Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent contributions on the trip and her comments, and I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for allowing us this time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great comments, and I know that I speak for all of my colleagues in thanking him for his role in this delegation. And the gentleman did not mention, but the Speaker called meeting after meeting after meeting, including at 9 o'clock at night or later. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] for any remarks he may wish to make.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. Indeed he did have the full support of the delegation in that respect and in all others. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], my colleague from the Committee on International Relations, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa. As Speaker Gingrich reminded everyone on the trip, he is also the Republican who has the district which contains more Asian-Americans than any other Republican member.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for his comments. As my colleagues well know, when the gentleman made his contributions on our trip, it was always speaking from authority and speaking with a complete knowledge of the issue, and it will not surprise his constituents in Michigan to know that among other important economic issues and trade issues he brought up, autos and auto parts in Korea and especially before the Minister of International Trade and Industry were high on the agenda and were articulately addressed by the gentleman from Michigan, in which I joined him.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the Speaker for that excellent summary and inspirational discussion of really what he, as leader of this delegation, and what this delegation attempted to achieve while we were on our Asia visit. With the indulgence of my colleagues, I am going to go back to take another 4 or 5 minutes to try to set the stage as I did with respect to Korea and Japan, and then I will call on Members. I think we have sufficient time. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], has a special order hour as necessary. But let me now go briefly to Hong Kong, the PRC, and Taiwan, and discuss them as a whole. The economists refer to this today as a greater economic China. Certainly a major focus of our trip was a cluster of issues related to Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan. We intentionally visited Hong Kong first among these elements of greater economic China because of the imminent reversion of Hong Kong from British rule on July 1, 1997, to China, where it will become a special administrative region within the People's Republic of China. American interests in Hong Kong are huge. With more than 1,100 American businesses located there, 450 of them are regional headquarters. In fact, it is the largest American Chamber of Commerce abroad in the world. With more than $14 billion of American investments there and about $14 billion in American exports to Hong Kong last year, we actually had a surplus with Hong Kong of $4.1 billion. Therefore, the United States Government and the American people are very concerned about the Chinese keeping their promises under the Sino-British accord of 1984, which assured Hong Kong's autonomy from the PRC in all matters but defense and foreign affairs. In short of Deng Xiaoping's policy, China has had a two-systems-in- one-country arrangement. This will be an important but very challenging task for the Chinese even though they understand the importance of Hong Kong to their economy, and especially with their trade to the outside world. We discussed these and other important issues with Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, American and Hong Kong business interests, human rights activists, representatives of the news media, a diverse panel of religious leaders, and the critics of China on the existing legislative council. We also met with British Governor Chris Patton at considerable length and had a very candid and informative discussion. We made it clear to all interested parties in Hong Kong and to Chinese leaders in Beijing that we want the Chinese to keep their promises of a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong and that we wish them every success in implementing their two systems/one country concept. This will be an important precedent for the eventual peaceful, noncoercive unification of Taiwan with mainland China, an outcome that is consistent with our long-standing bipartisan, one-China policy. In Beijing, we expressed the same interest and concerns about the Hong Kong autonomy issue. We made it clear that we would be observing their progress in keeping their promises and that the Congress of the United States in the 1992 Hong Kong Policy Act authorized the President to modify United States law with respect to Hong Kong if these promises were broken. We indicated our willingness to assist the Chinese in understanding the importance of ensuring that second system within China for Hong Kong which preserves the rule of law, freedom of press, civil liberties, free and fair elections for the legislature, and what is thought to be the most advanced state of economic freedom in the world. Also in Beijing, Speaker Gingrich spoke for the entire delegation in reconfirming our support for a one-China policy. He stressed that unification with Taiwan must be by peaceful means and reiterated the formal United States House position and congressional viewpoint that the United States would defend Taiwan against an attack and that unification would only take place by peaceful means. This direct statement was delivered in a nonhostile manner by Speaker Gingrich and actually was surprisingly well received by the Chinese leadership, including President Jiang Zemin. Rather than the usual anti-Taiwan tirade, the key leaders said only that they had no intention of attacking Taiwan, and we went on to other productive items of discussion. We also made it clear to both sides, including the Taiwanese, that they should avoid provocative actions. In Taipei, these comments were reiterated, and in fact it was specifically mentioned that Taiwanese or Taiwanese American campaigns for United Nations membership for Taiwan are provocative and serve no useful purpose since China would veto such an initiative in the Security Council. I found it particularly interesting that President Li said to us that his government would not push for independence, they had no intention of doing so. Speaking personally, I would say that I believe it is clear to the Chinese and to the world community that making the two systems/one country policy work in Hong Kong can be an important precedent in the reunification of Taiwan with China. Also, I would note that this Member encouraged President Li of Taiwan to proceed energetically to make the changes necessary to come into the World Trade Organization, the WTO, as soon as possible, changes that would include reductions in tariff and market access changes. I specifically urged them to reduce the tariffs on processed foods so that American exporters can exploit this Taiwanese market, and Taiwanese consumers will benefit from lower food prices and a greater selection of goods. Additionally, I stressed my own view that Taiwan should be allowed WTO membership before the PRC if the changes it makes satisfy WTO membership. That possibility also gives us increased leverage to succeed and to successfully demand changes from the PRC for WTO membership. In summary then, and in conclusion of my comments, in my view, our meetings with the Chinese officials on the mainland in Beijing and Shanghai were amazingly positive and productive, particularly in view of the fact that Speaker Gingrich and the bipartisan congressional delegation would subsequently visit Taiwan, and they knew we intended to, and thus he would be the highest-ranking official and we would be the highest-ranking delegation ever to visit Taiwan since the Taiwan Relations Act was enacted in 1978. The Chinese Government gave us top-level access and gracious, nonbelligerent meetings, even expressing their interest in initiation of an interparliamentary exchange between the United States House and the National People's Congress. I would now be very pleased to yield on a seniority basis to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and I yield such time as he may consume.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] for his moving and accurate summary of what he saw there and particularly for his compliment to the staff which we had not mentioned previously. I now have one Member and perhaps another one who may come back in time, but I am pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], and his hometown, his former hometown where he was born, is the first place we visited. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I am now very pleased to yield to another of my colleagues on the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], who is a particularly valuable Member for this trip because of his knowledge as a lawyer and a jurist, and I am pleased to yield to him.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to first begin by thanking the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], for his support and assistance, and that of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], chairman of the full committee, for his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Lazio has certainly given us the history of this legislation as it has evolved. I also appreciate his kind remarks. I also appreciate the kind remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I would say that his description of the poverty problems and the housing problem in rural America, including our Indian reservations, is directly on the mark. This gentleman has never contended either that this housing program, which has come to be known as the 538 program, is a replacement for reform of the 515 program. We need to proceed with reforms of that legislation which is also aimed at multiunit housing. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize a distinguished former Member of the Congress who is on the floor today, Mr. de la Garza, former chairman and then ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. It is our responsibility on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to work with the Committee on Agriculture on USDA housing programs. We have worked with this gentleman in the past on housing legislation for rural America and for small cities across the country. The gentleman from Texas is seated by our current distinguished Agriculture Committee chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. I am sure they are working on housing right now. But Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this legislation and ask my colleagues for support of it. This legislation does permanently reauthorize the loan guarantee program for multifamily rental housing in nonmetropolitan areas made under section 538 of the Housing Act of 1949. Originally enacted as a demonstration program under the section 515 rural housing program during the 103d Congress, this loan guarantee program has been well received in nonmetropolitan America. Unfortunately, the authorization for the program expired at the end of the last fiscal year, and this authorization is urgently needed to ensure the smooth operation of this important new program. Anyone familiar with America's smaller cities and communities knows that the supply of affordable rental housing is much needed but in short supply. This lack of affordable housing is one of the reasons why many small cities in nonmetropolitan areas are having a difficult time keeping their young people, and thus their future, from migrating to metropolitan areas. Historically, it often has been difficult to entice adequate private investment into these areas. Direct Federal lending programs which have proven costly to taxpayers often have been the only source of financing in these areas. Because of the problems which plagued and still plague the section 515 direct loan program and knowing that Federal funds are likely to become increasingly scarce, this Member saw the need for a new approach that would cost taxpayers less but still provide equal or greater housing opportunities in our Nation's smaller cities. I had good support from our chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. The alternative which emerged is the section 538 loan guarantee program. It does provide affordable housing at least in part in nonmetropolitan areas for individuals with incomes ranging from low to low-moderate to moderate levels; in other words, those Americans whose incomes do not exceed 115 percent of the area median income. Eligible lenders, which include multifamily lenders approved by HUD and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provide financing for projects of at least five housing units, five in a unit, developed by nonprofits, State governments or for-profit private entities. Nonprofits and State agencies are required to make a modest initial investment of 3 percent of the development costs while private for-profit entities must contribute an appropriate 10 percent of the development cost. In return for a fee of up to 1 percent of the loan amount, the U.S. Department of Agriculture guarantees repayment of the loan. Thus projects which in the past required a dollar-for-dollar investment by the Federal Government are now financed for pennies on the dollar by the private sector. Finally I wanted to quote from a letter received on March 18 of this year from Jan Shadburn, Acting Administrator of the Rural Housing Service of USDA. She says as follows: ``We are very excited about the program and we believe that, once reauthorized by Congress, it will continue to grow and will prove to be an effective tool and an integral part of our assisted housing mission for rural Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, this Member again asks his colleagues to support this important alternative, a supplement to direct Federal lending in order to ensure smooth operation of a program which is working in nonmetropolitan America. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member comes to the floor to raise concerns about the Conservation Reserve Program signup which began on March 3. Over the past decade, the Conservation Reserve Program, the CRP, has proven to be enormously successful. It is a national investment which provides dividends to farmers, environmentalists, sportsmen, conservationists, the general public, and wildlife. The CRP is a voluntary program established by Congress in 1985 that provides incentives for farmers to convert land poorly suited for row crops into grasslands and tree cover. Grasslands and trees in turn prevent topsoil erosion, improve water quality, and provide critical wildlife habitat. The CRP has now reached a critical point as previous contracts expire and new land is enrolled in the program. This September, the contracts on more than 60 percent of existing CRP acres will expire. That is 60 percent. Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued its long-delayed rules to govern the enrollment of new land into the program. The new rules make two-thirds of all existing U.S. farmland eligible for the program. It is possible that half the program's acres could be enrolled during this upcoming signup period. These facts make it clear that a careful, thoughtful approach is needed to ensure that the benefits of this successful program are not lost. Unfortunately, this Member must be concerned that the complex new rules combined with the short time frame in place to implement them could lead to an unmitigated disaster which could tarnish this program for many years to come. By taking so long to issue the rules, the USDA left a ridiculously short amount of time to inform producers and employees about the changes, conduct the signup and reach decisions about which bids to accept. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a recipe for a bureaucratic disaster. While the intent of the new rules to focus on more environmentally sensitive land is, indeed, laudable, and supported by this Member, this Member is also concerned that the rushed and haphazard signup process will make this goal much more difficult to reach. Although local USDA employees are doing their best to implement these new rules, they have clearly been given a demanding task which has been made even more difficult by shifting instructions. Recent changes in the rating system during the signup process has only added to the frustration of producers. Another concern about the signup is that the proposed rental rates announced by the Farm Service Agency office do not reflect the grassroots input that was solicited and furnished last fall. A related concern is that the resulting rates in many instances could significantly distort any signup efforts. A local County Conservation Review Group recently reviewed the rental rates for counties in southeastern Nebraska which were announced by the USDA. In one instance, the same type of soil is projected for a rental value of $84 per acre in one county but only $58 per acre across the road in another county. Disparities such as this are simply too great. Mr. Speaker, this Nation has invested too much in the CRP to risk it on a rushed signup process. This Member believes it would be wise, and yes, absolutely necessary to offer an extension for existing contracts which expire this year. Such action would allow sufficient time to carefully analyze the new guidelines and determine whether any corrections are needed before the majority of CRP signups take place. I would like to start it now because so much is involved in the signup period, but simply, we have waited too long at the USDA. It would be extremely detrimental if irreversible damage is done to the CRP during this signup period. This Member believes that the new process should be tested to determine whether the new rules are feasible and beneficial. Action must be taken now before it is too late.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 750) to support the autonomous governance of Hong Kong after its reversion to the People's Republic of China, as amended.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a cost estimate on the impact of H.R. 750 by the Congressional Budget Office, and note that the cost is estimated to be zero.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 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 and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], a member of the committee. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation, H.R. 750, is to support the autonomous governance of Hong Kong and the future well-being of the Hong Kong people. This bipartisan legislation was introduced by this Member on February 13, 1997, and unanimously approved last week by the House Committee on International Relations. It has been approved for consideration under the suspension calendar of course. That is why it is here today. This bipartisan bill has a long list of cosponsors, including as original cosponsor the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations, with a long and distinguished record as a leader in promoting democracy and human rights. His contributions and amendment have greatly strengthened this legislation. In addition, both the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on International Relations, and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, are also original cosponsors. Other original cosponsors include the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Other distinguished Members have added their names subsequently, including two gentleman we will hear from, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we consider and approve this legislation quickly because in less than 5 months the British rule ends and Hong Kong will become a special administrative region of China. Nobody knows exactly what will happen in Hong Kong on that night or the days, months and years thereafter. This reversion is unprecedented in its complexity. Hong Kong, one of the world's most efficient economies, will become part of an emerging giant that has yet to integrate itself fully into the world economy and which has only begun to experiment with democracy at the village level. The United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China have largely agreed on the basic rules for Hong Kong's reversion in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. For its part China has agreed to grant Hong Kong more autonomy, more autonomy than international law requires. In Hong Kong's constitution, the Basic Law of 1989, the National People's Congress unveiled a ``one country two systems'' arrangement for 50 years. During that time Hong Kong is supposed to enjoy a high degree of autonomy except in the areas of foreign affairs and defense. It is rumored that more than 7,000 journalists from around the world will be on hand at midnight on June 30, 1997, to witness the official handover. In large part the attention focused on Hong Kong by the international press has been fueled by misguided efforts by the Chinese Government to disband the current legislative council and replace it with a provisional legislature, to alter civil rights protections in Hong Kong, and to improperly influence the extremely efficient civil service there. Clearly, these actions must not go unnoticed by the international community and by the United States Government. Therefore, today we are considering the Hong Kong Reversion Act, H.R. 750, to object to these troubling proposals and developments and to express and act to protect the United States' national interests in Hong Kong. Most importantly, this legislation is absolutely clear in demanding that the People's Republic of China fully respect the autonomy that it has promised Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration of 1984. Despite the overwhelming attention to the important issues of the legislative council and civil rights of Hong Kong, American foreign policy makers must also be concerned about more mundane traditional and transition issues which affect fundamental United States interests. For example, negotiations are currently underway between the United States and Hong Kong and the United States and China over a myriad of technical issues, including an extradition treaty, a bilateral investment treaty, consular functions and many more very important issues. Moreover, we must be very careful to assure that Hong Kong continues to honor U.S. export control laws and regulations after the transition. The Hong Kong Reversion Act will aid the Congress in examining all the important issues in this complex transition by building on the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. It requires assessments and reports by the Secretary of State in very specific areas so the President can knowledgeably determine under his existing authority whether to maintain current U.S. relations with Hong Kong. In light of these facts and the importance of this legislation, this Member urges his colleagues to vote for the Hong Kong Reversion Act, H.R. 750. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 resolution just considered and also on House Concurrent Resolution 16.

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 measure just considered.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In light of what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has just said, I would remind my colleagues that American military might, 100,000 personnel, a little bit less than that at the moment, are in the Asia-Pacific region because of our national interests. If we maintain a security balance in the region, it is far less likely that American troops will ever have to be wounded and die in that part of the world in the future. Make no mistake about it. Our forces are located in Okinawa and elsewhere because it is in our national interests to have them there.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of House Resolution 68. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for raising this issue and bringing us this legislation. This Member would note that our good friend from Indiana has consistently been a voice in support of United States security interests, and the gentleman's resolution regarding the United States- Japan security agreement and the people of Okinawa is no exception. He is to be congratulated for his initiative. This Member is pleased, together with the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 68. Mr. Speaker, the United States-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of United States security strategy for the Asia-Pacific region and serves as the anchor for the United States military presence in the region. Not only do United States forward based forces in Japan contribute to Japanese security, but these assets are absolutely essential for any contingency on the Korean Peninsula. Our bases on the Japanese mainland and on Okinawa enable us to protect and advance our interests throughout the Pacific. In addition, elements of these forward-based forces were among the first to arrive in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Shield. There is no question that American forces in Japan contribute to a sense of regional stability. This Member has often commented that all the nations of Asia, with the possible exception of North Korea, welcome the presence of United States forces and want us to remain in the region. Indeed, the commitment of the Clinton administration to keep 100,000 troops in Asia has become an important issue psychologically with the countries of the region, who look constantly for reassurance that the United States military will remain in the region. This Member would also note that the Government of Japan pays the overwhelming majority of expenses of forward basing of American troops in Japan. In what is a model basing agreement, the Japanese pay approximately 75 percent of our basing costs. Frankly, even considering all direct and indirect costs, it is cheaper to keep our troops in Japan than it is to base them in the United States. As House Resolution 68 notes, we would not be able to maintain such a vigorous presence in the Pacific were it not for the host nation's support provided by the Japanese. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 68 offers special recognition of the importance of the United States-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. The resolution also takes note of the contribution of the people of Okinawa, who have been expected to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of hosting our troops. This is a good and useful resolution, Mr. Speaker, and this Member urges approval of House Resolution 68. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 68) stating the sense of the House of Representatives that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States of America and Japan is essential for furthering the security interests of the United States, Japan, and the nations of the Asia-Pacific region, and that the people of Okinawa deserve recognition for their contributions toward ensuring the treaty's implementation, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER

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