Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a combination of legislation individually sponsored by myself (H.R. 35, the Fair Trade Opportunities Act) and Representative Ewing (H.R. 941). Removes China from the annual Most-Favored Nation [MFN] process when that country accedes to the World Trade Organization under an accession process that is supported by the United States. After China's accession to the World Trade Organization, the President would no longer have to waive or certify that China meet Jackson-Vanik requirements. China would receive normal tariff status routinely unless either the Congress or the President used other existing authority to raise tariffs on China's goods. Requires the President to utilize a strategic and flexible ``snap- back'' tariff if China either denies United States adequate trade benefits or fails to take adequate steps to become a member of the WTO. On a one-time basis and within 6-months of the enactment of the legislation, the President would be required to determine if China is ``not according adequate trade benefits''--defined in existing law--to the United States or if China is not taking adequate steps to become a WTO member. If the President makes such a finding, then the President shall impose snap-back tariffs on China 6-months after that determination. In imposing snap-back tariffs, the President has wide discretion to determine both the amount of the tariff and on which categories of products the snap-back tariffs will be imposed. However, under no circumstances can the President exceed the legislation's snap- back tariff ceiling which is the pre-Uruguay round MFN tariff rates, for example, the column No. 1 tariff rates in effect on December 31, 1994. A study by the Congressional Research Service estimates that if the President were to utilize his full snap-back authority, for example, on the top 25 Chinese exports to the United States--based on 1995 figures--an additional $325 million in tariff revenue would be generated for the United States Treasury.--This estimate is not adjusted to reflect any downward demand for the product due to the increased tariff. The President would be required to terminate the imposed snap-back tariffs on China on the date China becomes a WTO member or on the date the President determines that China is according adequate trade benefits to the United States or making taking significant steps to become a WTO member, whichever is earlier. The President would also be able to modify the snap-back tariffs for any reason as long as the appropriate congressional committees are notified.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1306, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of this important legislation which preserves the State bank charter as a viable, competitive alternative to the national bank charter. The dual banking system in the United States has been vital to the development of the world's strongest banking system. State-chartered banks are often the laboratory where new, innovative products are tested and perfected. Checking accounts, electronic funds transfers, and bank insurance sales were all introduced by State-chartered banks. However, the dual banking system has come under assault recently. The Clinton administration has tried on no less than five occasions to impose Federal examination fees, or taxes, on State-chartered banks, only to have them rejected overwhelmingly by the House Banking Committee. Now, there is opposition to this legislation which was introduced to ensure that the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act will be implemented in a manner which meets its intended goal, which is to permit State-chartered banks to branch across State lines. This Member was intimately involved in the original Riegle-Neal Act, and was concerned at that time that States' rights were protected. That's why this Member proposed and was joined by his distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, in offering the opt out provision which was eventually included in that act. However, this Member most certainly does not agree with the argument, being made by groups ranking from the Consumer Federation of America to Consumers Union and the National Conference of State Legislatures, that the bill is an assault on States' rights. This Member believes that this measure actually reinforces States' rights by maintaining the viability of the State charter by ensuring parity with the national bank charter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Member will vote in favor of this legislation and urges his colleagues to join him in approving this important protection of the dual banking system.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 911. I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for introducing this legislation. I have been a longtime supporter and cosponsor of such legislation. The fact is that in our increasingly litigious society, volunteers are being sued more often. Insurance premiums for charitable organizations are increasing at a dramatic rate. As a 1988 poll shows, 10 percent of all volunteers are rethinking their existing commitment to charitable work. Despite the concerns that were raised by the distinguished gentlemen from Illinois and North Carolina, this Member consciously supports what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] has termed the federalization of tort reform in this area because of the unreasonable opposition in this area of tort reform among some in the legal community in some States, because the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] has pointed to the opt out, State opt out provisions and because of the arguments made by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The measure could very well be entitled the Good Samaritan Act. As the New Testament parable makes clear, only a few people are willing to sacrifice their time and money to help others. That remains true today. Mr. Speaker, those who are willing to help others should not be penalized by the threat of lawsuit if someone is inadvertently harmed during the course of a volunteer activity. In closing, I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so. And, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me the time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the chairman, for yielding me this time. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I, of course, rise in strong support of it. It condemns the tragic and unprovoked grenade attack that occurred on Easter Sunday morning at a political rally in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is to be commended for his initiative in working with the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and his earlier initiative in introducing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, Cambodia has, of course, made tremendous strides toward democracy since the killing fields of Pol Pot and the Vietnamese occupation, but serious problems remain. There are real concerns about the deterioration of human rights problems in that country. The most troubling in a string of recent violent incidents occurred on Easter morning, March 30, at a morning rally before the National Assembly building in Phnom Penh. Unknown assailants threw handgrenades into a peaceful rally being held by several opposition parties. Almost certainly the target of this highly coordinated attack was Sam Rainsy, the former finance minister and the leader of the opposition Khmer National Party. Mr. Rainsy escaped serious injury only because his bodyguard sacrificed his life when shielding him from the blast. Although it is difficult to get a firm number, at least 16 individuals were killed and over 100 were wounded. One of those who was seriously wounded was Ron Abney, an employee of the National Endowment for Democracy's International Republican Institute. He was present at this rally in his capacity as an employee of the National Endowment for Democracy, and it almost certainly cost him his life. Almost. He was seriously injured. The United States and the international community have an enormous amount invested in the peace process in Cambodia. Following the 1991 Paris Peace accord, international donors have plunged more than $1 billion into ensuring that peace and normality return to Cambodia. House Resolution 121 sends the strong message that political violence should not be allowed to return to Cambodia. Assassinations, bombings, and grenade attacks are not acceptable forms of political expression. The political parties in Cambodia must be made to understand that they cannot go down the path of political violence. They must know that the international community will not tolerate or support parties that condone political intimidation or violence. House Resolution 121 represents a balanced and constructive effort to advance democracy and human rights in Cambodia. I commend, as I said, the gentleman from California for introducing the legislation. He has a long and distinguished record as an advocate for basic political liberties. It is this Member's understanding that the gentleman from California will be working with the National Endowment for Democracy as an election observer in the upcoming election in Cambodia. While such activities can be arduous, it is nevertheless extremely important, particularly in a country such as Cambodia that has such a fragile democracy. This Member also thanks the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for moving this initiative in such an expeditious manner. While the committee's schedule has been hectic, the gentleman from New York has been very gracious in addressing special concerns, such as the resolution before the body today. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for his support, as well as my ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the careful attention of the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] on the events in Cambodia and his initiative in sponsoring this resolution. I urge support of House Resolution 121.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, welcome to Mr. Redmond. This Member rises to urge his colleagues from hurricane-prone areas to remind their constituents and news columns and news releases that hurricane season is quickly approaching and, the key point, that now is the time to review their flood insurance policies to ensure adequate coverage. As of March 1, 1995, the national flood insurance program very appropriately, under congressional direction, imposes a 30-day waiting period between the time the premium is paid and the time the policy takes effect. This important change was made to encourage at-risk individuals to maintain adequate coverage at all times rather than waiting to purchase coverage only when danger is imminent. Constituents must take proper care of their investment by purchasing adequate flood insurance coverage at least 30 days prior to a disaster. Without taking this simple step, they have no standing to ask the other policyholders or the taxpayers to bail them out if their investment is lost due to unexpected flooding. This is fair warning that we should pass on to our constituents. If Members need more information, contact FEMA.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Bob Devaney has left a tremendous legacy that extends across the State of Nebraska and continues to touch coaches, players, and fans with whom he came into contact. As a football coach, he instilled a sense of pride in his players and their fans and helped make Nebraska a winner both on and off the field. It is clear from the statistics that Bob Devaney was an exceptional football coach. He took a team with a history of losing and instantly transformed it into a victorious powerhouse with a national reputation for success. The turnaround was dramatic. Since his first year as head coach, the team has not had a losing record. During Devaney's tenure as coach, the Nebraska Cornhuskers won or shared eight Big Eight championships and were crowned as National Champion twice. His teams compiled an impressive record of 101-20-2. As a coach, Devaney was a skilled motivator and teacher. However, Devaney's influence on Nebraska extended far beyond the football field. He created a unifying experience for the State's citizens which is unrivaled in the Nation. Devaney created a positive bond that was obvious not only on football Saturday, but during the week and throughout the year. He drew together east and west; urban and rural; man, woman, and child. The State was fortunate to have the benefit of Devaney's leadership and expertise not only as a coach but also as athletic director for the University of Nebraska. In that capacity, he helped establish quality facilities programs for women and men, and established a winning attitude throughout the athletic department. Bob Devaney earned the respect of his coaches, his players, and fans across the State and throughout the Nation. He demonstrated what can be accomplished through collegiate athletics. With his competitive spirit, lively sense of humor, and genuine concern for his players, Devaney set a positive example of success and good sportsmanship which lives on in Nebraska's football program and throughout the lives of Nebraskans. This Member would like to commend to his colleagues the following editorials from the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal-Star. The editorials highlight the importance of Bob Devaney to the State of Nebraska and his legacy that will always endure. [From the Omaha World-Herald, May 11, 1997] Bob Devaney, Builder of Pride Bob Devaney. The name unleashes a flood of symbols and memories. Johnnie the Jet. Gotham Bowl. The Game of the Century. Tagge- Brownson. Back-to-back national football championships. Tom Osborne. Expansion after expansion of Memorial Stadium. A sea of helium-filled red balloons, released by thousands of football fans on Nebraska's first touchdown of the game, hanging in the air above Lincoln on a brilliant fall day. Even before Devaney's death on Friday, it had been been an often-repeated cliche that Devaney's impact on Nebraska went far beyond football, that he brought Nebraskans together, east and west. But like most other cliches, this one is backed by solid evidence. A stumbling athletic program wasn't the only negative that greeted Devaney when he accepted the head coaching job in 1962. The state's spirit in general had been bruised by events of the previous five years. The Starkweather mass murders were still fresh in people's memories. A governor had recently died in office. Angry debates over tax policy and school financing, gathering steam since the 1940s, were dividing urban and rural Nebraska interests. Nebraskans were ready for a little good news. Devaney gave it to them. Under him, the Cornhuskers played with noticeably greater verve. They won games that they would have lost in earlier years. They began appearing in the national ratings. Then the Top 10. Finally, in 1970 and 1971, they were national champions. Interstate 80 was pushing westward across Nebraska in those days. Westerners sometimes asked what good it was. Devaney's success gave people in Hyannis, Kimball and Scottsbluff a reason to use the new superhighway. Cowboy boots and Stetsons, often bright red, became a familiar sight in Lincoln on autumn Saturdays. Lincoln's economy benefited. East-west friendships grew stronger. The financial success of the football team made it possible for Nebraska to have a high-caliber women's athletic program. The classy Devaney football teams gave the university national visibility. Some people say that too much is made of college athletics, and they're right. Devaney knew that. Remember, he told fans before a game in 1965, there are 800 million people in China ``who don't give a damn whether Nebraska wins or loses.'' There are bigger things in life than whether the team wins. Devaney never seemed driven or angry. He respected his opponents. His spirit of good sportsmanship lives on in the Memorial Stadium fans who traditionally applaud Nebraska's opponents at the end of each game, even when Nebraska loses. Devaney never set out to transform Nebraska. He would have laughed if someone in 1962 said he was responsible for propping up the self-esteem of an entire state. He was just a man with something he could do very, very well. But excellence on the football field inspired excellence in other walks of life. Devaney's success, and the positive influence his accomplishments had on his adopted state, constitutes a memorial that will long bring honor to his name.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thought it might be helpful to explain the kind of reforms that are not contained in the Kennedy substitute. I want to go over those major reforms that are in the legislation but not in the Kennedy substitute. The Kennedy substitute does not provide for family rent choice. It does not target fungibility between public housing and choice-based programs. It does not provide for the home rule flexibility grant option which we have in title IV. It does not include the accreditation board. It is controversial, but the House has spoken on that issue. It does not provide the Traficant CDBG antipiracy and regional cooperation provisions. It does not include the Jackson-Lee amendment to section 3 regarding resident employment. It does not require consultation with affected areas in settlement of litigation. It does not require the Klink-Doyle consultation with local governments' requirement regarding the building of new public housing. It does not provide for block grant provisions for small PHAs. It does not have improvements in the least in grievance compromise. It does not include technical corrections to legal alien provisions governing public housing. It does not include the prohibition of national occupancy standards. Those occupancy standards, I would suggest, should be a matter of local decisions, local regulations or at most, State law. Now these are the very important reform elements that are contained in H.R. 2 but which are not contained in the Kennedy substitute. I think they are very important. I think, therefore, these reforms are very necessary for public housing authorities and for the residents that live in them and for the people that attempt to run our public housing agencies and for the governing bodies in those jurisdictions. Mr. Chairman, we should reject the Kennedy substitute and support the passage of the legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is very simple; it is to express the condolences of the House to the family of Chaim Herzog, the late President of the State of Israel, and to the people and Government of that State. Chaim Herzog was, as many know, the son of a rabbi, in fact, the son of the Chief Rabbi of Ireland. He became a soldier in the British Army, landing in Normandy and running British intelligence in northern Germany. Later he was a lawyer and a diplomat serving in the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and as Permanent Representative to the United Nations. In the culmination of his career, he became the President of the State of Israel. The President of Israel is its Head of State, standing above politics but critical to the public life of the country and a symbol of its unity. Mr. Speaker, this Member joins with my colleagues in expressing our thanks for the life of Chaim Herzog and our condolences to his family in Israel and his friends and admirers around the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 73) concerning the death of Chaim Herzog.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the assistance of Mr. James Soriano, a Pearson Fellow from the Department of State who has been on our full committee staff for the past year, and helped us with this resolution and many other items during that period. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to go back and remember what the situation is. In some parts of the country, the public housing agencies and programs they run for the working poor, for the poor, for less privileged Americans, are an absolute disgrace. We are trying to provide some innovation here, some flexibility so that innovation can come forth. What is being proposed to be struck here is the home rule flexibility grant option. Let us take a look briefly at what we are attempting to do here. We are trying to encourage innovation in housing programs at the local level. We are trying to give localities the ability to present to HUD an alternative plan to provide housing for the community. This is where we have the troubled housing authorities that have failed. Currently there is very little incentive for local leaders to attempt to solve some of the problems in local housing. In some cases they have no option. The public housing authority operates as a very separate entity. There are also no incentives really for local leaders to contribute scarce resources where needed. Title IV tells local leaders if they are serious about making contributions to solving some of the problems of housing in their communities, then they are going to be given the flexibility to do that. Everything, however, requires HUD approval, ensuring a responsible Federal oversight role in the process, despite what we might have heard a few minutes ago. In an attempt to accommodate and to take into account some of the concerns raised in the committee or at subcommittee discussions earlier, there are a number of protections in the manager's amendment that has been adopted. For example, we require that the Secretary ensure that the jurisdiction has management capability to carry out the plan they propose. Second, the plan does not lead to excessive duplication of administrative efforts. Third, the plan demonstrates the functions and the activities of the local PHA. Next, it ensures housing funds are specifically used for housing purposes by requiring a separate housing fund, so these funds cannot be diverted for other purposes, to suit the mayor's attention. It provides an opportunity for the PHA to comment upon the alternative plan. They are not shut out of the process. It provides flexibility to the HUD Secretary to establish different requirements for troubled housing authorities. It requires jurisdictional consent when there are other cross-jurisdictional concerns. And it clarifies that this title, title IV, does not require a city government takeover or legal status change of the PHA. The flexibility is there, the protections are there to the American taxpayer, to the people in the community who are not being served well now by these troubled housing authorities. This is a basic and important reform. We need to keep title IV in and reject the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 2. As a member of the House Banking Committee and its Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, this Member has actively participated in the drafting and consideration of this legislation. The gentleman from New York, Rick Lazio should be complemented for the hard work and perseverance he has shown over the past 3 years as chairman of the Housing Subcommittee. His leadership has allowed this bill to come to the floor today and he should be commended. For too long, the Nation's public housing programs have been run by a centralized bureaucracy with little to no input by local officials. H.R. 2 provides a new paradigm for the provision of Federal public housing programs. Rather than centralizing decisionmaking in Washington, the bill provides greater flexibility for local elected officials to work with public housing agencies to determine the housing needs of the community and decide the best way to meet these needs. Further, many of the Federal mandates which have been added over the years are eliminated. This again is in the spirit of moving control out of Washington. Additionally, the bill makes positive changes in the current policy of warehousing the poorest of the poor in inadequate housing by promoting mixed-income communities. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to read from the declaration of policy contained in H.R. 2, which clearly states the goals the bill sets, specifically: ``(1) the Federal government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare of the nation by using Federal resources to aid families and individuals seeking affordable homes that are safe, clean, and healthy and, in particular, assisting responsible, deserving citizens who cannot provide fully for themselves because of temporary circumstances or factors beyond their control; by working to ensure a thriving national economy and a strong private housing market; and by developing effective partnerships amount the Federal Government, State and local governments, and private entities that allow government to accept responsibility for fostering the development of a healthy marketplace and allow families to prosper without government involvement in their day-to-day activities. (2) The Federal Government cannot through its direct action alone provide for the housing of every American citizen, or even a majority of its citizens, but it is the responsibility of the Government to promote and protect the independent and collective actions of private citizens to develop housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods. (3) The Federal Government should act where there is a serious need that private citizens or groups cannot or are not addressing responsibly. (4) Housing is a fundamental and necessary component of bringing true opportunity to people and communities in need, but providing physical structures to house low-income families will not by itself pull generations up from poverty. (5) It is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing and our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent and affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts and encouragement of Federal, State and local governments, and by the independent and collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and the private sector.'' Again, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2 and urges his colleagues to join him in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this week Nebraskans bade farewell to an extraordinary man. State Senator Jerome Warner, a family man, a farmer, a fine and honorable gentleman, and a preeminent citizen legislator, died at the age of 69, after 35 years of service to our State in its unicameral legislature. The extraordinary qualities and abilities of the gentleman from Waverly, NE, have long been recognized across our State. In recent weeks and months Nebraskans have praised him with such words as ``integrity, courage, dignity, honest, genuine, outstanding legislator, a force of nature, friendly, All-American, trustworthy, unpretentious, fair, builder, modest, consummately ethical, revered, bred for public service, the Dean, captain of the ship, and progressive.'' Jerry was only 9 years old when his father was elected speaker of the first session of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, and the senior Warner served nearly 40 years as a Nebraska legislator, including 23 years as speaker. In his 35 years as a State senator, Jerry Warner served as speaker, too, three times, as chairman of practically all of the important committees, including the appropriations, revenue and education committees, and in many other formal and informal leadership roles. In his early years in the legislature, Jerry worked successfully to provide State aid so that schools could be less dependent on property taxes. Thirty years later, he continued that effort to provide even more State aid for education. Jerry was chairman of the appropriations committee for 13 years. During the farm crisis in the 1980's, when the revenues from sales and income taxes fell, Jerry found ways to cut State spending. Throughout his service on the appropriations committee, when a shortfall loomed, Jerry produced a plan to pull the State through its fiscal difficulties. In addition, throughout his life, Jerry farmed on the same family farm where he was born in 1927, and he bred registered Hereford cattle. He finally leased out the farm land 3 years ago and sold the last of his cattle last month. Some Nebraskans have wondered why Jerry never ran for higher office. I think I know. For him there was no higher office than serving one's fellow citizens in our unicameral legislature--as a ``citizen legislator.'' I served with Jerry Warner for only 4 years, but that was a wonderful and significant time for me. When he first moved to the appropriations committee and became its chairman in 1977, I was new to the vice chairman role. Together, as we worked alone, night after night, we poured over the budget until midnight hours. We made some big changes in direction. But more importantly, during these nights I learned about the depth of this man's commitment to Nebraska's welfare and about the unrivalled depth of his knowledge of the State. Thereafter, I always knew my first and best source of information--practical and historical--about Nebraska State government was Jerry Warner. Up close I learned about the intellect and rationality behind that very special twinkle in Jerry's eye. I am so very appreciative that I had the privilege of knowing him and working with him, of his good counsel, and of all that he did to make Nebraska a much better place to live. Jerry Warner made a big, big difference for the better here on earth. What better legacy can one leave? Jerome Warner of Waverly, NE, a giant in his accomplishments, has walked modestly among us, but none before him or probably none after him will ever match his legislative achievements in Nebraska. [From the Lincoln (NE) Journal Star, Apr. 22, 1997] From Life to Legacy: Warner's Long Season of Selfless Service Toward the end, people who knew him well were at special pains to pay tribute to Jerome Warner. The energy to speak in admiration and in gratitude bubbled up at about the same rate that Warner's own energies wore down. It is a measure of this man's quiet, simple greatness that even those who did not know him well could know how fine, how decent a man he was. Like a cold wind, the thought rushes in upon us now that we were somehow vastly unprepared for his death Sunday. Our search for warmth and for solace leads us to simple truths that passed from the seat of state government to the farthest corners of this state over a 35-year career. Jerome Warner is a man of his word. Jerome Warner defines what it means to be a public servant. Jerome Warner is the kind of leader who cares more about what he gets done than how he describes it. The Revenue Committee puts its sense of urgency about failing health into action as calendars turned to April 1997. Sens. David Landis of Lincoln and George Coordsen of Hebron were among those to take some time to praise Warner for his leadership, for his selflessness, for his ability to see out ahead to new problems and new solutions. Never one for spectacle or smooth speeches, the chairman took it all in from behind those glasses that gave his eyes such owl-like hugeness and suggested the committee adjourn. As applause rolled across the room, he declared, ``I guess we're done.'' Now at least in the most immediate sense, we citizens of Nebraska are done with the life of Jerome Warner. Thankfully, his legacy is just beginning. As was so typical of him, he gave almost all of his remaining energy to the legislative task. He did not check into Tabitha's hospice program in Lincoln until a few days before his death. The tributes that began back when cancer had so clearly gained the upper hand continue in a torrent. But the words now are words we pass among ourselves. We comfort each other, we try to reassure each other, and we look anxiously for others half so willing, half so able to help us find our way. The Warner legislative legacy includes establishing state aid to education. It includes an end to pork-barrel politics in use of highway funds and stout defense of using highway money for highway purposes. It includes hard and unfinished work in the 1997 session in trying to salvage quality education from property tax relief. In earlier sessions of his life, Warner spent his days in the Legislature and his nights on the tractor. It is a fitting way, in this last session, to remember a citizen- senator who did so much to bring together the interests of rural Nebraska and the interests of all of Nebraska. It is a fitting, sunset vision of ambitions that were so characteristically focused first on his state, rather than on himself.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 688, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act. As an original cosponsor of the legislation, this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for introducing this bill and working for its enactment. Across the Nation, leaking underground storage tanks present a hazard which must be addressed. Unfortunately, less than half of the identified leaking tanks have been remedied. In addition, there are likely thousands of other unidentified leaking tanks which require action. This legislation improves the current situation by distributing more money from the existing trust fund to the States where it belongs. The trust fund was established by Congress in 1986 and currently contains about $1 billion. Although the trust fund is intended to provide assistance in the cleanup of underground storage tanks, too much of the money in the trust fund has been used to offset general Federal spending. This Member certainly believes that the money in the trust fund should be used for the purposes for which it was originally intended; money simply accumulating in the trust fund obviously does not address the current needs. The large number of remaining leaking underground storage tank sites is evidence that the States could use this money which is currently accumulating in the trust fund. This bill would assist States in more efficiently receiving and disbursing money from the trust fund. It would also give the States increased flexibility in the use of money from the trust fund. This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 688.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in reluctant opposition to House Joint Resolution 62, the so-called tax limitation amendment. Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by Congress for any tax increases. However, as a matter of conscience, this Member cannot do that. As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the House 1 year ago, there is a great burden of proof to deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proponents of this amendment have met this burden. There should be no question of this Member's continued and enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring such. Tax increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget. That is why this Member supported the inclusion of a supermajority requirement in the rules of the House which were adopted at the beginning of the 104th and 105th Congresses. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in this Member's opinion, unreasonable and it is the reason for why this Member will vote against House Joint Resolution 62.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman from Florida especially for his mentioning the fact that we did bring up the low-level nuclear waste issue on Taiwan aggressively, firmly, clearly, and conveyed our concerns and those of the Republica of Korea. The Speaker has asked if I would yield next to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, and I will return then to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the dean of the House, the senior Democrat on the Speaker's codel, and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the special order I have taken out today is to relate to the House and to the American people the details about a trip to Asia led by the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and 11 other Members of the House during the period of March 23 through April 2 of this year. Accompanying Speaker Gingrich was the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives and the senior Member of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Robert Livingston, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. John Boehner, the gentleman from California, Mr. Chris Cox, the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Jennifer Dunn, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Alcee Hastings, the gentleman from California, Mr. Jay Kim, the gentleman from California, Mr. Ed Royce, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. William ``Jeff'' Jefferson, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mark Foley, and this Member. Also accompanying us on part of the trip, that part relating to China, Japan, and Taiwan, was the junior Senator from the State of Florida, Connie Mack. Mr. Speaker, in this trip we visited the following cities, in this order: first to Seoul, Korea; then to Hong Kong; to Beijing; to Shanghai; to Tokyo; and to Taipei, Taiwan. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, some 2 years ago when I took control and chairmanship of the subcommittee, I set out three guiding objectives. The first of those objectives is to maintain our military and naval strength in the Pacific region, because it is in our national interest, and because our military and naval forces there are a source of security for the entire region. I think it makes it much less likely that we will have extraordinary arms races in East or Southeast Asia, as long as a military presence is there from the United States. Indeed, it is rather remarkable that every nation in the region, with the possible exception of North Korea, wants the United States to be there in that significant role. Constantly we are asked whether or not the United States is there and will retain its forces there in the foreseeable future. The second guiding objective is to maintain and in fact enhance our economic presence in the region, our business presence, our export presence, our American business activity, including investments. Third, rather than check them at the door, the guiding principle will be to take American objectives and principles to Asia and continue to push for their introduction and sustenance. They would include, of course, the rule of law, a democracy, free and fair elections, and human rights, as well as taking economic freedom to the region. Those are the objectives that were pursued by the Speaker's CODEL to Asia. I am very pleased that so many of my colleagues, in a bipartisan effort, made this trip. I would like to begin very briefly, until I am joined by the Speaker and other Members. First of all, I would mention as an overview a few things about the countries that we visited. First, the Republic of Korea, which we know, of course, is South Korea, this is our fifth largest trading partner. Our exports to the Republic of Korea exceed $30 billion with a trade surplus of about $3.9 billion during 1996. Our meetings in Seoul, South Korea, oriented Members regarding the problems of instability and deep economic and food problems in North Korea and the nature of North Korea's military threat to South Korea. We had top level access to South Korean Government officials, including an hour with President Kim Yong-sam, who took all of our questions and then honored our visit with a subsequent luncheon in the Blue House. We visited the demilitarized zone, a very unusual place, I must say, on this planet and participated in military briefings by the commander of all United States forces in Korea. The Speaker also had an opportunity to visit the officers and troops of the U.S. Army 2d Division in their forward sector on the DMZ. We have about 37,000 American military personnel in Korea, most of them forward based along the DMZ. And that, of course, does not include military dependents and civilian members of the U.S. Government. I will also briefly mention our trip to Japan before we proceed to discussion of China, even though it is out of order. In Japan we also had access to top leadership, including a breakfast and question and answer period with Prime Minister Hashimoto. He assured us that in the next few days, at that time, he would lead an effort to proceed with the extension of leases for the reconfigured United States bases in Okinawa, even if it jeopardized his government. The trip reemphasized the fact for all of us that Japan is our most crucial military ally in East Asia. The fact that it has the second largest economy in the world by a wide margin and the fact that the state of our military and political relationship with Japan is excellent. However, we continue to have major trade difficulties with Japan, and several of us raised trade issues with the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].

Mr. BEREUTER. I do agree, and as the Speaker said, it is not one system and one and a half. It is two systems, and this agreement of autonomy to Hong Kong carries with it the need to have free assembly and an opportunity to peacefully demonstrate. So I hope they reverse their actions if in fact this is their proposal.

Mr. BEREUTER. The Bridge of No Return.

Mr. BEREUTER. I think so, absolutely.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask of my colleague to reclaim my time and to compliment the gentleman for all of his contributions throughout this trip. Frequently the Speaker pointed out the gentleman as an example to our Asian friends of an immigrant who succeeded remarkably in this country as so many have from various parts of the world. I wonder if the gentleman would indulge me in yielding the remaining 5 minutes to our colleague who has not had a chance to speak. If the gentleman will stand by, we may have a chance for a concluding colloquy. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who made invaluable contributions on this trip.