Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I have one more speaker.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member hopes that his colleagues might read and they remember the following editorial from the October 11, 1997, edition of the Omaha World-Herald next month when the Nobel Peace Prize is formally awarded. It will be used as an unreasonable and irresponsible point of pressure or attack on the American use of landmines in the demilitarized zone on the Korean peninsula by both domestic and foreign critics. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 11, 1997] Nobel Decision Raises Question: What About Peace in Korea? The Nobel committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the international committee promoting a treaty to halt the use of anti-personnel land mines. A more appropriate recipient, in our opinion, would have been the U.S. government for its 44 years of preventing war along the demilitarized zone that separates North and South Korea. Mention of Korea is appropriate in connection with the Nobel committee's decision. By honoring the anti-mine campaign, the Nobel people have implicitly condemned one of the tools used by U.S. forces to prevent invasion or infiltration of South Korea by troops, saboteurs or assassins from the north. President Clinton had asked treaty sponsors to exempt Korea, allowing the U.S. to sign the treaty and still maintain the option of using mines along the DMZ. When his request was refused, he said the United States could not sign the treaty. So the awarding of this year's Nobel prize to the anti-mine campaign is a slap at Clinton, too, and a slap at the hundreds of thousands of American troops who have rotated through the U.S. divisions in Korea since the 1950s. (During part of that time, the head of the anti-mine committee, Jody Williams of Putney, Vt., was campaigning against U.S. efforts to keep Central America from going communist.) The United States, of curse, is not the cause of the land- mine problem to which Princess Diana called attention. She went to Angola and hugged children who had been maimed by exploding mines left over from that country's civil war. U.S. forces don't scatter land mines at random, leaving them to be exploded years later by grazing animals or playing children. That's the behavior of terrorists, dictators and guerrilla groups. Iraqi military units. The Viet Cong. East African warlords. Balkan terrorists. By contrast, America, like most other western nations, is pledged to follow the 1947 Geneva Convention, which requires armies to record the placement of mines and remove the devices when no longer needed. The United States halted exports of land mines years ago, even to its allies. U.S.-made mines are manufactured to defuse themselves after a certain time, usually 60 days. Older mines in the U.S. inventory are being destroyed. Fewer mines are being used in Korea, although the United States wants to keep the right to use them. In Korea, 35,000 U.S. troops augment the South Korean army in holding back the million-man army of the north. They guard a 487-square-mile demilitarized zone that stretches more than 100 miles through rugged mountains, steep valleys and forested hills. Many times over the past four decades, infiltrators from the north have tried to slip across the DMZ into the south. Minefields stand in their way. Some people say that the United States must give up such defenses to persuade outlaw nations and terrorists not to scatter mines across the countryside. This argument fails to account for the fact that the United States is a superpower to which other nations, often by default, have entrusted certain responsibilities. Giving up a tool for carrying them out is more difficult for a superpower than for nations that have fewer international obligations. Our suggestion that the United States receive a Nobel prize was only half-serious. The award is generally reserved for individuals and institutions. In terms of contributions to the peace of the world, however, America's role on the Korean peninsula has few parallels. Because South Korea was kept out of a Soviet or Chinese orbit, democracy and free enterprise took root there. Because Japan didn't need to arm itself against a Soviet or Chinese threat based in South Korea, Japan emerged from its post-war recovery as a peaceful industrial democracy. Other nations around the Pacific rim took inspiration from the economic success of South Korea and Japan. Much of the region is now prosperous, non-communist and free. The careful use of mines played a role in that success. It's unfortunate that the anti-mine people will now have yet another forum, the Nobel ceremonies in December, from which to paint the U.S. position as irresponsible.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in response to your directions, I have prepared the following report, the first in a series of quarterly reports by the U.S. House Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition on the status of Hong Kong following its return to the People's Republic of China. It was completed, effective October 1, 1997. Also at your request, I have formed the House Task Force on Hong Kong's Transition to observe and report on Hong Kong's status following its reversion to China. In addition to myself as chairman, the task force will be bipartisanly balanced and will include 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. As you requested, the task force expects to travel to Hong Kong, Beijing, and other relevant destinations at least every 6 months for the foreseeable future to examine how reversion has affected Hong Kong. The first such visit is expected to take place after the adjournment of the 1997 session but before the end of the calendar year.***HD***Concerns Prior to Reversion Prior to Hong Kong's July 1, 1997, reversion to Chinese sovereignty, many observers expressed skepticism over Beijing's assurances that it would allow Hong Kong full autonomy in matters other than foreign policy and defense. Skeptics questioned whether Beijing could resist the temptation to meddle in matters related to freedom of expression, for example. They were also concerned about indications that the Beijing-sponsored provisional legislature would roll back forward- looking measures taken by the last colonial Legislative Council [LEGCO] and that the new provisional council would institute election rules less representative than those put into place by Governor Patten in 1995. Businessmen wondered whether China could refrain from meddling in Hong Kong's affairs, either intentionally or otherwise. Maintaining the rule of law and resisting the lure of corruption, so common in China, were key commercial concerns. On the security side, skeptics questioned Hong Kong's continued ability to maintain effective export controls. The future of U.S. ship visits was also in doubt. in general: so far, so good While Hong Kong has been under Chinese sovereignty for only 3 months, public confidence is high. Hong Kongers are close to unanimous in expressing relief and pleasure that life has not changed after reversion. The press and media continue to be open, free, and full of criticism and analysis of both the Hong Kong and Beijing governments. Journalists, while wary and suspicious about China's long-term intentions, continue to cover the news much as they did before July 1, 1997. For example, the recent Chinese Communist Party Congress drew extensive commentary. Journalists displayed no hesitancy in voicing views not welcome in Beijing. Nonetheless, the self-censorship that began to creep into coverage in some papers prior to reversion has continued. Demonstrations--by pro-democracy and pro-Beijing groups and a myriad of local organizations--continue without interference or restriction. More than 150 demonstrations have taken place since the July 1 turnover. Indeed, in an upturn in the number of demonstrations, a gauntlet of demonstrators regularly greets Hong Kong Chief Executive C.H. Tung when he arrives for weekly executive council sessions. However, in a typical Hong Kong twist, Tung invariably trades handshakes and smiles with his critics, who line up behind the waist- high barricades flanking the entry to Central Government Offices as he walks past. NGO's, including those harshly critical of China, continue to operate freely. Han Dongfan, exiled PRC dissident and leader of workers' groups during the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations, reports no problems continuing his work in Hong Kong thus far. Commenting in a local newspaper, Han said it was too early to tell what Beijing would eventually do, but ``as far as I can see with all the demonstrations by Democrats and others--there is hope for democracy here.'' Han continues to broadcast regularly from Hong Kong via Radio Free Asia on one of its most popular programs, ``The Labor Corner.'' Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China representatives in Hong Kong are encouraged by the continued demonstrations and absence of any Hong Kong Government moves to restrict their operations. Meanwhile, democrats say that the threat to Hong Kong would come from a very slow erosion of the rule of law, not a sudden crackdown on civil liberties or freedom of speech. Concern arose in mid-September, however, when both the Chinese and the Hong Kong governments objected to the credentialing of two human rights groups to the recent IMF/World Bank meeting in Hong Kong. Since human rights is in the lending guidelines of these financial institutions, participation by the human rights groups was appropriate. The objections of the Hong Kong government are troubling. Ten Members of Congress, led by Congressman Berman, wrote to Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, to express their concern. approval ratings high Reflecting locals' belief that life goes on as usual, Tung's approval ratings have continued to climb since mid-June, when only 57 percent of Hong Kongers reported they were satisfied with his performance. By early August, a reliable local poll showed 78 percent of Hong Kongers were satisfied with Tung. That number rose to 82 percent in early September. Even among survey respondents who said they would vote for pro-democracy parties, 80 percent indicated they were satisfied with the chief executive, rivaling prominent pro-democracy advocate Martin Lee's 82 percent rating. local autonomy respected The central Chinese Government appears to be taking seriously President Jiang Zemin's pledge at the handover that no mainland government officials ``may or will be allowed to interfere'' in the affairs which Hong Kong should administer on its own. Premier Li Peng reiterated that pledge and gave a strong vote of confidence to Tung in mid-September while hosting the IMF and World Bank meetings in Hong Kong. Far from being heavy-handed or insensitive, Bejing appears to have absented itself from active involvement in Hong Kong affairs since the handover. Again and again, China has gone out of its way to project a benign ``smiling face'' image on Hong Kong-related matters. low-key approach After installing the urbane Ma Yuzhen as head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MFA] office in Hong Kong, and the low-key diplomat Jiang Enzhu to replace the always pugnacious Zhou Nan at the Xinhua News Agency, the de facto MFA representative in Hong Kong prior to reversion, China has stood back and refused to become embroiled in local issues. Xinhua, once a source of constant criticism and commentary on Hong Kong Government policy, has fallen silent. MFA head Ma Yuzhen has deferred to the Hong Kong Government on virtually all matters. His contacts with Hong Kong Government officials have reportedly been strictly limited to protocol matters. If China is attempting to influence certain issues, it is doing so in a manner that is not public. Political debates China has avoided commenting on or attempting to influence publicly include: The plight of illegal immigrant children with the right of abode in Hong Kong. China has allowed the Hong Kong courts and government to interpret the Basic Law's provision of the right of abode in Hong Kong to certain Chinese nationals. Citing administrative efficiency and preventing overcrowding in schools, Hong Kong will not allow unrestricted entry of PRC nationals who received the right to live in Hong Kong when the Basic Law comes into force on July 1. Displaying the ``Republic of China'' Taiwan flag in Hong Kong. Ma Yuzhen, when pressed by a reporter, said the issue would be for Hong Kong to decide. Hong Kong Government spending. Hong Kong pledged one billion United States dollars to the IMF Thailand bail-out and committed over seven billion United States dollars to a railway construction project. Chinese scrutiny of government spending under the British was intense, usually hostile, and raised fears that China would not stay out of Hong Kong's affairs after reversion. The IMF pledge and the rail project are early indications that China does not always act like a ``control freak''--one of Governor Patten's favorite descriptions-- and will honor the pledge to respect Hong Kong's autonomy. It should be noted, however, that China also pledged one billion United States dollars to Thailand and therefore would not likely be opposed to Hong Kong's assistance. Sino-U.S. cooperation In one of the most notable examples of China's smiling face approach to Hong Kong, China outdid itself both in making arrangements for the first visit of a U.S. naval ship to Hong Kong after the handover and in projecting an image of friendliness when the U.S.S. Blue Ridge and Seventh Fleet Commander Natter were in town. Subsequent visits by other ships, including nuclear powered ships, were equally successful. No effort was spared to demonstrate China welcomed ship visits as much as British forces did. Appearing conscious that their presence raises the anxiety level in Hong Kong, the PLA garrison has stayed out of sight-- and even reduced its numbers--except for carefully scripted appearances by smiling senior officers. Business as usual Reflecting business confidence that Hong Kong's economy will continue to prosper after reversion, Hong Kong's first and second quarter 1997 real gross domestic product growth reached 6.0 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively, thus out-pacing analysts' forecasts for the year of 5.5 percent. This compares to real gross domestic product growth figures for 1996 and 1995 of 4.7 and 4.8 percent, respectively. The Hong Kong Government attributes the first half improvement to a revival of domestic demand, reflected in buoyant stock and property markets, modest improvement in exports, especially services, and increased investment, some of it related to construction of the new Chek Lap Kok Airport. The inflation picture has also somewhat improved in 1997. Consumer price increases declined from 6.0 percent in 1996 to 5.9 percent in the first half of 1997. Unemployment dropped from 3.2 percent in 1995 to 2.8 percent in 1996 and recently stood at just 2.4 percent, May-July 1997, largely due to recovery in the retail sector. Hong Kong's normally strong financial markets weathered recent currency and stock turmoil during this period but demonstrated they are not immune from shocks. While the Hong Kong dollar remains strong, in late July, the government felt compelled to vigorously defend a brief attack on its dollar by expending 1.0 billion United States dollars of its reserves and jacking up interest rates. Some believe the real target was not the dollar, but an attempt to influence the Hong Kong stock market. Hovering around 14,500 in mid-September, the stock market was volatile in recent months, scoring a record high in August of 16,802, while registering record turnover. The sell-off of Hong Kong shares is partly attributed to meeting cash margin calls in other markets such as those in Thailand and the Philippines. Another major contributor, however, was a feeling that the prices of China-related shares were badly inflated. Most applaud Hong Kong's one billion United States dollar commitment and its leadership in the Thai recovery program, citing the need to help neighbors while simultaneously strengthening its own defenses. Assessments of the recent regional currency turmoil on Hong Kong suggest modest nearterm costs. One observable increased cost was the rise by 30 to 50 basis points above regular levels of 20 points in Hong Kong's interest rate risk premium. Long-term concerns include potential shifts in trade and investment as Hong Kong's goods/services become relatively dearer. This is also true of Hong Kong's important re-export trade to/from China. Analysts say currency problems might shave just one-tenth to one-half a point off gross domestic product growth next year, while a greater concern might be reduced commitment from China to reforming its financial system. Despite regional currency turbulence and stock market volatility, monetary figures show no signs of capital flight or panic. Total deposits in all institutions in July 1997 stood at 343 billion U.S. dollars, up 15.9 percent from a year earlier, with Hong Kong dollar deposits exceeding foreign currency deposits 59.6 to 40.4 percent, respectively. The Hong Kong dollar, pegged to the United States dollar, has been steady at around 7.74 Hong Kong dollars per United States dollar and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is confident it can effectively defend the peg. The fact that things remain relatively stable despite regional turbulence does not guarantee that there will not be continued rough going ahead, particularly if the currency situation in Southeast Asia remains volatile. The continued overinflated value of Hong Kong real estate could also contribute to currency instability. A certain amount of volatility, of course, is a part of any mature economy. This should not affect Hong Kong's democratic process. Signs so far indicate that America's substantial commercial interests in Hong Kong are benefiting from Hong Kong's continued post-reversion prosperity. U.S. companies have 16 billion U.S. dollars in direct investment and billions more in portfolio investments. The United States exports to Hong Kong totaled 14 billion United States dollars in 1996 and 7.5 billion United States dollars in the first half of 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce figures showed an estimated 4.1 billion U.S. dollar U.S. trade surplus with Hong Kong in 1996. The first quarter 1997 U.S. surplus reached 1.4 U.S. dollars. The American Chamber of Commerce's recent Annual Business Confidence Survey showed confidence in Hong Kong's future up and high--95 percent--though tempered by concerns about prospects for the rule of law, the free flow of information and corruption. Specifically, many businessmen, both foreign and local, fear that as the mainland's influence in Hong Kong increases, so will the corruption which has become endemic in many parts of China. Concerns Remain a. Election law Despite indications that China is refraining from interfering in Hong Kong affairs, a number of serious concerns remain. One primary concern is proposed changes to electoral laws. On July 8, the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region released proposals, prepared by the Beijing-appointed Preparatory Committee, for new electoral arrangements to govern the spring 1998 elections which, while adhering to the major electoral requirements set forward in Sino-British agreements on Hong Kong, are controversial because they dismantle key portions of the electoral reforms put into place by Governor Patten in 1995. The proposals maintain the original formula of 20 Legco members to be directly elected by popular vote, 30 to be elected by ``functional constituencies''--initiated by the British in 1985--and 10 to be chosen by a special Election Committee. However, the proposals would shrink the ``functional constituent'' electorate from approximately 2.7 million voters under the 1995 British electoral reforms to as low as approximately 180,000, according to some estimates. For the 20 directly elected seats, the proposals would also scrap the United States-style ``winner-take-all'' style system introduced by the British in 1995 and substitute a European-style ``proportional representation'' system. Critics fear that the new arrangements will dilute the political power of the Hong Kong's Democratic Party and favor pro-China candidates and that seems likely to be the case. Aware of this criticism, C.H. Tung, during his September visit to the United States, outlined his plans over the next decade gradually to expand to 50 percent the number of directly elected Legco seats--now one-third--and to expand the size of the committee which will select a new chief executive. b. Export controls Another area of concern is Hong Kong's ability to maintain its high regulatory and monitoring standards in controlling the transfer of sensitive technologies. Currently, United States export control policy toward Hong Kong is less restrictive than that applied to China, based on Hong Kong's past demonstration that its export control policies were sufficiently effective. This policy is based on the Hong Kong Policy Act, which calls for continued separate treatment of Hong Kong in export controls as long as it is able to protect United States technology and equipment. Of course, monitoring Hong Kong's continued autonomy in this field is critical to assessing the risk to United States nonproliferation interests. The General Accounting Office points out that key indicators to watch will include changes in the composition and volume of United States exports of controlled items to Hong Kong, which could signal efforts by China to obtain sensitive technology such as the optical sensors that it has previously been denied. Hong Kong officials maintain that China's desire to see Hong Kong continue to succeed economically will restrain such activity. To date, United States officials report no change in the performance of Hong Kong customs officials in both pre- and post-license checks. c. Customs Hong Kong cooperation in customs enforcement is another issue that bears watching. Increased instances of textile transhipment through Hong Kong led United States Customs to impose special administrative restrictions on textiles from Hong Kong in June 1996. This ``wake up call'' pressured the Hong Kong customs authorities to crack-down on transhipments and institute new procedures. By June 1997, Hong Kong had made enough progress to persuade United States Customs to lift their special administrative restrictions. Observers see no change to date between pre- and post-reversion performance on the part on Hong Kong customs authorities. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Hong Kong has been under China's sovereignty for only 3 months. It is too early to judge the reversion. Nonetheless, indications to date are hopeful. Civil liberties continue largely unaffected. The economy continues to thrive. U.S. ship visits continue with little change and are indeed, welcomed with open arms. However, we continue to be concerned about the potential over time for the constriction of democracy, media self-censorship and the loss of hard- won rights. Chinese and Hong Kong authorities are acutely aware that the eyes of the world continue to scrutinize their post-reversion actions. That continued scrutiny is well warranted and will help ensure that all concerned continue to value and maintain Hong Kong's autonomy.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], a member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan coalition of Members of this House, a strong one, want to have action on the chemical weapons convention. We also want to see the implementation of it. We also want to see action on the Iran missile proliferation issue. We understand the larger picture with respect to Russia. We understand the administration's position on that. We understand the importance the administration understandably places on a Russian- American joint space exploration program. We have listened to the distinguished Vice President of the United States. We have listened to the highest officials in the Clinton administration. We have heard their arguments on this issue. But collectively, a large majority of people on both sides of the aisle in this House, and indeed in the other body, believe that we have waited long enough to see the imposition of effective sanctions brought to bear upon the Russian entities that seem to be providing missile technology to Iran. We are unwilling to bear the risk of further delays in implementing sanctions. We are sending a very, very clear message to the government of Russia that we want entities in Russia to stop providing this kind of cooperation to the government of Iran. Mr. Speaker, because it places in jeopardy very large parts of the Persian Gulf, our allies in the Middle East, and major parts of Europe, we want to have action on this issue. We see the only way to have a likelihood that the President will sign the legislation is attaching it to the implementation legislation for the Chemical Weapons Convention. Alternatively, we can see the Iranians developing the missile capacity that enables them to bring great explosive destruction or even weapons of mass destruction to bear on the Persian Gulf, on the Middle East and Europe. Therefore, we urge our colleagues to support H.R. 2709. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Calvert]. All time has expired. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2709, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Iran Missile Proliferation Act introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. As the gentleman from New York has noted, this legislation is intended to provide additional leverage for the United States in responding to assistance by Russian institutes and research facilities for Iran's medium and long-range missile programs. H.R. 2709 will close loopholes in existing U.S. sanction laws as these loopholes have been used in the past to avoid sanctioning firms that have transferred missile goods or technology to Iran. It does not target an entire government but, rather, the individuals and entities which are actually the perpetrators of proliferation activities. The President would be required to submit a report identifying those individuals and entities where there is credible evidence that they have transferred key missile components of technology to Iran. Thirty days after this report, a number of important sanctions denying munition licenses, dual-use technology licenses, and U.S. foreign assistance to these entities, those kind of things will be imposed for a period of at least 2 years on the identified entities. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] has given quite a list of things that he finds objectionable from the existing legislation. Whether it is this legislation or other legislation, I think it is imperative that this House and the Congress speak out very strongly that we want the kind of proliferation being conducted by Russian entities to Iran to stop. We cannot sit back and be asked simply that the route towards diplomacy be pursued for the next several months. We are at a critical point, and this Congress has a responsibility to say we want action now, it is essential while we are putting much of the Middle East and much of Europe in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, the prevention of Iran's acquisition of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction is one of this Nation's most important national security objectives. Iranian possession of ballistic missiles poses an unacceptable threat to the military forces of the United States and its allies throughout the Persian Gulf, Middle East, and southern and southeastern Europe. H.R. 2709 is an important tool to limit the proliferation of the Persian Gulf. I believe it would be irresponsible if we simply took no action, did not express ourself, did not try to pass legislation before we adjourn this year. Frankly speaking, Mr. Speaker, this legislation would be unnecessary if the executive branch were willing to comply with existing law governing missile technology controls. This is not simply a criticism of this President or this administration, for previous Presidents have been equally reluctant to enforce the law when it comes to sanctions on these crucial matters. When an administration, this one or a previous one, continually refuses to invoke the law, whether it is the Arms Control Export Act or the refusal to declare that a coup has occurred in Cambodia because the resulting sanctions would reduce the State Department's flexibility, a word we hear often, it demeans the law. It encourages this body to pursue every more stringent sanctions. Mr. Speaker, this Member hopes that this body can get out of the business of imposing new sanctions, but this will not happen until the executive branch, this one, the previous ones, come into compliance with the law, respect the law as Congress enacts it. This Member therefore would urge the executive branch to adhere to the provisions of H.R. 2709 which I hope this Congress will enact. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on October 28 the House of Representatives lost an extraordinary Member. That loss was felt here, and it was felt across the country. Earlier in October the gentleman from California, Mr. Capps, had visited this Member's home State of Nebraska and the city of Omaha, where he was born and grew up. Not surprisingly, Nebraskans responded enthusiastically to his warm and generous spirit. This Member commends to his colleagues the piece by Roger Bergman which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 8, 1997. [From the Omaha World-Herald, Nov. 8. 1997] Walt Capps ``Was a Joyous Man'' (By Roger Bergman) Even as the lights were coming back on in our house and around Omaha on Oct. 28, another kind of light was being extinguished. Our friend--really a member of the family-- Congressman Walter Capps was dead. He suffered a heart attack in Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. It seemed impossible that someone so vital--so full of life and with so much to offer--could be claimed by darkness so suddenly, so unexpectedly, so early. Even at 63, even after barely surviving a head-on collision with a drunken driver more than a year ago, Walt Capps was not someone you expected to die. My wife, Dr. Wendy M. Wright, a Creighton University theology professor for whom Capps was an intimate friend and mentor, expressed it well: ``He was such a joyous man.'' During his recent visit to his native Omaha to attend family and high school reunions and to speak at his boyhood church and at Creighton University, Walt remarked to me that no less a figure in Western civilization than St. Augustine had written both ``The Confessions'' and ``The City of God,'' respectively classics of spiritual autobiography and political theology. A longtime and influential professor of religious studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Capps was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives less than a year ago. As he said in his lecture Oct. 12 at Creighton, he was trying in his own way and however modestly to bridge the gap between spiritual values and the concerns of public life. That an accomplished scholar and master of the lecture hall would even consider such a challenge at the time in a career when most of us would be thinking of retirement attests to his insatiable thirst for life generally and to his faith in the democratic ideal specifically. It was also Augustine who proclaimed that a Christian should be an ``alleluia from head to foot.'' Walter Capps was such a man. And his joy in life and hope for America in a time of cynicism about politics was infectious. After spending the evening of Oct. 12 listening to the congressman speak enthusiastically of the quality of people he was getting to know in Washington and of the genuine care and concern of so many elected officials and their often young and idealistic staffs to do the right thing, one Creighton political science professor remarked that she had not felt so hopeful about Congress for years. Although 15 years my senior, Walt, with an almost boyish verve for an overwhelmingly difficult job, made me feel somewhat jaded by comparison. Perhaps some of Walt Capps' hopefulness came from the healing and reconciliation he saw taking place in his course on the Vietnam War. Vets who had never told their stories before were invited to share the podium with him. Students whose fathers were unknown to them personally were sent as emissaries of the class to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington to touch those precious names on the black marble. Sen. Bob Kerrey, Nebraska's then-governor, took an active role in the class for years, becoming a close friend to Capps and mentoring him into political life. Capps quoted Kerrey in his lecture at Creighton. Politics is often defined as the art of compromise. But Kerrey, reported Capps, described politics as the art of the possible. The congressman's own philosophy corresponded well with that. Especially after his near-fatal crash in 1996, he said he woke up every morning just grateful for the new day and the opportunities it offered. He approached his legislative role in Washington in the same spirit: Whatever small advance I can help to make for the general welfare of the people of this country, let me be ready to do it. Not a bad philosophy for the rest of us. Of Capps' 14 books, the most recent was on the Czech playwright and president, Vaclav Havel, another fine intellect who responded to the call of public service. Havel's most recent book is titled ``The Art of the Impossible.'' Walter would have appreciated that perspective on self-government, too. One of his own books was significantly titled, ``Hope Against Hope.'' But Walt Capps was not merely a dreamer. He wanted to make a difference. And so he put up with the arduous demands of the campaign trail (and the insults of his opponent, which he did not return) and the daily frustrations of an idealist in the powerbrokering world of the national capital. If he tilted at windmills, it was only after being sure it was for the good of his own constituents and the country generally. Like a combination of Don Quixote, St. Augustine, and Vaclav Havel, our friend Walter Capps dreamed a possible dream. He believed that citizens could govern themselves despite deep moral and ideological disagreements. Perhaps felled by the strenuous schedule that belief demanded of him as a citizen-representative, Walt Capps is a reminder to all of us that democracy has no sidelines. Professor Capps--he took a leave of absence from his university post rather than give it up entirely--had a more personal dream, too. After several terms in Congress, he wanted to return to the University of California at Santa Barbara to teach about democracy. Democracy, he said, is not something we inherit as a lifeless monument from the past. It is something we create and recreate every day. Or at least that is the challenge. He will not be able to fulfill that personal dream--to the loss of all of us, but especially to those UCSB students who will know of him only by reputation. My wife and I are immensely grateful that our children, his godchildren, were touched by his life. But like the image of a flame that lingers in the mind's eye even after the wick has been snuffed, Walter Capps' joyous, hopeful, generous spirit will linger long after his life has gone out. May he rest in peace. And may the rest of us get to work.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, earlier today when announcing motions to suspend the rules, an incorrect number was announced for the adoption bill. The correct number is H.R. 867, not H.R. 861.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office, turned on the TV, and realized that the conference report was on the floor and hurried over here quickly. I am extremely pleased to see that the House and the Congress will have a chance to complete its work on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. I think it is a very good step for America. I am very pleased that the House conferees have also been able to take the sense and the spirit and the wording and the dramatic impact of what the House had earlier voted upon. I feel that the five conferees in the House have stood together and brought a very good result to the House. Everyone should feel comfortable and enthused, in fact, about passing this legislation. I do appreciate the words of commendation and join in them for the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], who gave us the support to get this legislation through conference and to the floor here tonight. I particularly, however, want to concentrate my remarks on the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], who have worked in excellent fashion, and in tandem and individually have done a tremendous job on this legislation as it came to the floor, as it was crafted in committee and in the conference. The gentleman from New York, of course, as mentioned, is leaving, but whether or not he was leaving, he should be commended for the kind of work that he has done on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services over the years. I did not get a chance to join in those commendations on the House floor earlier, but his work on urban development, housing, and exports has been really extraordinarily positive for the country, and for his constituents as well. So we are going to miss him, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], and we wish him very great success in his continued work with his religious flock and for the development activities he is so much involved in in his own State. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that I think that the work we have done to refine the Chafee amendment, the work we have done to extend the provisions for the sale of, the financing of the guarantees of dual use technology, especially as it relates to the air control system, have proven to be a very important step as the nations of Eastern and Central Europe have moved from communism to embrace democracy. This has been good for our national interest, for our defense, and for our industrial base. Likewise, we have seen those kinds of benefits come to American industry with respect to sales in Latin America. So Mr. Speaker, I urge strongly support for this legislation. It is in the best interests of this country.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution, to support Expo 2000 in Hannover, Germany. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for that outstanding statement. It is now my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], who I consider to be, along with myself, a primary sponsor of this legislation. As I mentioned earlier in the debate, he is chairman of the German-American Study Group. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN 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, in 3 years Germany will be hosting EXPO 2000, a World's Fair to mark the new millennium. The timing and the location of this event could hardly be more appropriate. Hannover, Germany, is the center of a new Europe. Europe, as we all know, is in the center of major changes. By the year 2000, there will be at least three new members of NATO and also new members in the EU. Europe is rapidly unifying, and EXPO 2000 represents a showcase to demonstrate that change. To date, 143 nations have agreed to participate. I would note that President Clinton noted on August 15 that the United States was accepting the German invitation to participate in EXPO 2000 and encouraged private industry to do so. In this respect, it is similar to resolutions that the Congress has approved in the past regarding U.S. participation in the EXPO in Lisbon. House Concurrent Resolution 139 comes to the Committee from the Congressional German-American Study Group. The cosponsors include the former chairmen on both sides of the aisle; the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the current German-American Study Group chairman; the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]; and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett], who is currently the vice chairman and will be the chairman next year. I would also tell my colleagues that two distinguished members of the other body are also active in similar kinds of efforts. The resolution recognizes the value of EXPO 2000 and expresses our support for private sector support. I think in looking at the resolution, one of the most interesting things is the theme of this conference. It is to encourage sustainable development of mankind in the 21st century. I think it is important, therefore, that we participate in this effort to establish a worldwide dialogue on the challenges, goals, and solutions for the sustainable development of mankind in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 House Concurrent Resolution 139.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 139) expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. Government should fully participate in EXPO 2000 in the year 2000, in Hannover, Germany, and should encourage the academic community and the private sector in the United States to support this worthwhile undertaking.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr, Speaker, I understand the other side has a closing statement, and so I will conclude the opposition to the resolution, and I do rise and continue my strong opposition to the resolution. Germany is a free country in which religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution and thus sacrosanct. The U.S. State Department country report on human rights clearly confirms this in its most recent report. I would add that I think we need to be reminded every time that what we do as a body expressing our views on foreign policy is taken very seriously. This resolution is not balanced. It singles out Germany for a variety of practices, particularly those related to Scientology where their position is no different than seven or eight other European countries and several other countries outside the European Continent. This is a troubling situation for them. It is a matter that is pending currently in their tax court. But I think it is important we not have Tom Cruise or John Travolta setting foreign policy in this country, and I think that is a driving factor behind this legislation. It is very unfortunate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt], a member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his strong statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].