Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of the enbloc amendment to H.R. 4205, and in particular thanks to the Chairman for incorporating this Member's amendment addressing the Asia- Pacific Center for Security Studies. H.R. 4205 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to operate regional centers for security studies. Among those centers are the Marshall Center in Garmish, Germany, and the Asia-Pacific Center in Hawaii. H.R. 4205 provides the Marshall Center with a waiver authority for reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars, courses or instruction, or similar educational activities for certain military officers and civilian officials within the European theater. It does not provide such a waiver authority for military officers and civilian officials in the Asia-Pacific region. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region, even perhaps more than those in Europe, represent the entire economic spectrum. Many countries in the Asia-Pacific region that would greatly benefit from such education can not afford to send their officers or civilian officials. Bangladesh comes to mind, a country that provides peacekeepers as a major source of revenue can not afford to send their military officers or civilian officials to the Center where they would be exposed to our way of integrated security. We lose a national security objective by not being able to interact with these officers or civilian officials in an educational open forum. It is important that all our allies, regardless of their economic ability to do so, can attend and interact with not only our own forces, but with our other allies and friendly countries. This Member would observe there is no mandated additional costs associated with this amendment. While the Secretary has the authority to waive these costs, as such, the costs must be absorbed within the Centers' budget. It provides for a management decision by the Secretary, not a budgetary burden on the American taxpayers. It is important to stress here that countries that are prohibited by statute from receiving assistance funds will not be allowed to attend the Asia-Pacific Center. Military personnel of Cambodia and Burma, for instance, where direct government-to-government assistance of any kind is prohibited, would not be allowed to attend, much less receive any such waiver. Military personnel of the People's Republic of China, under the Tiananmen sanctions would not be allowed to attend. There are real safeguards in place to ensure such countries do not have the opportunity to attend the Center. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges adoption of the Managers En Bloc amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. H.R. 4249 authorizes $4 million from a variety of sources: The Eastern European Democracy Act, or SEED, of 1989; the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; and the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992. It does this to support worthwhile projects under the U.S.-Northern European initiative in the areas of environmental clean-up, law enforcement, public health, energy, business and trade promotion, and civil society. Most significantly, I think, H.R. 4249 highlights the enormously dangerous problem of Russian nuclear waste in the area of Murmansk and northwest Russia. In particular, hundreds of rusting and rotting decommissioned nuclear submarines and ships pose a threat, not just to Northern Europe, but to the entire world. Indeed, this waste may pose the most imminent environmental danger in the world today. There is an urgent need to address this critical problem because it literally could explode in our face. Unfortunately, the bill also points out that it has not yet been possible to resolve remaining differences with Russia over liability, taxation of assistance, privileges and immunities for foreign contractors, and audit rights in regard to this waste, and concludes that these agreements are vital to continue provision of assistance. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, amended this bill in committee to make it clear that no assistance should be provided until these problems are adequately resolved. In addition to the environmental problems, this bill will also provide funds to support the United States' Northern European initiative and projects under that initiative in areas such as civil society, law enforcement, business, energy, and public health. While the bill remains very limited in providing seed funds, it will serve as an important indicator to the European Union of our interest and support for this initiative. I would close by commending the gentleman from Connecticut for offering this important legislation, and urge our colleagues to support H.R. 4249.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for yielding time to me. I am pleased that he expedited the consideration of this important resolution which I rise to support. This resolution, offered by our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Radanovich), certainly deserves our full support, for it recognizes what the Republic of Croatia has done in the conduct of its recent parliamentary and presidential elections. Since the fall of communism in 1991, Croatia has now completed its fourth parliamentary election and its third presidential election. I would also give note of what the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) has mentioned, that on May 9 the North Atlantic Council extended an invitation to Croatia to become the 26th member of NATO's Partnership for Peace. The Partnership for Peace, or PfP, serves as an important program for fostering security and stability in Europe through military cooperation. I also serve as the chairman of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I would mention that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has noted the progress in Croatia in its turn towards democracy. It is my expectation that Croatia will soon be offered associate membership status because of that action. This Member believes that Croatia rightfully earned the invitation to PfP as that country has served as an important ally to NATO, as demonstrated during the recent conflict in Kosovo. Croatia provided crucial airspace and port access during the NATO operations. Croatia's commitment to stability in southeastern Europe is further demonstrated by the active cooperation it has provided in enforcing the Dayton Accord and in implementing the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Perhaps Croatia's most important contribution, however, has been contribution to stability in this volatile neighborhood by the example that it set in its successful transfer of political power through democratic means, such as the recent elections. Mr. Speaker, as this Member concludes, I would say, again, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for his initiative in offering this timely resolution which recognizes the very significant and welcome progress in Croatia, which should serve to encourage Croatia on this path. I urge strong support for H. Con. Res. 251.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4251, which was offered by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman). Essentially and importantly, H.R. 4251 addresses concerns raised when the North Korean nuclear issue was debated during last year's consideration of the Embassy Security Act of 1999. At that time, language was overwhelmingly approved that required Presidential certification and a positive vote on this body and by the other body before a nuclear cooperation agreement with North Korea could go into effect. Without such a Presidential certification and positive congressional vote, key nuclear technology could not be sold or transferred to North Korea. When this measure was debated in July of last year, it was approved by a vote of 305 to 120. At that time, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) raised a concern that either legislative body might stall the process by refusing to schedule a vote. H.R. 4251, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has mentioned, seeks to, and I think does adequately, address this concern by establishing an expedited procedure for consideration of a joint resolution concurring in the President's certification. This is an attempt to alleviate the legitimate concerns raised when this matter was last debated. Mr. Speaker, former Secretary of Defense William Perry was tasked by the President with devising a strategy for responding to the North Korean threat. Few individuals have garnered greater respect than Secretary Perry as he served as the Secretary of Defense. He is an outstanding public servant and has made a major contribution to U.S. national security in so many ways, including what he has done with respect to the North Korean threat. Dr. Perry proposed a blueprint for two alternative paths of U.S.- North Korea relations. If North Korea chooses the path of peace, the United States would be willing to provide improved political and economic relations, including, presumably, the technology for two light-water reactors. But, if North Korea chooses the path of confrontation under the Perry initiative, the United States and our allies must be prepared to meet force with force and deny Pyongyang any political or military advantage. It certainly is not yet clear which path North Korea has taken. The DPRK's missile development program, its history of a covert program for nuclear weapons development, and its extraordinarily blatant terrorist activities are among the many reasons for suspicion, caution, and maximum verification. If North Korea does choose the path of confrontation, this body should be prepared to abandon the nuclear cooperation agreement, and the Congress needs to reduce any ambiguity about that point. Mr. Speaker, in closing, H.R. 4251 ensures that this body will have a voice in that determination. It is a responsible measure, and I urge support for the resolution offered by the distinguished chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is in support of H.R. 4386, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000. The American Cancer Society estimates that within his home state of Nebraska, approximately 1,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year and nearly 300 will die as a result of breast cancer. We must provide this enhanced Medicaid matching funds to our states to continue to promote early detection and prevention of breast and cervical cancer. The five-year survival rate is over 95 percent if breast cancer can be detected early. Because only 5-10 percent of breast cancers are due to heredity, early detection must be made available to all women. Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to continue to support the early detection and prevention of breast and cervical cancer and support H.R. 4386.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of this legislation. It consists of four core bills, all of which are incorporated here, and I am pleased and proud to be an original sponsor of those four bills. Mr. Speaker, with regard to Africa, this Member believes that expanding trade and foreign investment in Africa is the most effective way to promote sustainable economic development on that continent. By providing African nations incentives and opportunities to compete in the global economy, and by reinforcing African nations' own efforts to institute market-oriented economic reforms, this legislation will help African countries create jobs, opportunities, and futures for their citizens. Only through trade and investment will Africans fully develop the skills, institutions, and infrastructure to successfully participate in the global marketplace and significantly raise their standard of living. However, it is true that trade liberalization alone cannot remedy all of Africa's woes. That is why our overall strategy for sub-Saharan Africa is a combination of trade and aid working together. It those who in the past have criticized the Africa Growth and Development Act, charging it does not provide sufficient and immediate aid to Africa's poor or for protecting Africa's environment, this Member would remind those colleagues that just over a year and a half ago the Congress enacted and the President signed into law the bill entitled The Africa: Seeds of Hope bill. This food security initiative, which this Member introduced, refocused U.S. resources on African agriculture and rural development, and is aimed at helping the 76 percent of sub-Saharan African people who are small farmers. This law, along with other current U.S. aid programs, such as the Development Fund for Africa, are the aid components of our African development strategy. With the passage of this conference report, which includes the provisions of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, the needed complimentary trade components of our Africa development strategy, then we will indeed have a balanced trade and aid program. The Trade and Development Act of 2000 also includes another important trade measure promoting further sustainable economic development for America's neighbors to the south in the Caribbean Basin. The impact of the first Caribbean Basin initiative enacted in the 1980s has, indeed, been very positive. However, this earlier initiative is just the first step. Its success naturally warrants the further investment and trade expansion included in the CBI II to ensure the continuation of responsible economic growth and stability in this region so close to our southern borders. This conference report also authorizes the use of carousel or rotating retaliatory tariffs as a means of increasing the pressure on trade competitors and partners, like the European Union, which failed to comply with World Trade Organization rules and discriminate against American products and services. This is an important tool for the U.S. Trade Representative when addressing trade disputes involving American agriculture in particular, given that of nearly 50 complaints filed by the U.S. in the WTO, almost 30 percent involve agriculture. This Member also supports the inclusion of H.R. 3173, the legislation that would establish the permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative into this comprehensive bill. In 1997, a temporary position of U.S. Special Trade Ambassador for Agriculture was created, and it has proven to be an effective representative of America's agriculture interests in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. But this is a step forward, and that is important, given the impact agriculture has on our economy. Mr. Speaker, the Trade and Development Act of 2000 is a balanced and responsible bipartisan trade initiative. I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, certainly the Committee on Ways and Means people, for their contributions. In my own committee, I want to particularly focus appreciation on the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who has been unfailing, unrelenting, in moving this bill to its passage. I thank the gentleman for that special effort. What this bill opens is a new mutually beneficial opportunity for trade and investment in Africa and in the Caribbean Basin. It also strengthens our ability to more effectively resolve unfair trade disputes. Accordingly, this Member urges his colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his strong support for H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000, of which he is a cosponsor. Within his home state of Nebraska, the number of children enrolled in special education programs has risen 3,700 students from 1995-1999, a nine percent increase. To continue supporting these increasing numbers, we must fulfill the commitment by Congress made in 1975, prior to my service in the U.S. House to fund IDEA at 40 percent. This is a classic and very damaging unfunded mandate. Currently the Federal Government is funding an average of 12.6 percent of the per-pupil expenditure for children with disabilities. The other 27.4 percent of our unfilled promise is a burden that state and local governments are having to include in their budgets. This Member has said for many years now that the one significant way that Congress can help decrease property taxes for my Nebraska constituents is to keep the promise to provide 40 percent of the costs of special education. Nebraska is currently facing teacher shortages and has among the lowest teacher salaries in the country and yet continues to produce top-ranked students. By meeting this commitment and fully funding IDEA, Nebraska could use its state and local dollars to meet the needs of attracting and maintaining quality teachers or direct dollars to programs the local school districts deem to be priorities, such as school modernization, curriculum improvement or more advanced technology. Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to meet our commitments and phase-up that 40 percent by the year 2010. Support the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 295. This Member congratulates and thanks the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for bringing this matter to the body's attention and for recognizing that the 25th anniversary of the fall of Saigon was an important time to focus the American attention on what we were fighting for and to also recognize the contributions of so many men and women among our countrymen who made tremendous sacrifices in that war and I imagine with the hope that some impact might prevail in Vietnam, as well. I also, once again, want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, for his cooperation and his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. We were happy to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on any kind of perfecting amendments, but his legislation is very timely and was very well crafted to begin with. Certainly it is appropriate to express concerns about the continuing human rights violations and the political repression in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Even as the United States moves forward in establishing relations with Vietnam, which this Member supports, we should be mindful that serious human rights concerns do remain. Indeed, in the 25 years since the end of the war, regretfully this Member must say flatly that there has been no discernible progress, no discernible progress, towards representative government or basic democratic freedom in Vietnam. The Vietnamese Constitution enshrines the principle of one-party communist rule. Political dissidents are routinely harassed or arrested for attempting to exercise their fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech and association. The Vietnamese Government also continues to restrict unregistered religious activities and to persecute citizens on the basis of their religious affiliations. Vietnam can be said to be an equal opportunity oppressor of religious freedoms as Buddhists, Christians, and over groups also suffer to some extent from Government harassment and repression. The Government has also refused to allow human rights groups and the U.N. special rapporteur on religious intolerance unfettered access to investigate allegations of religious oppression. This resolution urges the Government of Vietnam to release religious and political prisoners and cease harassment of those exercising their legitimate rights to allow basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech and association, and to commit to a framework and a timetable for open and fair elections. It is time that the Vietnamese Government realizes that one-party communist regimes have no place in the modern world. It is time that the talented, hard-working, and energetic people of Vietnam enjoy their rights to fundamental religious, economic, and political freedom. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) referred to comments recently made by the senior senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, who said the wrong side won. Well, I would also like to reference the senior senator from my home State of Nebraska, a member of the opposite party, Senator Robert Kerrey, who is a courageous, distinguished American who won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Vietnam and who lost part of his leg in the process. He came home and protested the way the war was being conducted. But this past weekend, in the major papers of our State, he had an opinion piece; and he said, I was fighting and we were fighting on the right side. Upon reflection, upon visitation to Vietnam and to Southeast Asia, I understand what we were doing there was appropriate. I want and will include that as a matter of the Record. It is an outstanding reflection upon his service in Vietnam and also his reflection upon service in the Congress of the United States as he prepares to retire from the other body. Mr. Speaker, this resolution attempts to send a clear message to the Vietnam regime about the need for fundamental reforms. This Member urges his colleagues to support strongly H. Con. Res. 295. Mr. Speaker, I include the following article authored by Senator Kerrey for the Record: Vietnam: 25 Years Later; In Hindsight, A Just Cause (By Bob Kerrey) Today we mark the 25th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the day Americans witnessed the end of a war in which our enemy emerged victorious and our ally defeated. For many years afterward, Americans buried this experience and turned their backs on the problems of Southeast Asia. Anger and self-absorption dominated the debates that occasionally occurred about what went wrong. In the past 10 years, anger and self-absorption have been replaced with active, optimistic policies. In Southeast Asia, we have seen impressive successes. Beginning with President Bush's initiatives to bring peace to Cambodia and continuing with President Clinton's initiatives to normalize relations with Vietnam, we have started to return with an American spirit that advances the cause of freedom. No doubt the war affected America, but it wasn't our worst war-connected failure. The most difficult war of the last century was not Vietnam; it was World War I. In 1943, the year I was born, veterans of the Great War were remembering the 25th anniversary of their armistice while their sons were fighting in Italy and the Pacific against enemies whose military strength was ignored on account of the bitter memories of the failures of the first World War. So, as I remember April 30, 1975, I will also remember Nov. 11, 1918, and what happened when America isolated itself from the world. But I will also remember the pride I felt when I sat in joint sessions of Congress listening to Vaclav Havel, Kim Dae Jung, Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela thank Americans for the sacrifices they made on behalf of their freedom. The famous photo of South Vietnamese ascending a stairway to a helicopter on the roof of our Saigon embassy represents both our shame and our honor. The shame is that we, in the end, turned our back on Vietnam and on the sacrifice of more than 55,000 Americans. We succumbed to fatigue and self- doubt, we reneged on the promise we had made to support the South Vietnamese, and the communists were able to defeat our allies. The honor is that during the fall of Saigon we rescued tens of thousands of our South Vietnamese friends, and in the years following we welcomed over a million more Vietnamese to our shores. For a young, college-educated son of the clean, optimistic American heartland, the war taught some valuable lessons. My trip to Vietnam gave me a sense of the immense size and variety of our world. I was also awed by something that still moves me: That Americans would risk their lives for the freedom of another people. At the Philadelphia Naval Hospital, I learned that everyone needs America's generosity--even me. During the war, I knew the fight for freedom was the core reason for our being in Vietnam. But after the war, as I learned more about our government's decision-making in the war years, I became angry. I was angry at the failure of our leaders to tell the truth about what was happening in Vietnam. I was angry at their ignorance about the motives of our North Vietnamese adversaries and the history of Vietnam. Our leaders didn't seem to understand the depth of commitment of our adversaries to creating their version of an independent Vietnam. I particularly detested President Nixon for his duplicity in campaigning on a promise to end the war, and then, once in office, broadening the war to Cambodia. But time has taught me the sterility of anger. So, as I recently told former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, I forgive our leaders of the Vietnam period. I am able to forgive, not out of any great generosity of mine, but because the passage of time and the actions of the communist government of Vietnam have proven to me we were fighting on the right side. In their harsh treatment of the Vietnamese people, in denying them medicine and essential consumer goods, and in persecuting religious practice, the Vietnamese communists in the post-war years proved themselves to be communists. The most eloquent comment on life under Ho Chi Minh's heirs was the flight of millions of Vietnamese who risked death on the high seas rather than live under that regime. If there was to be a trial to determine if the Vietnam War was worth fighting, I would call the Boat People as my only witness. Was the war a mistake, or was it worth the effort and sacrifice? Everyone touched by it must answer that question for themselves. When I came home in 1969 and for many years afterward, I did not believe it was. Today, with the passage of time and the experience of seeing both the benefits of freedom won by our sacrifice and the human destruction done by dictatorships, I believe the cause was just and the sacrifice not in vain.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member is pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3629, the American Indian Tribal Colleges Universities Improvement Act. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for introducing this legislation and the committee for bringing it to the floor. This is almost orphan legislation. There are too few members unfortunately that pay attention to Native American issues and certainly to tribal college issues. So I am particularly pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has taken this initiative. The committee has brought it to the floor. People like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), always active on Native American issues, are supporting it, as I would always expect him to be supporting it. Tribal colleges and universities do play a critical and important role in providing postsecondary education opportunities for American Indians. These colleges are among the youngest, poorest, and smallest group of institutions of higher education in the United States. As mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), these 32 tribal colleges in the United States serve over 25,000 students. They are severely underfunded. There are two tribal colleges located in the first congressional district in Nebraska, the Nebraska Indian Community College and the Little Priest Tribal College. These two young colleges work with very limited resources to provide educational opportunities where none existed before. Native Americans in Nebraska already have benefited from the services provided and the education offered by these institutions. This legislation, as we have heard, makes important technical corrections to the Higher Education Act title III strengthening institutions provisions. This Member would focus on three that seem particularly important to my Native American constituents. First, the bill simplifies the application process. As we heard, it puts all colleges on equal footing regardless of age, size, or level of development. Second, it directs the Secretary of Education to ensure equitable distribution of funding to the maximum number of tribal colleges possible. Third, this measure exempts tribal colleges from the 2-year wait-out period now required under title III as mentioned by both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). These three changes simply give tribal colleges the same application procedures now allowed for historically black colleges and universities in this country. Therefore, it is equitable. It is needed. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3629.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 2000, this Member inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 127 on final passage of H.R. 4199, the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act. This Member is opposed to the bill and intended to vote ``no'' on final passage as his statement at that time on H.R. 4199 reflected his opposition to the bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of H.R. 3615, the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act. This Member is pleased to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation, which will ensure improved access to local television signals in unserved or under-served rural areas. Many rural families either cannot receive their local broadcast signals over the air, or are not offered cable service. It is important that we address this problem. Particularly in rural areas, local television broadcasts may be one of the few sources of emergency warnings and local news. In addition, local television provides weather, sports and special interest programming. Rural Americans, like their urban counterparts, need access to this important information. Last year, the House passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which was ultimately signed into law. Satellite companies are now allowed to offer local network television signals to their subscribers. As a result of this bill, it is estimated that 70 percent of American households will eventually receive local broadcast signals. The remaining 30 percent of households, however, are found in sparsely populated areas, which will likely not be served under existing conditions. This legislation will ensure that these unserved or under- served areas are able to receive access to local television signals. This bill authorizes the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to provide loan guarantees to organizations for building or improving satellite, cable television and multi-channel video distribution infrastructure in under-served areas. The RUS will guarantee up to $1.25 billion in loans to multi-channel video service providers, including direct broadcast satellite licensees. Under the RUS, up to 80 percent of a private loan may be guaranteed and loans will be payable in full within 25 years or the useful life of the assets purchased. This bill also provides standards to ensure that the loans will be promptly repaid and that the borrower has adequate collateral and insurance to protect the interests of the Federal government. Projects providing service to the most under-served market areas will be given priority for these loans. In closing, this Member encourages his colleagues to support H.R. 3615. This bill ensures that all Americans, including those in rural areas, receive reliable access to their local broadcast stations.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member opposes H.R. 4199, the Tax Code Termination Act. Before going into the reasoning behind this opposition, this Member would like to preface his comments by the following statement. This Member unequivocally believes that substantial but very careful reform is needed for the U.S. tax code. Examples abound of inefficiencies and counterproductive elements of the Internal Revenue Code as it operates today. However, this Member opposes H.R. 4199 for the following four reasons: (1) This Member does not think that we should delay decision-making as H.R. 4199 provides. We need to decide today's issues today and not defer them to tomorrow. (2) H.R. 4199 fails for its lack of precision. H.R. 4199 would sunset the current tax code effective December 31, 2004. It is certainly not legislatively, statutorily wise to decide to eliminate the tax code without determining a revenue alternative to replace it with. If such major action should be taken as contemplated by H.R. 4199, a precise alternative Federal tax system needs to be simultaneously decided. (3) This Member does not support this legislation because it could dramatically discourage investment and cause economic chaos as investors are faced with great uncertainty. If H.R. 4199 is passed, Americans will be in a state of great confusion and apprehension until a replacement tax code is enacted, which could be as late as July 4, 2004. Members of the House need to really consider the decisions that would face businesses and their constituents in this environment of uncertainty. For example, can a corporation make a prudent investment decision if they do not know what the tax consequences of that decision will be just a few years hence? No, they cannot. Will investors continue to be as ready to buy tax-exempt bonds if they are not sure whether this tax exempt status will continue? No, they will not. Another example of the potentially very negative effects of H.R. 4199 relates to the mortgage interest deduction. A young family which desires to purchase a home for the first time will not know if they can count on a mortgage interest deduction in the future if H.R. 4199 is passed. In fact, this uncertainty may be enough to deter someone from purchasing a house until a replacement tax code is in place. (4) H.R. 4199 would have a negative effect on state and local entities. The tax benefits, for example, of the investors in public bonds would be negatively affected by the uncertainty created by H.R. 4199. Certainly, local school districts could be adversely affected, along with most other varieties of local governmental bodies. Mr. Speaker, for these four reasons, just briefly described, this Member must oppose H.R. 4199. We need a fundamental re-examination of America's Federal tax code and it should begin now, but rash action like H.R. 4199 is most assuredly not the way to proceed. Its enactment would have a chilling effect upon our economy and cause greater difficulty in public and private decision-making. All that is lacking to begin such a comprehensive review and reform of our Federal system of taxation is the will or commitment to begin and the organizational and legislative skills to implement such changes. With such a narrow majority in this House, it will also take bipartisan cooperation and good will.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition to House Joint Resolution 94, the so-called tax limitation amendment. Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for any tax increases. However, as a matter of principle and conscience, this Member cannot do that. As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the House in the past, there is a great burden of proof to deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is consistent or complementary to this important principle. There should be no question of this Member's continued and enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring such a balanced budget. In the judgment of this Member, tax increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget; balanced budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as appropriate, tax cuts. This is why this Member in the past has supported the inclusion of a super majority requirement for tax increases in the rules of the House. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in this Member's opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why this Member will vote against House Joint Resolution 94.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the April 3, 2000, Norfolk Daily News. The editorial expresses support for a new form of crop insurance which allows farmers to protect themselves against both natural disasters and low prices. This Member is pleased that legislation passed last year by the House makes many improvements in the current program, including providing additional assistance for producers to purchase insurance that provides protection from price or income loss, as well as production loss. This Member encourages expeditious action on resolving the differences between the risk management bills passed by the House and Senate. [From the Norfolk Daily News, Apr. 3, 2000] Crop Insurance An Improvement With new insurance type, farmers can finally control part of their operations With the weather and market price swings completely out of their control, an increasing number of farmers are embracing one of the few things that can give them at least some control over their income. It comes in the form of crop insurance but not the type that most people think of. For years, crop insurance was a way to insure against crop disasters caused by weather debacles. The problem was that it often was expensive, didn't provide complete coverage and many farmers shunned it, choosing instead to hope that Mother Nature would cooperate and, if that wasn't the case, that the federal government would come through with emergency assistance. That kind of crop insurance still is available, but a newer type--one that insures against price dips and weather-related problems--is fast becoming the preferred option. That's partly because the federal government has chosen to provide $400 million in additional subsidies, meaning the premiums for crop insurance have been reduced by about 25 percent. A lower price for better coverage is the kind of deal anyone needs to take a close look at. The other factor is the kind of insurance available. While more expensive than the traditional type that insures against weather-related problems, the new revenue coverage offers farmers more peace of mind in that it guarantees an income level regardless of what happens with the weather. It also provides more marketing flexibility for participating farmers and even could provide some supplemental income during a bumper crop year--assuming market prices are low as a result. If that sounds too good to be true, there's more. Although government subsidies have increased for crop insurance, it is predicted that if enough farmers take advantage of the insurance options available to them, there will be significantly less chance of the government having to provide emergency bailouts because of droughts or other conditions. Those usually are more expensive to taxpayers than the subsidies. Farming always has been one of the highest risk occupations in terms of financial results. If this new type of crop insurance can help reduce that risk, while also reducing emergency expenditures by the federal government, then virtually everyone should benefit.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for his kind remarks and thank him and the chairman of the full committee for bringing and expediting this legislation and similarly express appreciation to their Democrat counterparts. Of course, housing is one of the most important investments that Americans make. Homeownership gives an individual or family a sense of pride in themselves, their home, as well as in their community. It is one of the reasons why this bill, H.R. 1776, is so important and I rise in support of it. I would like to focus on four general provisions of this legislation which promote homeownership. First of all, the legislation goes to great lengths to promote homeownership for Americans across the entire country. First, families can use their Federal rental vouchers for mortgage payments. Two, mayors and local governing officials can be given increased flexibility to use the Community Development Block Grant program and HOME Federal housing block grant funds for homeownership assistance. Three, a HOME loan guarantee program is created to allow communities to tap into future HOME grants for affordable housing developments. Four, all Federal agencies are required to include a housing impact analysis to ensure that proposed regulations do not have a negative impact on affordable housing. Furthermore, I would like to focus on four specific provisions with which this Member was involved. First, H.R. 1776 extends the grandfather status until the 2010 census for similarly situated cities nationwide like Norfolk, Nebraska, to continue to be able to use the USDA Rural Housing Service programs. Second, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act also includes a permanent authorization for Section 184, the Native American Home Loan Guarantee program, which this Member authored with the help of many of my colleagues. Under current law, the Section 184 program is authorized only through 2001. Third, a provision is included in this legislation which would create the Indian Lands Title Report Commission, with a sunset, to improve the procedure by which the Bureau of Indian Affairs conducts title reviews in connection with the status of Indian lands. This provision is identical to a bill this Member introduced previously in this Congress. Moreover, the Commission should facilitate the use of Section 184 program to benefit additional Native Americans in purchasing homes on Indian reservations. This is the only program that effectively permits Indians who live on reservations to actually purchase a home or, more likely, to build a home. Fourth and lastly, this Member is pleased that as a matter of equity the manager's amendment includes a provision which I support. It extends Native American housing assistance programs to native Hawaiians. In particular, the manager's amendment applies the Section 184 loan guarantee program to the unique legal status of Hawaiian homelands. Mr. Chairman, for these and many other reasons, I urge support of the legislation and thank my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), for his exceptional work.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 2000, official business off of Capitol Hill caused me to unavoidably miss rollcall vote 65 (final passage on H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' Opponents of the legislation were circulating comments that I made as Vice-Chairman of the International Relations Committee during consideration of H.R. 3822. My statement, accurately reported by a prominent news service, was that by the Committee passage of this legislation, ``we're making ourselves feel good, but that's all it is.'' What the article did not include is the fact that my remarks also included the statement that the President already has all the authority to implement all the recommendations of this legislation, including the authority to exact sanctions on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), if he chooses to do so. My statement was prefaced by my remarks that the Administration has been too slow in protesting and working to reverse or counter OPEC's production cutbacks which began last spring and which have let the prices spiral get out of hand. As I said, the Administration should have been pressuring OPEC countries five or six months ago to reduce prices. I concluded my remarks in Committee by stating that the American people are now stuck with higher prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil for at least the next half year because ``the Administration was asleep at the switch'' and didn't take energetic and prudent actions. If there is any blame to be distributed at the Federal level, the American people should know it falls on the Administration.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 292, the resolution introduced by the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Armey, which congratulates the people of Taiwan and Taiwan's leaders for the successful conclusion of their presidential election on March 18. Indeed, this election represents, as the majority leader and the Committee on Rules chairman just indicated, the first such democratic transition to high national office, one elected leader to another, in the very long history of Chinese society. That fact bears repeating. The people of Taiwan are to be congratulated for their continuing efforts in developing and sustaining a free democratic society which respects human rights and embraces free markets. Contrary to the claims of those trying to defend Communism and other authoritarian forms of government, this election demonstrates that democracy clearly could work in the People's Republic of China, and it explains the reason why the Chinese people increasingly yearn for democracy and could flourish under it. The success of democracy in Taiwan is, indeed, a powerful model for the mainland. This resolution, which was expeditiously considered last week without opposition in the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, which this Member chairs, and subsequently in the full Committee on International Relations, also acknowledges that a stable and peaceful security environment in East Asia is essential to the furtherance of democratic developments in the Taiwan area and in other countries. It reaffirms U.S. policy regarding Taiwan as set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act. In this regard, the resolution appropriately, this Member believes, expresses the sense of Congress that the People's Republic of China should refrain from making provocative threats against Taiwan and should instead undertake steps that would lead to substantive dialogue, including a renunciation of the use of force against Taiwan, the encouragement of democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human and religious rights in the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, this Member is encouraged that since the election in Taiwan, Beijing has curtailed, to a certain degree, its aggressive and unhelpful rhetoric and appears again, to a certain degree, to be extending the offer for a renewed dialogue. It is hoped that this is an offer which is offered in, in fact, good faith. Across the Taiwan Strait, President-elect Chen and others in Taipei are also calling for renewed dialogue and are already proposing the kind of responsible statesman-like policies that could expand and accelerate this dialogue. Mr. Speaker, this is a timely, necessary, and straightforwardly positive resolution that sends an important message to both Beijing and Taipei. As a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 292, this Member urges his colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and, as the author of H.R. 3707, the American Institute Enhancement Act, this Member rises in strong support of what he regards as timely and responsible legislation. Before commenting on it, though, this Member would like to express his sincere appreciation to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for his much appreciated assistance in moving this bill forward so quickly and for suggested refinements that were incorporated in the bill during the markup of the Committee on International Relations. This Member would also like to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for supporting this bill and moving it expeditiously. Additionally, I express my appreciation to the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his cosponsorship and special cooperation in expediting the consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this Member believes it is important to note that the United States' commitment to the security and well-being of the people of Taiwan is enshrined in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the TRA, a congressional initiative of that year, responding to a controversial Carter administration initiative of that previous year. The TRA, which continues to be the guide of our unofficial relations with Taiwan, is an important document for us to consider and to reaffirm from time to time and also to reexamine to make sure that we understand exactly what it is that controls our relationship with Taiwan and, in effect, the relationship between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China. The TRA established the American Institute in Taiwan, AIT, as a nonprofit corporation to implement on behalf of the United States Government any and all programs, transactions and other relations with Taiwan. In other words, to function as our unofficial embassy in Taiwan. The current AIT facilities, which in some cases consists of aging quonset huts, are grossly inadequate and were not designed for the important functions of AIT. They were built or occupied as temporary facilities almost 50 years ago, and are increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. From the perspective of security, AIT fails miserably, surrounded by taller buildings and lacking adequate setbacks. Major, very cost- ineffective enhancements would be required to bring it into compliance with security requirements. In fact, it is an impossibility, and the site is entirely inappropriate for our new construction for the AIT. Because of our unique relationship with Taiwan, characterized by the agreement itself, the State Department is not able, under routine authority, to proceed with the planning and the construction of a new facility for AIT. The Congress must specifically authorize and appropriate the necessary funds. While AIT has made a good faith effort to set aside funds for the construction of a new office building complex, these funds, while very significant, will never be sufficient for even a modest complex that is sufficient and secure enough to meet AIT's needs. H.R. 3707, which this Member introduced, has bipartisan support. Although only recently introduced, the resolution is cosponsored by the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), as well as other distinguished members of the committee, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). The bill authorizes the appropriation of $75 million for planning acquisition and construction of a new facility for AIT. Over 20 years after the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, our unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan are stronger, more robust, and more important than ever. In order to reflect the importance of these relations, as well as for very practical reasons of efficient and secure operations, the Congress needs to act now to authorize the lengthy effort to upgrade our diplomatic facilities on Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, recently, as is apparent to all, we have been seized with issues involving our relationship with Taiwan and China. Today, relatedly, we just considered another resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 292, that once again congratulates the people of Taiwan on the success of their historic democratic elections. We have also been concerned by the bellicose rhetoric from Beijing that once again preceded the Taiwanese presidential election. The House also recently passed a properly amended version of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, while at the same time we are preparing for the upcoming debate on granting permanent normal trade relations for China as a part of the country's accession to the WTO. In view of all these developments, now is the appropriate time to send another signal of our unshakable, long-term commitment to our critically important relations with Taiwan. We are there in Taipei with the citizens of Taiwan for as long as it takes to assure that any reunification with the mainland is voluntary and as a result of peaceful means. In the judgment of this Member, the Congress should and will work with the administration to approve permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China, the PRC, as part of our support for its accession to the World Trade Organization, just as we support and will lead in the near simultaneity of Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a long-justified accession to the WTO 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. At the same time, it is very important that we make it crystal clear to the PRC and the world that we are calmly but resolutely standing at the side of Taiwan, providing for the sale of necessary defensive weapons to it for its defense against any hostile or coercive action to force its reunification with the PRC through any process that is not a peaceful noncoercive one. We are, by our recent actions regarding Taiwan making our continued positive, supportive, TRA-driven relationship with Taiwan unambiguous. We are proceeding in a two-track Taiwan-PRC policy; resolutely, unflinchingly, and unabashedly standing by Taiwan's side while demonstrating our willingness to engage with the PRC in a variety of ways when it is in our national interest to do so and when it is consistent with our region-stabilizing role to do so. We have benign motives for our great and many interests in Asia, but as a superpower, we will act like one and defend our national interest in the region and support all of our loyal allies. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to join him in supporting the American Institute in Taiwan Facilities Enhancement Act.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H. Con. Res. 290, the FY 2001 Budget Resolution, as approved by the House Budget Committee. This budget resolution proposes $596.5 billion in total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001, a $10.5 billion increase which amounts to half of the rate of inflation. In fact, the spending limits for most of the five budget alternatives offered today are relatively close in total spending. This Member votes for H. Con. Res. 290 only with the expressed understanding the resolution presents an overall guidance to the House on spending and revenues which he supports. However, this Member views the spending breakdown by categories as only advisory; he does not agree with several areas of this part of the committee's recommendations. Therefore this Member does not view himself as committed to the detailed budget function breakdown included in H. Con. Res. 290. Indeed, this Member intends to ask the leadership to make certain different recommendations to the Appropriation Committee as allocation decisions are made among its subcommittees. Having said that, this Member is pleased that H. Con. Res. 290 provides an increase for the category education, training, employment, and social services programs. The resolution also includes a necessary increase for Medicare. Moreover, the budget category for transportation is adequate to permit spending of accumulated dollars in the highway trust fund and aviation trust fund, so these funds will not be diverted for other purposes. This Member strongly supports that concept. Also very importantly, the budget resolution stipulates that if a portion of a FY 2001 tax relief is vetoed by the president, the vetoed amount must be allocated toward debt reduction, not additional spending--in effect creating a debt reduction ``lockbox.'' In addition, H. Con. Res. 290 proposes to devote the entire amount of excess Social Security receipts (an estimated $166 billion in FY 2001) to a lockbox to prevent these Social Security funds from being used to finance other government programs. Importantly, there is $8 billion over the next 5 years for crop insurance reform. It is this Member's hope that since the other body passed its version of crop insurance legislation today, we will have a conference committee appointed shortly and actually enact crop insurance reform well before FY 2001 begins. Furthermore, H. Con. Res. 290 includes $6 billion for a reserve fund to address potential agriculture emergencies during FY 2000. This fund will allow Congress the flexibility to quickly address agricultural emergencies within the framework of the budget throughout the year. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member supports the Budget Committee version of H. Con. Res. 290 and urges his colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends the following March 17, 2000, Omaha World-Herald editorial to his colleagues regarding the recently approved, important aviation improvement conference report, also known as AIR21, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st century. The editorial acknowledges that it is time for the Aviation Trust Fund to be used solely for airport improvements and maintenance, rather than being considered part of the general budget. This important change will greatly benefit Nebraska airports. [From the Omaha World-Herald, March 17, 2000] Air Justice The U.S. House of Representatives' over-whelming passage of a bill to spend $40 billion over three years for air-travel improvement is good for airports in general and good for airports in Nebraska and Iowa in particular. It also addresses a point of fundamental fairness. For years Congress has bottled up money from the Aviation Trust Fund, which takes in about $10 billion a year in user fees. The central purpose of the fund has been to finance airport improvements and maintenance, and in theory it was earmarked for that. But the money was left unspent as a piece of fiscal sleight-of-hand meant to make federal deficits appear smaller. For Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation Committee, it became almost a moral crusade to get the fund separated from the general budget, with its revenues to be used solely for airport projects. After years of impasse, the Senate agreed that, without actually separating the funds, spending on airports each year will equal or exceed the fund's revenues and interest. That looks like a distinction without a difference, but so be it. That's politics. The cork is out of the bottle. At bottom, this was made possible by two factors: (1) The federal government, at least by some accounting methods, is now running surpluses, not deficits. (2) It's an election year--the House passed the measure by better than 3-to-1. The legislation also raised the cap on air-port-imposed passenger fees, from $3 to $4.50. This is mostly to the good, since local airports commonly use them for improvements to benefit those same passengers. For the record, that $1.50 increase is going to look like $6 on a lot of airline tickets. That's because on a round-trip ticket, the fee gets you literally coming and going, and it can be imposed for a maximum of two segments on each flight. Thus, a passenger flying, say from Omaha to Orlando with a stop in St. Louis and returning could rack up four of those $1.50 increases. (That's up to the individual airports, but it's hard to imagine many of them forgoing the revenue.) A dozen airports in Nebraska and Iowa, with Omaha's Eppley Airfield leading the way, will get their federal entitlements doubled over each of the next three years. For Eppley, this means more than $7 million for construction that wasn't there before--just what is needed by an airport whose passenger boardings are expected to double in the next 11 years. Some other aspects of the bill are equally welcome. Of prime concern, modernizing the nation's decrepit air traffic control system will get a substantial boost, nearly $1 billion per year. In addition, there are provisions to help airlines buy so-called ``regional'' jets, provided they use them to serve small airports. There are funds to help improve the training of airport security checkpoint personnel, as well as money to put emergency locator devices on smaller jets. The measure also mandates collision-avoidance systems for cargo planes, adds protections for whistleblowers on safety- related issues, and increases penalties against unruly passengers. Some critics say that by allowing more flights into some major airports, the bill will increase congestion and compromise safety. but the improved air-traffic handling system should largely address such concerns. And, realistically, it is hard to know how Congress could have put this off much longer in good conscience. By one FAA projection, during the next 11 years the number of large passenger jets needing access to the skies and gate space at airports is expected to grow by half. It took too long, but justice has been done. In a practical sense, the money in the Aviation Trust Fund has belonged to air passengers all along. At last, they'll see it coming back.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 1000, the AIR-21 legislation. This legislation is clearly needed to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund and to provide adequate funding for our nation's airports. This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Shuster), the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Transportation Committee; the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee; and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the Subcommittee and the other members of the conference committee for their extraordinary work in developing this conference report and bringing it to the Floor. This Member appreciates their diligence, persistence, and hard work. This is an important bill for this Member's district, for the State of Nebraska, and for the Nation. It addresses the country's growing aviation needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Quite simply, the bill recognizes the need to spend aviation taxes on the aviation system. During the 105th Congress we restored the trust with American drivers by ensuring that gas taxes actually will be spent as available primarily on highway construction and maintenance. It is now time to ensure that this trust is restored with the flying public. This conference report will lead to significantly increased funding for our nation's airports. As a result, it will result in reduced flight delays, improved air safety, and greater competition. The American people deserve to see this legislation enacted. They deserve it because they've already paid in taxes what it will now authorize. This Member is concerned about growing needs at our nation's airports. While more people are flying, airport improvements are simply not keeping pace. That's because the money that passengers are paying each time they fly and fuel taxes are accumulating in the trust fund rather than being put to use to improve our airports and provide safer flying. Unless we act now, the problems will only get worse. It is now anticipated that air travel will increase by more than 40 percent over the next ten years. This surge will place increased demands on an already over-burdened aviation system. According to the General Accounting Office, we are underfunding airport infrastructure by at least $3 billion each year. Currently, the needs of smaller airports are twice as great as their funding sources. Fortunately, we have the ability to act now. We can improve the system without raising taxes or threatening the funding for other government programs or services. We must unlock the money in the Aviation Trust Fund and spend it for what it was intended. Airports across the country and the passengers who use them will all benefit from passage of this legislation. Large airports as well as small airports will be able to modernize and expand once the Trust Fund money is released. The increases in funding will be substantial and passengers will notice the results if we make these investments now. As an example, the Lincoln Municipal Airport in Nebraska currently receives an entitlement of about $1 million per year. Under the conference report, this will increase to more than $2 million annually. Such an increase would greatly assist the airport with its planned $5 million runway project, which would replace the surface, comply with new safety requirements, and provide new lighting. General aviation airports in Nebraska, in communities such as Beatrice, Falls City, Blair, Fremont, Norfolk, York, Plattsmouth, and Nebraska City will also receive annual entitlements which will assist them with necessary projects. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 1000. It will provide the American people with the aviation system that they have paid for and deserve. General Aviation--Conference GA Entitlement nebraska ANW--Ainsworth Municipal, Ainsworth, $150,000. BVN--Albion Municipal, Albion, 150,000. AIA--Alliance Municipal, Alliance, $117,533. BIE--Beatrice Municipal, Beatrice, $39,800. FNB--Brenner Field, Falls City, $60,000. CDR--Chadron Municipal, Chadron, $111,600. CNP--Chappell Municipal, Chappell, $1,000. OLU--Columbus Municipal, Columbus, $43,200. K46--Eagle Field, Blair, $150,000. FBY--Fairbury Municipal, Fairbury, $118,800. FET--Fremont Municipal, Fremont, $80,000. OKS--Garden County, Oshkosh, $150,000. HSI--Hastings Municipal, Hastings, $69,000. IML--Imperial Municipal, Imperial, $119,200. OFK--Karl Stefan Memorial, Norfolk, $150,000. EAR--Kearney Municipal, Kearney, $80,475. LXN--Lexington (Jim Kel), Lexington, $130,000. MCK--Mc Cook Municipal, Mc Cook, $84,000. VTN--Miller Field, Valentine, $150,000. 9V5--Modisett, Rushville, $99,253. 4D9--Municipal, Alma, $36,800. JYR--Municipal, York, $100,000. AFK--Nebraska City Municipal, Nebraska City, $150,000. 0V3--Pioneer Village Field, Minden, $77,200. PMV--Plattsmouth Municipal, Plattsmouth, $150,000. OGA--Searle Field, Ogallala, $93,400. Summary for `State' = NE (26 detail records)--Sum $2,661,261.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to alert his colleagues to the introduction of H.R. 3707, the Taiwan Facilities Enhancement Act. This bill authorizes construction of modern, secure facilities for the American Institute on Taiwan. In the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the Congress established the American Institute on Taiwan to perform on behalf of the United States Government any and all programs and other relations with Taiwan. These facilities are grossly inadequate today from a security perspective, and major enhancements would be necessary to bring them into compliance with security requirements. Mr. Speaker, Congress must specifically act to authorize because it is not a normal embassy or a consulate. Mr. Speaker, over 20 years after the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, our unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan are stronger, more robust, and more important than ever. For very practical and security reasons, the Congress needs to act to upgrade our diplomatic facilities on Taiwan as well. It will also demonstrate that we have and will have a presence in Taipei for the long-term, if necessary, to assure that any reunification is peaceful and uncoerced. This Member hopes that all Members of Congress will cosponsor and support this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends and submits for the Record an editorial from the March 7, 2000, Norfolk Daily News expressing concern that some public high schools do not cooperate with military recruiters while allowing universities and colleges on campus. High school students should have a full range of postsecondary options presented to them, in order to make an informed decision about life after high school. [From the Daily News, Mar. 7, 2000] Cooperation is Important Duty--Recruiters Deserve Welcome From All of Nation's Public High Schools Members of the Senate Armed Services Personnel subcommittee heard testimony recently that many high schools refuse to cooperate with military recruiters. It is important for members of Congress to find out why this is so, and whether a more cooperative attitude can be encouraged. With the Army, Navy and Air Force falling short of their recruitment goals in the past year and new peacekeeping demands being put on U.S. forces, it is important that enlistments in the all volunteer force be encouraged. Much is being done to improve pay and benefits, to improve military housing and shorten long tours of foreign duty. Provision of enlistment incentives that include funds for later college training has helped the services and the educational institutions as well. In this free society, it may not be possible to do much about some people described by Sgt. 1st Class Elizabeth Green, an Army Reserve recruiter in Los Angeles. She told the Senate subcommittee that when visiting one of the high schools in her recruiting area, she is regularly greeted by parents who protest her presence. Recruiters from each of the services agreed that about half of the schools bar military representatives and also refuse access to student directories that would allow correspondence with prospective enlistees. By contrast, the recruiters noted, colleges that seek to recruit high school students get full cooperation. It is a difference in treatment that should not exist. Public high schools have a special burden to ensure their graduates the broadest possible career opportunities. Military service is an important option, and each of the branches ought to be welcomed to career days or any other similar events. Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., a member of the subcommittee that heard testimony from the recruiters, suggested that legislation be considered to provide some inducement for schools to cooperate with recruiters. A different approach could be in order. With federal money playing an increasing, though still minor, role in public education, Washington ought not consider more rewards for cooperating but impose funding cuts for failure to do so. That would get more attention. While little is said these days about patriotic duties and an obligation all Americans have to help protect the nation from overt aggression and terrorists, a fundamental duty of citizenship needs to include support of the nation's military services.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the debate on providing China with Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status conditioned on China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) intensifies, I recommend to my colleagues and submit for the Record the following commentary written by Leonard Woodcock in the Los Angeles Times on March 9, 2000. A key lieutenant in the 1930's drive to unionize the U.S. auto industry, Mr. Woodcock rose in the union ranks to become president of the United Auto Workers union from 1971-1977. Later that decade he served as the United States Ambassador to China. Indeed, Mr. Woodcock is uniquely qualified to judge from a labor perspective the merits and impact of providing China with PNTR in the context of the United States-China WTO bilateral accession agreement. He supports the agreement and PNTR status for China. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand why other labor leaders and their Democratic supporters in Congress cannot be as supportive as is the former president of the United Auto Workers, Leonard Woodcock. [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 9, 2000] Evolution Doesn't Occur Overnight WTO agreement: Organized labor should support it. It's in both U.S. and Chinese interests (By Leonard Woodcock) The recent U.S.-China World Trade Organization bilateral accession agreement appears to be good for workers in both countries. I was privileged, as U.S. ambassador to China, to sign the 1979 trade agreement that provided for most-favored- nation trade status to China and have, as a private citizen, been involved with this issue for many years. American labor has a tremendous interest in China's trading on fair terms with the U.S. The agreement we signed with China this past November marks the largest single step ever taken toward achieving that goal. The agreement expands American jobs. And while China already enjoys WTO-based access to our economy, this agreement will open China's economy to unprecedented levels of American exports, many of which are high-quality goods produced by high-paying jobs. There is reason to fear unfair trade practices. Yet this agreement actually provides better protections than our existing laws allow. It stipulates 12 years of protections against market surges and provides unusually strong anti- dumping laws--which aim to counter unfairly priced imports-- for 15 years. I have, therefore, been startled by organized labor's vociferous negative reaction to this agreement. The reality is that the U.S. as a whole benefits mightily from this historic accord. The AFL-CIO argues that nothing in this agreement demands that free trade unions be formed in China. Yet the WTO does not require this of any of its 136 member countries, and the WTO is the wrong instrument to use to achieve unionization. We should, instead, be asking a more important question: Are Chinese workers better off with or without this agreement? The answer is that this agreement, in a variety of ways, will be enormously beneficial to Chinese workers. On a subtle level, the changes the agreement requires of China's economic system will work in favor of investment by Western firms and take away some of the key advantages Asian firms now enjoy in China. Every survey has demonstrated that working conditions and environmental standards in plants run by West European and North American firms are usually better than those in Asian and in indigenous Chinese firms. The greater foreign presence also will expose Chinese workers to more ideas about organization and rights. That is perhaps one reason why almost every Chinese political dissident who has spoken out on this issue has called the U.S.-China WTO agreement good news for freedom in China. The trade deficit with China is a troublesome one to the labor movement. We need to put it in perspective in two ways. First, if we were to block access of goods from China to the U.S., this would not increase American jobs. That is because the Chinese exports--mostly toys, tools, apparel, cheap electronics, etc.--would be produced in other low-wage countries, not in the U.S. Yet if China stopped buying from us, we would lose about 400,000 jobs, mostly high-wage. Second, a large portion of exports from ``China'' are goods produced in the main in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia. The major components are then shipped to China for final assembly and packaging, but the entire cost of the item (often only 15% of which was contributed in China) is attributed to China's export ledger. Exports to the U.S. from Hong Kong and Taiwan have declined over the past decade almost as fast as imports from China have increased. Yet the companies making the profits are in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and they will simply shift their operations to Vietnam or elsewhere if we close down exports from China. Americans are broadly concerned about the rights and quality of life of Chinese citizens. My perspective on this serious issue is influenced by my experience in the U.S. In my lifetime, women were not allowed the vote, and labor was not allowed to organize. And, in my lifetime, although the law did not permit lynching, it was protected and carried out by legal officeholders. As time passed, we made progress, and I doubt if lectures or threats from foreigners would have moved things faster. Democracy, including rights for workers, is an evolutionary process. Isolation and containment will not promote improved rights for a people. Rather, working together and from within a society will, over time, promote improved conditions. The U.S.-China WTO agreement will speed up the evolutionary process in China. American labor should support it because it is in our interests, and it is the interests of Chinese workers too.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, American farmers are facing enormously difficult times. Producers continue to struggle with plentiful supplies and low prices. While there are no easy answers to this problem, there are some steps we can take to help farmers. Today, this Member is introducing a bill based upon extensive farmer and conservationist input, which can be part of the solution and provide much-needed agriculture relief. The legislation is known as the HERO bill, which stands for Habitat Enhancement Rotation Option. The HERO program would be voluntary and allow producers to enroll up to 25 percent of their cropland for periods of 2 to 4 years. It would complement the longer-term Conservation Reserve Program and thus provide farmers with payments as well as additional flexibility. The HERO program is designed to be used during times like the present with high supplies and low prices. In addition to helping farmers, it would provide significant environmental benefits. It would help rehabilitate cropland, enhance soil and water conservation, and improve wildlife habitat. Madam Speaker, the HERO program programs several options for farmers. For instance, producers could break the disease cycle, the weed cycles, plant short-term cover crops and so on. It could be used by producers seeking to establish permanent pasture on marginal cropland. I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation.