Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the committee. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification I would indicate that the Committee on International Relations did not have hearings on this. The Helsinki Commission organization in this body did, but not the Committee on International Relations. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], a member of the committee. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation came to the House Committee on International Relations with very little notice. It was on the agenda one morning. We have no Europe and Middle East subcommittee, and this legislation is one more argument why we should have so that bad and defective legislation, which in my judgment this is, can be vetted by the subcommittee, reworked, or stopped at that point before it comes to the House floor. I think this legislation, if the Members of the body were fully familiar with it, would be voted down. We are taking it up in the last hours of the Congress. I am very concerned about the kind of message that it will send. What we do on this body does matter when it comes to statements on foreign policy. We may consider it to be a very lightly relevant issue at times. But I will tell my colleagues, across the oceans when other countries look at what we do, they take it very seriously. So we have to be very careful. The Ambassador from Germany to the United States has weighed in with about as strong a letter as I have seen, refuting some of the arguments that have been made by proponents of the legislation. He contends he did not have an opportunity to meet with the Members who were sponsoring it. That has been argued about in the committee, as I understand it. But I think one important point would be this: This comes down, as I understand it, to a matter of taxation with respect to what we would say in English would be the Cologne Christian community, because they, in Germany, do not consider Scientology to be a religion. Therefore, they tax it. But Germany is not alone in that respect. So does Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and Europe, plus Israel and Mexico. And those are just the countries that I know about. So it seems to me to bring this legislation here aiming it at Germany, which was at first at least almost exclusively a Scientology- oriented legislation, now been broadened with an amendment to change it, I think is inappropriate. It is unbalanced. It is damaging to our relations with Germany. And there is no real cause for us to be considering this kind of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would claim the time in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] is in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his strong statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] the chairman of the German American study group. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in strong support of the Houghton resolution. I think it is very important in many ways. I know I first became familiar with the kind of microenterprise work when FINCA came to the Hill and talked about their work in the Central Andes countries. We knew, of course, about the Gramine Bank and its wonderful work. The amount of money that really makes a difference, a very small loan, usually very rapidly repaid, can really turn around a person and a family's life. I think we ought to be spending more of our resources here. It is a big bargain. I commend the gentleman for his effort, and all of the people who have supported this legislation which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] generously listed, and the many Members who are very supportive of this legislation. I urge its strong support.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend to his colleagues the following editorial from the November 4, 1997, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial highlights the growing interest in the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the upcoming bicentennial celebrations to commemorate the bold and courageous journey. As someone who has had a longstanding interest in the Lewis and Clark Expedition, this Member is pleased to promote the bicentennial efforts through the introduction earlier this year of two pieces of legislation. H.R. 1560 authorizes the U.S. Mint to produce a commemorative coin honoring the Expedition. Proceeds from the sale of the coins will be used to fund the activities of the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service. This Member has also introduced House Resolution 144, a resolution to express support for the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This resolution highlights the importance of the expedition and expresses congressional support for the commemorative activities of the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council as well as Federal, state and local entities and other interested groups. We must continue to recognize the ongoing legacy of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The upcoming bicentennial activities will provide excellent opportunities to stress the importance of the journey's mission and discoveries. [From the World-Herald, Nov. 4, 1997] Learning More About a Midlands Journey Lewis and Clark's great journey of discovery is beginning to draw attention as the bicentennial of the 1804 event draws closer. A two-part documentary by Ken Burns is set to air tonight and Wednesday on Public Broadcasting System stations in the Midlands. Burns' effort follows a popular book by historian Stephen Ambrose, whose ``Undaunted Courage'' described the trip in detail. The book relied on historical records, letters and memoirs, as well as journals of the expedition written by Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and other members of the party. More than 800,000 copies have been sold. The expedition was commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson to explore the newly purchased Louisiana Territory. Jefferson ordered Lewis to follow the Missouri River as far as he could, then keep going beyond U.S. territory in an attempt to find a convenient water route to the Pacific. There is no fast and easy route by water. But the explorations of Lewis and Clark succeeded in another way. They opened the continent to further settlement, identified scores of new plants and animals and launched tentative but cordial relationships with Indian tribes. Current signs of interest include a 10 percent increase of visitors at Fort Clatsop near Astoria, Ore., where the explorers wintered. Membership in the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation has risen. A flood of books on the subject is about to hit the stores. Archeological digs are proceeding at Fort Clatsop, at Fort Mandan, another wintering site in North Dakota, and at the Great Falls of the Missouri. The first major archeological survey of sites on the trail began recently. Lewis and Clark sites throughout the West and Midwest are gearing up for tourists as the bicentennial approaches. New Park Service interpretative centers in North Dakota and Montana will aid visitors. In the Midlands, the Western Historic Trails Center in Council Bluffs, which presents information on the Lewis and Clark expedition and trails that went through the region, is ready for visitors. A new observation deck was constructed at Ponca State Park, overlooking part of the expedition's route. It is one of 10 markers being constructed in Nebraska to emphasize the highlights of the voyage. A Lewis and Clark national Historical Trail Interpretative Center is planned at Nebraska City. Commemorations in Sioux City will revolve around the riverboat at the Sgt. Floyd Museum and Welcome Center. Floyd, a well-liked leader, was the only member of the party who didn't survive the trip. The Lewis and Clark voyage of exploration was a major event in the life of the infant nation. The courage of the two leaders and their men was exceptional. The intellectual curiosity and scientific observational skills of Lewis were astounding. The party's combination of luck, pluck and ability has few equals. It's appropriate that the public is taking an interest in their story. Though many Members of Congress seem to be having a difficult time making up their minds whether ``fast-track'' is in the national interest, the sensible Lincoln Journal Star newspaper in Lincoln, NE correctly acknowledges that the logic behind ``fast-track'' ``[i]s a simple numbers game.'' This editorial properly recognizes that 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States, and we ignore them to our own detriment. Maybe a reading of the attached editorial will inject some fresh Midwestern air into the protectionist fog hanging over the District of Columbia and the Capitol. It's certainly worth a try. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Nov. 7, 1997] President's Fast-Track Authority is Needed in a Global Economy (Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Lincoln Journal Star) It's a bit surprising that a question exists on whether President Clinton should be granted fast-track authority in trade negotiations. Every president since Gerald Ford has had the power. In fact, fast-track authority had never lapsed until it expired on Sept. 30. But Democrats are finding it difficult to support Clinton on the issue because of the vigorous opposition of organized labor, which has paid for radio and television advertising, organized phone calls to congressional offices and threatened to withhold campaign funding. In Congress, trade protectionists led by Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., have been joined by Republicans, who hate to see Clinton win anything, to create a cliffhanger. Analysts predict a close vote in the House. In the Senate, where there is more support for fast-track powers, opponents have succeeded in delaying action. The concept of fast-track authority is easily described. It gives the president the authority to negotiate trade agreements, which Congress then can reject but cannot amend. Without such authority, any member of Congress might want to change this line or that of any trade agreement sent to it for approval. If that were the case, it's doubtful that any country would negotiate with the United States. At this point in history, there is overwhelming evidence that free trade benefits the United States. It's a simple numbers game. The United States has 4 percent of the world's consumers. The rest live in countries where the economies often are expected to grow at rates that will exceed those in developed countries like the United States. Many Latin American countries, for example, are expected to have annual growth rates of as much as 5 or 10 percent. If the United States wants to maintain or increase its wealth, it needs to sell to those consumers. International trade is already of major importance to the national economy. There has been a 35 percent increase in American exports since 1992. In 1996, U.S. exports of goods and services reached a record $836 billion, employing 16.7 million workers. The most persuasive argument against free trade is that it can mean that industries gravitate to nations that will permit them to degrade the environment, or use child and prison labor. Under the proposed fast-track legislation, however, Clinton has the authority to negotiate agreements that protect against those outcomes. In the end, the issue of free trade reaches basic questions of economic freedom. The United States has led the world in open markets, free enterprise and competition. Everywhere, nations are adopting those values. Since the end of World War II, global tariffs have dropped from an average of 40 percent to 5 percent. For the United States to continue to play an important leadership role in the global economy, Congress needs to restore fast-track authority to the president.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with an announcement. As some of the Members know, the Speaker appointed a bipartisan task force on the Hong Kong transition, were to give a quarterly report, and I want my colleagues to know that the first quarterly report or a summary thereof will be in the Congressional Record for today. Madam Speaker, this legislation is very important. I rise in strong support of it and commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], for introducing this legislation. Madam Speaker, as mentioned this legislation authorizes appropriations specifically for broadcasting to China and North Korea and construction of broadcasting facilities. The purpose of this is to enhance America's ability to broadcast, increase the number of languages and dialects in which Radio Free Asia can broadcast. As the chairman of the subcommittee, my colleagues might be interested in knowing that in order to assure that accurate, timely, uncensored news and information gets to China, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, North Korea and the rest of East Asia, that it is important to support the activities of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. Radio Free Asia can provide news to those who otherwise cannot obtain it because many of the governments in the region systematically control the flow of information to their own citizens. Currently United States broadcasting in Chinese dialects totals only 7.5 hours daily by Radio Free Asia and 13 hours daily by Voice of America. This will permit expansion of broadcasting to 24 hours per day in Mandarin Chinese, plus expanded broadcasting in Cantonese, Tibetan, and other dialects. The combined Voice of America and Radio Free Asia broadcast to the region will provide listeners with a full-service broadcast covering local, national and international news, together with U.S. news and discussion of foreign policy. This would be the first around-the-clock broadcasting in Mandarin to China by any nation. This resolution would also support one-time expenditures required to ensure reliable transmission of broadcasts to listeners in China and North Korea. This includes the purchase, modification, and operation of a transmission station in Saipan. Actually I think it is Tinian, an United States territory currently providing the strongest broadcast signal to China. The transmitter would also give Radio Free Asia a permanent transmission site, something it now lacks. The increased funds will also go to augment relay stations that carry the message on to China and other Asian countries. Madam Speaker, in a world where Chinese military and diplomatic influence is growing, it is useful to remember the lessons of Radio Free Europe. Diplomats may have dismissed those broadcasts, but ordinary people listened. Eventually it was these ordinary people who were able to change those Communist systems. The people of Asia who live under authoritarian regimes deserve no less of a commitment from the United States. If we are serious about spreading the voice of democracy to China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, and other authoritarian States in East Asia, this legislation assures that the message of democracy reaches the broadest possible audience. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this Member again would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] for his dedication and assistance in making this important increase in funding for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. It is an initiative which this Member has advocated in the House Committee on International Relations and elsewhere, and I thank this gentleman for bringing it to fruition.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that the fiscal year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act conference report contains several provisions regarding important rural health programs which benefit rural communities across the nation, as well as continued funding for the Ellender Fellowships. In addition, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of both the full Committee and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the Chairman of the Subcommittee, for their work on these important issues. Regarding rural health funding, this Member would like to specifically mention two programs which this Member strongly supports and has expressed this support together with other members of the House Rural Health Care Coalition to the Subcommittee. These programs are Rural Outreach Grants, and the National Health Service Corps. This conference report includes $32.6 million for Rural Outreach Grants, which is an increase of $4.8 million above the fiscal year 1997 level and $7.6 million above the amount requested by the President. This important program support projects that provide health services to rural populations not currently receiving them and that enhance access to existing services. The National Health Service Corps receives $115.4 million in this conference report, which is equivalent to both the fiscal year 1997 level and the amount requested by the President. One of the top health care concerns in rural America is the shortage of physicians and other health professionals due to the difficulties rural areas have in attracting and retaining primary health care professionals. The National Health Service Corps program addresses this need by providing scholarships to, and repays loans of, primary care professionals in exchange for obligated services in a Health Professional Shortage Area. The program also provides matching grants to states for a loan repayment program. These incentives for health professionals and physicians to serve in rural areas are greatly needed. This Member is also pleased that this conference report includes $1.5 million for Ellender fellowships. Earlier this year, this Member testified before the subcommittee regarding this important program. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 1997 level, even though the President's budget did not include any funds for the extraordinary valuable citizen education program for American high school students. The Ellender Fellowships are used to enable low-income students to participate in the highly successful Washington Close Up program. Each year the Close Up foundation awards thousands of Ellender Fellowships, which included 3,942 students during the 1995-1996 school year. Nationally, since 1971 over 480,000 students and teachers have participated in the Washington Close Up Program. Almost 95,000 of those participants received full or partial fellowships. Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of both the full committee and the subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for their continued support of these important programs.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I placed at the desk be considered as adopted.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and as someone who has carefully followed events in the People's Republic of China for some time, this Member rises to address the legislative initiative orchestrated by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]. The legislative package that is before this body today contains a great many provisions that this gentleman fully supports. Some of the amendments made in order seem very appropriate. Others will be examined in debate. And some, perhaps, should be offered but cannot be offered. But I do believe a structured rule was essential. The initiative on Radio Free Asia has been authored by the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], an initiative also proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and this Member and recommended by our distinguished Speaker. It is a common sense proposal that would facilitate the flow of unfiltered information to tens of millions of Chinese. Similarly, an initiative supporting ballistic missile defense for Taiwanese is unfortunately now merited, as is the proposal for additional State Department personnel to monitor human rights conditions. These are all worthwhile initiatives. However, Mr. Speaker, there is the high prospect for a frenetic overtone to this unfolding debate. The underlying psychology of some of my colleagues seems to be to regain the initiative vis-a-vis the PRC. Mr. Speaker, the United States never lost the initiative. The United States is the preeminent military, economic, and political power in the world today. Yes, it is true that China, together with much of the rest of Asia, has experienced major growth--but that is not a threat to us. This Member is a realist--we should not be creating enemies where none need exist. Mr. Speaker, this Member fully shares the hope, desire, and commitment that human rights and democracy will flourish within the PRC. By focusing on the details of very specific human rights abuses that one finds in today's headlines, it is easy to ignore the dramatic, undeniable progress that has occurred, and continues to occur. The China of today simply is not the China with which President Richard Nixon forged an opening in 1972. Rather, today's China is vibrant and rapidly changing. It is dynamic. In terms of personal prosperity, in terms of individual choice, in terms of access to outside sources of information and freedom of movement within the country, the Chinese undeniably enjoy increased freedom. Public dissent, however, is severely limited. Moreover, just last year modest legal reforms were advanced in the area of criminal procedures which make it more likely that individuals will be considered innocent until proven guilty, will have the right to a lawyer at the time of detention, and will be able to challenge the arbitrary powers of the police. Although these reforms have far too many conditions or limitations that permit the government to suppress political dissent, they nonetheless represent progress toward rule of law in China. All the village level, it would seem that a remarkable transformation has taken place without anyone noticing. Village elections, once the sole domain of local communist party functionaries, have in many but far from all cases, suddenly become contested events--with noncommunists elected to some posts. This Member is not pretending that very serious, deeply rooted problems do not continue; they do. But the critics of the PRC should stop pretending that conditions for the average individual in China has not dramatically improved; of course, that varies greatly from region to region in China. Mr. Speaker, this Member is absolutely convinced that democracy and broader respect for human rights inevitably will come to China. There is no way the Chinese leaders in Beijing can prevent the flow of information and ideas into their country. We can have at least some effect here, either positive or negatively. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton said, time is on our side. The objective that everyone will profess so loudly on this floor today will come in time if we do not blow it. Making China our adversary will not advance political nor religious rights, nor will it advance the security of Taiwan. This Member would, therefore, simply urge, in the course of today's debate, that a measure of past-to-present analysis and a long-term perspective on what is actually in America's national interest should be applied to the debate about to unfold on the various resolutions in the China legislative package the rule makes in order today.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the United States- Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, because it will strengthen the mutually beneficial relationship that exists between the United States and the smaller countries of the Caribbean Basin. Due in large part to the Caribbean Basin initiative, which was proposed by President Reagan in 1982 and passed by the Congress in 1983, trade between the United States and Caribbean Basin nations have more than doubled in the past dozen years and now equal close to $30 billion a year. During that time, U.S. trade with the CBI region has generated roughly 18,000 new export-oriented jobs each year. What was once a trade deficit of $2.7 billion with the Caribbean is now a United States trade surplus of over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 2644 will strengthen the United States- Caribbean Basin trade partnership while at the same time enhancing the competitiveness of United States firms and workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for yielding me the time. Since the Caribbean Basin Initiative in 1983, that legislation has created about 18,000 new American export-oriented jobs each year. What was once a trade deficit has grown into a very major trade surplus for us. And those CBI countries today purchase as much as 75 percent of their imports from the United States. A good portion of that gain has been in the textile and apparel industries. To maintain a globally competitive product and to offset the advantages of low wages from our Asian competitors, many United States firms have formed strategic alliances with garment firms throughout the Caribbean Basin region. I saw, with the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] in a CODEL led by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons], our former chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, that kind of a relationship ongoing in Jamaica, and that has been very beneficial for American firms. By using the combination of United States and Caribbean skills and materials, American and CBI firms have developed a joint production process that guarantees the viability of our domestic industry while ensuring the production of quality cost competitive garments. That is just one example. CBI has been conceived as a way to help the United States and Caribbean and Central American countries navigate the threats of the Cold War. That is over. But it is time to update this program to help the United States and its neighbors in the Caribbean and Central America face the challenges of the next century. I strongly urge passage of H.R. 2644. It will strengthen the U.S.- Caribbean Basin trade partnership, while at the same time embracing the competitiveness of U.S. firms and workers.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on November 4, 1997. U.S. Extends Its Leading Effort To Remove World's Land Mines The U.S. government has made a considerable effort to prevent people around the world from being killed or injured by antipersonnel mines. To the credit of the Clinton administration, the United States is about to do more. President Clinton has announced a U.S.-led campaign to rid the world of the devices in the next dozen years. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the United States will contribute $80 million this year to an international effort to clean up minefields, double the U.S. contribution the previous year. Some people might think a contradiction exists. The U.S. government is the major holdout from a proposed treaty banning mines. Clinton has said that the United States won't sign unless the treaty is amended to allow continued use of the devices along the U.S.-guarded demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea. A committee that won the Nobel Peace Prize for pushing for a global anti-mine treaty has treated the Clinton policy--and the president himself-- with scorn and contempt. The biggest problem with land mines has its roots in the past, however, not in the future behavior of the United States. An estimated 100 million of the explosive devices remain in the ground in more than 60 countries, from Bosnia to Angola and from El Salvador to Cambodia. Many of the mines were planted in haste by guerrilla forces--people who neither sign global treaties nor leave any record of where they lay their mines. About 26,000 people are killed or injured by the devices every year, many of them children at play. This is the problem that the plan announced by Clinton and Ms. Albright is designed to solve by 2010. American forces have already drastically curtailed their use of land mines. Part of the reason is that U.S. mines caused many U.S. casualties. The mines still in use are mostly manufactured to lose their explosive force after a few weeks. The locations are carefully recorded. The mines are removed when no longer needed. As to U.S. reservations about the treaty: The situation on the Korean peninsula has few parallels anywhere in the world. A superpower that has been entrusted by peace-loving nations--and is expected by them--to prevent war in Korea is hardly going to add to the unmapped minefields that are causing the 26,000 casualties a year. The United States isn't out of line with its request to continue using land mines in Korea if it signs the treaty. Indeed, treaties don't bind guerrilla forces. They are often ignored by aggressors. A land mine treaty, even if signed by the United States, would guarantee little in the long run. On the other hand, an international cleanup of minefields could do a lot to reduce mine-related casualties. The campaign to find mined areas and remove the explosives safely is a noble humanitarian effort. U.S. participation is well worthwhile.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Quite simply, the issue of nuclear waste disposal has been delayed far too long. It must be addressed in a responsible manner. As one of only six Members representing a district with multiple nuclear power plants, this Member certainly recognizes the importance of developing a safe, comprehensive, and long-term approach to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Maintaining the status quo, with its reliance on on-site storage, is clearly not an acceptable long-term solution. In general, this Member believes that H.R. 1270, as approved by the Commerce Committee, represents a responsible approach. The bill being considered directs the Department of Energy to begin storing high-level nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada until a permanent disposal site is developed. H.R. 1270 also makes improvements in safety and transportation issues related to the disposal of nuclear waste/ This legislation is necessary because the Department of Energy has not made acceptable progress on developing a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel. It is estimated that by 2010, 80 nuclear reactors-- including both in Nebraska--will have reached on-site storage capacity. As a result, if no changes are made, it is likely that consumers would be required to continue contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund while also paying to develop additional on-site storage space. This would clearly not be reasonable or equitable. This issue is critically important to Nebraska and its nuclear energy consumers, who have already paid more than $150 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1270.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me. I rise in support of the rule, but I wish to speak now tonight as an outside conferee on the House Committee on International Relations assigned to this legislation on the issue of supercomputer exports and the regulations thereof. This Member rises to express his serious concerns about the conference committee's proposed statute changes to our current supercomputer licensing process. Unfortunately, the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations on this subject was almost totally ignored. The proposed statute changes have at least two fundamental flaws. First, they do not adequately recognize or take into account how quickly computer processing speeds become outdated. They, therefore, ensure that our regulatory framework for licensing supercomputers will always be chronically outdated relative to technological change. Second and perhaps more importantly, these proposed changes force the U.S. Government and our export control enforcement personnel to focus too many resources and personnel on monitoring the export of not so super, relatively slow computers that are no longer either controllable or, for that matter, sufficiently threatening to our national security interests. By requiring our export enforcement personnel to complete post- shipment verification on any 2000 MTOPS level of computer export, this legislation diverts precious resources away from monitoring high technology exports that are a serious threat to our national security. Requiring such a shotgun approach to export control makes it more likely that we could easily let serious technology diversion slip through our fingers that are real threats to our national security interest. For these two critical reasons, this Member cannot support this aspect of the conference report. However, this Member would like to note that several changes to the proposed language in the conference report could make it acceptable. For example, simply linking the post- shipment verification requirements to administration-proposed changes in the MTOPS level of control would answer this Member's major concern that we could ultimately be wasting tremendous enforcement resources on monitoring computer exports that are no longer a threat to national security. Such a change, if coupled with more reasonable short periods for approval of administration-requested changes in MTOPS control levels, would ensure that our export control regime would keep up with advances in computer technology. Mr. Speaker, this Member certainly believes we must be very cautious to ensure that our high-technology exports are not available to those who threaten our national security interests. But we must be careful in a time of limited resources to recognize our limitations on our ability to control all potentially dangerous items. One of the best ways we can protect our national security is to first monitor and disclose those entities in foreign countries that represent a threat to our interests. Then we can demand that U.S. exporters simply not export to those entities and, if necessary, initiate criminal proceedings against U.S. exporters if they fail to comply. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to read the rest of my remarks in the Record. This Member has insisted on such an approach to officials of the Bureau for Export Administration in the Department of Commerce. In part, because of this Member's insistence and that of the Chairman Gilman that the Administration must be more proactive on this issue, the Administration has now identified end-users of concern in these countries and has agreed to update that list on a periodic basis. In conclusion on this subject, Mr. Speaker, this Member is convinced that the House International Relations Committee was moving in the proper direction to remedy the unlawful sale of supercomputers to bad or dangerous end-users. Building on the Senate study initiative to determine exactly what level of computer technology should be controlled, we had expressed our intentions to compel the Administration to develop a comprehensive and efficient policy that places the appropriate high priority on protecting U.S. national security. Such a policy, however, cannot--without substantial costs-- attempt to reimpose a ``one-size-fits-all'' licensing policy on computer technology that nearly all exports recognize is simply not permanently and completely controllable. Instead, such a policy should focus on identifying bad end-users and making certain that such entities do not acquire any technology that is damaging our national security interests. And lastly, on another subject, Mr. Speaker, this Member gratefully acknowledges and commends the support of Chairman Spence and the ranking member, Mr. Dellums, as well as the conferees for their support of this Member's language supporting the commitment to retain 100,000 U.S. military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region. This is an important symbolic message, reiterated at the initiative of Chairman Spence and this Member that the United States will remain militarily engaged in the Asia-Pacific region for the long term--specifically that we should not reduce our military and naval presence in the region.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 18, Nebraska lost a great education leader when Dr. Anne Campbell passed away. There certainly is no need to exaggerate about the tremendous accomplishments of Dr. Campbell in the field of education or about the wonderful person she was. Her leadership on education matters will have a very positive and lasting effect on countless Nebraskans and indeed people throughout our Nation. Her legacy is the kind that enriches our civilization. This Member frequently called upon Dr. Campbell over the years for her advice on education and in choosing among applicants for our service academies. If sound and farsighted advice on educational issues was needed, this Member thought first of Dr. Campbell. She will be sorely missed by the great number of us who had the good fortune to have her friendship and by all who benefited from her leadership role in education. It is no surprise that Nebraska Governor E. Benjamin Nelson ordered State flags to fly at half-mast as a final tribute to Dr. Anne Campbell. The following article from the October 20, 1997, Lincoln Journal Star lists her numerous accomplishments and career highlights. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Oct. 20, 1997] Nebraska's ``Grand Lady of Education'' Dead at 79 (By J. Christopher Hain) One of the pillars of Nebraska education, M. Anne Campbell, Ph.D., died in Lincoln Saturday at the age of 79. Campbell was a former Nebraska commissioner of education and is the namesake of Campbell Elementary School at North 21st and Superior streets in Lincoln. She had been suffering from colon cancer and had been in and out of the hospital several times since April, said her husband Leonard Campbell. Former U.S. Sen. J. James Exon, who was governor of Nebraska when Campbell became state commissioner of education, said ``the educational systems in Nebraska have lost an outstanding and stellar person.'' ``People instinctively liked her and her approach to education,'' Exon said. ``You could sense her dedication to the cause of education.'' Campbell began her career as Madison County superintendent of schools from 1955 to 1963. During that time, she earned a master's degree from Wayne State College. She worked for two years as director of professional services and lobbyist for the Nebraska State Education Association. In 1965, she began work as an administrative assistant for government services at Lincoln Public Schools. Her duties included lobbying the Legislature and seeking and administering federal funds. During her time at LPS, she worked behind the scenes on development of Nebraska's educational service unit system and the state's technical community colleges. In 1969, she received a doctoral degree from the University of Nebraska. She worked for two years as director of public affairs for the university. In 1974, Campbell became state commissioner of education. During her tenure, she served as an influential member of the National Commission on Excellence in Education. The commission's landmark report, ``A Nation At Risk,'' helped to focus the nation's attention on the condition of its schools. She retired in 1982. She was former national president of the PTA and former president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of University Women and the Easter Seal Society of Nebraska. Campbell served as chairman of the Governor's Committee on the status of Women. She was a member of the Committee that selected teacher Christa McAuliffe as the first private citizen to ride in a space shuttle. Joe Lutjeharms, who worked under Campbell and succeeded her as commissioner of education, said it was her kindness that made her a successful educator. ``She was a very, very great people person,'' he said. ``When you win friends, you influence people.'' Lutjeharms said Campbell worked to ensure that education efforts were always directed toward kids. ``She was the grand lady of education in Nebraska.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2247 and in support of continued long-distance Amtrak service. During the 104th Congress this Member voted against a similar bill due to concerns about its possible adverse impact on long-distance routes through States such as Nebraska. In a statement which appeared in the November 30, 1995, Congressional Record, this Member expressed the view that passenger train service should not be confined only to high-density corridors. If Federal subsidies are provided to Amtrak then it should continue to serve as a truly national system. Federal subsidies from taxpayers from throughout the Nation for a limited, regional system would not be justified. While these concerns remain, this Member also recognizes that H.R. 2247 contains necessary and appropriate labor reforms and other restructuring provisions designed to provide relief for the ailing railroad. In addition, most important, passage of this reform legislation is necessary to allow Amtrak access to the $2.3 billion for capital improvements included in the recently enacted Taxpayer Relief Act. Therefore, this Member supports H.R. 2247 and expresses his hope that Amtrak will continue to provide at least the current important long- distance transportation alternative routes for and across the sparsely settled States such as Nebraska and others in the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West. Amtrak clearly should continue to have an important role in the Nation's overall transportation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly [NAA], it is my distinct pleasure to call to the attention of the House and the American people the outstanding paper delivered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] as chairman of the NAA Economic Committee at the fall meeting of the NAA in Bucharest, Romania, on October 9-13, 1997. Members of the House should find this truly exceptional, incisive, and very timely presentation by our colleague to be of great value and worth their reading time. This is particularly the case because it focuses on two very important subjects: First, the reasons for the continuing importance of the alliance we know as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] as it expands to incorporate three additional member countries and reexamines its mission, and second, the diverse set of changes affecting our planet which we term globalization and specifically their impact on the transatlantic relationship. The paper by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] follows: NATO in the 21st Century: Economic Committee Chairman's Contributions There are two kinds of economic issues that this committee should discuss as we try to envision challenges and opportunities to the Alliance over the next decade: those that will directly affect what we might call the business of NATO and those that will have an impact on the broader transatlantic relationship. Let us first look at the direct issues beginning with burden-sharing. The end of the Cold War was quickly follows by large cuts in defense outlays as NATO members sought to reap dividends from the decline in threat. These reductions made perfect fiscal and military sense, but also fueled a debate about NATO's ongoing relevance. Some Americans for example began again to ask why precious resources should be used to defend the rich countries of Europe, particularly given the unrelenting financial pressures arising out of America's budget deficit, the declining threat and the need for new domestic infrastructure investment. The Balkan war and NATO's decisive role in quelling that disturbance amply demonstrates the ongoing need for a transatlantic alliance. Yet, the old burden-sharing debate will not go away. Indeed, NATO enlargement will only fuel that debate, although most of the additional cost burdens associated with enlargement will fall on new members themselves. European initiatives to improve mobility and lift become all the more important in an enlarged NATO and insofar as enlargement encourages NATO's European members to move in this direction; it could ultimately ease rather than exacerbate the burden-sharing debate. Finally, as Harry Cohen--member of the British House of Commons--points out in his draft report on the Costs of NATO Enlargement, properly administered alliances generally are cost effective insofar as they provide greater security at lower cost than purely national defence. This fiscal reality does not show up in national accounting sheets, but it will continue to hold true. We parliamentarians must help ensure that the burden-sharing debate reflects this central reality. If national leaders fail to do this, this vital Alliance could come under unwelcome political stress. The growing gap in the defence-industrial bases of Europe and the United States represents another economic issue with direct consequences for NATO. Here the problems may be more serious. Norbert Wieczorek's report to--the Economic Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly--on changing defence markets discussed the important consolidation of U.S. defence industries. Profound restructuring and rapid integration of information technology have resulted in a growing U.S. competitive edge over European defence firms, which remain more heavily regulated, smaller and higher cost producers. This gap makes a genuine two-way street in defence trade increasingly difficult and is adding yet another barrier to transatlantic project teaming. The divergence is growing so apparent that it could eventually have spill-over effects on military tactics and the overall transatlantic relationship. The recent Administration-EU Commission dispute over the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger was indicative of this issue's great sensitivity. Until Europe creates a more unified market for defence goods which fosters the creation of pan-European defence firms, there will be few European firms to rival their American counterparts in scale and scope. The result will be higher procurement costs in Europe and perhaps even greater protectionism which will further shorten the scope for transatlantic defence industrial exchange and could lead to trade tension. Transatlantic defence co-operation and trade foster interoperability, reduce overall defence costs, and ensure the existence of competitors which will help spark innovation and cost reductions. Europe is moving too slowly in consolidating the defence business, and unless the effort is galvanized, the current gap may become wider by the next century. Internal market reforms in transition economies has also become an issue directly related to NATO's future, insofar as the introduction of liberal market structures is a precondition for an invitation to join the Alliance. The financial capacity of prospective states to underwrite force modernization, retrain their officers and meet minimal standards of interoperability represents another economic consideration of considerable importance. These factors were crucial to NATO's decision to invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to accession negotiations. The pace of reform has certainly quickened in Romania and was one reason why its candidacy was considered with a great deal of seriousness-- something which was not anticipated even two years ago. Slovenia has already registered one of the more impressive transitions to a market-based economy. As the region's economies become more integrated with those of Western Europe, whether or not they are formally invited to join the EU, it seems likely that the economic preconditions for NATO accession will be met by several other states over the next ten years provided the reform path is not abandoned. Accession is not without economic consequences, NATO, of course, has no direct responsibility over transatlantic economic management, but it certainly can provide a secure foundation which business and investment need to flourish. This is taken for granted among current members, but not by aspiring members. Disappointed Romanian and Slovenian officials lamented that their being left out of NATO would penalize them economically. Those admitted, on the other hand, might enjoy a comparative advantage in attracting foreign investors who would be marginally more reassured by the commitment of the West to the security of new members. It should be recalled that such considerations can even have an impact on interest rates, and thus all things being equal, membership could thus reduce the cost of capital in new member states. So much for the issues of direct consequence to NATO. The second category of economic issues that are likely to affect the Alliance will not be specifically tied to NATO, but will nevertheless be influential in shaping the overall relationship between North America and Europe. It should go without saying that the end of the Cold War has profoundly altered the transatlantic relationship. The dramatic reduction of military tension has perhaps loosened the discipline that kept the Atlantic partners from allowing trade, monetary or other economic disputes to weaken the partnership. There are some signs that each side is now turning away from the other despite real interests in not doing so. The key question is whether or not mutual economic dependencies as well as shared strategic interests are sufficient to hold together the Alliance. I think they should be, but we must recognize the potential for difficulties in an Alliance no longer overwhelmingly bound together by an overarching Soviet threat but rather united by a more complex set of strategic, political and economic ties. A second consequence of the Cold War's passing is that economic issues have become a more prominent force in the overall transatlantic relationship. On the face of it, this is a good thing; Europe and America broadly share a common appreciation of the value of a liberal international economic regime and are important trade and investment partners. One writer recently described the relationship in terms of a shared economic culture, writing that, ``When America and Europe advocate free trade, they are less likely to talk past each other than are America and Asia.'' Although economic relations between the two continents have generated great material prosperity, they have also long been a source of generally healthy, if often fiercely contested, competition. That rivalry is never as heated as it is when two conflicting visions of the legitimate role of the state in economic matters come into play. In recent years we have seen the American officials claim that foreign policy imperatives give it the right to exercise extraterritorial authority over non- American firms. The European Commission did the same when it claimed anti-trust review authority with regard to the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger. Since the end of the Cold War, the frequency and seriousness of transatlantic economic disputes seems to be growing. This is hardly a welcome harbinger for future transatlantic relations; but it could just as well reflect difficulties associated with transition to a new international security and economic order. The shape that Europe takes is another critical factor in the transatlantic relationship. We can now presume that EMU will go ahead, and that by January 1999, the Euro and a European Central Bank will be in place. This will constitute the greatest change to the international monetary system since the collapse of Bretton Woods. The accompanying commitment to price stability will bring down interest rates in Europe and may provide an additional impetus to loosen overly burdensome labour market regulation which has been the primary source of high unemployment on the continent. This coupled with the elimination of burdensome transaction costs will more deeply unify European money and commercial markets and will prove a dynamic boost to European growth. Moreover, the Euro will ultimately rival the dollar internationally. It is possible however that the absence of fluctuation in intra- European rates could result in even greater dollar-Euro rates fluctuation with negative effects on transatlantic trade and investment. Thus in monetary matters, Europe and the United States will have to consult even more deeply than they do today. In this respect, perhaps the creation of a Euro could be a force for greater transatlantic integration. This, of course, hinges on a number of additional economic and political factors. The likely accession of new members to Europe in the early years of the next century could have different effects on transatlantic relationship. The Americans will broadly welcome EU enlargement as a critical contribution to regional stabilization and prosperity and thus a natural complement to NATO enlargement. Moreover, EU enlargement is likely to compel Europe finally to revamp those institutions and programs which many officials acknowledge have grown outdated or unwieldy. Agricultural reform here may be the key question, and insofar as it leads to greater market access for American producers and general liberalization of agriculture markets, it could have a very positive impact on the transatlantic relationship. On the other hand, a geographically larger, more diverse Europe implies perhaps a more inward-looking EU, at least over the medium term. The process of consolidation is likely to create certain tension with the United States, particularly if American officials and the US Congress gather the impression that the EU is artificially diverting trade away from the US. The Americans will thus be watching both monetary integration and EU enlargement with a keen eye and will not hesitate to express their views on matters that effect its interests--just as Europeans will scrutinize American economic policies including its sanctions initiatives designed to tie security and trade issues and which are likely to directly impinge directly on European commercial and monetary interests. Another problem is that globalization itself has partly eclipsed the transatlantic economic relationship, even if globalization itself can be seen as a natural and successful consequence of the transatlantic partnership. The emerging global economic order is increasingly characterized by the unhindered trade of goods and services, the rapid diffusion of technology, the ever greater mobility of financial capital and the far more prominent role being played by private financial institutions. In this new global economy, there will be an ever greater premium attached to stringent monetary and fiscal management. This is increasingly leading to macro-economic convergence. Yet, our societies are naturally not always willing to cede everything to economic logic. And it is for this reason that states will remain critical actors in the world economy. Globalization is a force affecting all our countries, and I would argue that it is pushing North America and Europe in the same general direction but at varying speeds. This could potentially lead to further drift in the relationship. In the United States, key sectors have been deregulated, while strategic corporate mergers have created a number of large coherent industrial and service companies poised to flourish in the international economy. Responding to new challengers like Japan, American civilian firms in recent years have restructured their operations, introduced new organizational principles and slashed work forces and production costs. American firms like Microsoft and Intel have established nearly hegemonic positions in new computing industries. California's Silicon Valley rides on the crest of the information revolution and is reaping huge profits as a result. American industry has very rapidly incorporated the computer into the workplace and this seems to have contributed to America's current economic boom. Average GNP growth in the United States over the last seven years is 2.5%, the current unemployment rate stands at only 4.8%, and inflation has fallen to 2.8%, while a rocketing stock market index continues to astonish observers.\1\ Some economists including Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan have hinted that a kind of sea change has transpired in the United States that has permanently changed the inflation-growth-unemployment relationship. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Economist, June 21st, 1997: p. 12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe's firms have begun to respond to global pressure through restructuring and consolidation although markets there are generally more regulated and tax rates remain higher. Moreover, with a GNP the size of America's, in 1994 Europe produced only a fifth as much software. It has only 7 percent of the export market for computers and office equipment. This suggests that despite unambiguous signs of an economic recovery, Europe needs to make great advances in the industries that are likely to dominate world markets in the future. If globalization is seen in Europe as rewarding only those industries in which Europe feels less competitive, the result could be a more inward-looking Europe, resistant to deregulation and determined to defend a quality of life that cannot be sustained without undertaking important changes. An inward-looking Europe's relationship with the United States would be tense. The United States clearly needs Europe as a partner to advance the liberal, free trading vision. Therefore, a significant fall-out would gravely weaken America's capacity to promote greater international liberalization and integration. At the Denver summit earlier this year, the contrast between the American and European economic cultures were starkly on parade. While President Bill Clinton extolled American achievements, somewhat offended European leaders and numerous writers subtly pointed to what many see as the down sides of the US model, including the wider income gap in the United States and the tragic state of American inner cities. Again this is indicative of how domestic political economies are increasingly becoming a subject of international discussion. This is partly because distinctions between domestic and international economic issues are artificial and increasingly recognized as such. How states organize their domestic political economy will have important effects on their relations with other states. The New Transatlantic Agenda, however, suggests that this phenomenon need not be viewed with trepidation. It can have a mutually advantageous impact provided that our countries' leaders manage it properly. That will not be easy as the Helms- Burton dispute revealed. Finally it is often assumed that the greatest investment opportunities lie in developing or transition economies. But in the coming decade, growth opportunities will be great in much of the OECD as well, due to de-regulation, restructuring trade in services and the emergence of new information industries like those related to the internet. The most developed countries are undergoing an industrial revolution which will create countless new opportunities for trade and investment between Europe and the United States. We are already seeing this revolution in the development of transatlantic telecommunications and airline alliances. The intricate interweaving of corporate interests could have the effect of bringing Europe and the United States into an even closer relationship partly by making it more difficult for states to claim companies as their own and to act on that basis. The Russian economy's evolution will also shape the transatlantic agenda. Were the Russian economy to spiral downward, the resultant instability would pose a serious set of problems to Central and Eastern European states--ranging from new refugee pressures to even greater mafia activity. The proliferation of the know-how and material necessary to construct weapons of mass destruction is not unrelated to the health of the Russian economy as well as the Russian state's capacity to control the export of weaponry and material and to keep scientists and engineers gainfully employed. The Allies will have to encourage further liberal market reform and commercial integration with the West and assist Russian leaders in controlling armaments exports insofar as each of these is possible. Responsibility ultimately lies with the Russians themselves, and the current government appears committed to reform. But strong political and social resistance to reform will not fade away and mafia activities seem to be growing in scale and scope. The most likely scenario for Russia is fitful reform with uneven results. The West must therefore be prepared both to extend a hand to its Russian partners while preparing for a relationship that will not always be easy. Russia will continue to be a key player in energy markets. For example we can anticipate a rivalry in the Caspian Sea for influence and access to the huge potential oil and gas reserves of the Caspian region. Energy issues have long been a source of division within the Alliance (Total's recent investment plans on Iran being the latest example), and forging a united Western approach to the Caspian region may prove enormously difficult given the different kind of interests involved. The Caspian region will emerge as one of the crucial out-of-area considerations shaping the strategic calculations of the NATO partners as well as the Russians, and it may well divide more than unite North America, Europe and Russia. Let me conclude with a brief remark about my own country. Like Europe, America confronts long-term structural problems that will continue to absorb the energy of legislators and government officials. Some of these problems, like the growing income gap, may have been exacerbated by globalization, while others, like educational weaknesses, compromise America's long-term prospects in that economy. Finding solutions to such problems lie at the core of contemporary American politics. Despite these problems, there is a growing perception that globalization has proven beneficial to most Americans. President Clinton, for example, will probably be granted authority to negotiate a new round of free trade pacts despite resistance from his own party's left wing. The public and its representatives have come to recognize the value of the world economy. Many new members of the U.S. Congress arrive with little international experience, but economic globalization and America's central role in that process means they cannot or at least should not ignore developments beyond its borders. The Senate NATO enlargement ratification debate will again focus attention on the profound ties between the U.S. and Europe. One of the hallmarks of democracy is that when push comes to shove, rationality generally prevails. The reasons for maintaining close transatlantic economic co-operation far outweigh the inconveniences and petty disputes. Both Europe and America are subject to global economic pressures and its leaders and companies are responding in ways consistent with their distinct political and economic cultures and traditions. The great challenge lies in accommodating these differences in order to revivify a partnership of politically stable and economically vital nations that together will help steer the world economy into the next century.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would take a moment to recognize my distinguished colleague from Indiana, the Honorable Lee Hamilton. First as chairman and now as ranking Democrat on the Committee on International Relations, Lee Hamilton has consistently sought to promote the U.S. national interest and to advance our bilateral and multilateral relations around the globe. He has applied his Indiana common sense to many of the most difficult international issues that this country has been forced to address. Lee Hamilton was chairman of the Europe and Middle East Subcommittee when the Berlin Wall fell and when the Soviet Union collapsed. He was instrumental in crafting the SEED Act that provided timely assistance to the fledgling democracies in Central Europe, and he was the driving force behind the Freedom Support Act that support democratic institutions in Russia. These are just a few of his more recent landmark legislative accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, for which the distinguished gentleman can rightly take pride. Mr. Speaker, although the distinguished gentleman sits on the other side of the aisle from this Member, this Member has regularly sought him out for advice and guidance. Years ago, when this Member was a junior member of the minority on the International Relations Committee, Lee Hamilton helped this Member pursue a number of initiatives that, without this help, would have been impossible. Lee did not have to do this, and no one ever knew of his help; however, it meant an enormous amount to this relatively junior Member. Mr. Speaker, Lee Hamilton recently was awarded the Edmund Muskie distinguished Public Service Award for his 3\1/2\ decades of service to the Nation. This Member congratulates Mr. Hamilton and would ask to submit into the Congressional Record the gentleman's statement, ``Reflections on the Congress and the Country,'' which he delivered to the Center for National Policy which was honoring him on September 29, 1997, with the Edmund Muskie Award. This gentleman wishes Lee and his wife Nancy all the best in the years ahead and thanks them for their remarkable contributions to our Nation.