Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that, and he is an exceptional graduate and has claims, I think, down in Tulane as well. This Member is most familiar with the National Endowment for the Humanities through the activities of the Nebraska Humanities Council which consistently provides high quality humanities programming at very little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my State. It is not a program for the elite. Since 1973 they have funded programs in more than 200 different communities in all of Nebraska's 93 counties, reaching more communities each year. Some of those counties have fewer than 500 residents and are especially appreciative of this assistance. Surely the same type of examples that I am going to use could be cited for every State. Now this is in direct contrast to what the gentleman from Ohio has indicated. That is to say, for example, in Nebraska, and I believe in most States, or maybe all, many, many of our taxpayers are beneficiaries of NEH funding. This is absolutely not an elitist program. The Nebraska Humanities Council has been especially effective at reaching residents in the First Congressional District of Nebraska. This Member's district encompasses Lincoln with its colleges and museums as well as the small cities and villages whose primary formal educational assets are their libraries and their consolidated public and religious schools. For example, the council has developed a humanities resource center with a large speakers bureau, exhibits, films and videos that enable the smallest communities to benefit from the cultural resources of Nebraska's metropolitan areas and metropolitan areas from elsewhere in the Great Plains. The speakers bureau has been particularly helpful to Nebraska schools as they comply with the new requirement for multicultural education. Of course, the Humanities Council does not charge the schools for this valuable educational service. In closing, Mr. Chairman, for these and many other reasons this Member urges the defeat of the Chabot amendment. The National Endowment for the Humanities is a highly appropriate use of a modest amount of public funds in a great and diverse country like the United States of America.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words in order to engage in a colloquy on an unrelated matter with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his statement, patience, assistance and good will, and I also thank his staff for similar reasons.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH. I had hoped that all of our Members might have had an opportunity earlier this year to attend a gathering here on Capitol Hill when all the citizen and staff leadership of the humanities councils, the State humanities councils from around the country, had their meeting here. Their guest speaker was Stephen Ambrose, the author of the recently acclaimed book ``Undaunted Courage.''

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on July 4, 1997. This editorial brings attention to the positive effect of a law passed by the Nebraska Legislature in 1981 referred to as the ``Good Samaritan'' law which protects anyone donating food from civil lawsuits. Without passage of this law in my home State of Nebraska, thousands of pounds of food that now feeds needy individuals would instead be thrown out each and every day. This Member would also like to commend the many businesses in my home State that contribute their unsold and left-over food and also to commend the charitable organizations that ensure that the food is distributed to needy people. [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 4, 1997] Less Food Goes to Waste in Omaha More than one-fourth of the food produced in the United States goes to waste, according to an Agriculture Department study. But in Omaha, the picture is different. Nationally, more than 96 billion pounds of food of all kinds was lost in 1995, the government study indicated. It spoiled in the home refrigerator. It became outdated or damaged in grocery stores. It was left over, unserved, at restaurants and wedding receptions, in company lunchrooms and fast-food places, taco stands and bagel shops across the country. In Omaha, a gratifying amount of food isn't wasted. Thanks to the generosity of businesses and the determination of the community's charitable organizations, a lot of good, healthful food that might have been tossed out is feeding hundreds of homeless and needy people. Paul Koch, executive director of Siena-Francis House, said his organization serves 205,000 meals a year on a food budget of less than $2,000. Most food is donated. Fast-food restaurants, donut shops, food stores, restaurants and large corporations all helped, he said. The Open Door Mission also benefits from local generosity. Pastor Bob Timberlake said the mission serves 900 meals a day, more than 328,000 a year, and 95 percent of the food is donated. He said mission trucks go to Mutual of Omaha, where they pick up all the food not served in the company cafeteria. That provides 30 percent of the food the mission needs, he said. Sixteen Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets give the chicken that was partially fried but not sold. ConAgra and Campbell's pass on extra or unneeded edibles. When Roberts Dairy trucks return from deliveries, their unsold dairy products are loaded directly into mission vans. Food donations in Omaha are made easier by a far-sighted ``Good Samaritan'' law passed by the Nebraska Legislature in 1981 protecting anyone donating food from civil lawsuits. The fact that the idea is working so well in Omaha is a credit to the city, a credit to charities that handle the food and a credit to good-hearted people.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, last year Congress passed a farm bill which provided farmers with the freedom they need to respond to market forces and more effectively compete in the global marketplace. This legislation represents a very fundamental departure from previous farm policy and allows much greater flexibility in planting decisions. Farmers have responded favorably to this new independence which places the decisions where they belong--with the farmers, not the Federal Government. This Member would like to commend to his colleagues the following editorial from the July 4, 1997, edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star, which highlights the positive changes brought about by the 1996 farm bill. By the way, this editorial viewpoint represents a turnaround in views by this Lincoln newspaper--apparently based upon the results obtained. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, July 4, 1997] Farmers Get More Freedom, Which Will Benefit Everyone This Fourth of July, many farmers are celebrating their newfound independence. In a front-page story in the Journal Star this week, Associated Press writer Robyn Tysver drew this telling image: `` `Free at last. Free at last,' '' Minden farmer LaMoine Smith warbled one morning from the field on his cellular phone.'' The celebration is because this year, for the first time in decades, farmers are free to plant what they want, thanks to the Freedom to Farm Act. No more government restrictions. No more trips to the Farm Service Agency in town to submit a farm plan. No more certification of acres. The Journal Star joins in the celebration. Putting decision-making in the hands of the farmers will, in the long run, benefit them and the taxpayers who have been subsidizing them. The change puts incentives before farmers to become better business managers. There are rewards to stay on the cutting edge. The picture of farmer Smith in the field cheering on his cellular phone is an accurate one, for city folk who have lost contact with agriculture. Farming ain't like the reruns of ``Green Acres.' Farming today is cellular phones, commodity prices by computer modem, fertilization by Global Position System and more. The farmers who learn to use those hi-tech tools most efficiently will be the ones reaping the greatest rewards under the new system. Under the new system, there are real decisions to be made. The best decision-makers are the ones who will prosper. In the initial year of the Freedom to Farm Act, there have been some changes in planting patterns, but farmers generally were cautious. Because land no longer must remain idle under government regulation, farmers put more into production. For example, the number of acres planted in corn went up by 600,000 in comparison with last year. Other responses were more directly market-driven. This spring, soybeans were at $8.50 a bushel, prompting Nebraska farmers to plant 650,000 acres more than last year. There was also a little experimentation. Farmers in Kansas planted 12,000 acres of cotton. Farmers in Mississippi planted 550,000 acres of corn. It's easy to celebrate this year, we acknowledge, because for now farmers have the best of both worlds. They have both freedom and a safety net, because the farm payments still exist. The payments will be reduced gradually over a seven- year period. This year, farmers still have a fallback if they made the wrong decisions last spring. By 2002, when price-support guarantees are scheduled to end, there will no longer be a safety net. Freedom has its price. Even now, support for the Freedom to Farm Act is far from universal. A majority of farmers favor it, but there is a minority who were happy with old regulations and the comfort they brought. Their ranks could grow if the weather puts bumper crops of soybeans and corn on the markets this fall, which would depress prices. Farmers might have more freedom this Fourth of July, but not from worrying about the weather. Some things never change.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial supporting the Pathfinder mission which appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star on July 7, 1997. [From the Lincoln Journal Star, July 7, 1997] Pathfinder Mission Example of Federal Funds Well Spent The Web site operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is logging as many as 40 million hits a day as the six-wheeled Sojourner rover explores the surface of Mars. There's a bit of irony in the statistic. Many of the cybersurfers hitting the site are using computers with more brains than the rover itself. Sojourner has a mere 8,500 transistors in its brain, compared with millions in the Pentium models. The vehicle's designers were on a tight budget. Spending for the U.S. interplanetary space program in the 1990s contrasts sharply with the Viking missions of the 1970s. Those missions cost $3 billion in today's dollars. The Mars Pathfinder mission's cost is pegged at $266 million. It's money well spent. Humanity has an inherent need to push into the unknown. It's biologically wired into our makeup. Evidence abounds, from the migration of humans across the Bering land bridge into North America to the curiosity of children exploring a new campground. Humans have been fascinated with Mars since Cro-Magnon tribes watched the movement of the night sky's only red object. When the medieval invention of telescopes revealed lines on the planet's surface, theories sprang that they were a system of canals. Today, the fascination with extraterrestrial matters borders on the obsessive. The popular television show`` File'' is based on a premise that aliens are among us; last summer's megahit movie ``Independence Day'' was about an alien invasion. Roswell, N.M., has turned into a tourist destination because of rumors that aliens landed there 50 years ago. The question is not whether humans will spend money because of their fascination with space. They already are plunking down dollars for books, movies and travel about the subject. Spending tax dollars in pursuit of facts on the subject is a far better use of society's resources. The imagination of authors and filmmakers are diverting entertainment. At a deeper level, however, people want scientific fact, not unsubstantiated storytelling. When man landed on the moon in 1969, the popularity of the space program and NASA was at an all-time high. From that high point, public support declined. NASA's reputation plummeted because of the Challenger explosion. Pressure built to reduce the program's bloated expenses. The low-budget, unpiloted Pathfinder mission is the result. When Daniel S. Goldstein was appointed NASA director in 1992, he approved a low-cost plan developed by Donna L. Shirley, who now heads the Mars exploration program at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. Shirley has been a proponent of finding low-cost ways to explore Mars since the 1980s, when she headed a panel that said if the dream of exploration were to become a reality, ways had to be found to do it on the cheap. Now her dreams are being realized. They are dreams shared universally by people across the globe. Finally, there may be answers to questions that have existed since prehistoric humans watched the red planet dance across the night sky. Funding the Pathfinder mission to Mars is a worthwhile use of tax dollars.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Frank amendment. This is a case of data-free analysis. It is not based on an assessment of the work of the committee or the needs of the intelligence community. Now admittedly it is difficult for Members to make that kind of an assessment, but we give a special responsibility and privilege to Members of this House to serve 6, now 8 years on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to make the tough decisions, to make an assessment about what is appropriate. And we rotate them off the committee so they cannot become co-opted, so they are objective. Also I would point out that this is the recommendation of the intelligence authorization committee by unanimous vote. Now some supporters of cuts in intelligence funding say that since the end of the cold war there is no longer the national security threat. Actually there is, but it is more diverse. The one that we face today is more complicated. Today's problems include terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, instability, and the foreign intelligence threat which has not gone away. Now in May of this year I had the privilege of leading a North Atlantic Assembly delegation to the Aviano NATO base in Italy, and I saw some dramatic improvements we are making which are going to help our tactical leaders on any future battlefield. There have been big changes since the Persian Gulf war. If we ever have to face combat again, in the Balkans or wherever, the kind of intelligence changes we are spending our money on now are going to be making a big, big difference on the safety and success of our troops and other military, naval, and air force personnel. When I was on the committee I focused during the last 3 or 4 years on high-technology issues, and I would tell my colleagues that our intelligence expenditures in that area protects and serves well our military and our intelligence community. We must protect against the espionage or theft of advanced technologies that represent huge investments of our defense dollars. The files of the Intelligence Committee are replete with stories of how the intelligence community saved tens of millions of dollars for the defense acquisition community by protecting against our technological lead in military and intelligence matters. I would also say that we cannot talk much about the security threats that we have solved, and about the terrorism threats that we have met. But, for example, we can talk about Ramsi Youssef, who was involved in the World Trade Center bombing. Without the intervention of the Intelligence Committee he successfully would have simultaneously bombed a number of planes crossing the Pacific. We were able to intervene there because of our intelligence capability to stop that threat and save not just hundreds of lives but probably thousands of lives. So the intelligence protects against the intelligence theft of valuable proprietary investments. The committee has repeatedly encouraged us to adequately fund this area. Let me say that what committee assessment has shown in budgetary and programmatic shortfalls. Clearly in the current budget environment the President of the committee cannot address all of the needs. What this budget represents is a good-faith effort by the Members we have given the responsibility for this whole House of Representatives to make an assessment about the kind of increases or modest adjustments in our intelligence budget meets the most critical needs. If the Frank amendment passes, funding for some modernization, for training and improved intelligence collection, and especially analysis, will be sacrificed. We are not going to lose it all for we are making progress, but there are dramatic improvements that can be made without this amount of additional money that the committee has recommended. I urge my colleagues to support the recommendations of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence unanimously approved by this authorizing committee and approve them.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, for myself and for the House delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, I rise today to recognize Lt. Col. Donna K. Daugherty for her distinguished and exemplary service to the U.S. Air Force and this great Nation and her lengthy tenure as the Deputy Chief of the Air Force House Liaison Office from February 29, 1991, to July 3, 1997. In this capacity, Colonel Daugherty truly has excelled in providing the House of Representatives with outstanding service and unselfish commitment above and beyond the call of duty. She quickly established a solid reputation with both Members and staff and continued to build onto those strong relationships during her time in the liaison office. Her keen wit, good judgment, genial personality, and intelligence have helped her represent the Air Force and the Department of Defense in outstanding fashion. For the past 6 years, her assistance was routinely sought by members of the Committee on National Security and their staff to arrange briefings on a wide variety of national security issues. Throughout her work, Kim's sound judgment and keen sense of national priorities are attributes or talents that have greatly benefited Congress and the U.S. Air Force. In the challenging arena of assisting Members of Congress in international travel, she was of outstanding assistance in planning, organizing and executing assigned congressional delegation trips to locations all over the world. Actually, she assisted in the planning and executions of 35 CODEL's to 41 different countries involving 143 current and former Members of Congress. As the chairman of the House delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, this Member has been assisted by her on several North Atlantic Assembly trips, and her sound performance was always stellar. It certainly has been this Member's pleasure to have worked and traveled with Lt. Col. Kim Daugherty. She has served with great distinction and has earned our respect and gratitude for her many contributions to our Nation's defense and assistance to the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, this Member confidently speaks for the many colleagues who know Colonel Kim Dougherty when a fond farewell is extended to her along with sincere best wishes and continued success to her and her family as she moves on to the National War College. Mr. Speaker, the House can be thankful, however, that Colonel Dougherty will be returning to the Legislative Liaison Office next year. We look forward to working with her in the future.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] on the special order that he is conducting here this evening. When I visited some of the battlefields in Guam and saw the activities and learned of the heroic activities of the Guamanian people, I was moved and impressed. I think we have not given the Guamanians the recognition they really deserve, so I appreciate the gentleman's offer on behalf of his constituency tonight.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues the following editorial which appeared in the Omaha World Herald on June 20, 1997. This editorial is of particular interest because it notes the fraudulent basis for the argument used by Democrats opposing the Taxpayer Relief Act. Democrats Use Skewed Figures To Challenge Tax-Cut Proposal Democrats who don't like the House-approved tax-cut proposal that is now before the Senate ought to challenge it on its merits instead of putting out a fraudulent class- warfare argument. The Clinton administration and congressional Democrats who oppose the Republican-sponsored plan argue that the proposed net tax cut of $85 billion over five years ($135 billion in cuts and $50 billion in tax increases) is targeted to favor the rich. They rely on a report from President Clinton's Treasury Department asserting that two-thirds of the benefits would go to people in the nation's top 20 percent of earners. Treasury officials reached that conclusion by inflating the definition of income like a toy balloon. It included things such as ``imputed rental value.'' That means the sharp-pencil pushers at Treasury have calculated how much a homeowner could rent his home for and added that figure onto his income. They also included the increased value of retirement funds, pension contributions and employer-funded life and health insurance. Those are not what most middle-class people would call ``income.'' Such ridiculous additions skew the economic profile of the middle-class taxpayer. But they enable Treasury officials to ratchet millions of people up into phony levels of wealth and then claim that the middle class is being overlooked in the tax-cut package. The Joint Committee on Taxation sees it differently. Using a definition of income more like that of the IRS, the committee found that people earning from $20,000 to $75,000 a year would receive 71 percent of the proposed tax savings in the GOP plan. The percentage jumps to 88 if the range is expanded to $100,000. Only 7 percent of the proposed tax cuts would go to people earning more than $100,000 a year. Based on a reasonable definition of income, the Republican tax-cut proposal is focused on the middle class. But Democrats insist that the GOP is intent on stiffing the middle class in order to take care of high rollers. In a battle of credibility on tax policy, the Joint Committee on Taxation demolishes the Clinton administration's Treasury Department. We are inclined to believe the committee when it says 1) Treasury is unfairly inflating income figures to push middle-class families into upper income levels, and 2) the majority of GOP-proposed tax relief is directed to the middle class.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Norfolk Daily News on July 5, 1997. A Promise Kept--Hong Kong Reverts to China; Reason for Pride in What Has Been Achieved Hong Kong residents have been promised a capitalist economy and a relatively free society for at least 50 years. People now alive will be able to see whether the government of China, which continues to be governed by Communists, keeps its word as the British did in turning back this rich, small and independent enclave after their 99-year lease expired June 30. A contract was honored; no gunfire exchanged. That has not been the way of international relations; rather, it is an exception. In farewell remarks, the last British governor of the territory, Chris Patten, said of Hong Kong: ``It is a great Chinese success story written--to be fair--within a system of values and British institutions which have encouraged, not threatened, that success.'' It is an example of what can be achieved when industrious people are free to profit from their hard work and enterprise, and able to live their lives without an oppressive government. Britishers should be proud of what they accomplished as they relinquish control of this remnant of a once huge empire. The future benefits to mankind might turn out to be as significant as those which followed the grim days when they stood virtually alone against Adolf Hitler's aggression.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his concerns regarding the lack of funding for many Army National Guard projects in H.R. 2016. This deficiency, I am told, in funding is apparently the result of a lack of communications by the Army National Guard Bureau with the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee as to the priorities of the various projects requested by each State's Army National Guard. Reference to that matter was previously made a few minutes ago by the gentleman from Massachusetts. There is certainly a lesson to be learned by the Army National Guard Bureau from this process. I believe the Army National Guard Bureau must learn that it can no longer rely on the political connections of the past with respect to both the Congress and the Pentagon. It must also make more energetic efforts to directly communicate its needs and its priorities to the Appropriations Subcommittee. This member recognizes the great difficulty the members of the subcommittee faced in formulating this appropriation bill. It is clear that extremely tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult, especially when coupled with this lack of adequate communications by the Army National Guard Bureau. It is my understanding that this unfortunate situation has resulted in the lack of appropriations for many worthy projects for the Army National Guard, including projects in the districts of the subcommittee members. I strongly regret that circumstance. This member, for example, requested the subcommittee's consideration of two military construction projects for the Nebraska National Guard. They should have received strong consideration and bureau support, and I will expect that this deficiency will be corrected in the short-range future. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this member would like to express his hope that this unfortunate situation is rectified by the Army National Guard Bureau and that a similar predicament is not encountered in the future by members of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations. This criticism of the bureau has to be made, it seems to me, but it is offered by this member for constructive reasons. Therefore, I would hope that the bureau does not have any future sense of retribution for bringing this deficiency to the attention of the body. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the outstanding job they have done on the bill they bring before us.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I oppose House Joint Resolution 79. There is perhaps no more important set of related foreign policy issues for the 21st century than the challenges and opportunities posed by the emergence of a powerful and fast-growing China. However, today we are not having a debate focused on those challenges. Instead, we are debating whether to impose 1930-era Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs on China that the rest of the world and China knows we will never impose. This particular annual debate has become highly counterproductive. It unnecessarily wastes our precious foreign policy leverage and seriously damages our Government's credibility with the leadership of the PRC and with our allies. It hinders our ability to coax the PRC into the international system of world trade rules, nonproliferation norms, and human rights standards. Moreover, Beijing knows the United States cannot deny MFN without severely harming American companies and workers, or without devastating the economy of Hong Kong or Taiwan. It is true, as MFN opponents argue, that ending normal trade relations with China would deliver a very serious blow to the Chinese economy, but the draconian action of raising the average weighted tariff on Chinese imports to 44 percent instead of the current average of 4 to 5 percent would severely harm the United States economy as well. And after China's certain retaliation, many of the approximately 175,000 high-paying export jobs related to United States-China trade would disappear while France, Germany, Canada, and other major trading nations would rush to fill the void. But MFN is about much more than trade. China is an emerging power with a potentially wide range of interests and influence around Asia. Ending normal trade relations with the PRC would not only send that economy into a tailspin, making China's neighbors especially nervous, but would have a devastating impact upon Hong Kong and Taiwan. For example, the Hong Kong Government estimates that as many as 86,000 Hong Kong workers would lose their jobs. Mr. Speaker, ever since President Nixon traveled to China, United States policy has sought to promote a stable and peaceful Asia where America's trade interests could be advanced without sacrificing security. Successive administrations have made expansion of trade relations and economic liberalization key tenets of our China policy. The goal has been not only to expand United States trade, but also to provide a means of giving China a stake in a peaceful, stable, economically dynamic Asia-Pacific region. This approach has worked well and protected not only our national interests, but also those of our friends and allies. Immediately, U.S. dock workers, transportation workers, and retail workers would be harmed until alternative sources for Chinese manufactured goods could be found. For example, the Hong Kong Government estimates that as many as 86,000 Hong Kong workers would lose their jobs if the United States ended normal trade relations with China and, almost incredibly, they project that Hong Kong's gross domestic product would decline by nearly half. That is why Governor Patten recently stated in a letter to Members of Congress that ``unconditional renewal of MFN is the most valuable gift that America has within its power to deliver to Hong Kong at this critical moment in its history.'' And Hong Kong is not alone-- Taiwan also quite appropriately, but too quietly, recognizes the importance of MFN. Last year, key business leaders publicly supported normal trade relations between the United States and China. Mr. Speaker, the United States has convinced nearly every other country in the region that the best way to avoid conflict is to engage each other in trade and closer economic ties. Abandoning this basic tenet of our foreign policy with China would be a serious shock and set back what we have been trying to achieve in the entire Asia-Pacific region. It would send many countries scrambling to choose between China or the United States. Opponents of MFN say that human rights in China have not improved and that the human rights situation in China has deteriorated. I certainly do agree that very serious human rights problems remain including arbitrary detentions, widespread religious persecution, suppression of nearly all political dissent, and coercive abortion practices. But, it is simply wrong to ignore the fact that since the United States embarked on normal trade with China, the day-to-day living standard of the Chinese people has improved dramatically. Moreover, the denial of normal trade relations with China will not directly improve the plight of those courageous advocates of democracy and reform in China--indeed it may worsen their plight and cause repressive action on many more Chinese citizens. In making somewhat of an exit assessment on January 1, 1994, then- United States Ambassador Stapleton Roy said that in the history of China ``[t]he last two years are the best in terms of prosperity, individual choice, access to outside sources of information, freedom of movement within the country and stable domestic conditions.'' Now, 3\1/ 2\ years after Ambassador Roy's observations, those general trends continue; the Chinese people enjoy even more personal choice concerning their career, education, or place of abode. 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 a 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 caveats that permit the government to suppress political dissent, they nonetheless represent progress toward a rule of law in China. There have been other positive developments in China. The National People's Congress showed small but encouraging signs of assertiveness by attacking a government report that failed to adequately address corruption. Village elections, once the sole domain of local Communist party functionaries, have suddenly become contested events--with noncommunists elected in many places. For these reasons, many human rights leaders support normal trade relations. For example, Wei Jingsheng, a prominent dissident still jailed for his eloquent and strongly held democratic beliefs, urges the United States to continue MFN. Similarly, Martin Lee, a democratic leader in Hong Kong, argued for unconditional renewal of MFN on his recent visit to the United States. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee, this member has become convinced that the annual MFN process is counterproductive and undermines United States foreign policy interests with respect to China. However, the United States has other points of leverage where we can encourage China's leaders to be responsible actors in the world community. For example, China's leaders will be faced with many difficult economic reform decisions in the next several decades; Therefore, rather than devoting attention to MFN, the United States should focus on one of the most important foreign policy decisions for the United States: China's accession to the World Trade Organization [WTO]. A good way to maximize our trade leverage is embodied in legislation that this Member and the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Tom Ewing recently introduced. That legislation, the China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act, requires China to pledge adherence to the world's trade rules and accede to the World Trade Organization or face ``snap-back'' tariffs on goods imported to the United States. It would induce China's leaders to join the WTO by eliminating our annual MFN review upon China's membership in the World Trade Organization. Alternatively however, the China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act would require the President to impose realistic, pre-Uruguay Round tariff increases--4-7 percent--on Chinese imports if the PRC continues to deny United States exporters adequate market access or if it does not make significant progress to become a member of the WTO. The PRC's desire to get into the World Trade Organization represents a historic opportunity for the United States to level the playing field for United States companies and workers wanting to sell their products in China. But we should act now. Recent press reports indicate that the PRC's trade negotiators may be walking away from the currently unproductive negotiating table. This news is especially disturbing given that last year's U.S. trade deficit with China was nearly $40 billion and this year's imbalance has risen by 37 percent Secretary of Commerce, William Daley, recently said that ``China remains the only major market in the world where U.S. exports are not growing and this despite significant economic growth in China.'' The China Market Access and Export Opportunities Act is a tough but fair approach to China's WTO accession. The Congress should immediately consider this legislation to accelerate the forces of change that have been unleashed by the PRC's desire to become a part of the world trade community. Economic and trade liberalization reforms in China, which this legislation will promote, not only will reduce our enormous bilateral trade deficit and benefit United States workers and consumers, it will also continue to provide the most positive forces of political and social change in China. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to House Joint Resolution 79.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 342) to extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to Hong Kong economic and trade offices.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] for their statements. This bill allows the President to extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the Hong Kong economic and trade offices of the United States, and there have been three and there will continue to be three. Specifically, the bill allows the President to extend: First authority to contract to acquire property; second, property immunity from search and confiscation; third, an exemption from custom duties; fourth, exemptions from Federal, State and local income taxes; and, fifth, legal protection for official communications. This replicates what is in place now for Hong Kong in its current status. The legislation, as indicated by the gentleman from American Samoa, is necessary to ensure that the Hong Kong civil servants working in the Hong Kong economic and trade offices throughout the United States continue to have the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities after Hong Kong's reversion to China on midnight on June 30, 1997. Hong Kong's civil servants currently have these privileges, exemptions, and immunities under a United States agreement with the United Kingdom. This arrangement, of course, also expires at midnight on June 30, 1997. The State Department has negotiated a new agreement which essentially gives Hong Kong civil servants a basket of privileges, exemptions, and immunities which are roughly equal to that accorded Taiwan civil servants working in the United States. This agreement with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must be authorized by Congress and S. 342 does just that. The Senate passed this noncontroversial legislation under unanimous consent on May 20, 1997. The House previously considered this exact legislation, as the gentleman from American Samoa mentioned, as a part of a larger bill, H.R. 750, authored by this gentleman, the Hong Kong Reversion Act, on March 11, 1997. So this legislation has been acted upon by the House as a part of a larger bill. That bill at the time passed on a rollcall vote by 416 to 1 under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, in concluding, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that S. 342 would result in no significant cost to the Federal Government. CBO states that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates and would not impose any cost on State, local or tribal governments. My colleagues have heard indicated that the administration is supportive of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of S. 342. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume first to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as an original and strongly committed cosponsor, this Member rises in support of House Joint Resolution 54, the measure before us today which proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to ban the physical desecration of the American flag. Certainly, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue of whether or not it is desirable to change the Constitution to permit legislation to protect the American flag. However, opponents of such a constitutional amendment are not entitled to sanctimoniously wrap themselves in the Constitution citing the first amendment. Our Constitution provides a way that Americans can amend it through State ratification. Like the majority of Americans and the vast majority of this Member's Nebraska constituents, this Member believes it is appropriate to propose a constitutional amendment for a legislative method to protect the most important symbol of our Nation--the American flag. This Member disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Johnson versus Texas, which overruled the conviction by the State of Texas of a protester at the 1984 Republican National Convention for setting the American flag on fire. The Court ruled that the burning of the American flag was a form of expression protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. In Congress, this Member has been a strong supporter of a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson versus Texas. For over 200 years the American flag has occupied a precious spot in the hearts of our Nation's citizens. It is a unique symbol of the principles and values which make this country great and which are generally shared by American citizens. Many have sacrificed, fought, and died under our flag for freedoms forged by the principles and values embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution. This is an important step to ensure that States and Congress can enact legislation protecting our flag without fear that these laws will be ruled unconstitutional.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, I can attest that European members do pay the bulk of NATO costs now. While we believe that new members of NATO, as they are added, should and will pay most of the cost of expansion, we agree to that, we believe that would be the case. That is our expectation. Beyond that, we agree that the existing 14 European countries should pay and will pay the bulk of the expansion costs. Therefore, we agree with and support the instructions offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as we began to hear, we have had substantial violence which is directly attributable, in substantial part at least, to the guerrilla movement in East Timor. I will read now from a report from Human Rights Watch/Asia, dated June 4, 1997. A series of attacks between May 27 and May 31 by resistance forces in East Timor, leading to the deaths of at least 9 civilians and more than 20 military and police, has led to widespread arrests of suspected resistance supporters throughout the territory. Human Rights Watch/Asia condemns any targeting of civilians or other noncombatants by East Timorese guerrillas as being in clear violation of international humanitarian law. That statement on the part of Human Rights Watch lays out a variety of abuses which led to death attributed to the activities of the East Timorese guerrillas. They issued a report the following day which backed away from one of those specific reported incidents, saying, ``We do not have the kind of documentation we need.'' But basically, their assessment stands. From the Washington Post News Service, I read to my colleagues an account from May 31, 1997. ``Separatist guerrillas bombed a police truck with grenades Saturday, killing 17 officers during one of the worst outbreaks of violence in years in the disputed Indonesian territory of East Timor. The deaths raised to 41 the number of people killed in rebel attacks in the past week in East Timor.'' I would like to see some of my colleagues who are concerned about violence in East Timor stand up and bring this guerrilla violence to the attention of the House under a 1-minute statement or a Special Order. That did not happen. Let me mention to my colleagues a few more sections of the secondary amendment that I am offering here today. The following statement is a part of the amendment in addition to the section which the Clerk read: ``The Indonesian authorities and the resistance forces,'' and bear in mind I am talking about both there, ``Indonesian authorities and resistance forces in East Timor must refrain from human rights violations, including attacks on civilians and noncombatants.'' Finally, in addition to the sense of Congress elements that the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] has added, I add this sense of the Congress section: It is also the sense of the Congress that the violent acts of the resistance in East Timor should be condemned, as they discredit the East Timorese cause and could result in additional violent reprisals by Indonesian armed forces. So, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, in the amendment that I have offered, I am striking nothing that the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] has in his amendment. I am striking not a single word of it. But I am adding, by the words of my secondary amendment, an indication that violence on the part of the Indonesian rebels in East Timor is itself a very counterproductive step and one that we should deplore. This violence is not the approach to efforts to gain additional degrees of autonomy or whatever their legitimate goals might be. Finally, I want to say as a matter of personal privilege that, of course, while I respect the organization granting the Nobel Peace Prize, I do have to say that while I certainly have nothing but praise for what I understand to be the positions and actions of Bishop Belo, I do indeed wonder about Jose Ramos Horta and whether or not his efforts are totally directed toward finding, as the Kennedy amendment says, a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor. I say that in part because when he came to my office earlier this year, when I visited with him, he made false reports about the conclusions and my views after we had that meeting, which he sent to Chairman Gilman by letter. That is not the kind of conduct that I think we would expect from a person who was the corecipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, nor do I think such a false statement by Mr. Horta serves us well or serves his cause well, either. I understand that his intent probably is to pursue independence for East Timor. That objective is contrary to U.S. policy. It is a legitimate intent on his part, but I believe he ought to use proper means for arriving at those goals. So I hope for reasons of a balanced amendment on this matter related to Indonesia, that my colleagues will support the secondary amendment offered by the gentleman to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.