Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the Fowler amendment. I particularly want to claim the right to speak after the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), because the gentleman knows perfectly well that this Member is not an isolationist, since the gentleman from California and I were among the two Members who probably had more impact on the President's decision to have a preventive force sent into Macedonia, or the former Yugoslavian, Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), if one prefers, under United Nations auspices. And, of course, this Member voted for deployment of our troops to the Persian Gulf area for Desert Shield and Desert Storm because, in fact, one country, a member of the United Nations, invaded another. But I do think the gentlewoman's amendment is entirely appropriate, and it does not go to totally restricting American involvement in Kosovo. It simply says no ground troops. It does not prevent all kinds of support, such as logistical, intelligence or even air support. Now, I would like to address the issue of why the Europeans think American forces should be involved on the ground in Kosovo. Our European friends and allies say they cannot act without American leadership. As a long-term member of the North Atlantic Assembly from the House, I regularly have heard from our European friends that nothing can be done without America. Frankly, this is nonsense. NATO has established and has had in place for the last 2 years a concept or procedure called Combined Joint Task Forces, CJTF, where, out of area, some members of NATO can participate in a mission, out of area without all of them participating. This is an ideal time for the CJTF concept to be employed. I also would note that the press reports coming out of the negotiations have some of our European friends insisting that the administration's willingness to offer several thousand troops is far too small--that several times that number are necessary. The Europeans desperately want to be treated as equals but they seem terrified to act on their own. While I firmly support the Alliance, we have to break our friends of their undue reliance on U.S. military superiority. This Member is also concerned about the deployment of more U.S. armed forces on yet another peacekeeping mission. Really, however, in Kosovo it is peace enforcement. There is not going to be any peace to be kept because both these parties, the Government of Yugoslavia or Serbia and the KLA and the Kosovars are being coerced. That peace enforcement mission for U.S. ground forces in Kosovo will exacerbate the detrimental impact these missions are having on our military readiness to respond to a major attack against our direct interests. Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is wholly different from war fighting. Military units deployed on peacekeeping assignments must undergo extensive training to regain, renew and reestablish their fighting skills. Reliance on the U.S. to spearhead and to put teeth into peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions is, frankly, eroding the war fighting capability of the United States armed forces. The ever- increasing number of peacekeeping operations threatens to erode it. And, in fact, I would have to say that what has been done by moving this country's armed forces more and more into peace enforcement activities. It is damaging the capability of the U.S. military. This Member would also mention that frequent and recurring recalls of reservists and National Guardsmen to support these missions will eventually take its toll on U.S. businesses, American productivity and personal careers. Perhaps the Members understand that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) already has a tax credit bill introduced to try to assist businesses whose National Guard personnel and military reservists are abroad all the time. That is an understandable concern. I guess we have had about 10,000 lawsuits filed now against enterprises by Guardsmen or reservists who have not been able, in the eyes of the Guardsmen or the reservists, to be placed back in the job they left for deployment or in a comparable job when they return. Now that should tell us something. The Administration appears intent to act independent of Congress to commit troops to Kosovo. This is both unconstitutional and it is shortsighted. It jeopardizes the very interests President Clinton has vowed to preserve and protect, placing at risk not only the Balkans but also the U.S. war-fighting capacity. And I would say that what is happening in Macedonia today, with Serbian troops on their border with tanks and artillery as a result of American and coalition threats, certainly does not stabilize Macedonia; Certainly does not prevent the possibility of Greece and Turkey coming in on opposite sides; it makes a destabilized Macedonia more likely. What is happening there today because of this so-called peace enforcement, peace arrangement between Serbia and the KLA, or the Kosovars, is really destabilizing. The Kosovars, particularly the KLA, do not have any interest in autonomy. Their interest is independence. And, in fact, we have Members standing up in our committees insisting that the Kosovars should be acting for independence. What is that going to do to the stability of Albania, Turkey, Macedonia and Bulgaria? It is not positive. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for listening. Mr. Chairman, this member has yet to be convinced that this mission is well-thought-out or that it is necessary to risk the lives of U.S. armed forces men and women in another country's civil war. This Member is also mindful of assertions that a civil war in Serbia could spread to Macedonia and then bring two NATO allies into conflict--Greece and Turkey. While this might make a case if the conflict were occurring in a country adjacent to a NATO ally, Serbia does not meet this criteria. The use of this argument, to deploy U.S. armed forces to Serbia, is nothing more than veiled, highly speculative justification. In this Member's mind, it is a poor display of leadership for the world's only superpower. The Clinton Administration is too quick to resort to the heavy hand of U.S. military intervention. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should! While some liken the circumstances leading to our potential involvement in Kosovo as similar to those that resulted in U.S. troops deploying to Bosnia, this Member disagrees with this assessment. Unlike Bosnia, Kosovo is not a sovereign nation--it is a province within the sovereign nation of Serbia. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is an armed separatist group that appears focused on a singularly important objective--independence for the approximately two (2) million ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo. Kosovar leaders, in Serbia, want independence, not peace. Serbs are led by one man, Slobodan Milosevic, who is adamantly opposed to independence for Kosovo and who is willing to militarily oppose the presence of foreign troops in Serbia. With tension on both sides, and a history of failed attempts to establish an accord between Serbs and Kosovars, it is highly likely that the already sizeable casualty count will continue to rise. This Member has not been convinced we should risk adding the names of U.S. personnel to that growing casualty list. The high tension between KLA and Serb forces, compounded by recent action by the Serbs to amass 4,500 heavily armored troops with artillery on the southern Kosovo border with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), will turn this into peace-enforcement--a police action. This brings back haunting memories of Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia. As history has shown, peace-enforcement does not lend itself to an exit strategy. Police presence is rarely a temporary situation. In 1995, the Administration indicated that U.S. troops would be home from Bosnia within a year. The fact is that about 6,200 American military personnel remain deployed within Bosnia nearly four years later. The successful resolution of the crisis in Serbia will guarantee a continuous, long-term U.S. military presence there, as well as in Bosnia. This Member has previously voiced, and still has, enormous difficulties, for many reasons, with the proposal to deploy several thousand U.S. troops as part of a NATO peacekeeping force for Kosovo. Those reservations have nothing to do with whether Serbian misbehavior merits punishment. This Member certainly does not condone anything the Serbs have done recently, or over the past decade, to foment Kosovar unrest. Belgrade has been condescending toward, and abusive of, the rights of ethnic Albanians, giving rise to the KLA. Yet, Secretary of Defense William Cohen correctly has noted that ``the notion that only the Serbs have engaged in atrocities is incorrect.'' While acknowledging that both sides are contributing to the conflict, this member would quickly point out that the KLA forces were not the ones to displace nearly 400,000 people, they did not destroy more than 19,000 homes, nor did they destroy nearly 500 villages. The Serbs accomplished this brutality, now under the ultimate direction of one individual, Slobodan Milosevic. Despite the precedents set by this Administration's previous actions, or by previous presidents, President Clinton has avoided the constitutional framework for determining whether it is of vital national interest to devote a significant portion of our military capability keeping the peace at two places in the Balkans. Why is this important? It is important because it jeopardizes the continuity of American policy. Policy set by the Administration acting alone in this case becomes susceptible to change upon election of a new president, which will occur in less than 2 years. Congressional approval of any American or NATO invasion of Kosovo, on the other hand, enables continuity of four foreign policy and use of combat force, even after the end of the president's term. Last, and far from least, we are on the verge of what this Member considers to be a much more serious breech of peace in the Balkans. The People's Republic of China has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to kill extension of the first-ever United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Continuation of the international peacekeeping presence in Macedonia (FYROM) has now come into question. Yesterday, the distinguished gentleman from the 12th District in California, the Honorable Tom Lantos, joined this Member in signing a joint letter to the Secretaries of Defense and State, urging, in the strongest possible terms, that a continued U.S. ``preventative'' peacekeeping force remain in Macedonia. It is this Member's hope that the Scandinavian forces of UNPREDEP will also remain. Macedonia is surrounded by countries--Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey--that, themselves, are experiencing internal or external difficulties, or both. Macedonia is a highly volatile friction point, and it is no coincidence that the Macedonian region has been the starting point for past wars. Therefore, it is vitally important that the presence of a stabilization force be maintained. A continuation of the U.N. mandate may no longer be an option, but the U.S. may find it necessary to expand its force structure in this sovereign country, where we, legitimately, have been invited, where we have unambiguous national interests because of threats to the integrity of the NATO alliance, and where we absolutely cannot afford an escalation of conflict. Were Macedonia to become engulfed in ethnic conflict, it is quite possible that Greece and Turkey, two key NATO allies, would become engaged on opposing sides--and Albania and Bulgaria might become involved, too. The potential is that instability in Macedonia would cause the southern Balkans to erupt into yet another conflict, potentially leading to a much broader conflagration, or even war. It is a possibility that must be avoided. There are appropriate places in the Balkans to deploy U.S. troops: Macedonia, for example. This Member is not convinced, yet, that it is appropriate to further tax the U.S. or its armed forces by allowing this Administration to risk the lives of U.S. service personnel in Serbia, including Kosovo.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his eloquent statement, as well as that of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 32) expressing support for, and calling for actions in support of, free, fair and transparent elections in Indonesia.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his support and his assistance. It was important not only to stress the fundamental importance of this election but, as the gentleman suggested, some of the burdens or difficulties that face Indonesia in preparing for these elections. Those of us that watched the election preparations, the infrastructure being put in place in smaller, less complicated countries like Namibia or Nicaragua, are quite concerned about the ability to put everything together in time to have that free, fair and transparent election. The United Nations Development Program is serving as the coordinating entity for all of the bilateral and international assistance from NGOs and from our government, and so I think that is a good way to proceed and we will hope that the resources that are necessary are called upon in a timely fashion by the Indonesian government. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who has an interest in this subject. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as original cosponsor of H. Res. 32, this Member rises to express his strong support for actions in support of free, fair and transparent elections in Indonesia. The fourth most populous nation in the world and a key to the stability and prosperity of the Southeast Asia region, Indonesia is undergoing a profound political transformation in the midst of a devastating economic crisis. With a culturally, linguistically and religiously diverse population of 210 million people spread over 14,000 inhabited islands, Indonesia in a geographic, ethnic and linguistic sense may be the most complicated nation in the world. Achieving a free and fair multiparty election in such a country is a daunting task, particularly since more than four decades have passed since the last such election in Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, since the resignation of former President Soeharto in May of last year, the Government of Indonesia has taken a number of important steps toward the establishment of a more open and more genuinely democratic political system. While much remains to be done, positive actions thus far include the lifting of restrictions on freedom of the press, the freeing of a number of political prisoners, and the end to the ban on the formation of new political parties. More than 140 political parties have been formed over the past few months and out of that number 48 parties have officially qualified to compete in the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place on June 7. A successful, free and fair democratic election in June is essential to ensure that the new Indonesian President and Government, to be elected later this year, in November, will have the legitimacy and popular support to carry through on difficult but badly needed political and economic reforms. Mr. Speaker, this Member had the opportunity to visit Indonesia in January with a bipartisan delegation of Members co-led by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). The delegation members witnessed at firsthand the momentous events that are occurring on a daily basis in Indonesia. As a result, this Member and the other Members on the delegation came away impressed by the importance of the election and the need to work together on a bipartisan basis to draft the resolution now before the House. Indeed, we completed most of the work during that trip. It was clear from the delegation's meeting that the Government of Indonesia would also welcome the presence of congressional observers for the election under the coordination of the United Nations Development Program, UNDP. The resolution, therefore, expresses its support for adequate assistance for the U.S. Government to support election training programs, voter education and election monitoring. It calls upon the Speaker, therefore, and the Minority Leader to designate such observers. And it warns of the danger of missing this opportunity to promote peace and democracy in this critically important country where the consequences of failure are potentially very severe and very much contrary to the best interests of U.S.-Indonesian relations. Mr. Speaker, although it is not the subject of the resolution now before us, many will also note with appreciation the recent dramatic developments concerning East Timor. For the first time, the Government of Indonesia has stated that if the people of East Timor do not accept the broad autonomy package now being negotiated under United Nations auspices, a breakthrough initiative in itself, then Indonesia would grant East Timor its independence. The latest round of these negotiations is taking place in New York this week. As a matter of fact, tomorrow. This Member knows that many of his colleagues will join him in wishing for a prompt and successful outcome in these negotiations between Portugal and Indonesia. This Member notes with appreciation the cosponsorship of this resolution by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and all other members of the delegation that visited Indonesia in January, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall). This Member urges all of his colleagues to support H.Res. 32. Mr. Speaker, I note with great appreciation the assistance of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my distinguished ranking member, who has also cosponsored this legislation as has the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) and several other Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his long interest in this subject and for his support today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H. Con. Res. 28, expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should introduce and seek to secure passage of a resolution criticizing Chinese human rights abuses at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. There is no question that the recent actions by the Chinese authorities to criminalize the activities of individuals seeking to organize a new political party are in direct contradiction to China's stated commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its signature last year of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The prosecution of some Chinese citizens for their contacts with foreign individuals and their alleged passing of ``state secrets'' in some instances also appear to be serious breaches of China's obligation to respect universally recognized human rights standards. Such efforts to control freedom of expression are deeply disturbing, and reflect a government that is unsure about its legitimacy. Mr. Speaker, China's internal situation clearly remains a complex mixture of positive and negative developments. The resolution correctly refers to other areas of ongoing concern with respect to China's human rights performance, including family planning practices, the situation in Tibet, freedom of religion and the penal system. At the same time, this Member believes it is important not to lose sight of some of the progress being achieved, for example, in the area of multi-candidate elections at the village level in certain regions and in the continued trend toward increased personal freedom of Chinese citizens to pursue their economic betterment. While not discounting improvements where they are discernible, this Member also believes that when China takes steps that are clearly retrograde in the area of human rights, the Administration must condemn such actions forthrightly, both bilaterally and in appropriate multilateral settings. The Administration's decision not to introduce a resolution on human rights in China at the 1998 meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was a serious error, and was correctly criticized at the time by a number of Members of this body. This Member welcomes the clear statements by the Secretary of State during her visit to China last week. The Administration must now reverse the mistake it made last year in Geneva by introducing and advocating strongly for a resolution critical of China's human rights violations. Mr. Speaker, this Member urges all of his colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 28.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The gravity of the situation for family farmers nationwide makes it imperative that chapter 12 bankruptcy is extended 6 months. Beyond this, it is this Member's hope that chapter 12 bankruptcy is extended permanently as it is done in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, H.R. 833. This Member is an original cosponsor of that Bankruptcy Reform Act introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 808, of which he is a co-sponsor, that extends Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code for six additional months as amended by the Judiciary Committee. Chapter 12 bankruptcy, which allows family farmers to reorganize their debts as compared to liquidating their assets, is set to expire on March 31, 1999. First, this Member would thank the distinguished gentleman (Mr. Nick Smith), from Michigan for introducing H.R. 808. In addition, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), and the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee from Michigan (Mr. John Conyers, Jr.) for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House floor today. Chapter 12 bankruptcy has been a viable option for family farmers nationwide. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, this will have a drastic impact on an agricultural sector already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have to end their operations, but also land values will likely plunge downward. Such a decrease in land values will affect both the ability of family farmers to earn a living and the manner in which banks, making agricultural loans, conduct their lending activities. This Member has received many contacts from his constituents regarding the extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy because of the situation now being faced by our nation's farm families-- although the U.S. economy is generally healthy, it is clear that agricultural sector is hurting. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member would encourage your support for H.R. 808, the six month extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 669, the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act, which will strengthen the impact of the Peace Corps. This legislation was introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), and cosponsored by the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and many other members, including this Member. We passed this bill from the committee unanimously on February 11th. I would congratulate the distinguished gentleman from California for introducing this act which, if passed and signed into law, would authorize the expansion of the Peace Corps to 10,000 volunteers by the year 2003. It will be fulfilling the goal set by former President Ronald Reagan in 1985, who built on the legacy of President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, in the 38 years since the Peace Corps was established, its volunteers have compiled a distinguished record of service to people in countries around the world. Volunteers provide badly needed, at times critical, assistance, while at the same time embodying not just the technical know-how but also the ideals and the can-do spirit of the American people. The annals of the Peace Corps are replete with examples of communities strengthened and lives changed, both among those who have received the assistance and among the volunteers themselves, who come back to this country and continue to provide service to our Nation's communities. Former volunteers have gone on to distinguished careers in many fields, including five Peace Corps alumni who are members of this body. There can be little doubt that the type of--that the need for the type of assistance the Peace Corps provides remains great. At the same time, this Member is pleased to note that there is no shortage of Americans, both young people and those with years or even decades of experience, willing to dedicate a significant period of their lives to volunteering to assist others. In its 38-year-history, more than 1,200 volunteers have come from this Member's low population State of Nebraska, including 63 Nebraskans currently providing this important form of volunteer service. As a personal note, a former intern of this Member's staff in whom we take great pride was Tammy Ortega, who performed in an exemplary fashion as a Peace Corps volunteer in ecuadorial Guinea. This Nation should be proud that we have individuals like Tammy who are willing to devote 2 or more years of their lives to helping those less fortunate. Mr. Chairman, for many reasons, this Member is pleased both to cosponsor this important bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 669, introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, during this Member visit to several East Asian countries in January, considerable Japanese interest in developing a missile defense system was mentioned in the region's news media as a result of the North Korean missile launch over Japanese territory on its course to the Pacific. Also noted was very substantial public discussion and media coverage of the possibility of a missile defense system in Taiwan because of the Chinese missile firings in the run-up to the last Taiwanese presidential elections and because of the Chinese mainland missile build-up in the Taiwan Strait region. The following editorial from the February 20, 1999, edition of The Economist magazine notes not only the impact on Japan of the North Korean's provocative action and demonstrated advancement of their missile development program, it also suggests that ``[w]ith its missile, North Korea was thumbing its nose as much at China as at Japan and America.'' This Member has long felt that China's influence on North Korean is generally over-estimated, but certainly it has more influence on the isolated, paranoid North Korean regime than any other country. The Economist editorial notes what is almost certainly true, that ``North Korea felt it could take such missile liberties in part because China has stoutly opposed all international pressure on North Korea to curb its nuclear and missile activities.'' China is complaining loudly and threateningly against the possible deployment of missile defense systems in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan rather than examining its own culpability in increasing its missile threat against Taiwan and ignoring, to its own danger, the destabilizing missile and nuclear development programs of North Korea. The United States, threatened itself by the North Korean missiles under development, cannot ignore their threat to our allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan, nor its commitment that Taiwan not be forcibly placed under the control of Beijing. As The Economist concludes, China ``has mostly itself to blame'' for any new tilt in East Asia's unease balance of power may have been caused by more Potent missile forces and the resultant urgent interest in American assistance for missile defense systems. This Member urges his colleagues to read the entire Economist editorial on this important set of related developments. [From the Economist, Feb. 20, 1999] Causing Offence Talk about missile defences is a symptom of East Asia's tensions, not the cause Are America and China heading for another bust-up? The ``strategic dialogue'' inaugurated by Presidents Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin has been shrilly interrupted, this time by Chinese concern about America's discussions with Japan and others of possible missile defences in East Asia, and by American worries about Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan (see page 37). The row threatens to sour preparations for the visit to America in April of China's prime minister, Zhu Rongji. Handled sensibly, the missile tiff need not produce a crisis. Yet it goes to the heart of what divides China from America and most of its Asian neighbours: China's pursuit of power by at times reckless means. China may never be a global power to rival America. It is, however, an increasingly potent regional power, with territorial scores to settle. It makes plain that it intends to recover sovereignty over Taiwan, to extend jurisdiction over almost all the rocks and reefs of the South China Sea, and ultimately to displace America as East Asia's most influential power. Until recently, events had seemed to be moving China's way. Recognising China's extreme sensitivity on the Taiwan issue, on a visit to China last year Mr. Clinton made clear that America did not support independence for the island, despite the protective arm America throws round it at times of military tension with the mainland. Meanwhile China had skilfully used the region's economic turmoil to reinforce its claims in the South China Sea, blame rival Japan for not doing enough to aid regional economic recovery and play on sharp economic differences between America and Japan. Hence China's fury that the question of missiles and missile defences could blow a hole in these stratagems. The launch of a North Korean rocket over Japan last August reminded the Japanese of the importance of their alliance with America, and persuaded the government to set aside China's objections and start discussions on missile defences. Without such defences in a dangerous neighbourhood, America had worried and China had calculated that pressure would eventually grow in Congress to pull back the 100,000 or so American troops in Japan and South Korea. China's reaction has been all the shriller for knowing that any missile defences eventually deployed to protect America's troops and close allies from rogue North Korean missiles could be used to help protect Taiwan from China. With its missile, North Korea was thumbing its nose as much at China as at Japan and America. Yet the success of its engineers owes at least something to past Chinese collusion. North Korea felt it could take such missile liberties in part because China has stoutly opposed all international pressure on North Korea to curb its nuclear and missile activities. The Taiwanese had their reminder of the potential value of missile defences three years ago, when it was China lobbing missiles, these ones falling near the island's shipping lanes in a crude effort to intimidate voters before Taiwan's first democratic presidential election. China now has snazzier missiles. Its belligerence drove Taiwan to seek better defences, not, as China would have it, the other way around. There is still time to calm tensions over Taiwan, and still time for the regional powers to talk over the problems raised by any future (limited) missile defences. Yet these issues give a new tilt to East Asia's uneasy balance of power. If this tilt upsets China, it has mostly itself to blame.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific to praise the recent breakthrough in relations between India and Pakistan. Last week, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif traveled on the first commercial bus service between the two countries in 51 years, arriving in Lahore, Pakistan, to discuss the future of those nations. This seemingly modest but symbolically important change brings renewed hope that the decades of hostility and conflict may soon come to an end. In an historic meeting, the two leaders agreed to work together to reduce the risk between their newly nuclear states. They have agreed to continue their declared moratoriums on future nuclear testing, exchange information on warhead numbers and deployment, and provide advanced notification of future missile tests. India and Pakistan also have committed to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty within the next few months; and, importantly, they have agreed to intensify efforts to resolve the difficult issue of Kashmir. Mr. Speaker, they should be encouraged by all Members of this body. This can be a breakthrough in relations between India and Pakistan.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask to submit for the Record an important editorial that appeared in the February 10, 1999 Washington Post concerning China's negative reaction to a recent high court decision in Hong Kong. The Members of the Task Force on Hong Kong, created at your request of former Speaker Gingrich to observe and report on conditions in Hong Kong following its reversion to China, are closely monitoring these developments. Indeed, the Task Force submitted its most recent report to be printed in the February 9, 1999 Congressional Record. It is important to note that the decision by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeals rightly asserts that body's right to interpret Hong Kong law for the people of Hong Kong. However, very sensitive issues must still be resolved, including how to limit the number of individuals seeking permanent entry into Hong Kong and whether it is Hong Kong or Beijing that makes the final determination on that number. Most importantly, however, this Member hopes that the Beijing authorities and the Government of the People's Republic of China will be cognizant of the importance of preserving the principles of autonomy and the rule of law that underlie the prosperity and liberty of Hong Kong and its people. Mr. Speaker, this Member asks to insert this excellent editorial in the Record. ``Make or Break'' in Hong Kong In the 19 months since Hong Kong reverted to China, the worst fears have not come true. Beijing has for the most part kept its hands off the former British colony as promised, allowing Hong Kong to manage its own affairs. Now the two entities may be approaching a crisis that determines whether Hong Kong can maintain substantive independence. It is ``make-or-break time,'' the chairman of Hong Kong's bar association, Ronny Teng, said yesterday. A decision by Hong Kong's highest court triggered the confrontation. The decision ostensibly concerned the rights of children born in China to at least one Hong Kong parent to settle in Hong Kong. The court said they could, even if born out of wedlock. But the significance of the decision lay elsewhere, in its legal reasoning. For the first time, the court claimed for itself the authority to interpret Hong Kong law for Hong Kong. On most matters, in other words, the final word should not rest with Beijing. And more than that: Hong Kong laws should be interpreted above all with a deference to Hong Kong autonomy and an understanding that rights and freedoms are ``the essence of Hong Kong's civil society.'' The contrast to China's arbitrary one-party dictatorship could not have been sharper. The decision has not sat well in Beijing. Four ``legal experts'' were the first to express dismay. Then Zhao Qizheng, a senior cabinet official, called the decision a mistake. Yesterday a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Beijing chimed in, saying the government was ``closely following'' the ruling. The idea of ``one country, two systems'' was an experiment from the start. Trying to maintain an island of free enterprise and relative democracy within a Communist state was never going to be easy. But its success is crucial, not only to residents of Hong Kong but to China's credibility in the world and to those nations--such as the United States-- that pledged to stand up for Hong Kong's freedom. Now Beijing officials are threatening that success. Not only Hong Kong's liberty but its prosperity as well is at stake, since local and foreign companies alike will be reluctant to invest in Hong Kong if its rule of law can be compromised and superseded by party apparatchiks in Beijing. The Clinton administration should make clear that it, too, is ``closely following'' developments.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 435, which includes authorization of the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment or normal trade relations to the products of Mongolia. Indeed, this Member introduced the original legislation authorizing this designation on the very first day of the 105th Congress. While this body passed legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations status for Mongolia in the waning days of the 105th Congress, unfortunately it was not taken up by the Senate. This Member is very encouraged that authorizing normal trade relations for Mongolia is one of this body's first actions. Mr. Speaker, in 1952 the United States denied Mongolia and twenty other communist countries and territories under communist rule normal trade relations. Normal trade relations with Mongolia were restored in November 1991, when the President waived the provisions of the Jackson- Vanik trade legislation. In 1996, the President of the United States made the first determination that Mongolia was in full-compliance with the human rights objectives of the Jackson-Vanik trade legislation and the President has renewed that determination each year since, and most recently on July 1, 1998. Since 1990, there have been five free and fair elections in Mongolia which have coincided with significant reforms of the government and the economy. Approximately one and a half years ago, the Economist magazine heralded Mongolia's dramatic economic reforms of the last several years by calling Mongolians ``those free-trading Mongolians.'' Unfortunately, however, these dramatic economic and political reforms in Mongolia have recently begun to suffer from factional fighting in that country and the emergence of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP). Most recently, the MPRP has begun to attack the ambitious privatization and private sector development plans of the Democratic coalition in Mongolia and a high level Ministry official was assassinated. The World Bank estimates that Mongolia must have a 5% growth rate to create new jobs for its entrants into the work force. Yet, with the Asian financial crisis to its east and Russia's collapse on its west, Mongolia will find it very difficult to meet its economic goals and stay on its reform path. The United States can play a fundamental helpful role by granting Mongolia normal trade relations and, therefore, reasonable access to our markets. The United States currently provides a modest amount of aid to Mongolia that will be necessary in the short term. However, by granting Mongolia reasonable access to our markets and promoting trade with our two countries, this legislation is building the foundation so we can hopefully graduate Mongolia from U.S. assistance in the future. This Member only regrets that this legislation was not approved last Congress. In light of the very difficult political and economic challenges facing the people of Mongolia, passage of this legislation comes at a very critical time. Mongolians who favor a continuation of democracy, a market-oriented economy, and trade liberalization deserve a strong statement of congressional support like permanent Normal Trade Relations for Mongolia. That support and this action is in our mutual best interests.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an excellent editorial questioning the President's proposal to invest Social Security funds in the stock market which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald, on January 29, 1999. I'll go further than the World-Herald. Even without detailed study of the issue, it should be clear to most thoughtful Americans that this proposal by President Clinton should be considered ``dead on arrival.'' Chairman Alan Greenspan's opposition is highly appropriate. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Jan. 29, 1999] The Government as an Investor: Questions Need To Be Addressed President Clinton's proposal to invest billions of dollars in Social Security funds in the stock market is the target of a barrage of criticism. Clinton and others who support the idea may have a fight ahead if they are to prove its worth. The president would allocate 62 percent of the government's budget surpluses over the next 15 years to Social Security to ensure that it can pay promised benefits until 2055. That amounts to about $2.7 trillion. He has suggested investing more than $40 billion of those Social Security funds a year--nearly $700 billion over 15 years--in the stock market. Another $500 billion would be used to set up individual universal savings accounts for many Americans to bolster the retirement nest-eggs of lower-income people. The surplus not put into the stock market or individual retirement accounts would be invested just as money collected for Social Security has always been: It would be used to buy Treasury bonds, which are interest-paying federal IOUs. In the past, Congress and the president have taken the money from Social Security, replaced it with bonds and used the cash like other borrowed income, spending it on programs and services. Clinton, to his credit, has proposed that lawmakers be barred from using future proceeds from those bonds for any purpose other than reducing the national debt. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said he highly approves of the national debt provision. Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, criticized the president for failing to earmark any of the surplus for tax cuts. In addition, many people have specific concerns that will need to be addressed in detail if the plan is to warrant serious bipartisan consideration. Greenspan, in particular, has raised thoughtful questions, most recently on Thursday in front of the Senate Budget Committee. ``I do not believe it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds,'' he said. With so much money on the table, he said, Congress or the president might be tempted to influence the selection of companies and industries to benefit from government investments. There is reason for his concern. Congress routinely passes bills that benefit businesses. Members try to direct spending to their districts. Often they try to take care of specific individuals or companies. How much more could they do if the government became a much larger investor in private securities? Another issue is the matter of political correctness and the pressure that would materialize to use the money for a social statement. Should the government own stock in companies that make cigarettes? That distribute liquor? That offer abortions? That have operations in repressive nations? That have a bad environmental record? Some members of Congress might try to influence investments on the basis of social conscience instead of market savvy. Clinton supporters have argued that the problem is solvable, perhaps with an independent board of long-term appointees, similar to the Federal Reserve Board. The board would direct investments, perhaps from a limited list of broad, mutual-fund type stocks. Other opponents have wondered at the propriety of government ownership of shares in private sector companies. Stockholders have a say in company management, voting for board members and approving mergers and acquisitions. the government could have an effect on the company either way, if it voted the shares it owned and if it didn't. There are precedents, however. States, cities and some independent federal agencies such as the Federal Reserve System have pension plans invested in stocks. Managers of those funds say they have not created any of the problems that critics are bringing up. On the other hand, those funds are not as large as the potential Social Security investment. Removing the stock-market investment portion of Clinton's plan would not kill it. Experts suggests that it would mean the proposal would extend the solvency of Social Security only 50 years rather than 55 years. The plan is a radical departure from current practices. It has some intriguing aspects, but comes with troubling questions such as those raised by Greenspan. The questions need to be answered before the plan can be assessed.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to submit the Fifth Quarterly Report of the Speaker's Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition. It has been more than eighteen months since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997. Prior to that historic event, and at the request of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, this Member formed the House Task Force on Hong Kong's Transition. In addition to myself as Chairman, the Task Force was bipartisanly balanced in its membership during the 105th Congress, including Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), Representative Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Representative Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS), Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Representative Jay Kim (R-CA), Representative Donald Manzullo (R-IL), and Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ). The Task Force now has completed its Fifth Quarterly Report which assesses how the reversion has affected Hong Kong. The Fifth Report, which I submit today, covers the period of July through September 1998, during which there was no actual visit to Hong Kong by the Task Force. In the next several weeks the Sixth Quarterly Report will be completed and presented to Speaker Dennis Hastert and the House. Mr. Speaker, this Member submits the Task Force Fifth Quarterly Report and asks that it be printed in full in the Congressional Record. The Speaker's Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition, Fifth Report, February 2, 1999 (Presented by the Honorable Doug Bereuter, Chairman) The following is the fifth quarterly 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, and the fourth report dated July 23, 1998. This report focuses on events and development relevant to United States interests in Hong Kong between July 1, 1998, and September 30, 1998--the fifth quarter following Hong Kong's reversion to China. The fifth quarter following Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997, has been dominated by increasing concern about Hong Kong's economic situation. The good news is that Hong Kong has continued to enjoy substantial political economic autonomy following its reversion to Chinese sovereignty. Hong Kong continues to voice its own views in international economic fora, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) and APEC. On the bad news side, however, Hong Kong's economy has been dragged down by external factors and its strong currency. The driving forces of the slowdown are largely beyond the Hong Kong government's control and are not related to Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese sovereignty. Economic Developments Hong Kong continued to suffer the negative effects of the Asian Financial Crisis, posting its third consecutive quarter of negative growth, as its first recession in thirteen years showed no sign of coming to a quick end. An early turnaround continues to appear unlikely. Hong Kong's GDP is now projected to shrink by four percent in 1998. (Official figures for the second quarter of 1998 show a GDP drop of 5.2 percent, following the first quarter's decline of 2.8 percent.) This would be the first annual economic contraction on record. Some Hong Kong companies have cut wages by 10 percent. Compared to the same period in 1997, total retail sales from January 1998 to July 1998 decreased by 15 percent in value, reflecting shrinking local consumer demand, reduced tourism, and the fall in asset markets. Hong Kong's stock market has dropped by roughly 50 percent since its peak in august 1997, property prices have fallen by as much as 60 percent, and unemployment has soared to a fifteen year high of five percent. The budget deficit for fiscal 1998-99 may substantially exceed the current estimate of HK $20 billion (US $2.56 billion), which the government announced in June. (The original government forecast for the fiscal year projected 3.5 percent growth and a budget surplus of about HK $10 billion.) The budget deficit can be expected to retard growth in government expenditures over the next few years. Although the government had been promising a revised medium-range economic forecast since mid-August, it failed to produce one by the end of the quarter, indicating to some an unwillingness on the part of the government to face up to the full consequences of the recession on public spending. The government continues to insist that the currency peg to the U.S. dollar is here to stay, despite serious attacks by speculators. Defending the peg has required the government to keep interest rates high, further depressing economic growth, and was a major motivation for the government's decision to intervene in the stock market in August (see below). The stock market's Hang Seng Index at one point fell to 6660, 44 percent below its highwater mark for 1998 on March 25. The market remained concerned about Japan's economy, China's commitment to maintaining the value of the renminbi, and regional economic woes. On August 14, the government intervened massively in the stock market, spending an estimated US $15 billion (representing over 15 percent of Hong Kong's US $96 billion reserves) to buy stocks, futures, and currency in an effort to keep share prices at levels that would punish speculators betting on a decline. The government later imposed more stringent trading regulations to make illegal trading and speculation more difficult. Even with the government's massive intervention, the market ended September at 7,883 points, down 48 percent since September 1997. Trading volume also plummeted, with the average daily turnover for the first nine months of 1998 standing at just 40 percent of the corresponding figure for 1997. In terms of value, average daily turnover fell 56 percent. In defending their decision to intervene, senior Hong Kong officials cited fears that unnamed ``foreign traders'' were improperly manipulating Hong Kong's markets. They maintained it was not their intention to interfere with market forces, only to improve Hong Kong's ability to manage its monetary affairs. The government said the measures were necessary to counter harmful speculative activities and to stabilize interest rates. Some observers have expressed concern that the intervention could mark the beginning of a turn away from the global market. While this seems unlikely given Hong Kong's overwhelming dependence on foreign trade, the August market intervention does pose some worrisome questions. The Hong Kong government's unprecedented ownership of significant amounts of equity, both in Hong Kong-based companies and in PRC-related ``Red Chips,'' has the potential to begin to affect official decision making in ways contrary to Hong Kong's traditions of free markets and transparency. There is some positive economic news. Inflation is low and falling, with the year-on-year rate of increase in the composite consumer price index standing at 2.7 percent in August, down appreciably from 3.2 percent in July. The August figure was also the lowest monthly figure recorded since Hong Kong began tracking the year-on-year inflation rate in 1981. For the first time in a year, the unemployment rate did not increase in September, holding at the same five percent it reached in August. The tourism market recovered slightly in September, with tourist arrivals and hotel occupancy rates showing small increases over August figures. Hong Kong also still possesses substantial foreign currency reserves, even after the costly market intervention in August. The slump has exposed inherent flaws in Hong Kong's economic fabric, however, particularly its heavy dependence on entrepot trade and the relative lack of growth in sectors with high value- added, such as the high-tech industry. With hope of a swift recovery fading, further pay cuts and layoffs appear certain. Land sales remain suspended until next March--a step intended to reduce downward pressure on the real estate market. Hong Kong's recovery would appear to hinge on a combination of external and internal factors, including improved international financial conditions, a steadying of interest rates, restored stability in the property market and a return of public confidence. Political Developments--Economic Problems Affect Government's Popularity One casualty of Hong Kong's continued economic malaise has been Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's popularity with significant portions of the public. As Beijing's choice to preside over the Hong Kong government, Tung lacks the popular mandate that can help government leaders push through unpopular measures in difficult economic times. As Hong Kong's economic problems have deepened, Tung has been criticized for timidity and failure to enunciate major initiatives to address the crisis. The newly elected Legislative Council (LegCo) took its seat on July 2, replacing the provisional legislature that had been appointed upon reversion. Under the executive-led system of governance prescribed by the Basic Law, however, the new LegCo has relatively narrow powers and does not form a government. Rather, like past legislatures, the new LegCo is essentially a monitoring body that can block or amend government legislation and can call on the administration to defend government policy. Legislators have the power to introduce private member bills, but not ones that involve public expenditure, the political structure, or government operations. Troubled relations between the Government and the LegCo is widely seen as a serious problem. Pro-democracy candidates elected in the May LegCo elections have been pushing for a faster transition to full democracy. On July 15, Democratic Party (DP) legislator Andrew Cheng Kar-foo introduced a motion for the LegCo to endorse direct elections of all members in the year 2000 and direct elections for the office of chief executive in the year 2002. (Note: Although the Basic Law does not guarantee a date when the entire LegCo or the Chief Executive will be directly elected, it sets forth an ``ultimate aim'' of electing a legislature and a Chief Executive after a transition period of about ten years.) Tung opposed this proposal, however, arguing that the addressing the economic crisis requires stability, and until now has declined to advance the timetable for subjecting the Chief Executive post and the full legislature to direct election. The measure was defeated in both divisions of the LegCo, by a vote of 15-14 among geographical constituency and election committee representatives, and by a 20-5 margin among functional constituency representatives. Voting was split along strict party lines, with members of the DP, the Frontier Party, and the Citizens Party supporting it and legislators from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) and the Liberal Party opposed. A government-led effort to reassess the current local government structure is now underway. Scrapping the elected Urban and Regional Councils--the option the government is believed to favor--comes in for strong opposition from many LegCo members. While these councils have been criticized for their incompetence in handling public hygiene and other matters under their purview, abolishing them outright could send a disturbing message about the government's attitude toward democracy and also deprive Hong Kong of a vital training ground for future LegCo members. The ultimate impact of scrapping the councils will depend on the degree to which responsibility and funding for managing issues now handled by those bodies devolve to the elected district boards. Rule of Law--Freedom of Expression As we have noted in earlier reports, international confidence in Hong Kong is based on the commitment of Hong Kong's authorities to the rule of law inherited from the British. An integral part of this is the ``check'' on abuse of authority provided by the free expression of opinion. During this quarter, we find again that the people of Hong Kong largely continue to express themselves without restraint. The Hong Kong government has not denied any application for a demonstration permit since reversion. Beijing authorities continue to bend over backward to avoid the appearance of interference in Hong Kong affairs. Hong Kong's media also continue to practice their traditional vibrant style of journalism without overt interference from authorities in Hong Kong or Beijing. Nonetheless, concerns regarding self-censorship continue. Chief Executive Tung has stated publicly on a number of occasions that he believes Hong Kong people should not be freely expressing their support for independence for places like Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. The question of freedom of expression and how it applies to expressions about certain sovereignty issues in China is especially important because under the Basic Law, Hong Kong is required to enact laws on treason, secession, sedition, and subversion. Through the end of the quarter, however, the Hong Kong government had not introduced bills addressing these matters, and the Secretary for Justice stated that there was no rush to pass sedition laws. When they finally are introduced, such bills will be a crucial test of Hong Kong's adherence to freedom of expression, depending on whether they seek to criminalize mere expressions of support for independence for those areas or other expressions of opinion concerning the Chinese government. A fair and independent judiciary is another critical element of international confidence in Hong Kong. In general, the Hong Kong judiciary continues to operate independently and without taint of political influence. During the past quarter, we noted no instances that would call into question the judiciary's independence or its vulnerability to Chinese influence. Trade Issues While the Asian Financial Crisis has seriously jolted and hurt Hong Kong's economy, it has also highlighted Hong Kong's serious and unhealthy dependent on entrepot trade between China and other nations, particularly the U.S. During the quarter, entrepot trade figures turned negative for the first time since the onset of the crisis, with July 1998 re-exports decreasing by 11 percent over the same month in 1997. With exports from domestic manufacturing in Hong Kong dropping by eight percent in the same period, overall exports showed a decrease of 10 percent in July from one year ago. As noted in our previous quarterly report, Hong Kong's reliance on entrepot trade leaves it vulnerable in the event that continued large trade deficits between the U.S. and China prove politically or economically unsustainable. If the China trade deficit issue is not addressed by increased market access for U.S. firms to China, then Hong Kong could get hit with collateral damage from a frustrated America and U.S. Government--even if it does everything right. While the Hong Kong Government has taken significant steps to improve its intellectual property rights regime and enhance enforcement efforts, the production and retail sale of pirated movie, audio and software compact discs continues to be the most serious bilateral trade issue between the United States and Hong Kong. Representatives of the recording, film, and software industries generally agree that Hong Kong has made some progress in curbing intellectual property rights violations at the retail level since the Customs service began a campaign of sustained raids in April. Using enforcement tools from the June 1997 Prevention of Copyright Piracy ordinance, Customs officers have been able to substantially increase seizures of pirated goods. In August and September, authorities raided several illicit factories and distribution centers, seizing more than 1.8 million pirated discs. The intensified enforcement generally pushed retail shops selling pirated goods further out of the city core and away from areas frequented by tourists. Despite these improvements, more remains to be done, and an estimated 100 to 150 shops are still selling pirated U.S. products. On the production side, 60 factories with some 200 production lines have applied or registration under a provision of the Prevention of Copyright Piracy ordinance. On-site inspections by Customs officials determined that another 19 known factories that failed to register and close during the registration period. A twentieth was closed following a raid on September 3. Trade and Customs officials have said they will inspect the registered factories regularly, including after normal working hours. In early August, the Hong Kong Government also successfully prosecuted the first illicit factory case to go to court. Although the penalties imposed by the court were relatively minor, the failure of the defendant's ``no knowledge'' plea set an important precedent. While there is some evidence that illicit compact disc production has been dropping, it is still too early to judge the ultimate effectiveness of the new copyright ordinance. To date, the drop in illicit production appears attributable to copyright pirates' decision to ``wait and see'' how strictly the ordinance will be enforced and to stepped up anti-smuggling efforts in the People's Republic of China. All sources agree that the mainland has been the primary market for Hong Kong's producers of illicit discs. One area in which enforcement has yet to increase is in the illegal use of business software. Responding to requests from the Business Software Alliance, Trade and Industry Bureau officials say they have asked Customs to pursue cases of corporate end-users of unlicensed software and unauthorized hard-disc loading by dealers. To date, however, Customs has failed to act. Money laundering also remains a very serious concern in U.S. bilateral relations with Hong Kong. As noted in earlier reports, the same favorable factors that make Hong Kong one of Asia's most important financial centers also make it attractive to criminals wishing to conceal the source of their funds through money laundering. It is important that Hong Kong continue to work with the international community to improve its laws and enforcement in this vital area. Hong Kong and the United States continue to make progress toward negotiation of a bilateral investment agreement based on the model text approved by China through the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. Another event with implications for trade was the opening of Hong Kong's new airport at Chek Lap Kok in early July. Unfortunately, the government found its self subjected to widespread criticism over the chaotic way in which he opening was handled. Cargo operations, in particular, were seriously disrupted. The problem was so severe that it could shave up to a full point off of GDP in 1998. Chief Executive Tung appointed a commission of inquiry to look into what went wrong. The commission is expected to finish its work in early 1999. The LegCo also has launched its own inquiry into the matter. Security and Related Issues Regarding the three primary security related issues with Hong Kong--ship visits, People's Liberation Army (PLA) activities, and export controls--the U.S. Navy continues to enjoy an excellent relationship with Hong Kong in terms of ships visit. The relationship with Hong Kong Port authorities since the reversion has been outstanding. The second security concern is related to the influence of the PLA and the Chinese defense industries in Hong Kong business and the possible surreptitious acquisition by the PLA of militarily sensitive technologies. The PLA garrison includes an estimated 4,700 personnel physically stationed in Hong Kong, and has a total strength of 8,000 (The remainder are based at a headquarters element on PRC territory.) The PLA has continued to keep a low profile during the quarter, raising no concerns about activities with respect to the Hong Kong population. We continue to have no evidence of direct involvement by the estimated 200 PLA- related companies in Hong Kong in acquisition of sensitive technology. Should PLA entities operating in Hong Kong be found to be engaged in arms trading or acquisition of Western technology, however, Hong Kong's relations with the U.S. would be put at risk. Such activity, or the lack thereof, will be an important determinant of congressional attitudes in the future. Export controls are a third area of security-related concern. Once again, we are pleased to note no new incidents of export control violations to report this quarter. Hong Kong continues to exercise autonomy as a separate customs territory within China and to demonstrate vigorous enforcement of its strict export control regime. United States officials continue to conduct prelicense and post- shipment inspections. In a sign of their continued close cooperation, in July U.S. and Hong Kong customs officials held the second in a series of consultations on licensing, enforcement, and the exchange of information. Macao The Portuguese colony of Macao will revert to Chinese rule on December 20, 1999, after 442 years. Like Hong Kong, this territory of 414,000 people, 95 percent of whom are ethnic Chinese, will become a Special Administrative Region with a ``one country, two systems'' formula for the next 50 years. As we noted in our previous quarterly report, however, a number of transition issues for Macao are very different from those faced by Hong Kong. Unlike Hong Kong, for instance, the legislature elected under colonial rule will remain in place. While U.S. interests in Macao are not nearly as large as those in Hong Kong, they nonetheless require our continued attention. These continue to be credible reports of transshipment of textiles through Macao. Primary among our economic concerns, however, is Macao's role as a manufacturing center for pirated goods, particularly pirated compact discs. To date, Macao has yet to develop adequate legislation and enforcement mechanisms and has not dedicated sufficient manpower to tackle this problem. Macao also lacks legislation on money laundering. It is in U.S. interests to press Macao's authorities to move forward expeditiously to correct these shortcomings. In September, China announced that it would station troops in Macao following its reversion Macao's Portuguese administrators still have not made adequate arrangements to replace themselves with local Macanese officials and remain well behind where the British were 15 months before the reversion of Hong Kong. They have also been deficient in maintaining law and order. Incidents of gangland killings and attacks on public officials remain all too frequent, negatively affecting Macao's tourism. China and Portugal have at times engaged in mutual recrimination about responsibility for the upsurge in criminal activity. It will be difficult for the territory to complete a smooth transition unless it brings this situation under control. Conclusion The Hong Kong Transition Task Force has ended our previous four quarterly reports with the assessment ``so far, so good.'' Our fundamental assessment remains the same, although we have a few new concerns, particularly with respect to the economy. While we recognize that the economic crisis now affecting Hong Kong is largely beyond its ability to control, the government's response to that crisis has the potential to alter the current situation, both for good and for ill. In particular, the Hong Kong government's decision to intervene in the stock market in August, while arguably a defensible response in the face of these external economic pressures, poses some worrisome questions about how Hong Kong's economic policy may evolve in the future. We remain encouraged by the demonstration of support for democratic institutions shown in the May election, as described in our previous quarterly report. Looking ahead, we hope to see continued progress toward universal suffrage and the expansion of the number of officials chosen by direct election. Finally, we continue to be satisfied with the restraint shown by the Chinese government in its handling of Hong Kong, at least to the extent visible to outside observers. Undoubtedly, the coming months will pose additional challenges for Hong Kong and the region. It is important that the international community and Congress continue their practice of closely monitoring developments.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in reluctant opposition to H.R. 169, a bill which expands the pilot investigation into livestock price reporting to include pork. This Member would like to begin by stating his strong support for meaningful mandatory price reporting legislation. Pork producers throughout Nebraska consistently stress the need to have this vital information. It's time that we ensure that it's provided to them. Unfortunately, this Member is not convinced that H.R. 169 will accomplish that goal. This Member appreciates the efforts of the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) in introducing this bill and seeking to assist pork producers. However, the problem is that H.R. 169 simply builds on the watered-down price reporting provisions included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill. Livestock producers see the study as an excuse or cover for the lack of action on imposing mandatory reporting. This Member was very disappointed that mandatory price reporting requirements were eliminated during the conference. In some respects, the provisions which survived were worse than none at all. In passing the flawed one-year pilot study last year, it needlessly delayed confronting the real issue, suppressed timely price reporting and lessened the pressure to take meaningful action. Although well-intentioned, H.R. 169 does nothing to overcome the underlying defects in the current price reporting pilot study. It offers convincing proof that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. A great many of this Member's pork-producing constituents (and cattlemen too) believe that it is time to stop studying this issue and start instituting mandatory price reporting, numerous Nebraska pork producers have expressed concern that this well-intended legislation, in fact, could delay meaningful price reporting. This Member intends to again support comprehensive and mandatory livestock price reporting legislation in this Congress that will offer transparency and a level playing field for all producers. That legislation should be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, last week, U.S. trade negotiators once again met with their Chinese counterparts in an attempt to discuss China's accession to the World Trade Organization, the WTO. Unfortunately, but also predictably, these talks did not produce any significant breakthroughs. The Chinese repeated their same old, unsatisfactory demands while offering only minimal concessions. Though the Washington, D.C. rumor mill and so-called conventional wisdom are predicting that the forthcoming Sino-American meeting between President Clinton and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji will showcase an agreement for China's WTO accession, the United States and China remain so far apart on so many trade issues that this Member is doubtful that a complete and commercially viable agreement can be reached in such a short time frame. Instead, the President and the Premier will be faced with China continuing to have a huge and growing trade surplus with the United States. The record $60 billion trade deficit with China in 1998 represents a 15.5 percent increase over the 1997 level. Now as the trade deficit with China is averaging more than $1 billion per week, under current trends the projected trade deficit for 1999 could exceed $70 billion. It is also clear that the American exports will continue to face new and growing problems of access to the Chinese markets. It seems to this Member that the underlying problem remains that China already enjoys, without making any real concessions, the low tariff benefit of normal trade with the United States. From the Chinese perspective, why should they change? Recognizing that China gets a free ride into U.S. markets without giving U.S. exporters similar, fair treatment, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and this Member have again introduced legislation that gives American trade negotiators the tools needed to pry open China's markets as we did last Congress on May 22, 1997. This legislation, the China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act, requires that China either make an acceptable offer to join the World Trade Organization or face snap-back tariffs. That is a reasonable approach to negotiations that are stymied and a U.S. trade deficit that is rapidly growing and unsustainable. The Bereuter-Ewing-Pickering legislation will help induce China's leaders to comply with the world trade rules by eliminating our annual normal trade relations review when China accedes to the WTO. No longer will the President have to waive or certify that China meets Jackson- Vanik requirements. China, under this legislation, will receive normal trade status routinely unless either the Congress or the President use other existing authorities to raise tariffs on China's goods. As a result, this action will eliminate Beijing's contention that China could make all of the structural and trade liberalization changes necessary to join the WTO only to have the U.S. Congress continue its annual and increasingly contentious NTR reviews. The China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act requires the President to first determine if China is, quote, not according adequate trade benefits, close quote, as defined in existing law to the United States; and second, if China is not taking adequate steps to become a WTO member by January 1, 2001. This is also the date by which the current bilateral U.S. trade agreement must be renewed. If the President makes a negative conclusion on either of these two findings, then the President shall announce the imposition of snap-back tariffs on China within 6 months of that determination. In imposing the snap- back tariffs, the President has wide discretion to determine both the amount of the tariff and on which categories of products the snap-back tariffs will be imposed. However, under no circumstances can the President exceed the legislation's snap-back tariff ceiling which is the pre-Uruguay round MFN tariff rate; in other words, the Column 1 tariff rates in effect on December 31, 1994. A study by the Congressional Research Service estimates an additional $325 million in tariff revenue would be generated for the U.S. Treasury if the President were to utilize his full snap-back authority, for example, on just the top 25 Chinese exports to the United States. This estimate, based upon 1995 figures, is not adjusted to reflect any downward demand for the products due to the increased tariff. The President would be required under this legislation to terminate the imposed snap-back tariffs on China on the date China becomes a WTO member or on the date the President determines that China is according adequate trade benefits to the United States and making significant steps to become a WTO member, whichever is earlier. The President also will be able to modify any of the snap-back tariffs upward within the cap or downward in response to Chinese actions or inactions as long as the appropriate congressional committees are notified. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the Bereuter-Ewing-Pickering legislation. Because the China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act proposes tariffs averaging from 4% to 7% rather than the average 44% tariff increase which would result if NTR is revoked, our proposal is realistic and enforceable and Beijing will have strong motive to move to WTO membership and reciprocally open their markets. Currently, China's leaders in effect ignore Congress' annual threat to revoke NTR because they know we will not impose such draconian tariffs on U.S. imports. China knows that the impact of such severe import duties on economies of important U.S. partners like Hong Kong and Taiwan would be excessively damaging. By giving the President the flexibility to vary and modify these tariffs within the statutorily imposed level, our ``scalpel-like'' snap-back mechanism-rather than the ``meat axe'' approach of the annual NTR process-greatly increases the United States Trade Representative's ability to negotiate acceptable terms for China's accession to the WTO. It is a realistic carrot-and-stick approach. Mr. Speaker, China's desire to join the World Trade Organization represents an historic opportunity for the United States to level the playing field for U.S. companies, workers and farmers to sell their products in China. However, this opportunity will be lost if the U.S. Congress and the Administration do not agree on a responsible strategy to coax China into that organization after it has met eligibility standards. The China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act is a tough but reasonable way to pressure Beijing to eliminate those trade barriers and structural impediments which currently stand between China and its membership in the WTO. The economic and trade liberalization reforms in China which this legislation promotes will reduce our enormous and ever-growing bilateral trade deficit and benefit American workers and consumers while stimulating the most positive forces of political and social change in China. It is a win-win approach which this Member encourages his colleagues to support by supporting the Bereuter-Ewing-Pickering legislation being introduced today.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an excellent editorial which appeared in the Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal Star, on February 1, 1999. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Feb. 1, 1999] Shell Game Doesn't Belong in Washington On the carnival midway, it's called the shell game. A fast- talking barker with quick hands flicks the nutshells around while the rubes try to guess which one hides the money. Inside the Beltway, they play the shell game with taxpayers' money. One of the best writers at following the game is Allan Sloan,who writes for Newsweek. In the Feb. 1 issue of the magazine Sloan takes a look at ``Washington's Math Problem.'' In the article Sloan explains how President Clinton could promise in his State of the Union address to save Social Security, help Medicare AND reduce the national debt. Sloan's answer is that the president's commitments add up to 151 percent of the federal budget surpluses he's projecting for the next 15 years. Clinton would spend the surplus between the amount taken in for Social Security and the amount paid out. First Clinton would take the $2.3 trillion already committed to the Social Security Trust Fund and spend it for other purposes. Then Clinton would take $2.8 trillion he allegedly is committing to ``save Social Security and Medicare'' and spend that for other things. Sloan carefully notes that the Clinton administration says his characterization of the numbers game is unfair. Clinton economics advisor Gene Sperling says ``The president is responsibly advocating 100 percent of the surplus under the rules of the unified budget.'' Well, that's the way they talk inside the Beltway. Out here in the Flyover Zone we call it bogus. It helps us to think of America's huge national budget the same way we do a family budget. In our comparison, Uncle Bill just got a new sales job. He's really hauling in the loot. Now he's boasting about how he's paying off credit card debts, AND squirreling away money in the kid's college accounts. Part of what that rascally Bill is doing is actually good. He really is paying off debts. But he's just stuffing worthless IOUs in the kid's college accounts. Uncle Bill's credit card debts are like the $5.5 trillion national debt. President Clinton's plan would pay down $3 trillion of that debt. Uncle Bill's college savings are like Social Security. His IOUs are like the worthless treasury notes that President Clinton would put in the Social Security Trust Fund. Those treasury notes actually do exist. They are pieces of paper held in a Beltway vault. They even must be repaid with interest. But they are not investments; they are debts. They must be paid with taxes. The most positive aspect of Clinton's plan is that it would be easier to borrow money for Social Security when Baby Boomers begin retiring in 2010 if the national debt is smaller. It would be a hilarious charade if so many intelligent and perceptive people didn't believe it. Clinton didn't invent it. It's been played that way for years. It's time for a change. Taxpayers should insist that the nation's budget figures be presented accurately and straightforwardly. Anyone who runs their household budget like Uncle Bill is going to have a day of reckoning. So will Uncle Sam, especially if the nation adopts the scheme proposed by President Clinton.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly commends to the attention of his colleagues an editorial found in the January 5, 1999, edition of the Omaha World Herald entitled, ``Discreet State of Union Would Do.'' The editorial appropriately points out that during recent years during a president's State of the Union address ``supporters bounce up and down giving standing ovations in response to choreographed rhetorical flourishes. His opponents, also playing to the cameras, signify displeasure with stony silence. Or they disproportionately applaud such presidential lines as, ``We must do better,'' when ``better'' refers to a policy that the opponents support.'' Indeed, it should be obvious to Members of Congress and to much of the American public that the atmosphere now attending the delivery of a State of the Union address has become high political theater which does not serve the reputation of the Congress well; nor does it reassure the American public that the Congress or the President are seriously attempting to work together to address the problems and opportunities facing our nation. It has degenerated into the kind of exaggerated conduct that one would expect to find in an old-fashioned melodrama. It is time for a change, and the editorial makes some relevant points and suggestions about directions for such changes. This Member urges his colleagues and especially leaders of the Congress to work with the President and his successor to make appropriate modifications in the manner in which the State of the Union is presented to the Congress. Discreet State of Union Would Do Some U.S. senators, including Democrats Robert Torricelli of New Jersey and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, say it would be inappropriate for President Clinton to appear before a joint session of Congress to report on the State of the Union while his impeachment trial is pending. It would not be a national tragedy if Clinton listened to them. Nothing in the Constitution says a president must deliver a prime-time, televised speech from the House of Representatives every year. It says only that the president ``shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'' George Washington and John Adams addressed joint sessions of Congress in person. Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice. He said a personal appearance was too monarchical a ceremony for the leader of a democratic republic. Written State of the Union addresses--often not much more than a collection of bureaucratic reports from the departments of the executive branch--were delivered to Congress until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson resurrected the tradition of a presidential speech. Wilson said he wanted to show ``that the president of the United States is a person, not a mere department of the government hailing Congress from some isolated island of jealous power, sending messages, not speaking naturally with his own voice--that he is a human being trying to cooperate with other human beings in a common service.'' It's hard to quibble with that proposition. But the development of television since Wilson's time has put the State of the Union address in a different light. The president is now one of the most visible persons in the world. And the event Wilson described as a chance for the president to speak naturally with his own voice about common service to the people has devolved into a glitzy production heavy on style and light on substance. In the modern television age, the formula is the same regardless of which party holds the White House. As senators and representatives look on in the House chamber, the president's entrance is preceded by processions of Cabinet members and Supreme Court justices. Members of the president's party send up a raucous cheer when the chief executive enters the chamber. Even people who despise the president jostle to be captured on camera smiling, clapping and cheering for him. Throughout the address, the president's supporters bounce up and down giving standing ovations in response to choreographed rhetorical flourishes. His opponents, also playing to the cameras, signify displeasure with stony silence. Or they disproportionately applaud such presidential lines as ``We must do better,'' when ``better'' refers to a policy that the opponents support. The president tosses rhetorical bouquets to people seated in the House gallery--his family, disabled veterans, civilian heroes. The State of the Union address has become a long, shallow and predictable bit of political theater. A reversion to Jeffersonian discretion, considering the current circumstances, wouldn't be a bad thing.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend to his colleagues this November 26, 1998, Omaha World Herald editorial. This extension would have been submitted earlier but the House was not in session. Of course, the sentiments expressed in the editorial are certainly worth sharing at the beginning of the new year and the new Congress. [From the Omaha World-Herald, November 11, 1998] America's Blessings Extend Beyond the Nation's Shores As Americans count their blessings on Thanksgiving Day, it would be appropriate if they looked at the freedoms and opportunities that have been handed down from the Founding Fathers. It would be fitting if they gave thanks for family, health and prosperity. However, they might also look beyond the borders of the United States as they identify things for which to be thankful. In this ever-shrinking world, global developments have a sustained influence on life in America. The world has enough food. Indeed, surpluses are a bigger problem than hunger in some places. Certainly international relief efforts still must compensate for an inadequate market system that fails to get food to some hungry people. But the hunger that exists is not because the world's farmers have failed to produce enough. Man is using less water. For many years, the prospect of regional water shortages, harming agriculture and industry, led to concerns about possible water wars in the next century, as water-short nations attempted to take possession of a neighbor's water supply. Now, with improved irrigation techniques and widespread conservation methods, many countries are demonstrating that existing water supplies can be stretched much further. Negotiated agreements have produced a shaky peace between the factions in Northern Ireland and between the Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank, raising hopes for a permanent decline in hostilities. A cease-fire has held up in Bosnia. Diplomacy has kept tensions in check on the Korean Peninsula. India and Pakistan have backed away from a violent confrontation over nuclear weapons. Researchers are learning more about AIDS, although the epidemic still rages out of control in much of the world. The fact that HIV-positive men and women are being kept alive longer raises hopes of additional progress toward a treatment or immunization that would be both effective and affordable. Because of declining birth rates in a number of countries, demographers are backing away from some of their more depressing population projections, including the projection of a population doubled to 12 billion by the middle of the next century. Overpopulation is at the root of many other problems, including deprivation, environmental degradation, illegal immigration and disease. Even with the more optimistic projections of recent years, the world could still have too many people, perhaps more than it could feed. But a lowered birth rate is the best hope for dealing with overpopulation. A prolonged slowdown in the rate of growth, leading to a stabilized world population at a sustainable level. Would be some of the best news that Americans could hope for as they consider the prospects of their children and grandchildren in the decades ahead.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues an excellent editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald, on December 13, 1998. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 13, 1998] On the Impeachment Vote President William Jefferson Clinton stood Friday in the Rose Garden of the White House, which is his residence, to be sure, but which is also the symbol of American self- government and of all that is good about this great nation. Finally dropping all his past poses, Clinton said he was profoundly sorry for all he had done wrong ``in words and deeds.'' He said he was ready to accept Congress' rebuke and censure if the American people and their representatives concluded that his mistakes required it. He said nothing Congress could do would compare to the agony of knowing he was responsible for causing great pain for his family. His remarks sounded sincere. They didn't appear to have been prepared by word-parsing lawyers. It was easy to feel sorry for the president. He was an almost pitiful figure, at age 52 a victim of his uncontrollable libido and a team of attorneys who appeared to coach him how to thwart the judicial system without crossing the line into perjury. Yet the president still could not bring himself to say the words the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee longed to hear--``I lied.'' He said he ``misled.'' He talked of his ``wrongful conduct.'' In a moment of remarkable irony, the president of the United States--without acknowledging the source and maybe not being aware of the source--even quoted from Edward FitzGerald's translation of ``The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.'' Omar, a Persian astronomer-poet of the 12th century, concentrated on the idea that sensual pleasure might be the sole aim of living. This long national nightmare began on Thanksgiving weekend in 1995 when Clinton, then 49 years of age, and Monica Lewinsky, a just barely 22-year-old intern, had sex in the Oval Office on the first day they had ever spoken to one another. She came to see him many more times. they had at least nine more sexual assignations. They engaged in a certain sex act that the president and his lawyers continue to insist is not sex. They had phone sex 17 times. They exchanged gifts. Monica gave Clinton 40. Yet Clinton, under oath, could barely remember one or two. America didn't find out about that Thanksgiving 1995 sexual encounter until January of this year, when Newsweek and The Washington Post got wind of the president's on-and-off, two- year extramarital affair and his understandable but patently illegal efforts to hide it from his wife, his daughter, Paula Jones' lawyers and the American people. Now, after a week of historic drama to which American seemed to be paying less than full attention, the House of Representatives, for the second time in history, will vote on articles of impeachment. The vote will come late this week unless Democrats can convince enough Republicans to vote first for a slap on the wrist that would signal to this naughty President that what he did was ``reprehensible,'' the Democrats' inadequate word for the shame Clinton has brought to the highest office in the land. The Democratic Party censure resolution does not mention lying under oath or tampering with witnesses. Americans should not be angry at the Republican Party if the House votes yes on impeachment. Clinton, not the Republican Party, lied and obstructed justice and abused his power. If the nation must be put through a trial, with Lewinsky in the well of the Senate talking graphically about sex and cigars, then, yes, that is awful. All the children should be shielded from it. But if it happens it will not be the fault of the Republicans. It will be the fault of Bill Clinton, the reckless, foolish, arrogant boy who until Friday in the White House Rose Garden had never fully grown up. He had sworn to God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And then he didn't. If there is no impeachment, Clinton will be the president whose legacy was to cultivate the idea that presidents, unlike everybody else, can lie under oath without severe penalty. Admittedly, the evidence of criminal acts by the President of the United States has yet to be tested in court. It has yet to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. But common sense tells 90 percent of the Americans who are polled that it is obvious the President has lied, at least to the nation and probably under oath to a judge and the independent counsel's grand jury. It is clear that the president coached Lewinsky to lie about their affair, that he assisted in concealing evidence that had been subpoenaed, that he got Lewinsky an attractive job in New York City in exchange for her untruthful testimony, that he allowed attorney Robert Bennett to make false statements, that his inability to remember dozens of important details was nothing more than taking the Fifth Amendment and that he made false and misleading statements to his staff, friends like Vernon Jordan and his Cabinet. If the Judiciary Committee had failed to recommend impeachment, it would have implicitly condoned what Clinton had done. If the committee had failed to recommend impeachment, it would have put Clinton in position to claim vindication. That would complete the process that began last January after Clinton consulted Dick Morris and was told that the American people would condone sexual misconduct but would not condone lying to cover up an affair. ``Then we will have to win,'' Clinton said. Rep. Greg Ganske, R-Iowa, speaking of why he will support impeachment, said, ``The idea that Congress should simply apply a `wrist-slap' censure is another effort to put the president above the law.'' Ganske quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that ``if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.'' Impeachment is the ultimate censure, Rep. Bill McCollum, R- Fla., has said, whether or not the Senate subsequently votes to remove Clinton from office. (Indeed, as Sen. Orrin Hatch has suggested, the Senate could convict but decide not to remove Clinton from office.) History has all but forgotten the handful of censure resolutions approved by Congress. Dictators and tyrants hold themselves above the law. Presidents, for the most part, do not. Americans fought a revolution to repudiate the divine right of the monarchy to be a law unto itself. Now the defenders of Clinton argue that he shouldn't be bound by laws that ordinary people must obey. To give the presidency such a privilege would betray the revolution. It would invest the presidency with a kingly status that the Founders explicitly attempted to prevent. A failure to impeach would send to the armed forces the message that the commander in chief cannot be held to the standards of honor and personal integrity that are drilled into all military people. A failure to impeach would undermine the current set of sexual harassment laws and codes about appropriate conduct in the workplace. Managers who were fired for trying to seduce subordinates would challenge the rules. Clinton's legalistic definition of sexual relations would be flung around as justification for sexual contact short of intercourse. More people would accept a right to obfuscate to prevent personal embarrassment or inconvenience. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said that, as he voted with much sadness for impeachment, he felt ``more emotion than I've ever felt as a member of Congress.'' We understand. The inclination to forgive is strong in the American people. They know that, like their president, many people have flaws. This editorial page, too, would love to be able to forgive the president. But our love for this great country is even stronger than the impulse to forgive the president's misbehavior. Mr. Clinton has hurt the country by his reckless behavior and his lying under oath. Impeachment is the only constitutional way to reaffirm the values, including the rule of law, for which this great country stands. Our fingers tremble as they pause over the keyboard and our heart is heavy as we say: The House of Representatives should vote yes on Impeachment Articles I, II, and IV. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to consider carefully the following editorial from the December 16, 1998, edition of the Norfolk Daily News, entitled ``Republicans are not culprits here.'' From the Norfolk Daily News, Dec. 16, 1998] Republicans Are Not Culprits Here--Only One Man Is to Blame for Turmoil Facing the Nation--Bill Clinton We wonder whether some members of the Democratic Party realize how ridiculous and lame they are sounding when they spout dire warnings about the upcoming House of Representatives vote on impeaching President Bill Clinton. If the president is impeached, they cry, House Republicans will be invalidating the results of two national elections, defying the will of the people and making a mockery of the democratic process. Those arguments, however, don't hold water. Supporters of the president would have much more credibility if they would stick to arguing that the offenses committed by the president do not, in their opinion, justify impeachment. Instead, they keep throwing up these weak, peripheral claims. The Democratic supporters of President Clinton are correct in the sense that a majority of U.S. citizens, in two separate votes, elected the former Arkansas governor to be president and then re-elected him. Does that mean, however, that Bill Clinton--or any president for that matter--is entitled to serve his full term in office, regardless of his deeds or conduct while there? Of course not. History is full of examples where voters made decisions they thought were correct at the time they were making them only to be proven wrong later. The full range of President Clinton's misconduct and what we believe to be impeachable offenses were not known to voters when they first elected and then re-elected him. Only now are voters realizing the kind of man they have leading them. Some Clinton supporters are quick to point out, however, that public opinion polls say that even though a majority of Americans believe President Clinton lied under oath and engaged in an abuse of power, they don't think he should be impeached as a result. To that we say--with all due respect--so what? In our opinion, it's an irrelevant point. That's because what the House of Representatives is dealing with here is a president who has allegedly committed impeachable acts. Public opinion doesn't hold sway in a court of law, and it shouldn't be a factor here, either. Juries, whether in civil or criminal cases, have to make decisions based on the facts presented to them and the laws governing the case. They can't be affected by protesters outside the courtroom's doors, media reports or anything else. The same is true for members of the House. They must make the decision on whether to impeach the president based on the facts--as best they can discern them-- concerning President Clinton's conduct and the provisions in the U.S. Constitution that govern impeachment. We, along with many others, have offered the opinion in the past that President Clinton should resign from office. His affair with Monica Lewinsky, which led to the conduct that now is being considered by the House, is a blemish on the grand stature of the presidency. His honesty and integrity is gone. His honor, too. When a man or woman loses those things, there is nothing left to stand on. Resigning from office would allow Mr. Clinton to leave the White House with a measure of dignity and self-respect. By doing so, he would be putting the best interests of the United States ahead of his own, avoiding putting this nation through the turmoil of an impeachment process and a Senate trial. But if he declines to do so, then that is what must occur, regardless of how damaging it might be to a nation's self- image or governing process. For when allegedly impeachable acts have occurred, the law must be followed. It is a hallmark of our nation. So, to those Clinton supporters who say that Republicans are endangering the future of this nation by pursuing the impeachment process, they are wrong. There is only one man who has caused all of this. His name is Bill Clinton.