Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks a number of well-meaning but misguided voices have been raised to urge the lifting of economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. It has been suggested that lifting the sanctions will alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people. Iraq does face a humanitarian disaster, but it is a disaster that has been created and perpetuated by Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi leader bemoans the lack of food and medicine, but Saddam has amassed a personal fortune of over $6 billion, much of it the result of pilfering the donations the international community has provided. While his people have gone wanting, he has built scores of palatial mansions at an estimated cost of $2 billion. Recent studies from the Food and Agriculture Organization indicate that more than enough food is available to satisfy the minimal caloric requirements to sustain health. The problem is that Saddam is preventing adequate food and medicine from reaching those groups and regions that most actively oppose him. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein remains a lethal adversary who has repeatedly sought to circumvent international sanctions and has tried to divert humanitarian aid into military strategic programs. While it is entirely appropriate for the American people to care about the pain inflicted upon the people of Iraq, lifting the sanctions will not alleviate the suffering. We must not be naive, sanctions must remain in force.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends and submits for the Record this February 15, 2000, editorial from the Omaha World Herald regarding attempts by the Clinton Administration to require businesses to provide paid family and medical leave for employees. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 15, 2000] No One There to Pay Government-mandated family leave policies cause a particular difficulty for people who want government to do a great deal more to make life comfortable: No readily tappable reservoir of money exists to conveniently cover the costs. Currently people must go without pay if they exercise their rights under the 1993 federal law entitling them to 12 weeks away from work each year for family reasons. The time off can be used to care for a sick family member or bond with a newly adopted or newborn child. The original promoters of family leave in the 1980s said ``No, never'' when they were accused of planning to slip in a paid-leave requirement later. Now, predictably, ``No, never,'' has turned into ``Unfair--some people can't afford to take time off without pay.'' However, a majority of Congress has never bought into the idea that government should force employers to keep the paychecks coming for extended family leave. Moreover, the thought of taxing the general public has also been a non- starter--it raises such questions as why a family that sacrificed to have a stay-at-home caregiver should pay higher taxes to subsidize the paid leave of a two-earner family. Thus when President Clinton came around to paid family leave on the list of social programs he wants to leave as a legacy, he used an indirect approach. He said he would ask Congress for $20 million in grant money to encourage state governments to find a way to pay people who took time off. He had previously suggested raiding accounts currently used to compensate the jobless and temporarily disabled workers-- accounts that in many states are flush because of economic growth and low unemployment in recent years. But other creative ideas are encouraged, he said. It's always easy to be generous with someone else's money, but in our opinion Congress shouldn't even start down that road. Unemployment and disability funds aren't a windfall and shouldn't be treated as one. Much of the money in the fund resulted from a special tax collected only from businesses. Industries with a history of more layoffs paid proportionately more. In theory, the special tax rates are lowered when a healthy balance exists in the jobless accounts. Businesses would have a legitimate complaint if they were forced to continue to pay because the fund was drawn upon for reasons other than those for which it was established. And what happens if a recession sends unemployment soaring and the fund is drawn down to pay for family leave? How healthy would it be to raise business taxes still higher at the very time the vitality of the job- producing sector is under stress? The president showed a glimmer of understanding when he noted that his widowed mother was able to get job training because his grandparents cared for him while she attended school. No federal mandates were involved. But Clinton quickly dismissed the significance of that saying that his family had been lucky. He contends that a federal mandate is needed because not everyone has that kind of luck. As past editorials in this space have noted, Clinton's lack of firsthand experience with the private sector undermines his credibility on workplace issues. He said no American worker should have to choose between job and family. But such choices are made all the time. Balancing the various parts of one's life is a normal part of adulthood. And it's by no means a one-sided choice. Long before family leave was invented as a liberal political cause, fathers and mothers were dealing with such issues with the help of extended families, carefully scheduled vacations, generous workplace friends and kind neighbors. Sympathetic employers--the kind whose existence is seldom acknowledged by the left--also played a role in helping people manage. Competitiveness was also a factor. In a 1987 survey, 77 percent of 1,000 companies indicated that they already had formal or informal family leave policies. In some cases, employees were compensated while taking time off. So, long before Congress passed the original family leave law, the private sector was already moving forward. It would be interesting to know if this initiative has accelerated--or slowed--in the years since the government served notice that it was taking over the field.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues and submits for the Record this February 12, 2000, editorial from the Omaha World Herald regarding Federal court assignment of criminal cases concerning President Clinton's friends. Our colleague, Representative Howard Coble (R-NC), recently discovered frequent use of a special rule allowing the chief judge to bypass the random assignment system for certain ``protracted'' cases; in this instance, fundraising cases involving friends of the President that have been assigned to judges appointed by the President. This situation certainly should be investigated. It's little wonder that increasingly Americans are wondering if one can get justice from the Justice Department. Judging a Judge's Judgment The Washington, D.C. panel of federal judges that oversees judicial conduct there has reopened what had looked like's closed controversy. The judges were right to do so. The situation involved the chief judge's prior practice--it might reasonably be characterized as a habit--of naming judges who were appointees of President Clinton to preside over criminal cases involving his friends. That particular federal judicial district has a computer system to assign almost all criminal cases randomly. The idea of putting the system in place was to avoid both the appearance and the reality of favoritism. But there was a special rule, which was recently eliminated, allowing the chief judge to bypass the system for ``protracted'' cases. Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson used the rule with what might politely be called enthusiasm. It was revealed in recent months that five Democratic campaign fund-raising prosecutions and a tax-evasion case against Clinton confidant Webster Hubbell went to Clinton appointees. Now, appeals court Judge Stephen Williams has been ordered to look into the circumstances of these and other case assignments. The decision to revive the inquiry was made after the revelation by Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., of additional non- random assignments in fund-raising cases, including one involving a former fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore. Coble, one of the most conservative members of a mostly conservative congressional delegation from a conservative state, is no friend of Clinton or Gore. He probably has an agenda behind his quest. But that shouldn't matter. The facts are the facts: Judge Johnson by-passed the system and has never said why, although she denies that there were political considerations. It may all be on the up-and-up, but it smells funny. If Johnson in fact did nothing wrong, she deserves to have that publicized. Conversely, if some level of cronyism is involved, some sort of disciplinary action might be appropriate. Getting to the bottom of this is, plain and simple, a good idea.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues and submits for the Record this February 10, 2000, opinion column from the Financial Times regarding Jorg Haider. Why Europe Would Like Haider To Disappear The rightwing Austrian politician is a threat only because he has highlighted problems that are common to the rest of the EU (By Quentin Peel) Why on earth are we so worried about Jorg Haider? The leader of Austria's inappropriately-named Freedom party is nothing more than a lightweight provincial politician, a plausible populist more notable for changing his opinions by the hour than for any consistency of fanatical thought. One moment he is in favour of the European Union, the next he is a passionate Eurosceptic. One day he shows some sympathy for the Nazi regime in Germany, and the next he condemns it. He is an erratic gadfly with a grin, who has cynically exploited the widespread hostility to immigrants in the Austrian provinces, and the wider resentment of a political establishment that has carved up all the public sector jobs in Vienna. Yet the appearance of his party in the Austrian government has united the rest of the European Union in a chorus of condemnation. He is in danger of being demonised as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, when he should instead be treated with disdain and contempt. The year 2000 is not 1933, and the prosperous citizens of Austria are scarcely the embittered unemployed of Germany between the wars. The democratic institutions of post-war western Europe are surely resilient enough to resist the blandishments of a half-baked extremist. Yet the truth is that Mr. Haider, in himself, is not the problem. The international overreaction is driven by fear of contamination in other parts of the EU. He is a symbol, and many of the causes of his popularity are present in most of the states of the union. Austria is not alone in demonstrating resentment of a tired and corrupt political establishment, a fear of excessive immigration, and growing uncertainty about what enlargement of the EU will mean for the cozy lifestyle of the present member states. Germany and France both took a lead in the decision by the rest of the EU to freeze bilateral relations with Austria, and with good reason. Both have been hit by a series of political scandals, threatening an upsurge in public disgust with the political process. Scarcely a European country has been unaffected by allegations of illicit or corrupt party financing. As for immigration and EU enlargement, neither may be quite as big an issue as it is in Austria, but they could easily be exploited by a rabble-rouser in most EU countries. All the EU governments have gone a long way to tighten up controls on immigration and asylum-seekers, in precisely the direction that Mr. Haider demands, for fear of a backlash. Enlargement, now intended eventually to bring 13 new members into the EU, may be officially supported by all the present governments, but their voters remain decidedly skeptical. EU leaders will have to go out and sell the idea, with passion and conviction, or they could face an upsurge in xenophobia at the polls. If and when enlargement happens, as I fervently hope it does, it will change the EU substantially. The only way to accommodate such a wide variety of member states, at very differing political and economic stages of development, will be to build much more flexibility into the system. Somehow it has to be adapted to preserve the single market, without forcing the new members into instant bankruptcy. The high standards of developed west European economies cannot be adopted overnight in the east. Nor is it simply a matter of economics. The accession candidates are all relatively fragile democracies. Most have only recently recovered their full sovereignty from the former Soviet empire. There are unresolved ethnic conflicts, and minority rights issues, within their borders. They could well spark the emergence of nationalist movements at least as unattractive as the Freedom party of Mr. Haider. All these profound issues raised by EU enlargement are supposed to be tackled by the intergovernmental conference (IGC) of the present 15 member states, which opens next Monday. They are supposed to be streamlining the institutions so that they remain workable with as many as 28 members. Yet the chances are that the IGC will stick to a very narrow agenda, and leave the EU ill-prepared for the revolution to come. Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, says the prospect of more Haiders in an enlarged EU makes it all the more necessary to take most decisions by majority voting, not unanimity. Yet majority decisions enforced on unhappy minorities could be a formula for breeding more Haiders. The answer must be more flexible arrangements, more devolution of power, and a minimum of rules. If an enlarged EU is going to hold together, and enjoy the support of its inhabitants, it is going to have to be rather more than a glorified common market. It does not have to be the federal super-state that British Euro-sceptics fear and loathe. But it will have to be a community of common values. That is why the initiative running in parallel with the IGC may ultimately prove more important: the drafting of a Charter of Fundamental Rights. This should be clear, concise and easily intelligible. It does not have to add any exotic new rights that are not already present in the EU treaty and the European convention of human rights. But it should spell out the minimum rights and freedoms to which all member states of the union will be committed. It should also spell out what will happen if they transgress. For the advent of Mr. Haider in Austria is surely only a foretaste of the challenges to come in an enlarged EU. The member states need a clear yardstick by which to judge the acceptable behaviour of any government--a yardstick that voters can read and understand before they vote. That might discourage them from voting for anti-democratic extremists. And it might restrain the other member states from ad hoc overreactions.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends and submits for the Record a February 6, 2000, editorial from the Omaha World Herald regarding the bankruptcy bill recently passed by the Senate. The editorial highlights concerns regarding the numerous extraneous provisions added to the bankruptcy legislation during consideration by the Senate. The conference committee should eliminate the unrelated provisions and report a clean bankruptcy bill for final approval by the House and Senate. [From the Omaha World Herald, Feb. 6, 2000] Bankruptcy Bill Is Overloaded A bankruptcy reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate has many of the desirable features of legislation passed by the House last year. Unfortunately, it also carries unrelated provisions that should be stripped away. The two versions of the measure are similar in essential ways. The idea is to make it harder for people with higher incomes to walk away from debt following bankruptcy. People with the ability to repay some of their debt would be required to do so. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is chief sponsor of the Senate bill. The Clinton administration has said it opposes the measure because it is too stringent. Both the Senate and House versions would limit repeat bankruptcy filings and make child support the highest priority when debt repayment is ordered. The Senate bill contains a provision to prevent violent abortion-clinic demonstrators from using bankruptcy to escape paying fines and damages. That has occurred; Operation Rescue's Randall Terry filed for bankruptcy after a court ordered him to pay $1.6 million. The legislation contains provisions that would give people more information about the practices of credit card companies, which bear some responsibility for the increase in bankruptcies because of their bombardment of consumers with offers of easy credit. For instance, companies offering a low, ``teaser'' interest rate would have to say what the regular interest rate would be and when it would kick in. The companies would also have to disclose how many months it would take a person to pay off his credit-card debt if only minimum payments are made. It can be a startlingly long time, because even as the debt is paid, interest continues to accrue. But senators tacked on quite a list of unrelated matters that could cause problems. The minimum wage, for example, would rise over three years from $5.15 to $6.15, according to a provision of the bill. The idea is opposed by Democrats and the Clinton administration who want the rise to occur over 13 months. The measure would give billions of dollars in tax preferences to small business. And it would tighten the penalties for selling illegal drugs to minors, increase the penalty for selling powder cocaine to more closely match the sentence for selling crack and increase the penalty for the makers of methamphetamine. Exactly why the minimum wage, powder cocaine and tax breaks were tacked onto a bankruptcy bill is unclear. The House- Senate conference committee could agree to separate those provisions so they can be voted on separately by the two houses. They should do so. Whatever the merits of the additions, they don't belong in the bankruptcy measure. The bill, stripped of its irrelevant features, could emerge from the conference committee as a sound reform of a system that needs it. President Clinton might find it hard to veto a good bill in an election year.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000, of which he is a cosponsor. This bill will have a positive effect, in particular, on middle and lower income married couples. At the outset, this Member would like to thank both the main sponsor of H.R. 6 from Illinois [Rep. Weller] and the distinguished Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from Texas [Mr. Archer], for their instrumental role in bringing H.R. 6 to the floor of the House today. While there are many reasons to support H.R. 6, this Member will enumerate two reasons. First, H.R. 6 takes a significant step toward eliminating the current marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. Second, H.R. 6 follows the principle that the Federal income tax code should be marriage-neutral. 1. First, H.R. 6 will help eliminate the marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code in two ways. It will increase the standard deduction for married couples to double the standard deduction for singles. In addition, H.R. 6 will increase the amount of couples' income subject to the lowest 15 percent marginal tax rate. 2. Second, this bill will help the Internal Revenue Code become more marriage-neutral. Currently, many married couples pay more Federal income tax than they would as two unmarried singles. The Internal Revenue Code should not be a consideration when individuals discuss their future marital status. Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the Sixth Report of the Speaker's Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition. It has been approximately two and half years since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997. Prior to that historic event, at the request of Speaker Gingrich, this Member formed the House Task Force on Hong Kong's Transition. In addition to myself as Chairman, the bipartisan Task Force includes Representatives Howard Berman, Sherrod Brown, Eni Faleomavaega, Alcee Hastings, Don Manzullo, and Matt Salmon. To date, the Task Force has prepared six reports assessing how the revision has affected Kong Kong. The seventh report, which I submit today, covers the period of March 31, 1999, through December 31, 1999. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Task Force report to be printed in full in the Congressional Record. Seventh Report--February 7, 2000 Presented by the Honorable Doug Bereuter, Chairman This is the seventh report of the Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition. It follows the first report dated October 1, 1997, the second report dated February 25, 1998, the third report dated May 22, 1998, the fourth report dated July 23, 1998, the fifth report dated February 2, 1999, and the sixth report dated May 27, 1999. This report focuses on events and development relevant to United States interests in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) between May 27, 1999, and December 31, 1999. It has been over two years since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997. It remains a vibrant economy that the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute recently ranked as the freest in the world. During the past six months, Hong Kong's economy showed signs of recovering from the recession induced by the Asian regional financial crisis, although economic indicators were mixed. China's World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement with the U.S., and agreement to build a major Disney theme park in Hong Kong contributed to the mood of economic optimism and business confidence. Hong Kong continued to operate independently in economic decision-making and to voice its own views in international fora, including the WTO and APEC. In the six months covered by this report, concerns have grown about the long term prospects for the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary. These concerns were prompted by the decision of the National People's Congress, (NPC) at the request of the Hong Kong Government, to reinterpret the Basic Law and reverse the Court of Final Appeal's (CFA) ``right of abode'' decision for mainland Chinese. The NPC's interpretation and the CFA's acknowledgement of the NPC's authority over the matter drew considerable domestic and international criticism, including that of the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). On November 5, the UNHRC released a report critical of Hong Kong's post-transition record in a number of human rights related areas. (In addition to the question of judicial independence, the report expressed concern about the abolition of municipal councils, phone monitoring and freedom of association.) A recommendation by the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission to establish an independent ``privacy commission'' to monitor media excesses also created concern because of the implications for media freedoms. The Government initially remained neutral, but in October the Chief Executive expressed the hope that the press could regulate itself. On May 21, 1999, following the mistaken bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the PRC halted U.S. naval and air visits to Hong Kong. At least seven military aircraft and ten warships were denied permission to visit. After a two month ban, the Chinese Government began granting permission for plane visits on July 29, 1999, and a U.S. Navy destroyer was permitted to visit in October. Since then, other visits have taken place and a carrier task force and nuclear submarine were granted permission to visit in February. The reversion of Macau to Chinese administrative control on December 20, 1999, went smoothly. Like Hong Kong, Macau will become a Special Administrative Region within a ``One Country, Two Systems'' formula under which the legislature elected under colonial rule will remain in place. However Macau faces a number of daunting economic and political challenges. Macau's civil service is inexperienced compared to Hong Kong. The judicial system is also poorly developed and there are few trained or experienced judges. The economy is heavily reliant on gambling and tourist related industries. Crime, corruption and violence are serious problems that have begun to affect the tourist/gaming industry. For a variety of reasons, Macau's evolution under the One Country, Two Systems model is likely to differ considerably from Hong Kong's. Economic Developments Developments on the economic front in the past six months have been positive. A survey by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal once again ranked Hong Kong as the world's freest economy. In January 2000, the Cato Institute came to a similar conclusion in its report. Hong Kong's economy showed signs of recovering from the recession induced by the Asian regional financial crisis, although economic indicators were mixed. After four consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, the recession in Hong Kong appears to have bottomed out, with positive growth of 0.7% projected for the second quarter. In September, The IMF forecast that Hong Kong would have GDP growth of 1.2% this year and 3.6% next year. The Government projected budget deficit for the 1999-2000 fiscal year that began April 1 was estimated at HK $32 billion (US $4.1 billion), although overall foreign exchange reserves remained high at over US $90 billion. However, unemployment remained at historically high levels. The figure for the August-October quarter was 6.2%, up from 6.1% the previous quarter. Underemployment remained steady at 3.1%. Weak demand and falling asset values brought about continued significant deflation, with consumer prices falling 6.0% in September over a year earlier. Investment spending remained sluggish. Exports, tourism and retail sales were up in recent months. The stock market has more than doubled since the government decided to intervene in August 1998, although concern remains about Government intervention in the economy. Export performance improved considerably in recent months. However, for the first ten months of 1999, the volume of re- exports was down 0.7% and the volume of domestic exports was down 12.2%. Imports for the first ten months of the year also declined by 5.6%. The trend towards increased reliance on re- exports and offshore trade makes the economy susceptible to external factors beyond Hong Kong's control. The Government sought to address this problem in part through its ambitious ``Cyberport'' project aimed at attracting world class information technology companies. While this initiative was widely welcomed, questions were raised by the Tourism was another sector with mixed indicators. The Hong Kong Tourist Association projected in August that total arrivals would exceed 10 million, an increase of over 6% from 1998. However, although arrivals did increase 13% in the first quarter, spending was actually down by 0.8%. This reflected the changing nature of tourism in Hong Kong, with lower spending arrivals from the mainland making up an increasingly large percentage of total visitors. Overall, Hong Kong's Government's massive intervention in the currency and stock markets in August 1998 appears to have been a success despite earlier concerns. The market rose to over 15,000 in November 1999, compared to 6,660 in March 1998 before the intervention. Trading volume has also risen sharply. The equities purchased by the Government have increased greatly in value and the Government's unprecedented ownership of significant amounts of equities, both in Hong Kong-based companies and in PRC-related ``Red Chips'' has raised questions about the potential to affect official decision-making in ways contrary to Hong Kong's traditions of free markets and transparency. To allay these fears, authorities have placed the equities in the hands of an independent appointed board and in November began the first steps to liquidate its holdings by selling approximately 20% to the public through an indexed tracking fund (``The Tracker Fund''). Positive developments included the U.S.-China agreement on China's accession to the WTO. Most analysts believe that WTO membership for China should be an economic boon for Hong Kong, both in the short and long term. China's accession to the WTO is expected to benefit Hong Kong's business by allowing it to capture its portion of China's expanding trade and investment. However, Hong Kong is also likely to face increased competition from the mainland in several fields and will have to find new ways to keep serving as a bridge between China and its global partners. Another plus was the HKSAR's agreement with the Disney Corp. to build a major theme park. Although some questioned the terms of the deal and the fact that most of the investment would come from the Hong Kong Government, most observers felt that the development would provide a positive economic stimulus, particularly for the tourism sector. Political Developments Under the Basic Law that serves as Hong Kong's Constitution, directly elected representatives to the Legislative Council (Legco) from geographic constituencies make up only 20 of the 60 members. That number will increase to 24 in the year 2000 and 30 in 2004. The Basic Law allows for (but does not mandate) the remaining 30 functional seats to be converted to directly elected positions. It would also permit the direct election of the Chief Executive in 2008. Some elected members of Legco, as well as other political activists, have been lobbying for some time for a faster transition to a more democratic system. On January 3, 2000, the three major political parties in Hong Kong, joined to urge full democracy by 2008, arguing that the present system is ``unsustainable.'' However, in his 1999 policy address in October, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said he would restrict democratic development to that laid down by the Basic Law. He was quoted as saying, ``We must allow time for further study and for the present political system to mature.'' The current political system in Hong Kong is heavily weighted towards concentrating The Government's decision to eliminate elected municipal councils by the end of the year brought widespread criticism. The UNCHR said that abolishing the councils, which are largely elected, would diminish the opportunity for the public to take part in public affairs. The report urged the government to ``take all necessary measures to maintain and strengthen democratic representation of SAR residents in public affairs.'' In addition, Chief Executive Tung's decision to appoint additional members to the 18 local level councils was seen by some as undemocratic and regressive. The Democratic Party and the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) were the biggest winners with 86 and 83 seats respectively. The DAB's showing, in particular, was markedly better than in the last District Council elections. Judicial Independence--right of Abode Decision Creates Concern A fair and independent judicial system is a critical element of international confidence in Hong Kong. However, two incidents involving the ``Right of Abode'' judgment raised concerns about whether the independence and authority of Hong Kong's judiciary would be maintained. The Hong Kong Government's request for a clarification of sections of the judgment referring to the court's right of judicial review, and the Hong Kong Government's request for interpretation by the National People's Congress of the section of the Basic Law affecting the ruling. In January, the Court of Final Appeal issued rulings in three cases, known collectively as the ``Right of Abode'' ruling. The ruling declared some Hong Kong immigration regulations (discriminating against children born out of wedlock) inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights subsumed in the Basic Law and confirmed that all children of Hong Kong residents had right of abode in Hong Kong. The ruling also asserted the Court's right of judicial review over not only the Basic Law, but also over acts of the National People's Congress as they affected Hong Kong. In February, in response to criticism from Chinese officials, the Hong Kong Government requested an unprecedented ``clarification'' of the ruling. The Court responded with a statement stressing that it did not question the power of China's NPC to interpret the Basic Law, but reserved In May, after releasing reports suggesting that the ruling would result in an influx of 1.6 million new immigrants, the Hong Kong Government asked the Standing Committee of the NPC to interpret two sections of the Basic Law relevant to the Right of Abode ruling. Hundreds of Hong Kong lawyers who viewed the request as a post-judicial remedy which undermined the authority and independence of Hong Kong's judiciary marched in protest. Although the NPC interpretation issued in June, did not affect the original litigants in the case, it overturned the prescriptive effect of the CFA judgment and reduced the number of people eligible for right of abode in Hong Kong to 160,000. The UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the interpretation could undermine the independence of the Hong Kong courts and interfere with the right to a fair trial. Legal scholars and activists said the interpretation raised the question of ``how final is the Court of Final Appeal?'' In a judgment on a separate appeal in December, the CFA upheld the NPC interpretation saying it was ``valid and binding'' on courts in Hong Kong. The decision provoked street clashes between protestors and police and caused a widespread outcry from opposition legislators academics and newspaper editorials. Legco legal sector representative, Margaret Ng, for example, said that the ruling means the NPC Standing Committee can interpret any part of the Basic Law at any time, and the interpretation has a binding effect on the Hong Kong courts. The South China Morning Post in a December 4, 1999, editorial said, ``it has now become clear that the Basic Law means only what the NPC Standing Committee wants it to mean, even if the SAR judges disagree. Another case that generated concern among some was the CFA's December 15 decision that desecration of the national and regional flags was indeed a criminal offense. While this is the case in many countries, including Germany and Italy, some critics viewed the decision as inconsistent with the guarantee of freedom of expression and motivated by political considerations. Freedom of Expression and Individual Liberties The people of Hong Kong continued to enjoy a tradition of free speech and free press. Political debate is dynamic and raucous. Thousands of demonstrations or petitions have been filed or held since the reversion. A wide and diverse range of opinions, including those critical of the Hong Kong and PRC Governments, are routinely aired in the mass media and public fora. Government owned, but independently operated, Radio and Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is among the media that has been routinely critical of the government. In August, RTHK was criticized by a member of the NPC Standing Committee for airing the views of Taiwan's unofficial representative in Hong Kong to discuss Taiwan President Lee's ``state to state'' theory of China-Taiwan relations. The NPC member urged RTHK to exercise self-censorship on this issue and not provide a channel for ``splittist views.'' The subsequent reassignment of the widely respected, long time director of broadcasting for RTHK, Cheung man-yee, in October was seen by some as Government retribution for RTHK's independent editorial policy. Democratic Party Chairman Martin Lee labeled the ``exile'' of Cheung as a Government effort to control the press. Cheung however, expressed continued confidence in the editorial integrity and independence of RHTK under her deputy and successor. On August 20, 1999, a subcommittee of Hong Kong's Law Commission issued a recommendation that proposed establishing an independent ``privacy commission'' to deal with complaints about media excesses. The commission would be empowered to hear complaints about unwarranted or offensive media intrusions into peoples' personal lives (acknowledged even by the media to be a serious problem), to make decisions about the merits of those complaints, and to award compensation to complainants. The media and public, given until November 30, 1999, to comment on the proposal, gave the subcommittee an earful. Ms. Margaret Ng, a Legco representative of the law profession voiced the concern of many calling the proposed privacy commission a measure to control the press, not protect privacy. A Freedom Forum representative described the proposal as ``dangerous to press freedom.'' The U.S. consul general in Hong Kong also expressed concern about the proposal in a widely quoted speech. Thus far, the Government has not taken a position on the proposal and for the time being at least, Hong Kong media remains vibrant, critical and sometimes intrusive into the private lives of individuals. Another area of concern has been the prosecution in China of Hong Kong residents for crimes committed elsewhere. The conviction and execution in China of two persons, one a Hong Kong resident and the other a PRC national, who was wanted for committing crimes in Hong Kong in December 1998, first brought the issue to public attention. Most recently, the arrest and rendition of a Hong Kong resident from Thailand to China has created fears that Hong Kong residents can be apprehended by PRC authorities while overseas. The denial of visas for Hong Kong residents to visit China and for Chinese dissidents to visit Hong Kong was another issue of concern. In March 1999, a number of well known exiled Chinese dissidents were denied Hong Kong visas to attend an NGO organized conference on the future of democracy in China, although several of the dissidents had visited Hong Kong prior to reversion. In August, the Government refused a visa to Chang King-yuk, a former senior Taiwan official, who wished to attend an academic conference on unification at Hong Kong University. However, a number of prominent Chinese dissidents including Labor Rights activists Han Kongfang and Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy Movements in China Director Lu Siqing continue to operate freely in Hong Kong. In September, Legco legal representative Margaret Ng, who led public protest against the Hong Kong Government's decision to seek NPC interpretation in the Right of Abode case, had her Chinese visa revoked to prevent her from attending a legal conference on the PRC Constitution. Human Rights activists fear that the action, and the Hong Kong Government's failure to protest it, may have a ``chilling effect'' on public discourse. The Hong Kong Government's failure to include any representatives of the democratic parties on its delegations to attend National Day in Beijing or the Macau Handover Ceremony on December 20 was seen by some as an effort to placate the PRC at the expense of promoting pluralism in Hong Kong. In May, the failure of the PRC, which has responsibility for Hong Kong's defense and foreign affairs, to allow a visit to Hong Kong by Pope John Paul II during his trip to Asia last fall was also of concern to many. Many religious, political and human rights leaders publicly expressed disappointment that the visit was canceled. Despite China's crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual organization, adherents continued to practice freely in Hong Kong and held a continuing demonstration outside the office of China's Article 23 of the Basic Law provides that Hong Kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit subversion, secession, treason and sedition against the Chinese Government. The Government has moved cautiously and deliberately in this regard and has sought to conduct wide public consultations; no such legislation appears to be on the horizon. Xu Simin, a senior local adviser to the Chinese Government said in August that such laws were not urgently needed and that the time was not right to enact such legislation. U.S. Ship and Plane Visits Following the accidental NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade last May, PRC authorities denied at least ten U.S. warships and seven planes permission to stopover or visit Hong Kong. After more than a two month ban, the Chinese government began granting permission for plane visits on July 29, 1999, and a U.S. destroyer, the O'Brien, was given permission to visit in October, 1999. In addition, a carrier task force and a nuclear submarine were given permission to visit in February 2000. No ship or plane visits have been denied since September 1999, but the Chinese authorities denied permission for several routine training flights by long-range P-3 aircraft without offering any explanation. However, Chinese authorities have not publicly stated that visits will be routinely approved as had been the case previously. It appears as though such visits are now being considered on a ``case by case'' basis creating a degree of unpredictability that may detract from Hong Kong's image of autonomy and openness. IPR Protection The continued widespread availability of pirated movie, audio software and trademark goods remains a serious issue. An elite special task force of 185 Customs officers was established this year to deal with this issue. The Task Force is employed to keep pirate retailers off balance, while Custom's Intellectual Property Investigation Bureau (IPIB) is used to take down pirate factories and distribution networks. In the first nine months of the year, IPIB and the Task Force seized 12.3 million pirate discs, 61% of which were VCD or DVD movies. United States industry representatives have emphasized the need to extend the Task Force's mandate past December to make it permanent. At the behest of United States and local industry, the Task Force now has a permanent mandate. Under the direction of the new Customs Commissioner, John Tsang, there has been a marked improvement in IPR enforcement, although local film and music retailers are still losing millions of dollars to pirates. Hong Kong Customs has also pledged early action on outstanding legislation, including amendments to re-categorize piracy as an organized and serious crime and to criminalize the abuse of corporate licenses. Improvements in IPR enforcement led the U.S. Trade Representative to remove Hong Kong from the Special 301 Watch List after an out-of- Another looming issue is the problem of internet piracy in which local distributors of counterfeit discs use U.S. or Hong Kong based web-sites to sell their products to overseas customers. U.S. industry has identified numerous sites, accessible through Hong Kong-based internet service providers that offer downloads of pirate products. Hong Kong has requested U.S. training in internet crime detection and prosecution. Money Laundering To combat money laundering, the U.S. continues to urge the Hong Kong Government to adopt mandatory financial transaction and foreign exchange reporting requirements and to explore options to discourage the illicit use of non-bank remittance centers. The Hong Kong Government has begun the legislative process to bring such centers under regulatory oversight. The U.S. has also urged Hong Kong to establish mandatory minimum- value currency entry and exit reporting requirements and penalties for illicit cross-border currency movements and bank deposits. Export Controls Hong Kong has one of the finest systems of export controls in the world and the reversion to Chinese sovereignty appears to have had no major impact on the exercise of export controls. U.S. Government agencies report no evidence of Chinese interference in Hong Kong's export control system. Chinese officials have recognized that export control matters fall within the trade, rather than foreign policy area, thereby placing export controls within the Hong Kong Government's exclusive purview. Hong Kong requires both import as well as export licenses, enabling authorities to track controlled commodities as they enter or leave the HKSAR. Hong Kong also refuses to issue re-export licenses for products unless it is sure that the original exporting country would export the product to the ultimate end user. The Hong Kong Government is exceptionally transparent regarding export controls and cooperates closely with many countries, including the United States, to ensure compliance with multilateral and country specific export control regimes. Hong Kong adheres fully to international control regimes such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group and the Wassenauer Agreement. United States Department of Commerce officials continue to conduct regular pre-license and post-shipment inspections as part of dual-use licensing process. United States Department of State and Customs officials also carry out pre-license and post-shipment checks of munitions items under the ``Blue Lantern'' program. In all such cases, Hong Kong officials are neither informed of such checks nor involved in making them. Hong Kong has not imposed any limitations on pre- or post- shipment verification by U.S. agencies and in some instances U.S. investigators have conducted two and even three post- shipment inspections to ensure that the end user remains in compliance with its license. American and other countries' officials have been directly seconded to work directly on export control issues. In addition, Hong Kong officials regularly receive training in the Hong Kong's record of enforcement of its export control regime is good. Examples in recent years include confiscation of a PRC armored personnel carrier that a PRC supplier attempted to return through Hong Kong after a show in Thailand, and the ``Changsha'' case involving unlicensed import and export of high speed computers to the PRC and confiscation of approximately U.S. $800,000 of aluminum percolate in 1996. A House Select Committee report issued in May 1999, (the Cox report) expressed concern about the transshipment of technology through Hong Kong, especially the lack of customs inspection of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) vehicles when they cross the border between Hong Kong and China. A recent visit to Hong Kong by staff members of the House International Relations Committee found that there is no evidence to suggest that the PLA is smuggling controlled items into China. Hong Kong officials have assured the U.S. that they have full authority to stop any truck they believe is carrying contraband, but have had no intelligence to suggest the need to inspect PLA trucks beyond reviewing the manifest and making a visual inspection. Although no stops have been made, an instructive case involves the shipment of a PLA troop transporter back from a military show in Thailand. Because the PLA did not have the proper licenses, the Hong Kong authorities seized the transporter in accordance with Hong Kong law, and the Hong Kong police are currently using it. Macau Like Hong Kong before it, Macau reverted to Chinese sovereignty on December 20, 1999, after 442 years as a Portuguese colony and, like Hong Kong, Macau became a special administrative region of China, under the ``One Nation, Two Systems'' concept. Macau's Basic Law is also modeled upon the Hong Kong law. The Legislative Assembly consists of 23 members, 16 indirectly elected from territorial and functional constituencies and 7 appointed by the Chief Executive. Unlike Hong Kong, the elected members of the legislature remained in office following the reversion. Moreover, there is no provision in the Macau Basic Law for the eventual direct election of all members of the Assembly. On May 15, 1999, Edmund Ho Hau-wah was elected Chief Executive by a 199 member selection committee. He in turn appointed five policy secretaries in August. Because Macau's civil service was ``localized'' only very recently by the Portuguese, Macau's bureaucracy is largely inexperienced. Macau's judiciary is independent. After the handover, Macau's legal system is governed by conventional law derived from the Portuguese legal system and the Basic Law, Macau's mini-constitution. Human rights and legal activists have expressed concern that the shortage of experienced bilingual judges, lawyers and law officers could stymie development of the legal system. Immediately prior to Macau's reversion to Chinese control, authorities acted to bar entry to, or in some instances deport, members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Shortly after the handover, Macau authorities denied permission to enter to Lui Yuk-lin, a member of the April 5 Movement, a Hong Kong protest group. The Government later said the denial was a mistake, the result of mistaken identity and said Ms. Lui was welcome to visit Macau. China has established a 900 person strong garrison in Macau to ``safeguard sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity and the stability and development of Macau,'' according to Xinhua.'' Chinese officials have also said that, ``when necessary, the Macau Government may ask the Central People's Government to let the troops help maintain social order or conduct rescue work in cases of disaster.'' However, at the same time the officials have emphasized that the force ``would not interfere in the affairs of the territory.'' Crime, particularly organized crime syndicates (triads) fighting for control of the gambling and vice trade, has been a major problem in Macau. Many Macau residents welcomed the PLA, hoping the garrison would have a positive influence on Macau's serious triad (organized crime) problem. There have been 34 murders in this year alone in the tiny territory whose population is only about 500,000. Both Chief Executive Ho and many Macau residents have welcomed the introduction of Chinese troops in the hope that they will bring the crime problem under control. Macau's economy remains heavily dependent on revenues from gambling and tourism. Yet there is understandable concern that the crime problem has hurt Macau's international image and contributed to the economic slowdown that has plagued Macau since the onset of the Asian regional financial crisis. While U.S. trade with Macau is relatively small, 40% of Macau's exports go to the U.S. Furthermore, 80% of Macau's total exports consist of textiles, and the transshipment of textiles produced elsewhere through Macau has long been a major concern. The violations of Intellectual property rights is very legitimately a major and continuing concern for the U.S. There has been marked improvement in recent months in the legislative framework for combating piracy of intellectual property, including adoption of a new copyright law. However, although millions of Patacas in fines have been levied, there have been no criminal convictions of intellectual property pirates. Macau was placed on the USTR's Priority Watch List for IPR in April 1998 as a result of widespread piracy, particularly of videos and optical disks. Certainly, corruption plays a role in contributing to the transshipment and piracy problems. Macau's laws on trade also lack effective enforcement mechanisms in the areas of money laundering and export control. The new Chief Executive has pledged to work closely with the U.S. on trying to deal with these issues. The problem of money laundering, through Macau's casinos and banks, particularly by organized crime gangs, but also on behalf on North Korea is a continuing problem. The nature and extent of North Korean activity in Macao is emerging as a concern. Weekly flights from Pyongyang support significant activity. Press reports suggest that North Korea takes advantage of weak banking laws to launder money and facilitate the sale of ballistic missiles and their components. Recent evidence suggests that Pyongyang also has used Macao to launder counterfeit U.S. $100 bills. It also has been reported that banks in Macao serve as a repository for the proceeds of North Korea's growing trade in meth- amphetamines and other illegal drugs. The Hong Kong Policy Act provides a legislative basis to continue to treat Hong Kong as a separate entity from China. However, although a similar Macau Policy Act was introduced in the 106th Congress, it was not enacted into legislation. This has created considerable uncertainty as to how Macau is to be treated in regard to such matters as export controls and the sale of certain items such as riot control equipment that are prohibited from shipment to China. It has also terminated availability of U.S. trade promotion programs including those of the Trade and Development Agency (TDA) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in Macau. This uncertainty in turn has created serious concerns in Macau about U.S. interest for the territory. Conclusion The picture of Hong Kong two and a half years after reversion to Chinese sovereignty is largely positive. It remains a bastion of free-market capitalism, as shown by its ranking as the world's freest economy in the recent Heritage/ Wall Street journal report. After two difficult years economically, Hong Kong seems well on the road to economic recovery. It continues to formulate an independent economic policy and maintain its own membership in international economic organizations. People's Republic of China companies are subject to the same laws and prudential supervision as all other companies. Hong Kong's excellent system of export controls remains intact, although continued vigilance to potential violations or loopholes is required. Trade related issues, particularly Intellectual Property Rights piracy and money laundering, also require continued close attention. Hong Kong's political system continues to evolve. The Hong Kong media remains free and continues to comment critically on the PRC, although concerns about self-censorship and the proposal for a ``privacy council'' watchdog over the press bear continued scrutiny. Demonstrations continue to be held. There is vigorous public debate on the issues of democracy and the law. The legislature and free press have used their roles to increase government accountability and transparency. However, the controversy over the ``right of abode'' case has cast a pall over the issue of Hong Kong's future judicial autonomy and the rule of law. This is a fundamental issue that business and the international community will be watching closely. If the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress continues to intervene in decisions primarily affecting Hong Kong, confidence in Hong Kong's future could be seriously undermined. Willingness by the Hong Kong Government to speed up the pace of democratization of elections for Chief Executive, Legco, and local government could help ease some of the fears that the ``right of abode'' case has raised.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation that will be made in order. There are two preliminary points I would like to make. First of all, I think all or nearly all Members approaching this issue on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the issue, do approach this debate with due gravity and concern and are attempting to do so with appropriate sensitivity to the delicate situation between the PRC and Taiwan. I want to call attention, however, to my colleague from Florida's remarks. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I think made a very thoughtful and incisive statement. He said Members that vote for this upcoming legislation, H.R. 1838, should not be deemed to be doing things that are intentionally provocative. That should not be our intent. Indeed it is not, I think, the supporters' intent that we are taking a provocative action. But, on the other hand, we need to, where appropriate, eliminate ambiguity; and we need to recognize that this is a sensitive area. The Taiwanese-Chinese and the Sino-American relationships are the most complicated issues that come before my subcommittee and we should not under-estimate the reaction to the legislative vote on H.R. 1838. One of my first votes as a Member in 1979 was cast in support of the Taiwan Relations Act, the TRA. This Member is a strong supporter of the TRA, for it introduced a very significant measure of coherence, consistency, and commitment to our security relationship with Taiwan. Under the TRA, the U.S. provides Taiwan with the defensive weaponry and technical expertise to defend itself. It is not a treaty relationship, but it does recognize that the military might of the People's Republic of China should not determine, simply by brutal force, the final status of the governance of Taiwan. The second preliminary point I would like to make today for my colleagues who may have some questions about the timing of any action on H.R. 1838, and I have had those thoughts and concerns myself. There is never a perfect time; but, this is the issue that has been addressed or considered in the House International Relations Committee. The legislation we have before us today, after the Rule, H.R. 1838 is dramatically different than the bill introduced in the other body and the original content of this legislation. For example, Congress Daily's edition today is still in error. There are no specific references to weapons systems in this legislation as amended. The International Relations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, as the gentleman from Guam has indicated, has worked its will and made this legislation that I think should have strong support. Today, H.R. 1838, expands upon the Taiwan Relations Act. It seeks to ensure that training and educational opportunities are available to military officers from Taiwan. It requires the executive branch of our government to report on the nature of the threat to Taiwan and to explain arms sales considered and the rationale of decisions. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act delivers, I believe, a strong message that clarity, not ambiguity, is important in expressing our support for Taiwan and Taiwan policy. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to emphasize again that legislation to be before us today has been heavily amended by the House International Relations Committee. The changes are primarily because of the efforts of these members and other members of my subcommittee but also due to other members of the full committee, and to the support and cooperation of the chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, and the ranking Democrat, Mr. Gejdenson. They have all worked at perfecting legislation which we bring to the body today with some confidence. Mr. Speaker, it is true that the executive branch had voiced great concerns about this legislation before these significant changes and still opposes the legislation. I think they do in part because they have not carefully examined the changes that have been made by the Committee. For example, the initial legislation listed the sale of specific weapons systems that were to be sold to Taiwan. Some of these systems are appropriate for sale. Some may not be appropriate for sale and some already have been provided very effectively in one way or another. Some weapons systems have, in fact, been made available but do not fit the priorities of the government of Taiwan themselves. Those facts were brought to the attention of Members in classified briefings, including the primary sponsors of the legislation or their staff. Except in unusual circumstances, it admittedly is not an appropriate role for the legislative branch to dictate to the executive branch which weapons to sell to a friend. My colleagues should be reminded that we do not do this in this legislation and that President Reagan and President Bush, of course, would not have liked that kind of specific requirement. Neither will the next President of the United States. But we have taken the proper, responsible course by removing references to specific legislation and several other questionable or unnecessary directions. Similarly, this legislation, which we are about to consider after approval of the Rule, as introduced, would require the allocation of additional military training positions over and above Taiwan's current generous quota at U.S. military academies and schools. The issue is not whether or not officers from Taiwan are permitted to train in the United States, for clearly they are permitted to do so and are being educated here. Rather, the legislation seeks to give additional emphasis to such training slots wherever it is possible. We must and do recognize that our own officers in fact have to have these courses, and we also need to provide this kind of training in our academies and in the defense training programs to a whole array of friends and allies across the world. It is a zero sum game, to some extent, and in H.R. 1838 we are not mandating any particular additional number. Mr. Speaker, in summary, this Member would note that this legislation about to be considered has been significantly altered in numerous significant ways to address legitimate concerns. It would perhaps benefit from additional review and modifications, and this Member fully expects such modifications to occur as if this legislation moves forward to a conference. However, my colleagues can feel comfortable with H.R. 1838, and I hope for and recommend their positive vote. I thank the original introducers and especially all the colleagues in the International Relations Committee who have helped to perfect it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do support the legislation, as I supported the rule. There has been, I think, almost unanimous support expressed for the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. This legislation has been said to be both extraordinarily significant or perhaps not needed at all. Both positions are probably exaggerations, but I would like to address one aspect of the Taiwan Relations Act that is not being implemented today thereby providing a justification for H.R. 1838. Now, in the legislation before us, section 4(b) requires that beginning 60 days after the next round of arms sale talks between the U.S. and Taiwan, and one is ongoing now, the President shall submit a report to Congress in classified and unclassified form detailing each of Taiwan's requests, describing the defense needs asserted by Taiwan and its justification for these requests, and a description of the decision-making process used to reject, postpone, or modify any such request. In order for Congress to play its appropriate role in foreign and defense relationships generally, but also in respect to our TRA commitment to Taiwan to provide them necessary defensive material, we must have this kind of report. Why? Because in the Taiwan Relations Act, section 3(b) provides: That the President and the Congress shall determine the nature and the quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan, in accordance with the procedures established by law. Mr. Speaker, that provision of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is being ignored by the Administration and therefore Congress is basically not able to determine what the Taiwanese are requesting, the nature of the justification given, or the Administration's responses to arms sale requests of the Taiwan government. Now, we understand that the Administration's response and even the nature of the weapons being requested or considered cannot be broadly shared. But we provide them with a method of providing us this advice on a classified basis. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reassure my colleagues, by asking them to look at the legislation as amended. There are, for example, no specific references to weapon types. There are many, many important changes. I urge my colleagues that they can with assurance vote for this legislation. There is never a perfect time to pass such legislation in the House and I would have preferred that we act after the Taiwanese presidential election in April, but America's commitment to Taiwan's defense through the TRA is reinforced by this legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, today this Member rises with his distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Barrett, in introducing the Legal Employment and Authentication program (LEAP) Act of 1999 which will provide employers nationwide with the tools they need to hire a legal workforce. While some businesses clearly have flouted the laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens, many other businesses have indeed tried to comply with the laws. Unfortunately, the current employment verification programs provided by the INS for compliance with those laws have fallen short. The programs fail to detect sophisticated forms of identity and document fraud used by illegal aliens. Also, the current programs are limited to businesses based in seven states. The proposed LEAP Act we are introducing would create a strictly voluntary employment verification program to address those faults. It will grant all participating employers access to information regarding a newly hired employees' eligibility to work in this country, and it will be available to all states. This Member is pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, urges Members to cosponsor it, and strongly supports the passage of LEAP early in the next session of the 106th Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to report to my colleagues that this resolution introduced by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) with many other cosponsors was reported to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific only lately because it was introduced on November 2. We took a look at it, made very slight rhetorical changes, cleared it with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) on the minority side who were also cosponsors along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and other distinguished members of the Congress, including some on our committee, the Committee on International Relations, and we thought it was entirely appropriate that it was reported to the floor. The gentleman from New Jersey has highlighted some of the concerns that obviously we have with the way the Falun Gong is being treated in China. It only hurts their credibility. I think it speaks unfortunately to their legitimacy. I would hope that this is a message that they will take to heart. I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial I submit from the November 1, 1999, Norfolk Daily News regarding campaign finance reform. The editorial rightly notes that campaign finance reform must address the use of union dues (regardless of the union member's wishes) for political contributions. [From the Daily News, Nov. 1, 1999] Reform Misses Important Target Campaign for new restrictions fails to put focus on major source of problems At the same time as the McCain-Feingold proposal aimed at changing rules of campaign financing was being defeated in the U.S. Senate, a major endorsement aimed at influencing the 2000 election results was taking place. Its unsurprising results bear on the issue, inaccurately described as ``reform,'' since that term implies beneficial change, not cosmetic change. McCain-Feingold's aim was to reduce the ``soft money'' contributions by which unlimited amounts may be given to political parties--not individual candidates--for advancing their views on major issues of the day. It is a contrast to the $1,000 individual contribution limits, never adjusted for inflation, which can be provided directly to candidates. Bearing on this issue is the way in which some organizations, notably the AFL-CIO, can support their favored candidates with endorsements, publicity and in-house politicking with little regard for financing limitations. The recent AFL-CIO endorsement of Vice President Al Gore's bid for the Democratic nomination was not unanimous, and it lacked important initial support from two of the major affiliates, the Teamsters Union and the United Auto Workers. They are likely to check in later. But that endorsement kicked into gear a $40 million union mobilization for the primaries and the general election. It is ``soft money'' but vital support--in part provided in violation of the rights of that apparent minority of union members which may want Bill Bradley as the nominee, or as an extreme example, members who might even choose a Republican. The unions have every right to back whatever candidates they choose. They do not have the right, however, to spend mandatory dues money that was supposed to have been allocated to collective bargaining and the more restricted cause of improving the status of union workers. Being forced, through mandatory fees, to support candidates and causes with which one disagrees is a violation of a fundamental tenet of a free society. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue and reached that conclusion. But it is one of several glaring cases of disregard for the law that the Clinton administration has ignored the principle. Without enforcement of that rule, any ``reforms'' of the current flawed campaign financing laws are worthless. Nothing wrong with unions spending big bucks for politics as long as the money is openly provided and comes from willing donors. Nothing wrong, either, with like amounts coming from readily identifiable business or other organizations operating under the same terms. But let them use these resources openly to win friends and influence elections, and understand that true reform depends on voluntary contributions.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 211 was considered by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on October 27 and was unanimously approved. It is introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), and others. The resolution rightly congratulates the people of India on a successful election where over 350 million voters cast their ballots. The reelection of Prime Minister Vajpayee reflects a vibrant multiparty system where parties with strongly differing views can compete in a way that is uniquely Indian. We certainly wish the BJP party and its ruling coalition well as it prepares to continue to lead the country. The resolution rightly alludes to the strategic relationship between the United States of America and India. We certainly have such a strategic relationship with India, just as we have a strategic relationship with many other countries in the region. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 169, addressing concerns related to democracy, free election, and human rights in Laos. This resolution was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). I appreciate the cooperation and support of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Asian and Pacific Subcommittee, and especially the assistance of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), ranking minority member, for their support for the members effort to secure a compromise during the committee mark-up. That was helpful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and to me, and I know we both appreciate it. We did our best to craft a resolution that combined the essence and important elements of several resolutions. The people of Laos, especially Lao-Hmong, continue to experience gross violations of fundamental human rights at the hands of the Communist Lao regime. House Resolution 169 calls upon the Laotian government to respect international norms for the protection of human rights and democratic freedoms; issue a public statement reaffirming their commitment to protecting religious freedoms and basic human rights; fully institute a process of democracy with open, free, and fair elections; and allow access for international human rights monitors, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International to visit inside Lao prisons and to all regions within Laos to investigate allegations of human rights abuses. This Member, therefore, of course, urges approval of H. Res. 169. The resolution was amended in committee, Mr. Speaker, to address the understandable concerns and energetic efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who have constituents who have been missing after traveling near the Laos-Thailand border. I especially commend these two Members. The amended resolution expresses concern for these Lao-Americans' welfare and asks the U.S. Government to provide additional information it may have to obtain the knowledge of the whereabouts of these two individuals. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and others who have assisted this Member in working cooperatively on this revised resolution to send a strong message to the government of Laos. We are doing it in a resolution originally introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) and I certainly commend him for his initiative. This Member urges adoption of H. Res. 169.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have not participated in morning hour before but sometimes we hear things in the news that just cause us to be so upset we come to the floor, and that is what I am doing here today. President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, made an address to Georgetown University yesterday and some people say it was an extension of an olive branch to Republicans who he had labeled as isolationists and who he criticized for partisanship when the other body refused to approve a comprehensive test ban treaty. I welcome his initiative but I would like to set the record straight here today and raise a few questions that relate to some of my Democratic colleagues, too. I have tried to provide bipartisan leadership in the House Committee on International Relations. Indeed the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) and I come from the only state legislative body that is nonpartisan, our State legislature of Nebraska, so I find the degree of partisanship here in the Congress to be very unusual and not productive. However, I would have to say this, Mr. Speaker, to the President, when national security advisors and secretaries of defense of both parties from past administrations are critical of the proposed treaty and suggest that it should not be ratified in its current form, then I think it is inappropriate for this administration and for this President to label any opponents of the treaty as isolationists. This use of the isolationist label contributes further to something that the National Journal perpetrated a few weeks ago when their cover story suggested that Republicans, particularly those in the House of Representatives, were isolationists. I have to say to my colleagues, that yes, there are people that I suppose could properly be labeled isolationists on the Republican side of the aisle and some whose actions I certainly do not approve of in terms of their impact on foreign policy, but I would have to say also, Mr. Speaker, to the President and to the Administration, that when it comes to isolationism, he may look to his own party, particularly in the House. It is, after all, Democrats who were only willing to give 20 percent of their votes to fast track authority for trade agreements to their own President. This is the first President, since we began the process of fast-track, since President Ford, who has been denied fast track authority to negotiate bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Only 20 percent of the members on the Democratic side of the aisle were willing to support that. At least 80 percent on the Republican side were willing to vote for fast-track authority for President Clinton by whip counts conducted by the two respective parties. I would also say this goes on top of the fact that the major opposition to the Africa trade bill and to the Caribbean trade bill came from the Democratic side of the aisle; there were more votes on the Republican side of the aisle for fast-track in both Houses. I also think it is important that we look at what happened last April, when Premier Zhu Rongji came here from the People's Republic of China with a commercially viable trade agreement for accession to the WTO. Everyone was shocked with the fact that this Administration rejected it. As I understand it, all of the President's primary substantive advisors suggested he should seize the moment and agree to what was a much more beneficial agreement from the United States point of view than we had expected. His political advisors said, no, do not do this, Mr. President. Now, there are many suggestions that this is because of the relationship and controversy related to alleged Chinese campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign, and also to the then recently completed Cox Committee report on Chinese espionage at some of our national laboratories. Whatever the case, the impediment was not there for the President to approve accession arrangements with the Chinese for the WTO was not a Republican one. Just a few minutes ago, one of our colleagues from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) suggesting his great concerns about the WTO and was very critical of his own Administration. I would say to the National Journal, when they do an article like that cover story on Republican isolationism perhaps they ought to be a little bit more careful that they are doing it competently and that they are not doing it with bias. I was also very concerned, Mr. Speaker, when I saw some comments by National Security Advisor Sandy Berger when the conflict took place in East Timor. He suggested in a variety of ways, some things he has retracted, others he has not, that we, of course, could not be involved even in assisting the Australians in trying to keep peace in East Timor because, after all, it was not in the center of Europe. Now, if that is not isolationism, at least it is Eurocentrism, and it is the kind of thing that bothers Asians and Pacific leaders and their citizens, and with good cause. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the need to come back for bipartisanship in foreign policy and I urge the administration, Mr. Speaker, to be more careful that they do not alienate some of their best friends for a bipartisan foreign policy on the Republicans' side of the aisle in either House of Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 570, on passage of the conference report on S. 900, the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act. Had he been present, he would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises today to express his enthusiastic support for the S. 900 Conference Report, which he signed as a conferee. Today marks the near-end of the two decade journey toward financial modernization. At the outset, this Member would like to thank and commend the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee and the Chairman of the S. 900 Conference Committee for Iowa [Mr. Leach], for his successful, consensus-building leadership role in guiding financial modernization through a maze of complexities to the consideration of the S. 900 Conference Report today. In addition, the ranking member from New York [Mr. LaFalce] also deserves to be commended for his role in the S. 900 Conference Report. Moreover, the leadership of the House Commerce Committee and also the Senate Banking Committee should be applauded for their collective role in the joint effort of financial modernization. While there are many reasons to support the S. 900 Conference Report, this Member will enumerate eight reasons. First, this measure illustrates that a Federal statutory change in financial law is imperative. Second, the S. 900 Conference Report has provisions which will be of greater importance to rural, community banks, which there are many in this Member's congressional district. Third, this measure will allow financial companies, to offer a diverse number of financial products to their customers. Fourth, this conference report will have a distinct, positive effect on consumers. Fifth, this legislation will provide the first, Federal consumer financial privacy legislation. Sixth, this legislation allows for no mixing of banking and commerce through a commercial basket. Seventh, this measure balances the interest of a state in regulating insurance with that of an ability of a national bank to sell insurance. Finally, the S. 900 Conference Report is necessary to keep the United States in its preeminent position in the world, financial marketplace. 1. First, a Federal statutory change in financial law is imperative because Congress must call a halt to the recent trend of financial modernization through regulatory fiat and judicial consent, instead we need to modernize the nation's banking laws through statute. As a matter of fact, on the first day of Banking Committee consideration of financial modernization legislation in 1998, during the 105th Congress, this Member stated: ``Once more, we start an effort to modernize our financial institutions structure. It is an effort we have tried before and must begin someplace. It should begin in the House, and so I commend you, Chairman Leach, for launching this effort. We need to do this. We need to face up to our responsibilities as a legislative body. There is no doubt about that.'' 2. This Member supports the S. 900 Conference Report as it will provide great benefits to rural, community banks. Three particular provisions demonstrate this. A. The unitary thrift charter is of significant concern to Nebraska community banks. One of the reasons this Member is unequivocally opposed to the existence of this unitary thrift charter is because of its mixing of thrift activities with commercial ventures. However, this is not he sole reason--it also results in an extremely powerful variety of financial institutions. Fortunately, the conference report closes the unitary thrift loophole. It allows no new unitary thrifts to be chartered as well as allowing those in existence to not be sold to commercial firms. B. Community banks will benefit from the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) charter being expanded to allow community banks to borrow from the FHLB for family farm and small business lending. For the first time, in rural areas such as in Nebraska, it will give community banks access to the FHLB. In light of the agriculture situation today, this increased community bank liquidity will have beneficial implications on in particular the family farm. C. The S. 900 Conference Report provides some regulatory relief for banks under $250 million in assets. Those banks with an ``outstanding'' Community Reinvestment Act rating will be examined for compliance only every five years and those banks with a ``satisfactory'' rating will be reviewed every four years. 3. The S. 900 Conference Report will allow financial companies to offer a diverse number of financial services to the consumer. This bill removes the legislative barriers within the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act. As a result, the conference report will allow financial companies to offer a broad spectrum of financial services to their customers, including banking, insurance, securities, and other financial products through either a financial holding company or through an operating subsidiary. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies will be able to affiliate with one another through this financial holding company model. In order for banks to be able to engage in the new financial activities, the banks affiliated under the holding company or through an operating subsidiary have to be well-capitalized, well-managed, and have at least a ``satisfactory'' Community Reinvestment Act rating. 4. Fourth, this Member supports the S. 900 Conference Report because it is very pro-consumer. It will increase choices for the consumer in the financial services marketplace by creating an environment of greater competition. As a result, financial modernization will allow consumers to be able to choose from a variety of services from the same, convenient, financial institution. Financial modernization will give consumers more options. Whether it be in rural Nebraska, or in New York City, consumers of financial products all across the United States deserve additional competitive options. Moreover, under the current setting, many rural communities are under-served in regards to their access to a broad array of financial services. Financial modernization will help ensure that the financial sector keeps pace with the ever-changing, needs and desires of the all-important consumer. In addition, the Conference Report will also allow financial institutions to provide more affordable services to the consumer. Financial modernization will result in additional competition and in efficiency which in turn should result in lower prices for financial services to the consumer. 5. Fifth, this Member supports the S. 900 Conference Report as it provides the first, Federal consumer privacy legislation for American financial institutions. These privacy provisions are a pioneering, landmark advance forward by Congress in ensuring that consumer's personal information is protected from unwanted disclosures by financial institutions. The privacy provisions in the conference report include the following: A. Prohibiting financial institutions--including banks, savings and loans, credit unions, securities firms and insurance companies--from disclosing customer account numbers or access codes to third parties for telemarketing or other direct marketing purposes; B. Requiring all financial institutions to disclose annually to all customers its privacy policies and procedures; C. Enabling customers of financial institutions, for the first time, the ability to ``opt-out'' of having their personal financial information from being shared with third parties; D. Making it a Federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to obtain or attempt to obtain private customer financial information through fraudulent or deceptive means; and E. Allowing states to adopt greater privacy protections than is in Federal law. 6. Sixth, this Member has been a fervent advocate of keeping banking and commerce separate. In fact, this Member is quite pleased that the S. 900 Conference Report does not contain a ``commercial market basket'' which would have allowed the mix of commerce and banking-- equity positions by commercial banks. An amendment was initially filed, but not offered, in the House Banking Committee in the 106th Congress which would have allowed for the mixing of banking and commerce in a five percent market basket. However, this Member believes in large part because of expressed strong opposition, including vocal and effective opposition of this Member, this amendment was withdrawn for consideration in the Committee. 7. Seventh, this Member supports the S. 900 Conference Report because, it balances the interest of a state in regulating insurance with that of the interests of a national bank to sell insurance. At the outset, this Member notes that he has a distinguished record of supporting states rights, especially in the area of insurance regulation. It is important to note that this conference report preserves state rights by providing that the state insurance regulator is the appropriate functional regulator of insurance sales. Whether insurance is sold by an independent agent or through a national bank, the state, and only the state, is the functional regulator of insurance in both instances. Moreover, this conference report also does not unduly burden the ability of national banks to be able to sell insurance. 8. Lastly, this Member supports the S. 900 Conference Report as its passage is necessary to keep the United States in its preeminent position in the world financial marketplace. U.S. financial institutions are among the most competitive providers of financial products in the world. However, the financial marketplace is currently undergoing three changes which are altering the financial landscape of the world. The first of those changes involves a technological revolution including the internet through electronic banking. Technology is blurring the distinction between financial products. The other two changes include innovations in capital markets, and the globalization of the financial services industry. This Member would like to note Section 502(e)(1)(C) of the S. 900 Conference Report. It is this Member's understanding that credit enhancement done through the underwriting and reinsurance of mortgage guaranty insurance after a loan has been closed are secondary market transactions included within the exemption in Section 502(e)(1)(C) of the S. 900 Conference Report. Financial modernization is the proper, appropriate step in this ever- changing financial marketplace. Consequently, in order to maintain America's financial institution's competitive and innovative position abroad, the S. 900 Conference Report needs to be enacted into law. In the absence of this bill, the American banking system could suffer irreparable harm in the world market as we will allow our foreign competitors to overtake U.S. financial institutions in terms of innovative products and services. We must simply not allow this to happen. Therefore, for all these reasons, and many more that have been addressed today by this Member's colleagues, we must, and will, pass the S. 900 Conference Report. This Member urges his colleagues to support the S. 900 Conference Report, the Financial Modernization bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and for the good survey that he has provided in his initial comments. One of the reasons this legislation is so important, the resolution being moved today, is because many of us have concerns about the new European pillar that would be created within the European Union as a result of the Franco-British accord and the Cologne summit of the EU that followed. There is the likelihood, the way things are proceeding, that the European pillar, the ESDI, would be created outside NATO within the European Union. As the chairman indicated, we are concerned about decoupling this European capacity from NATO, that is one D; about discrimination against members of NATO that are not members of the European Union, that is the second D; and about duplication of effort, the third D, duplication between NATO's capacities and the capacity that would be created within the European Union. For these reasons addressed by the resolve clause in this resolution, its passage is particularly important today. I do want to assure the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that I certainly understand the security concerns we have in the Asia- Pacific region. After all, as the chairman of that subcommittee, I focus on these things. But as this resolution puts forth, there are other concerns today that the members of NATO really did not expect to be facing. They relate, for example, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), that I think his concerns, which are legitimate in general, are overwrought and do not directly relate to this resolution. It is true the resolution was originally introduced in February. It is not meant to have nor do I think it does have any impact upon a ratification of the use of force with respect to Bosnia or in Kosovo, for that matter. I want to also emphasize for my colleagues that nothing provided in our NATO membership impinges upon the constitutional guarantees for the use of force, for example, in which Congress should have a role, which this Congressman from California has diligently been trying to pursue, to his credit. This does not impinge upon the constitutional processes of any member state, including the United States. I would say this point needs to be made to the gentleman, that any kind of out-of-area action by NATO must be held to the standard that that kind of out-of-area action must be important to the security of one or more of the members of NATO. That is the only justification for out-of-area action by NATO forces. Even if it is a combined joint task force, a coalition, if the U.S. would participate, we must insist upon that out-of-area action being important to the security of one or more of the members of NATO, of the 19 countries that are part of that treaty. I think it is an important resolution to pass. I think it is particularly important in light of what is happening in the European Union.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his generosity in yielding me this time. Another gentleman from New York talked about his concerns about the expansion of NATO, and I understand that there is controversy about the fact that the Czech Republic and Poland and Hungary were brought into the first tranche of new membership, moving the membership from 16 to 19, but the Congress in both Houses by various means in direct action on the floor of the House and the Senate have approved that expansion and our executive branch has implemented it by the treaty change. In fact, I think there is strong sentiment to responsibly, carefully expand NATO as other countries prepare and do meet the qualifications for membership. It is certainly understandable why the countries of Eastern and Central Europe want to be a part of NATO. NATO, after all, was founded on the principle of the rule of law and individual liberty. It has become the cornerstone of Western peace and prosperity. It has permitted a sharing of the burden of national defense where all 16 countries, now 19, agree that attack on one is an attack against all. Because we no longer have a looming threat to our very survival since the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the absolute significance of this collective guarantee has faded from some memories, the gentleman of Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has just reminded us about the need for NATO. I think he reinforced the need for NATO. I think it is fair to say, therefore, that without NATO, tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people would have been subjected to continuing tyranny. NATO has been a dramatic success; and now, as I mentioned, Europe, our NATO allies and indeed the United States faces a whole range of additional threats and concerns which, in part, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) spoke to a few minutes ago. NATO nevertheless remains the ultimate bulwark against a reemergence of a destabilizing hegemonic power. We hope that is not Russia but, in fact, some of the concerns that the gentleman from Maryland raised are there in people's minds. We are extending, in a variety of fashions, through the NATO structure, a hand of peace and assistance to Russia and indeed the Ukraine, but they have to be willing to accept it; and we are committed to working with them. I think it is important that we focus finally on why it is that this resolution is before us. It is a concern that NATO may be weakened to address traditional mutual defense responsibilities or new threats to NATO countries by a dividing of the European Union's responsibilities with NATO.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak on this resolution when it was before the Committee on International Relations, and I also would like to convey the fact that I speak as the chairman of the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Greece and Turkey are two valuable and highly valued members of the NATO alliance as far as the United States is concerned. We have been concerned for some time about the obvious friction that has existed between these two NATO allies. We also have been very concerned about the fact that the European Union slammed the door in the face of Turkey when they provided their initial interest, expression of interest, in becoming a member, eventually, of the European Union, in part, allegedly because of Greek opposition to such membership. Out of the adversity, out of the tragedy of the earthquake that occurred in Turkey, Greece responded in a wonderful neighborly fashion. It was well received by the Turkish people and the Turkish government. It has provided an opportunity for improved relationships between these two valuable countries, and I want to commend both the government of Greece and the government of Turkey for the way in which they have reacted to the adversity. As mentioned perhaps a few minutes ago, when later a less severe earthquake took place in Greece, Turkey was quick to respond. Indeed, Turkey sent earthquake teams to Taiwan when they had their recent earthquake. I do hope, as the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) said, that this will lead us to an opportunity for further cooperation and for reaching a peaceful settlement of the long-standing dispute related to Cyprus between Greece and Turkey, and that it in general will provide an opportunity for increased cooperation and friendships between those two countries. So at a time when we often come to the House floor to lament things that are happening, it is good to commend our friends in Greece and Turkey for the extraordinary conduct that they have displayed in the wake of the recent tragedy. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his great appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, and to all members of the conference committee for the inclusion of a $10 million appropriation for the first phase of construction for a replacement Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, to serve the Winnebago and Omaha tribes. Of course, the conference committee is already well-aware of the ongoing situation with this hospital. Indeed, last year the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee kept the process going by including funds to complete the design phase of the project for which this member and Native Americans in the three state region are very grateful. Now, construction dollars are needed. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget overruled Indian Health Service's FY2000 budget request for the first phase of construction, so there was no request by the Administration. Once the design is completed, it is important to begin funding for the first phase of construction without a delay. If there is a time lapse between completion of design and construction, it is very possible that costs will increase, making this project more expensive. That is why this appropriation action at this time is so critical. In closing Mr. Speaker, 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 today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2684, the Veterans (VA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Mollohan) and all members of the conference committee for the important but difficult work they did under the current tight budget constraints. The conference committee undoubtedly struggled to complete the tough task of allocating limited resources among many deserving programs. As a Member of the House Banking Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over Federal housing programs, this Member is very interested in how funds are appropriated in this area. Although there are numerous deserving programs included in this funding bill, this Member would like to emphasize four points. First, this Member especially appreciates the $550,000 Community Development Block Grant appropriation for the development in Lincoln, Nebraska, of the North 27th Street Community Center by Cedars Youth Services, Inc., a leading social service provider in the City of Lincoln. These funds will be used to construct a community center on the corner of 27th and Holdrege Streets to serve as the focal point for a variety of services and support to strengthen and revitalize the surrounding neighborhood. Social services, such as Head Start preschool classes, as well as neighborhood-strengthening activities, such as preventive health care and recreational opportunities, will be provided at the North 27th Street Community Center. The site of this new community center in the Clinton School neighborhood contains the highest percentage of families living in poverty in Lincoln, has greater incidences of crime than most neighborhoods, and its local elementary school is experiencing an alarming dropout rate. The neighborhood has over 1,500 children living there, but no licensed child care center, no public library, no swimming pools, and no health care facilities. As a result of these deficiencies, the North 27th Street Community Center's primary focus would be children. Second, this Member is very pleased that H.R. 2684 contains the largest appropriation ever, $19,386,700,000, to fund veterans health programs. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way of life. As they served our nation in a time of need, the Federal Government must remember them in their time of need. The people of the U.S. owe our veterans a great deal and should keep the promises made to them. Third, this Member, in particular, would like to comment favorably upon the treatment of some housing programs. Section 8, Section 184, Section 202, and Section 811 programs probably were funded as adequately we can under the budgetary restraints. In particular, this Member commends the $6 million appropriation for the Section 184 program, the American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which he authored. This seems to be a program with excellent potential which, this Member notes without appropriate modesty in recognizing the support received from many colleagues, is for the first time providing private mortgage fund resources for Indians on reservations through a Federal Government guarantee program for those Indian families who have in the past been otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. Fourth, this Member is pleased that the conference report restores funding for Americorps at the FY99 level. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support the conference report on H.R. 2684.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment. If my colleagues and the American public are somewhat perplexed about what is happening here, it is understandable because the arguments that are being raised, I think, are turning rationality on its head. What the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is attempting to do by his perfecting amendment would say that there must not be a net loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States under OPIC activity. And that should be the objective. That is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says he wants to accomplish. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) indicated a few minutes ago that the Manzullo amendment accomplishes just what the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says he wants to do, but that perhaps he has a different motive. Now, I do not know whether that is the case or not about the gentleman from California, but my colleagues should not be confused by this issue. Let us suppose an American firm wants to create a canning factory for mangos in India. Now, we do not can mangos in this country, no, not even in Hawaii. The Rohrabacher amendment would prevent OPIC assistance to an American firm which wanted to build or help build a plant in India to can mangos. That would be, a net gain in manufacturing jobs for the United States because the products to produce the canning factory are likely to come from the United States. But there are jobs in manufacturing being created in India, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) would prevent that by his amendment just as he would prevent a tea operation in Sri Lanka. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was trying to indicate that in this case the OPIC guarantee for a firm in Oregon actually resulted in net manufacturing jobs being created in the United States, not a loss. So the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) ought to be in favor of the Manzullo perfecting amendment and opposed to the Rohrabacher amendment because the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) kills, inadvertently perhaps, unintentionally perhaps, he kills American manufacturing jobs that are created by OPIC. What we need to be concerned about, already addressed in law, is that OPIC activities do not result in a net reduction in manufacturing jobs in America. The Manzullo perfecting amendment will do just that. His amendment indicates that, in effect, if there is a net reduction in manufacturing jobs in the United States, then there would be no OPIC activity, but only if there is a net reduction, not just if there is one manufacturing job created abroad. It is not a zero-sum game on job creation under OPIC activities, my colleagues. Support the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a perfecting amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment. Vote ``yes'' on Manzullo.

Mr. BEREUTER. Is it true that the procedures set fourth in this amendment are primarily or largely restricted to their environmental review?