Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, is it still appropriate for a request for the yeas and nays to be ordered?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Slovenia has made remarkable progress. We recognize that. Their emergence has been so recent it did not receive full consideration.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. No one is contemplating early NATO membership for Ukraine or Belarus, perhaps not ever. And, indeed, we are willing to use American military force when it is in the vital interest of the United States. Clearly, instability in Central and Eastern Europe would be contrary to the vital interests of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as original cosponsor of this legislation, and as a leader of this body's delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, this Member rises in strong support of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act. This Member would commend the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership in promoting this important national security legislation. In addition, this Member would pay tribute to the former majority leader of the other body, the distinguished former Senator from Kansas, Mr. Dole. It is clear that, were it not for the leadership of Senator Dole, we would not be considering this visionary legislation today. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of confusion, both in this body as well as among the countries and interested parties in Eastern and Central Europe, about what this legislation really does. In order to produce or eliminate any confusion, this Member would like to take a moment and attempt to succinctly explain what this legislation will do and what it will not do. First, contrary to what has frequently been said, this legislation would not admit new countries into NATO; that is something that can be done only with the parliamentary concurrence of all 16 Members of NATO. The legislation does, however, take appropriate note of the three Central European countries Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, which have made the greatest strides toward qualifying for NATO membership. For these nations, the legislation sets forth a modest training and assistance package to help them acquire some of the infrastructure items that are essential for NATO membership, for example, air defense radars, and telecommunications infrastructure. The legislation also recognizes that there are other Central European nations which have taken positive steps for Partnership for Peace. That is true of Eastern European nations as well. These countries may at some future date also be qualified for NATO membership. Second, this legislation does not establish new ideological or strategic lines or boundaries across Europe. The nations of Eastern and Central Europe, particularly those which are not cited in the first tier of eligibility, are understandably worried that they would have the option of NATO membership permanently closed to them. Some nations fear that they will be caught on the wrong side of a new Iron Curtain, forever excluded from the closer cooperation with the West. H.R. 3564 does not set those rigid boundaries. The lessons of Yalta must not be forgotten. We fully recognize that NATO is likely to continue to enlarge in the future, but only when aspiring members are able to fulfill the conditions of membership and capable of contributing to the common defense. Third, H.R. 3564 is not an open-ended promise of eventual NATO membership to interested Eastern and to Central European nations. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a social club or paper organization; rather it is the most successful collective defensive organization in the history of mankind. It is perhaps inevitable that some nations, which have expressed an interest in NATO, may fail to meet the basic criteria for membership, but this is in part also somewhat of a self-qualification process. The nations which have adopted free markets and adopted a full range of truly democratic institutions and practices will be more likely to be considered for membership. Those countries which fail to liberalize their economies or fail to become real democracies or repress their citizens are unlikely to enter NATO. In addition, of course, NATO membership will only be offered to those nations which are willing to assume the shared cost and defense responsibilities of the alliance. Last, this legislation should not be seen to threaten Russia or any other nation. The NATO alliance remains a defensive alliance. The Russian leadership must understand that NATO will not launch unprovoked attacks against a peaceful neighbor. The far more serious threat to Russian interest is internal instability and instability along her borders. It is desperately important for the Russian people that its government complete fundamental economic and political reforms, but these reforms will be impossible if it is constantly threatened with civil war and political instability along its borders. Thus, the stability that NATO can project into Central and Eastern Europe should be helpful to Russian economic modernization and to its political stability. Mr. Speaker, it most assuredly is true that the nature of some of the security challenges which face the NATO alliance have fundamentally changed since the days of the cold war. At that earlier time, defending Europe from Soviet or Warsaw Pact attack was NATO's paramount mission. Now projecting stability and democracy eastward is perhaps the most important function that the alliance can serve. Where once the Warsaw Pact enforced an involuntary order, now in too many places there is merely a power vacuum. No one wants to return to a time when border conflicts, aggressive nationalism, ethnic divisions, and political intrigue was the norm in Eastern and Central Europe. But it is clear that could well reemerge unless stability is projected into the region. It should be obvious that NATO is the best instrument to fill that power vacuum, and it can do so in a nonthreatening manner. Mr. Speaker, as the body completes consideration of the NATO Enlargement Act, this Member would remind his colleagues that we are considering very serious future treaty commitments. As this Member already has noted, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most successful defensive alliance in the history of the world. Its success is anchored in the article 5 commitment North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. Members must acknowledge that the admission of a new nation to NATO means that this nation will go to war to defend that country. Thus, this Congress should voice its support for NATO expansion in the months and years ahead only after careful consideration, and only if specific expansions are in the U.S. national interest. By passage of this act, we are moving forward to facing these future decisions on countries which can better prepare themselves to take on the full responsibilities of NATO membership. This Member believes it is indeed in the national interest to expand NATO for those nations which meet all the criteria for membership. A carefully crafted policy of NATO enlargement can project stability into a volatile region of the world without drawing new boundaries, and it can do so in a way that should not undermine stability in Russia. By providing basic assistance through H.R. 3564 to those nations which have thus far made the greatest progress toward fulfilling the criteria for membership in a defensive alliance among the democratic nations of North America and Europe. Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of whether NATO will expand, but when it will expand. Clearly, the enactment of H.R. 3564 will speed the day when NATO expands in a responsible, stabilizing manner. This Member urges adoption of H.R. 3564. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the editorialists of the Omaha World Herald have prepared, I think, a thorough and telling critique of the Clinton administration foreign policy. I would like to share with my colleagues that editorial. The document referred to is as follows: [From the Omaha World Herald] Nation Has Been Lucky To Avoid Serious Test of U.S. Foreign Policy Americans have been lucky. The president they elected in 1992 displayed little expertise or interest in foreign policy. Still, he has held office during a time of relative stability. His administration has had to deal with few international crises. However, the relative stability that came with the end of the Cold War may not continue. President Clinton's foreign policy is an important basis for judging his qualifications for re-election in November. Events of the past few days have demonstrated why concerns about the president's judgment continue. In Saudi Arabia, the monarchy has withheld evidence from U.S. investigators about a terrorist bombing in which 19 American servicemen died. The Saudis have also dismissed the suggestion that U.S. forces in that country ought to be moved into safer quarters. Saudi Arabia has been called America's closest ally in the Arab world. This is not the way a resolute United States government would allow itself to be treated by its friends. In Israel, the voters repudiated Clinton's preferred candidate, Shimon Peres. They elected as their prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who promised to pursue a more confrontational policy toward the Palestinians and neighboring Arab nations. In the former Yugoslavia, the administration has quietly distanced itself further from its promise to remove U.S. troops by the end of the year. A pullout anytime soon would cause the region to erupt once again in civil war. The administration's bumbling efforts to eliminate the influence of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic have been painful to watch. Moreover, it has been disclosed, the White House looked the other way as Iran's Revolutionary Guards established a strong presence, with guerrilla troops and a supply pipeline, in Bosnia. The administration informed Congress two weeks ago that the Iranians were gone, but indications are that some of them remained behind. Riots in Northern Ireland call attention to the seemingly irreconcilable divisions that exist there. By swinging U.S. prestige to the side of the Irish Republican Army, Clinton injected the United States into a dispute in which America had no vital interests. In the process, he offended the British government. Then he made the administration look inept when the IRA broke its own cease-fire. A contributing editor at Reason magazine, Michael McMenamin, has written that the IRA's strategy, which Clinton has aided by pressuring the British government to grant concessions, is to force the British to unilaterally withdraw from Northern Ireland, leading to sectarian war in the north. ``Any American government that doesn't understand this doesn't know Ireland, doesn't know the IRA, doesn't know the Ulster Protestants, and is helping to bring an Irish Bosnia closer,'' he wrote. Clinton has presided over an unprecedented reduction in America's ability to use force as a foreign policy tool. More shrinkage lies ahead. George Melloan wrote in The Wall Street Journal that projected military spending in the next five years will be $50 billion to $100 billion short of what will be needed to achieve even the reduced force and procurement levels that Clinton military strategy envisions. Melloan noted that Bob Dole would arrest the slide in preparedness, as well as pushing promptly for a missile defense and expanding NATO. China now has the ability to hit the U.S. mainland with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yet Secretary of State Warren Christopher has been to Damascus 17 times and Beijing only once, Georgetown University diplomatic scholar Casimir Yost pointed out. Concerns exist about how careful and competent this administration would be in a dangerous situation such as Presidents John Kennedy and George Bush had to face in the Cuban missile crisis and Gulf War, respectively. It's difficult to observe the Clinton approach without becoming seriously concerned about how effectively this administration would handle a major and sudden threat to vital U.S. interests.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this Member is pleased to support welfare reform legislation currently before the House for consideration. This Member has been a long-time supporter of efforts to reform our current welfare system to ensure that only those who are unable to provide their own basic needs receive assistance. Enactment of a strong welfare reform measure that places an emphasis on work as its centerpiece is long overdue. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 1.3 million families now on welfare will be working in fiscal year 2002 as a result of the enactment of this legislation which converts welfare into a work program. President Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it during his 1992 Presidential campaign. The President should be true to his initial instincts and campaign promise and sign this much needed welfare reform measure. The President's prior two vetoes of welfare reform legislation represented another broken promise to the American people for they were consistent with what the President requested. This Member is hopeful that speedy action will be taken to enact this welfare reform bill. It provides a compassionate solution for a failed welfare system. However, this Member is concerned that once again, the President by his rhetoric in the past week, is laying the groundwork to reverse his course, violate his own statements, and again veto strong welfare reform legislation. It seems that Marian Wright Edelman will oppose any welfare reform bill that is worthy of reform. It would seem that as long as Marian Wright Edelman is opposed to this welfare reform bill, Mrs. Clinton will oppose it, and the President will veto this legislation and every welfare reform bill that is worthy of being called a reform bill. For millions of poor Americans trapped in a system of despair, this measure offers them hope to escape the welfare cycle. It does that by replacing our current welfare bureaucracy with reforms based on the dignity and necessity of work for the able-bodied, and on the strength of families. States are also granted maximum flexibility to help needy individuals achieve self-reliance. In addition, this important legislation ensures that absent parents are not allowed to walk away from their moral and financial responsibility to care for their children. Deadbeat parents currently compound the Nation's welfare problems, causing millions of children to live in poverty. Madam Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support this strong welfare reform measure which ensures that the system of something for nothing is ended, and to require that welfare recipients meet reasonable and responsible standards.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member speaks today in favor of H.R. 3161, which would extend permanent MFN, or normal trade status, to Romania. In order to save time, I certainly associate myself with the rationale offered by the gentlemen from California, New Mexico, and New York. I have been a skeptic and a critic of Romania for quite some time since I first visited in 1984 to see what Ceausescu was doing. No apologist, always a severe critic. In fact I voted against MFN in the past. When I went to Romania again last year, I was the critic asking tough questions to our ambassador to Romania. The reasons for doing so are compelling. First and foremost, Romania has made substantial and important progress on a variety of fronts since the fall of communism in 1989. This Member had the pleasure of personally observing this transformation in progress when this Member traveled to the country 2 years ago. Today the Romanian Government has made important efforts to resist extremism by expelling political players with radical views from its ruling coalition. Romania now boasts an extensive free press, with more than 1,000 newspapers and periodicals and several hundred television and radio stations, many of which routinely criticize the Government without fear of persecution. Romania's economic progress has been propelled by its considerable privatization efforts. Nearly 50 percent of the country's GDP now comes from the private sector, which employs about half of the country's workforce. This figure represents more than 500,000 small and medium- sized companies created since 1990 and more than 2,000 former state companies that are now private. When this privatization program is complete, about 70 percent of Romania's GDP will derive from this area, a figure comparable to other Central European nations. Other economic reforms have included the elimination of price setting and of most subsidies. Extension of permanent MFN status to Romania undoubtedly would provide a significant boost to United States business interests there. United States investment in Romania totaled $151 million in 1995. This figure represents over 2,000 United States investors, including such diverse names as Amoco, Coca Cola, Colgate Palmolive, IBM, and the numerous smaller companies that comprise the bulk of Romania's joint venture partners. The United States is the sixth largest exporter of products and services to Romania selling to $392 million in 1995. Our two-way trade can be expected to rise substantially if we grant permanent MFN to Romania's exports to this country. Perhaps most important of all, permanent MFN treatment of Romania will solidify a blossoming bilateral relationship and serve as a powerful inducement for continuing Romanian cooperation on a range of political, economic, and security-related issues. Mr. Speaker, it is now time to normalize trade relations with Romania for the benefit of the United States as much as for Romania. Romania's request for NATO membership will provide the United States, Canada, and European NATO members strong leverage to encourage even greater democracy and reforms by Romania. Similar leverage exists for the current members of the European Union as Romania seeks membership in that union. This Member strongly urges his colleagues to support H.R. 3161.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 361, the Export Administration Act of 1996. Our current export licensing framework is grossly out of date--not having been significantly revised in 17 years. We desperately need to pass this legislation if Congress is to have any influence over the delicate balancing act between national security and commercial interests that the President currently performs under the broad powers of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. First however, this Member would like to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, for his exceptional work in crafting legislation that not only revises an out-of-date statutory framework but provides us with a rational system for export controls that can evolve well during the 21st century. This Member regrets that we are losing Chairman Roth's excellent stewardship on issues of great importance to American commercial interests. It has been this Member's pleasure to serve with Chairman Roth on this subcommittee for the last 14 years. However, this Member is grateful that Chairman Roth leaves his post with a good, bipartisan House compromise that the Senate would be wise to consider and pass. On March 3, 1795, Congress gave the President authority to permit the exportation of arms, cannons and military stores in ``cases connected with the security of the commercial interest of the United States, and for public purposes only.'' That act was one of the first export administration acts and no doubt an ancestor to the legislation currently before us today. Despite his best efforts during his tenure in Congress to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy, Chairman Roth presents us with a bill 201 years later that is 202 pages longer than its precursor. That amounts to a page of legislation for each birthday of this great country. Obviously, despite that facetious comparisons, Mr. Speaker, the world is a much more complicated place than it was in 1795, but the underlying principles for export regulations are the same. Then, we did not want our enemies to be able to acquire the cannons that could damage our ships of commerce. Now, for example, we seek to deny them the precision tools from constructing weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not perfect; no compromises are. But the current export control authority for our Nation is badly in need of reform. This legislation will importantly reestablish U.S. statutory authority and eliminate the necessity of the President using overly broad emergency administrative powers to implement our Nation's export control laws. While tightening restrictions on dual-use exports to rogue regimes and terrorist countries, it emphasizes strengthening multilateral export controls. Also it provides strong incentives for the President to negotiate with our allies before unilateral controls are imposed. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to again congratulate Chairman Roth for his hard work on striking an appropriate balance between U.S. national security and commercial interests. If the Senate wisely follows his lead and passes this legislation, part of the Roth legacy will be a rational export control system that is responsive to U.S. industry while protecting the national security.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following letter to Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman concerning the increased amount of proposed wetland regulations. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, July 9, 1996. Hon. Dan Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Dan: While visiting with my constituents, I have been advised of several concerns about wetland regulations, particularly a concern that actions by Federal Agencies with wetland responsibilities and jurisdiction are proposing actions that amount to ``regulatory creep'' by proposing to expand the amount of lands defined as Federally protected wetlands. I am told that three changes are being considered by the four Federal agencies with wetland responsibilities (USDA, Corps of Engineers, EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that would expand the criteria used in the Federal delineation process by making changes to the 1987 delineation manual and by adopting a functional assessment process known as the hydrogemorphic (HGM) approach. One of the specific concerns has been that NRCS, without public notice and comment, is expanding its list of field indicators of hydric soils, which in turn would result in an expansion of areas and sites that would meet the hydric soil criteria. Mr. Secretary I want to ask whether it is the view of NRCS that all hydric soils are wetland soils? (I understood that wetland soils are a function of wetland hydrology, and that wetland delineation requires the independent verification of all three wetland criteria-- soils, water, and plants.) Secondly, I am told that the Fish and Wildlife Service is about to enter into an agreement to expand the hydrophytic plant list, also without the benefit of public notice and comment. Is the interagency wetland team recommending that Federal agencies be allowed to delineate wetlands based only upon two criteria (soils and plants) instead of the three essential wetland criteria? Such an action would seem to allow regulators to `assume' hydrology based on the presence of an expanded list of hydric soil indicators and an expanded list of hydrophytic plants. It is already very difficult for many of my constituents to accept wetlands defined under present rules without wetlands being defined without the apparent presence of water for a significant period of time during the year. Finally, I am curious about the interagency wetland team's implementation of a new methodology for the functional assessment of wetlands using the hydrogemorphic (HGM) approach. There is a concern that this method would arbitrarily assign functions to various types of wetlands located within a watershed or ecological region by combining the subjective nature of wetlands science with the ambiguity of professional judgment. Mr. Secretary, I am particularly alarmed by the appearance that no one in the Administration nor the Congress is currently in charge of wetland delineation. With no one designated for a leadership role on this subject I fear that the bureaucracy is once again free to initiate regulatory creep. That would leave the most important regulatory decisions to be accomplished behind the political scene by interagency fiat without public input. Dan, I would appreciate it very much, and feel more comfortable, if you would take a personal role in overseeing the activities of the interagency wetland group to insure that the general public, including those which would be subject to these regulations, have adequate opportunity for involvement in any changes in wetland regulations. Thank you very much for your consideration and assistance on this matter. Best wishes, Doug Bereuter, Member of Congress.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his colleagues this editorial which appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on June 24, 1996. Clinton Won't Let Welfare Change People keep trying to help President Clinton accomplish his stated goal of ``end(ing) welfare as we know it,'' but he won't let them do it. Congress presented him a welfare-reform bill in 1995 that seemed destined for presidential approval. But liberal groups criticized the legislation and persuaded Clinton to veto it. In February this year, the National Governors' Association produced a bipartisan plan to reform welfare and Medicaid, a plan endorsed by Nebraska Gov. Ben Nelson. Clinton, too, spoke favorably of the plan, but officials of his administration have been fighting it in congressional hearings. Two months ago Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin signed his state's welfare reform plan. It would end welfare as an entitlement program. People could be denied benefits without recourse to hearings. Welfare assistance would be conditioned on work. Jobs, child care and health care would not be guaranteed. Three weeks after the Wisconsin plan was completed, the president called it ``a solid, bold welfare reform plan'' in his weekly radio address. Bob Dole was scheduled to give a major speech on welfare reform three days later. It was a preemptive political strike by a president who lately has talked, but not acted, like a Republican. Now that the president has exploited the opportunity to upstage Dole by patting the Republican Thompson on the back and appearing to be the champion of welfare reform, his administration is challenging the Wisconsin plan. For proof of its welfare-reform credentials, the Clinton administration cites waivers it has granted to 39 states to implement welfare programs that don't conform to federal requirements. But in this case the Washington penchant for centralized bureaucratic control may prevail. Wisconsin may not get the federal waiver it needs to proceed. In 1993, first lady Hillary Clinton's proposal to reduce the growth of Medicare spending from 10 percent to 7 percent was touted by the administration as responsible reform. Two years later, when congressional Republicans proposed the same spending growth rate reduction, the president decried a 7 percent growth cap as an attempt to ``cut'' and ``destroy'' Medicare. Governor Thompson's once ``solid'' and ``bold'' welfare plan may face the same fate that befell Mrs. Clinton's 7 percent growth cap once it was expropriated by Republicans.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support, but somewhat reluctant support, for House Resolution 461. This Member voices reluctant support not because he opposes the notion of articulating United States concerns with the People's Republic of China. Indeed, it is extremely important to convey in specific detail the objections the United States has regarding PRC behavior with regard to human rights, proliferation, and questionable trade practices. However, when this body raises concerns, it must be careful to speak with a high degree of accuracy. While the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] did yeoman's work in compiling a list of concerns on extremely short notice, there unfortunately are a number of inaccuracies in the legislation. For example, on the whereas clauses related to commercial trade, the United States did not conclude, as alleged in House Resolution 461, a formal agreement with the People's Republic of China on intellectual property rights on June 17, 1996. Instead, the United States merely decided not to impose sanctions. Also, regarding the convertability of the People's Republic of China's currency, House Resolution 461 is outdated and does not recognize recent reforms. In addition, the legislation states that the current anticrime programs has targeted political, religious, and labor activists in addition to common criminals in Tibet, Zinjiang, and in the whole of Communist China. In information available to me indicates, Mr. Speaker, that the campaign seems to have targeted only ordinary criminals. The resolution also states that actions by the People's Liberation Army in the South China Sea have threatened the United States Navy's right of free passage in those waters. But the right of free passage of the U.S. Navy has never been challenged by anyone, either the PLA or the forces of other nations vying for control of the disputed islands and atolls. To the extent that this body is not wholly and completely factual in its representation of events, our message is undermined. It is quite possible that the People's Republic of China will react to House Resolution 461 simply by pointing to the inaccuracies. If that happens, they will be able to subvert the important message that their overall international and domestic behavior must improve. Mr. Speaker, this body should be very cautious in considering legislation critical of any nation; we must be as accurate as possible. That is the reason that under normal legislative practice this body moves legislation through committees with specific expertise. When this body uses the existing committee structure as designed, it is far less likely that inaccuracies will find their way into legislation. Mr. Speaker, while this Member will vote for House Resolution 461, it is essential that this body can return to the practice of permitting the committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction to exercise their rightful role in the legislative process. By passing the authorizing committees, even to provide a last minute tandem resolution to assure the defeat the Rohrabacher resolution to deny normal tariff status to the People's Republic of China is not a good practice.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the continuation of normal tariff status for the People's Republic of China and oppose the Rohrabacher resolution. We have a whole range of sanctions that are used now for proliferation, human rights abuse, and a whole range of trade practices that are inappropriate. Many of those sanctions are now in place with respect to the PRC. This denial of so-called MFN is not the place to have our impact. We should remember that China is a 4,000-year-old culture. They have no tradition of democracy. They have real problems on which we have had a full recitation of here today, but we need to approve MFN. It is in our vital national interest to do so, both in the short and long term. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to unequivocally support extending normal tariff status to the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, this Member proposes abolishing this annual process because the imposition of Smoot-Hawley type tariffs on China is contrary to our national interest and because this futile annual debate undermines our leverage to deal constructively with that country. Justifiably disturbed by reports of China's weapons proliferation policies, it's military aggressiveness, human rights abuses, and unfair trade practices, many Members of Congress argue for sending China a signal by voting against so-called MFN status. However, the Chinese Government knows our own national interest precludes such a draconian step and both Republican and Democrat administrations have long recognized that abolishing China's normal tariff status will only prohibit us from exerting a positive influence on that country. Therefore, we have chosen to rely on targeted sanctions against China. For example, we currently prohibit United States companies from selling defense articles or not-so-fast computers to the Chinese. We scrutinize China's satellite purchases and we have suspended military exchanges. We oppose multilateral development bank lending to China except loans for humanitarian reasons and we prohibit some indirect United States aid. We impose special procedures on the United States Export-Import Bank and we deny United States firms all other export financing. Recently, we banned the importation of munitions and ammunition from China, and we have long prohibited United States contributions to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] from being used there. While some claim that the United States has not been tough enough on China, this partial laundry list of United States sanctions suggests the opposite is true. Perhaps we have erratically imposed too many unenforceable sanctions on China. Many of my colleagues probably need to recognize that we do not have sufficient influence to alter China's behavior by acting unilaterally. Presumably, for example, European nations care about human rights abuses in China, and presumably China's neighbors are seriously concerned about China's assertive territorial claims. However, it is no secret to United States companies that our allies businesses gleefully steal American business when the United States engages in a principled disagreement with China over, for example, intellectual property rights. Mr. Speaker, today's procedure reinforces the view that normal tariff status for China is clearly in our national interest and that maintaining it enables us to positively influence China. However, this process also permits consideration of a separate resolution which requires us to further evaluate our overall foreign policy relationship with China. During this period, we should examine why no other nation in the world engages in a similar annual trade debate over China. Let us discuss why we deny United States companies Government assistance in one of the world's fastest growing markets. Most important, let us examine why President Clinton and Secretary Christopher have abdicated their responsibility to routinely engage the Chinese in direct meetings to seek constructive ways to improve our mutual understanding and our overall relationship. Perhaps we should also examine the ridiculous assertion that nothing has changed in China. We should listen to the Chinese jurists, scholars, and students who are optimistic about the legal reforms and village elections budding throughout China and determine how we can assist them in their efforts. Mr. Speaker, despite very real limitations on our influence and our inept foreign policy, no country in the world has more influence on the course of events in the People's Republic of China than the United States. Already, the lure of our huge market has caused that country to pursue dramatic economic reform in a miniscule fraction of that country's 4,000-year history. However, we cannot expect to end China's unfair trade practices without European cooperation and the support of the Pacific Rim nations. Today's vote for normal tariff status for China is a tacit acknowledgment of our enormously positive influence on that country. It is also an acknowledgment that we cannot, alone, maintain that positive influence. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the heated rhetoric during debate on the rule for considering the resolution which would reject normal tariff status for the People's Republic of China--all but eight countries in the world have such status--I was appalled by at least two particular remarks. First, one of our colleagues asked at what level is our threshold of conscience regarding the human rights abuses and various outrages in the PRC. This kind of sanctimonious comment about those, like this Member, who believe it is unwise, counterproductive, and contrary to our vital national interest to end normal tariff status for the PRC. Such remarks and the tone and substance of similar remarks by many other colleagues, self-proclaimed paragons of virtue, violate the dignity and proper civility of the House. This Member and a very large share of Members of the House disagree with those who would deny normal tariff status to the PRC. Many of us believe that a decision to deny that trade status to the PRC does great harm to the short- and long- term vital national interest of the United States of America, but we do not ascribe improper motives or objectives to those with whom we disagree. We do not ask them to check their threshold of conscience when it comes to the impact of their actions on our country. Second, I was appalled and saddened to hear one of our very esteemed colleagues--perhaps only because the heat of debate--refer to China as our enemy. China is not our enemy but our vacillating, inept foreign policy actions and the continued ill-advised rhetoric and actions of the congress--especially in the distorted and counter-productive annual debate on extending so-called MFN--can push China to unnecessarily become an enemy or adversary. That would undoubtedly prove to be one of the truly momentous tragedies in American and world history. The financial consequences of a cold war with China are staggering and the costs of an eventual overt conflict with the PRC are unimaginably tragic for the two countries and mankind. Mr. Speaker, it must be emphasized that what Members do here today on this issue, what we have done in the past, and what we do in the future, taken altogether, does have very important consequences. Our actions over time, in combination with the inept handling of Sino- American relations, actually can move our two countries to an adversarial status with all the consequences which follow. Members should be reminded that they are not free to cast irresponsible votes for purely political reasons or to appease interest groups without recognizing the damage they do and the consequences that follow. Mr. Speaker, while I speak as chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, I do not claim to be an expert on China. Indeed, it might be said that there are no experts on China--only degrees of ignorance. Yet I would hope that my colleagues would make a sincere and urgent effort to learn more about the PRC, the Chinese people, and their culture. They would better understand how this nation--with a 4,000-year history in which its people understandably take great pride, with a huge percentage of the world's people, with no democratic traditions that resemble our own-- will not easily change its ways. They understandably see our own erratic, grossly ineffective foreign policy toward China as consisting primarily as a constant, ad-hoc badgering on an issue-by-issue basis and believe it to be a heavy-handed effort to impose our practices, ideals, and cultural standards. Many of our actions and emphases in our foreign policy and in the Congress are also seen as direct threats to their sovereignty. Mr. Speaker, this Member's first visit to China was, I believe, in 1988 or thereabouts. At that time I was struck by the warmth of the Chinese toward Americans and the United States. Some of the older citizens were apt to comment about America's help to the Chinese against our common enemy in World War II. It seemed that everyone wanted to learn English because of their friendship for America and their expectations that we were going to see a closer, friendlier, Sino-American relationship, which went beyond business opportunities. In August 1995, this Member returned to China and noticed that the good will toward America among the average Chinese citizen had deteriorated markedly if in fact it had not totally disappeared. Now they ask, ``Why do Americans hate us so much?'' Some of my esteemed House colleagues believe the Congress was instrumental in blocking the PRC from having the Olympics in the year 2000 and they are proud of that fact, but at least in Beijing each man or woman on the street really felt that loss of the Olympics and they emphatically blame America for it. Undoubtedly, too the government of the PRC is manipulating the views and emotions of their citizens with anti- American media campaigns and whatever is the latest controversy in the relations between our two governments. Yet, if you spend time among the average Chinese citizens in the coastal cities--in crowded department stores, noodle lunch shops, or other places, as did this Member, one couldn't help but be struck by the changes in the population. A huge and growing consumer class enjoying a whole range of personal freedoms has been created. The pace of physical development and change in the lifestyles of a large share of China's citizens is literally unmatched in the history of the world. Economic prosperity and a greater exposure to Western ways is inevitably liberalizing despite repressive governmental policies. Chinese leaders probably would not attempt another Tiananmen Square confrontation today and it certainly wouldn't be possible in 5 or 10 years unless America and the West turn its back on China and pushes it to become a more suspicious, aggressive, and isolated regime. Chinese leaders, this Member is convinced, know they have their hands full in pushing internal economic and physical development sufficiently fast to keep up with the impatient massive population who have had the appetites whetted by the economic benefits and personal freedom that have accompanied their amazing economic progress. America and the developed democracies, while watchfully protecting our own interests, warily observing Chinese military modernization efforts, and collectively counteracting any external Chinese aggression that might appear, must also avoid giving the kind of undue provocation to the People's Liberation Army which would further enhance modernization efforts or its influence on top Chinese policymakers. Finally, this Member cannot help but observe that the demands for reform, the criticism of the PRC, and the overt hostility toward it by so many in this Congress and in the American public has intensified dramatically since the collapse of the Soviet Union as a superpower adversary to the United States. Unfortunately, I don't think this is coincidental. Intentionally or subconsciously, I believe that some people, some politicians, and some special interests find it convenient to have a national enemy. Shortly after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., the Japanese economic and trade practices caused that nation to become the focus of many Americans' acute anxieties, fanned by the latest leading polling or opinion articles. Now the focus is squarely on the People's Republic of China. There is no reason this Congress, the national media, or anyone else should push or elevate China into being our next enemy. Too many million people's lives are placed at risk and too much of our public and private resources will be needlessly spent. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Rohrabacher resolution and support the continuation of normal tariff status for the People's Republic of China. It is in both the short- and long-term vital national interest of the United States that we continue our engagement with China through this and other means.

Mr. BEREUTER

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that was reported out of the Committee on Commerce. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to engage the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] in colloquy regarding the provisions of the bill relating to ground water disinfection. Nebraska is by far the most ground water-dependent State in the Nation. As this Member made clear in the statement submitted for the Record, the ground water disinfection rule could place an absolutely unworkable and untenable burden upon many of our local communities unless reason prevails. In fact, chlorination of community drinking water from ground water sources, which may present some health risks, could be requiring a solution to a nonproblem in most Nebraska communities. Is it the committee's intent that communities using groundwater as a drinking water source will not be required to disinfect the water unless an actual health threat is present?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would this legislation also ensure that the potential health risks associated with chlorination, as well as the costs associated with disinfection be taken into account when developing the ground water disinfection rule?

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, this gentleman thanks the distinguished gentleman for this clarification.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his comments.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with half of what the gentleman said, the problem with respect to the elderly and disabled programs. But, of course, the gentleman from New York is proposing that the offset come from the annual contributions for assisted housing. That is the very important program that funds section 8 contract renewals and section 8 amendments. But the expenditure patterns for that program are also among the most unclear. For all practical purposes, the President's budget in this area is nothing but a guess. Last year, for example, here it parallels the disabled and senior housing situation, HUD received 4.4 billion for contract renewals. They rescinded 477 million. Why did they do that? Well, they were off 10 percent from the total amount, and they rescinded it because they were not spending in this program either. So maybe there is just the same kind of inefficiency in the section 8 related programs as well. This year the committee is proposing more money which means there is even a greater level of uncertainty. If they had to rescind it 477 million over one-tenth of what they appropriated last year for this program where Mr. Lazio is taking the money, I suggest to Members, they are no more likely to use the funds in section 8 programs than they did last year. For these and other reasons, I reject the administration's recommendations that we downsize so dramatically over a 2-year period of time the funds that are available for disabled housing and for senior citizen housing. I urge my colleagues to support the Lazio amendment.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen who are the chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], have a difficult time with this balancing of appropriation matters. There is no doubt about it. I am almost always in agreement with them. This time I am not in agreement with their priorities. I speak as vice chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. I would like to mention a few things about the recent funding pattern. Let us take a look at the housing for the seniors, which is one of the two components of the Lazio amendment. In fiscal year 1995, the funding was $1,279,000,000. Rescission took it down to $857 million. Then, in fact, the administration came forward for fiscal year 1997 at a suggested $595 million which is, I think, consistent with what the subcommittee has in the legislation. That is less than half of the prerescission amount of fiscal year 1995, a dramatic reduction. The same sort of general trend is apparent in the housing for disabled persons. It was $387 million in fiscal year 1995, reduced by rescission to $259 million. Now the administration is requesting $174 million, a figure that is included in the recommendations found in this legislation. Again, that is less than half of the prerescission amount of 1985. Mr. Lewis and the staff have said that the cut in housing for elderly is justified and they point to the President's budget justifications. According to the President, we should cut funding for senior and disabled housing because HUD last year did not spend all of the money it was allocated. I think that is unacceptable. I refuse to let the administration punish the elderly and the disabled families simply because HUD bureaucrats cannot do their job quickly enough. If you take a look at the notices for funding availability, that was the problem. The nonprofits are out there available to spend the funds, as I understand it.