Chinese people to build a new world order,'' said Mr. Dai.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, would replace Title XV which restores full integrated training on Vieques with the agreement between the Clinton administration and the Governor of Puerto Rico. The United States Navy has been using the range on Vieques since prior to World War II. Our Forces are much more capable because we conduct live fire training in as nearly real world environment as possible. Our Navy used to be able to train at Bloodsworth Island in the Chesapeake Bay and Culebra (very near Vieques) in Puerto Rico. These ranges have been lost to the Navy's use, leaving Vieques the only remaining live fire training range on the East Coast. Live fire training is the only way we can ensure our forces are capable of meeting the challenges to our freedoms they face every day. During February of this year this Member visited with Navy and Air Force units in the Mediterranean area and they explained the loss of what they considered to be coordinated live fire exercises at Vieques before they are deployed in rotations to the Mediterranean. The Clinton Administration agreement allows the United States Navy to continue to use the range, on a reduced basis of 90 days per year, and then only with inert ordnance. The agreement also calls for a referendum of the citizens of Vieques to express their views on the future use of Vieques. The options will be to continue the limited use of Vieques, or cease all such training on the island. With the decision by the Clinton Administration, the outcome has already effectively been determined, and that as a result, the United States forces will not deploy with 100 percent of the combat qualifications needed to meet national security requirements. We will be asking our forces to defend us without a vital element of the necessary training to do so. The amendment would allow certain parts of Western Vieques, namely the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment, to be transferred to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, without consideration, to benefit the Municipality of Vieques. The amendment would also promote timely redevelopment of the conveyed property in a manner that enhances employment opportunities and economic redevelopment. The return of Culebra to the people of Puerto Rico in a similar fashion has been an abject failure. It was supposed to be returned to the local fishermen and island people, instead, it has been gobbled up by big developers who have built homes most Puerto Ricans can not afford. It is more than likely that the same will happen at Vieques if the amendment is accepted. Passage of this amendment would be a loss not only for our Navy but also for the people of Puerto Rico and Vieques in particular who would no longer be able to afford to live there. H.R. 4205 as reported would convey the property only to a conservation zone. Mr. Chairman, this Member strongly urges opposition to the Skelton amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would strike section 908 which changes the School of the Americas to the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security. It is certainly correct to point out that several of the School of the America's graduates have been implicated in crimes, corruption, and human rights violations. Press reports have accurately noted that former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was a former student, as was one of the Salvadoran officers responsible for the 1989 assassination of six Jesuit priests. However, more than 60,000 young Latin American Officers have graduated from the SOA since its creation in 1946, the vast majority of whom have served their nations honorably and responsibly. Graduates of the SOA are personally responsible for the return of democracy in Latin American nations such as Bolivia and Argentina. Many of the school's graduates have lost their lives while combating the narco-guerillas and drug lords in Colombia and Peru. These counterdrug operations are of vital interest to the safety and security of our Nation as the efforts of these brave Latin American soldiers are aimed at reducing the flow of drugs into the United States of America. It would be a disservice to brand all the school's graduates as criminals because of the misdeeds of a very few. There have been many false allegations in the past regarding the School of the Americas, such as the alleged existence of SOA torture manuals. There are no such manuals. The SOA does not in any way engage in or endorse such heinous activities. Nor does the SOA trains death squads and assassins. The SOA is run by officers of the United States Army who must operate the school in accordance with governing regulations of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and U.S. Public Law. This type of an amendment is resulting in a smear of the reputation of the fine men and women of the U.S. Army and specifically the officers and non-commitioned officers who have led the SOA. The repeated, unfounded and destorted allegations about the school are outrageous. One very positive result of the recent focus of attention on the School has been a much greater emphasis on human rights. Every student at the school is now exposed to a rigorous formal and informal training program on basic human rights. Specific classes and case studies are used to enhance the training and to make U.S. concerns unambiguously clear. The roles and rights of civilians, clergy, human rights observers, and UN personnel are integrated into the training program. H.R. 4205 as reported provides even greater assurances that training for our Latin American allies will continue to stress democracy, human rights, etc. Mr. Chairman, the Moakley amendment provides for a Congressional Commission to review and recommend whether to reopen a successor to the School of the Americas. This just isn't necessary. We have reviewed, studied and debated the School of the Americas repeatedly. H.R. 4205 is the right course, right now. This member strongly urges opposition to the Moakley amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support for the Cox-Markey amendment to prohibit U.S. Government agencies from assuming liability for nuclear accidents that might occur in North Korea. The amendment of the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Cox, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is made necessary by the willingness of the Executive branch to become the insurer of last resort for the two light-water nuclear reactors being constructed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). American companies are understandably reluctant to shoulder the liability themselves, for they understand the risk of accident associated with this project is unacceptably high. In the event of a Chernobyl-type catastrophe in North Korea, the United States could be held liable for legal claims. Such claims could be massive--reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars! And, because North Korea is to operate and administer the light-water reactors, we are essentially trusting that North Korean technicians will keep the reactors operating in a safe manner. This Member would warn his colleagues that North Korea is not a nation that historically pays close attention to safety. Quite the reverse, what little contact we have had with the DPRK suggests that safety is the last thing on their mind. This body must assume that North Korea will willingly cut safety corners to extract as much profit as possible. Mr. Chairman, the Korean light-water nuclear reactor project (KEDO) is a highly controversial initiative, and opinions differ on its wisdom. However, this amendment is not an attempt to undermine U.S. participation in North Korea's light-water nuclear reactor project (KEDO). Rather, the Executive Branch is artificially, and inappropriately, attempting to ``prop up'' the KEDO agreement that may be collapsing under its own weight. The problem before this body is that this nuclear development project could result in countless billions of dollars in liability claims. Mr. Chairman, if the marketplace is not willing to assume the risks associated with possible North Korean nuclear disaster, perhaps the body should pause before allowing the Federal Government to assume the liability. The amendment of the distinguished gentleman from California and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts is a common-sense response to a very real problem. This Member would note his intention to offer a companion amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill, prohibit U.S. funds from being spent for the assumption of nuclear liability related to North Korea. This Member commends his colleagues for offering the amendment, and urges approval of the Cox/Markey amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3707, which this Member introduced, is an important measure that enjoys wide bipartisan support. It was considered and approved without objection by this body on March 28 of this year. The other body subsequently approved the legislation on May 2, with two modifications. The amendments to H.R. 3707 approved by the other body are minor in nature. One unnecessary introductory paragraph that refers to the ``unofficial'' nature of U.S. relations with Taiwan is deleted. In addition, the other body added a sentence to Section 3(b) noting that if the Director of AIT certifies that certain security requirements related to construction of a new facility are not applicable on account of the special status of AIT, that he shall also certify that security considerations permit the exercise of the waiver of such requirements. Mr. Speaker, as a newly-elected freshman Member of this body, one of the first votes this Member cast was on passage of the Taiwan Relations Acts of 1979 (TRA). For over 20 years, the TRA has guided U.S. foreign policy and demonstrated our commitment to the security and well-being of Taiwan. And, after 20 years, our unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan are stronger, more robust, and more important than ever. The Taiwan Relations Act established the American Institute in Taiwan, AIT, as a nonprofit corporation to conduct any and all U.S. Government programs, transactions, and other relations with Taiwan; in other words, to function as America's unofficial embassy. The current AIT facilities, which consist largely of aging quonset huts, are grossly inadequate and were not designed for the important functions of AIT. They were built as temporary facilities almost 50 years ago and are increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. From the perspective of security, AIT fails miserably in its structure. AIT is surrounded by taller buildings and lacking adequate setback. Major cost-ineffective enhancements would be required to bring it into compliance with security requirements. Because of the unique status of Taiwan, the State Department is not able under routine authority to proceed with the planning and the construction of a new facility for AIT. The legislative branch, this Congress, must specifically authorize and appropriate the necessary funds. AIT has made a good-faith effort to set aside funds for the construction of a new office building or complex. However, this effort, while significant, will never be sufficient to meet AIT's needs. Therefore, H.R. 3707 authorizes the appropriation of $75 million for planning, acquisition and construction of a new facility for the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Mr. Speaker, this body has been seized with issues involving our relations with Taiwan and the People's Republic of China. Taiwan is a shining example of political and economic development in Asia. It has made the transition to a fully functioning democracy. Recently, Taiwan celebrated the successful conclusion of elections that, for the first time in its history, in fact the first time in Chinese history, saw the Democratic transfer of power to the opposition party. This weekend Taiwan's newly-elected president and vice president will be inaugurated. In view of these developments, now is the appropriate time to send the message of our unshakeable, long-term commitment to America's critically important relations with Taiwan. With a new AIT facility, the United States is delivering the message that its presence will remain as long as it takes to assure that any reunification with the mainland is voluntary and as a result of peaceful means. In the next few days, this body is likely to approve permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China as part of our support for its accession into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Similarly, this Member is confident that this body will support simultaneous accession of Taiwan to the WTO, an action that has been too long delayed. We will support the accession of the PRC to the WTO because it is in our clear national interest to do so. But, at the same time, we will be making it clear that Taiwan merits similar consideration in the WTO and must have membership in it. I would hope it will come at the same session of the WTO. This Member wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the committee chairman; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking Democratic member, and all of those in the House and the Senate who have contributed to moving this important bill forward under unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, this Member supports these changes to H.R. 3707 and urges all of his colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3707) to authorize funds for the construction of a facility in Taipei, Taiwan suitable for the mission of the American Institute in Taiwan, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3707.