Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the budget neutral Bereuter amendment restores the $25,160,000 to the current funding level of the Food for Development United States food assistance program for fiscal year 1996 and 1997. This is the Food for Peace Program, title III. The current funding is $157 million. The legislation before us cuts it to zero. What I am attempting to do is to take $25 million from the USIA, the U.S. Information Agency's education and cultural exchange programs, and restore at least $25 million to the title III program. The Bereuter amendment helps ensure that U.S. foreign assistance is directed to the world's most deserving aid recipients, starving people in famine- and war-stricken countries. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. food assistance has been reduced by 24 percent in the last 2 years. In March the United States told other food donor countries that we would decrease our minimum commitment of food aid from 4.47 to 2.5 million metric tons. Over the past decade, the United States has provided between 6.5 and 8 million metric tons. The Bereuter amendment, through authorizing $25 million for the Food for Peace Program, still represents a 50-percent cut in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request. U.S. food assistance funds are spent here in the United States on agricultural commodities, processing, bagging, enrichment, internal transportation, port facilities and shipping. My amendment is supported by the merchant marine organizations. I am pulling the $25 million in this amendment from USIA's education and cultural exchange programs and administrative accounts. The Congressional Quarterly May 6, 1995, article pointed out a $2 billion international exchange program, ``They have exploded into a hodgepodge of seemingly duplicative and overlapping overseas activities.'' Mr. Chairman, I think it is an appropriate place for us to move $25 million to the Title III Food for Peace Program so it is not completely zeroed out. It is important for humanitarian reasons. It is important for our domestic purposes, as well, and it keeps a commitment we have made. It still cuts the President's request by 50 percent. I think that is too much, but $25 million seems to me at least to be a start back up the hill. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 26.

Mr. BEREUTER. The Congress, contrary to what the supporters of the amendment are seeming to be saying, currently has a very important role in determining which sales are made. In many ways, tangible or not so tangible, the Congress influences the sales about which the administration ends up notifying the Hill. There is an elaborate consultation procedure which we will not find in the formal statutory law whereby the administration vets possible sales with the appropriate committees. Members and staff briefings are convened on proposed sales that are controversial, and, contrary to what some may think, the administration backs off and drops proposed sales, not just this administration, but that has been the trend and the practice. So, it is incorrect, I think, to argue that we have no role under the current process. The administration and the Congress are in constant dialogue about arms transfers which are conducted in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act. The Congress significantly influences arms transfers in direct and practical ways through the years beginning with consultation on the Javits report. Critics of arms transfer point to the fact that Congress [[Page H5524]] has never enacted a resolution of disapproval on arms sales. That is not a correct measure. In fact, congressional passage of such a resolution would represent a breakdown of the existing process, not a measure of its success. The fact that we have not passed a resolution then is evidence that in fact the consultation process is working. Now, I have gone on at length here because I think this is a serious amendment with much merit. But the author of this amendment is committed to the issue, and I commend her. But for the reasons I stated, I cannot support it in its current form, and I would urge a ``no'' vote for all of my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McKinney amendment. I agree with some of her concerns, but not the solutions embodied in the amendment. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, during the cold war the two superpowers did transfer billions of dollars of weapons to the developing world every year as a part of their strategic competition. With the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and excess conventional military equipment flooding global markets, I believe it is essential to find a way to stop the spiral of militarization. An overarmed developing world not only has a terrible human cost, it is also contrary to American interests in fostering democracy, building political stability, and enhancing growing global economy, and I think those are some of the gentlewoman's concerns, and I certainly agree with them. In my mind the solution to the problem of militarization in arms transfer must be a multilateral one. It would do us, nor the developing world, any good if we reduce exports only to find the gap filled by other suppliers. Yet it is also clear that multi-lateral solutions require U.S. leadership both by the President and by the Congress. Congress has already begun to address the need for arms restraint, enacting several measures which I support, including, No. 1, encouraging the President to establish a multilateral arms restraint regime; No. 2, imposing a moratorium on the export of antipersonnel land mines and calling on the administration to negotiate a worldwide ban on their deployment; and, No. 3, calling on the administration to oppose multilateral lending to countries who refuse to reduce military spending in concert with their neighbors. That brings me to the amendment at hand. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong agreement with the sentiments, as I said, which were expressed in the amendment which express the view that we should not sell arms to countries that are democratic, that do not respect human rights, and that do not promote peace and stability. Where I have problems with this amendment is that it mandates, at least as I read it, that human rights, democracy, and participation of the U.N. arms registry of conventional arms be the only criteria that should govern our arms transfers. To say that these criteria should be paramount in evaluating a particular transfer is, I think, going too far. This is too restrictive in my view. Arms transfers serve important foreign policy and national security objectives. That can contribute to regional stability and help deter aggression. They can even foster interoperability should U.S. Assistance ever be required as in the Desert Storm operation. Human rights and the democratic make up of recipient governments ought to be among the criteria in making a final decision on a proposed transfer. In some cases they may be the primary criterion, but not in all cases. The President must be able to weigh all relevant criteria to reach sensible, sound decisions on the merit of each proposed transfer. Moreover, the amendment would require the President to certify annually those nations that qualify for arms transfer according to these criteria. Transfer to other countries could only be made if the President certifies to Congress that such a transfer is in the national security interests of the United States and the Congress enacts a law approving such an exception or if the President determines that an emergency exists under which it is vital to the interests of the United States to provide the transfer. If the President cannot meet this very high standard, quote, that an emergency exists, end of quote, then this amendment would force the Congress to enact a resolution of approval for arms sale. This, of course, turns the current system of congressional review of arms transfer on its head, a system that I, for one, do not think to be broken. Now, I do believe the author of this amendment has made a very serious effort to modify the language to address concerns of limiting Presidential flexibility by inserting new language under which countries could receive arms if they were violating the criteria in the bill if the President determines that an emergency exists, so there is that flexibility for the President. I would only point out this is a very high standard and one that I think cannot be met, at least not in very many instances. The President's room to maneuver is largely circumscribed, so in my view the modification does not fix one of the fundamental flaws of the amendment. I want to correct the conclusion here that I think supporters of the amendment may be making. The Congress, contrary to what the supporters----

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that assurance, and I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment. It is well-intended but it is a disastrously bad approach. The gentleman from California has said the section of the bill is made slightly better, by the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. The gentleman, Mr. Berman, was the person that raised the initial concerns about this section in the committee. I say this section of the bill is a disastrously bad approach. I do not use that language very often. I know that the intention of the gentleman from New Jersey is to be highly respected, and I respect it, too, but the results, the bloodshed, the tragedies that will result from this reversal of policy are just going to be extraordinary. If we make this change in the refugee program in Southeast Asia the blood is going to be on our hands for the additional boats of refugees that are going to be launched. This section of the bill and the Smith amendment completely devastates the UNHCR-multinational Comprehensive Plan for Action which is being implemented. Why is it that most of the refugee groups that have spoken out on the issue have spoken against the language in the bill and would speak, if they have not done so already, against the language offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] as an amendment to my amendment? It is because they understand that what you are unleashing here by approving the Smith amendment is a tragedy. Mr. Chairman, we have heard many comments about forced repatriation. Of course no one is in favor of forced repatriation. We have accepted over 1 million Indochinese refugees into this country because we have a responsibility as our former allies to do so. We have done that generously. Now we have the UNHCR trying to get a reasonable hold on this economic refugee and boat people process. We have 47,000 refugees waiting there at this moment, which are categorized by the UNHCR as economic refugees. I want to see any Member stand up in front of their local VFW chapter and American Legion chapter and say, ``We granted refugee status to economic refugees from North Vietnam, our former enemies.'' That is what I want to see you do. If you vote in favor of this amendment which guts my amendment offered for myself and for the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], you are devastating the Comprehensive Plan for Action. What about UNHCR? Is it a corrupt process? Well, no, it is not. Are there corruptive elements in it? Absolutely, there are. Take a look at this. Since the screening process began in 1989, about 125,000 Indochinese have been screened under close supervision of the UNHCR. One-quarter of those screened, representing more than 31,000 asylum seekers, have been found to be bona fide refugees and have been resettled in the West. The screening process included the right to appeal directly to UNHCR, which did not hesitate to overturn bad screening decisions. In fact, it overturned 1,500 initial refusals. [[Page H5540]] While there are undoubtedly examples of error in such a massive screening process, the bulk of informed opinion, both government and NGO, disputes the assertion of mass fraud and corruption in the process. If you destroy this process by the Smith language in the bill, you have left the United States holding all of the responsibilities for the tide of refugees that you are about to launch. I ask you to think seriously about that. What about the egregious cases that are mentioned and identified by the NGO's? I will work with my colleagues and the NGO's to press UNHCR and the State Department to be more active in seeking redress. I understand that at least 48 cases from the list have been successfully overturned, and more perhaps should be. But I caution my colleagues in the House, do not launch this wave of refugees.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I will come back to the gentleman from Missouri in a second, but I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we have done our best to assure that in fact we have an increase in the title II program which is most important. Sometimes, as the gentleman knows, however, we have to take from the title III program for those title II- related humanitarian programs. This amendment I am offering will continue to provide us that flexibility.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend to his colleagues the following editorial from the May 16, 1995, Omaha World- Herald. This editorial properly praises the National Archives for its straight-forwward approach to displaying World War II artifacts, photos, letters, and recordings. As the editorial notes, the National Archives has appropriately chosen to allow visitors to examine the display without being subjected to unnecessary and slanted commentary. [From the Omaha World-Herald, May 16, 1995] Simple Artifacts, Photos, Letters Describe War; No Need for `Spin' While the Smithsonian Institution was giving itself a black eye over its proposed Enola Gay display, a different kind of World War II exhibit was being prepared a few blocks away. Historians at the National Archives assembled artifacts, photographs, letters and recordings to tell the story of America's involvement in World War II from Pearl Harbor to V- J Day. Their display tells the story with power and poignancy--and without the accusatory spin that tainted the Smithsonian's proposed Enola Gay display, with its condemnation of the U.S. use of atomic weapons. The Archives display includes General Eisenhower's handwritten draft of the statement with which he planned to blame himself if the Normandy invasion failed. There is a bit of red fabric cut from the American flag that was surrendered to the Japanese on Corregidor. The cloth was preserved by American POWs, carried on the Bataan death march as a sacred symbol of their love for America, passed from one GI to another until the end of the war. The Pearl Harbor attack is stunningly seen in a film shot by a Navy photographer who happened to be on deck with his camera when the bombs started to fall. Hitler and his cronies are shown in a photo album kept by Eva Braun. The display includes photos of battle scenes, victory celebrations and everyday life in the 1940s. Giving the display a special quality are letters and diaries penned by the great and the ordinary. A declassified message from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to President Franklin Roosevelt is signed only with the word ``Prime.'' An American mother writes movingly to a son who will never live to read her words. The letters come from both sides of the battle line. A letter by a Japanese officer explains why he felt the war was justified--America, he said, had denied his country access to natural resources. A Japanese soldier writes tenderly of his concern for his young sister as the tide of war turns against Japan. Gen. Erwin Rommel of the Wehrmacht expresses affection for his wife. Of the U.S. use of atomic bombs, the text says, ``Argument about their employment has continued almost increasingly ever since 1945, but in the context of the time, they were seen as, and almost certainly were; lifesaving shortcuts to the end of the war.'' The assessment is reasonable. A few days ago, a citizen's committee made public a report about the future of the Smithsonian. The panel said the facility should not become a ``home for congratulation.'' The inclusion of that sneering statement suggests that someone on the panel wanted the Smithsonian to become a court in which the United States and Western civilization in general can regularly be put on trial. Good history, of course, isn't cheerleading. But neither does it consist of condemning earlier generations because they didn't live up to the politically correct standards of the present. Some of the best history consists of unadorned facts, presented in their context. That is what the National Archives, to its credit, has produced.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to express his support for the House Budget Committee-approved budget proposal. Congress must act now to adopt a plan to balance our Federal budget. If a balanced budget is not adopted, and current policy is maintained, our Nation's children will be left with a country that is fiscally bankrupt. A balanced budget will ensure that the next generation will inherit a future that is full of opportunity. This Member shares the goals of the budget committee to eliminate the budget deficit by the year 2002. The budget proposal offers a road map to achieve this goal by providing illustrative savings recommendations to the Appropriations Committee and the various authorizing committees, demonstrating that the budget can be balanced. While this Member notes that these recommendations included in the budget proposal are nonbinding, the overall spending allocations are in fact real funding levels which must be adhered to by the Appropriations Committee. This budget proposal offers a common sense approach that allows spending to continue to grow, yet at a slower rate. In fact, Federal spending grows about 3 percent annually under this budget proposal, rising from $1.588 trillion in fiscal year 1996 to $1.817 trillion in fiscal year 2002. In addition, this Member would like to commend the House Budget Committee for recommending the termination of many wasteful Federal programs. However, this Member would like to state his concern regarding several of the programs suggested for termination or reduction. These suggestions should be reconsidered during the deliberations that will take place between now and the start of the new fiscal year. This Member's concerns with the recommendation of the House Budget Committee are as follows: Sharp reductions in agricultural commodity support programs; Sharp reductions in export promotion, credit and insurance programs. During the GATT subsidy phase-down period, this amounts to something close to a unilateral disarmament for our export base; Elimination of such programs as the community development block grant, HOME, and the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program; The elimination of several rural health programs; Deep reductions in vocational education programs; Termination of State student incentive grants; Sale of the Western Area Power Administration; Elimiantion of section 2 and section 3(b) impact aid programs; Complete phase-out of Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Total phasing out of the entire Amtrak operating budget. In linking these concerns I would emphasis that alternative reductions in other programs and agencies would be supported by this Member to meet the budget targets. Having listed these objectives or concerns to the illustrative or suggested House Budget Committee recommendations, this Member is pleased to note that the rule contains clarifying language regarding reductions in agriculture programs. Included is a commitment to reexamine agricultural policy in 1999 and 2000 if there are certain negative consequences as a result of these reductions. Mr. Chairman, the House Budget Committee proposal departs from the failed status quo: It offers bold leadership for a balanced budget by the year 2002. This proposal is an important step in the effort to secure a bright and prosperous future for our Nation's children.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as leader of the free world, the United States has been ably joined in our foreign policy pursuits by a number of steadfast friends and allies. Nations such as France and, in particular, Great Britain, have stood by the United States when others remained silent. While international relations have changed dramatically with the end of the cold war, we should understand that we cannot, we must not, take these relationships for granted. Indeed, in the post-cold-war era, the United States can ill afford to slight our friends and allies when a wide range of challenges to our economic and security interests abroad cannot be effectively confronted unilaterally. Two actions, in particular, have recently frayed the strong ties binding the United States with Great Britain--our staunchest ally in Western Europe. To the consternation of the British Government, the Clinton administration first granted visas to members of the Irish Republican Army and then invited IRA leader Gerry Adams to the White House. Moreover, relations between the United States and its West European allies have been seriously strained as a result of failed efforts to quell the conflict on the Balkan Peninsula. There have been occasions when the Clinton administration proposed major initiatives in Bosnia-Hercegovina without consulting our European allies--nations that have thousands of troops on the ground. Such affronts to our best friends, whether intended or not, are actions that do little but to undermine our longstanding relations with these nations. Mr. Speaker, this Member would point out that the most recent slight to our European allies occurred during the 50th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe. As noted in the May 9, 1995, Omaha World Herald editorial entitled ``Clinton's Affront to England, France,'' President Clinton's decision not to participate in the English and French V-E ceremonies was a shabby way to acknowledge those allies that did so much not only to halt Nazi aggression in World War II but to protect the free world during the cold war era. This Member commends this editorial to his colleagues. [From the Omaha World Herald, May 9, 1995] Clinton's Affront to England, France President Clinton showed little loyalty to America's staunchest World War II allies and even less to the lessons of history when he chose to commemorate the 50th anniversary of V-E Day in Moscow rather than with other Allied leaders in more appropriate cities. Clinton sent Vice President Al Gore to represent the United States in London, Paris and Berlin. This was a shabby way to acknowledge the allies that did so much to save the Free World, allies that after the war formed the Atlantic Alliance to protect freedom in the decades since. Russian President Boris Yeltsin deserves criticism, too. Yeltsin, whose position as head of the Russian nation is far from solid, was unwilling to celebrate V-E Day outside of Moscow. Yeltsin should not have forced Clinton into such a choice. Just as the ``Big Three'' leaders of World II, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin, met together during the war, so today's American, British and Russian leaders should have stood together on the 50th anniversary of V-E Day. Yeltsin should not have set up such a situation, and Clinton should not have allowed himself to be manipulated so cynically with a schoolyard me-or-them ultimatum. Certainly, the Soviets paid dearly in blood and treasure in order to defeat Germany on the Eastern Front. And yes, this was integral to the Allied victory. Moscow, however, embraced virtue only out of necessity. Despite Allied efforts to enlist the Soviets, Stalin initially signed a nonaggression pact with Germany. Only when Hitler violated that pact by invading the Soviet Union did Stalin come to his senses. Through it all--betrayal by Stalin, the fall of France, the blitz, the darkest days of the war--England and her people refused to waver. In his ultimately unsuccessful plea that the Vichy government not give in to the Nazis, Churchill reminded everyone of how much was at stake in the war against Hitler: ``If we can stand up to him, all Europe, may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, the whole world, including the United States and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age.'' Clinton chose not to honor this rich and moving legacy during the commemoration of V-E Day. It was an affront to the people of England and the people of France.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Washington, DC's, Metro deserves high praise for its steadfast resolve which resulted in a common sense agreement on its subway platform edges. Last year, the Department of Transportation insisted that Metro install costly platform edges with bumps in order to warn blind riders and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, this huge expenditure would have resulted in little, if any, benefit. In fact, there was disagreement among the organizations representing the visually impaired about the merit of the platform edge requirement. This appeared to be yet another case of the Federal Government forcing compliance simply for the sake of compliance rather than making an effort to meet an actual need. On June 13, 1994, this Member wrote to Metro's general manager, Lawrence Reuter, to urge him to stand up to the DOT bureaucracy and fight for a practical solution. A copy of the letter was also sent to Transportation Secretary Federico Pena. This Member is pleased that a reasonable agreement has now been reached between Metro and the Federal Transit Administration. Under the agreement, Metro will install a system of transmitters that will allow visually impaired riders wearing wrist beepers to be signaled when they are too close to the edge of the subway platform. This system will be much less expensive than the proposed bumpy platforms and should also provide a higher degree of safety. This Member also commends the Federal Transit Administration for finally demonstrating common sense and flexibility in arriving at this agreement. Too bad it took a confrontation to reach a common sense solution but sometimes that is necessary. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial in support of the agreement from the April 27, 1995, edition of the Washington Post. Metro Platforms: Reason Prevails It had all the earmarks of a classic legal regulatory battle between a regional agency and the federal government: Metro General Manager Lawrence G. Reuter was bucking an order from the federal government under the Americans With Disabilities Act to rip out and replace all of its subway platform edges as a safety measure for blind riders. Comply or risk federal funding, said the Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration. It's too expensive and isn't needed on a system with a good safety record already, replied Mr. Reuter. We'll sue, said DOT. We're not budging, said Metro, noting that there was a division of opinion among organizations representing people whose vision is impaired as to the usefulness, or potential additional hazards, of the federally mandated surfaces with raised bumps. But now, after nearly a year of wrangling, bumpy edges are giving way to smooth solutions. The Clinton administration has backed away from its demand, settling instead for agreement by Metro to install a system of transmitters that will signal blind riders wearing wrist beepers that they are close to platform edges. Federal mass transit administrator Gordon J. Linton concluded that the regulation is ``so narrow and prescriptive'' that ``there is not room to exercise judgment or discretion'' and agreed to grant Metro's request for a ``determination of equivalent facilitation'' for the edges that are already along the platforms. Translation: Score one for good sense. Instead of proceeding with expensive, time- [[Page E996]] consuming litigation to try to force expensive, revenue-consuming measures to resolve a problem that didn't seem to be one, the federal government though better of it.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 53) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding a private visit by President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the United States, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for his outstanding comments. Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure of yielding such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and certainly one of the Members most knowledgeable about Taiwanese and Chinese relations, and I look forward to his comments.

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 gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations. and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member rises in strong support for House Concurrent Resolution 53, expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should grant a visa to President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan for a private visit to the United States to receive an honorary degree from his alma mater, Cornell University. This Member commends the initiative of the author of this resolution, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos]. This Member would also commend the chairman of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for bringing this resolution before this body in a timely manner. Action of the House International Relations Committee on this resolution has demonstrated overwhelming bipartisan sentiment that the United States should grant a visa to President Lee for such a private visit. On April 5, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the full Committee on International Relations unanimously endorsed the resolution. It continues to be this Member's view that issuance of a visitor's visa to President Lee is not inconsistent with the United States ``One China'' policy which limits official contact with Taiwan. Moreover, this Member believes that issuance of the visa is only fitting considering our close economic ties with Taiwan and the democratic strides made by President Lee's government. The United States pioneered, through the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 and the establishment of the American Institute in Taiwan, the successful maintenance of unofficial ties with Taiwan. Even as the United States shifted its official recognition in 1979 from Taipei to Beijing, the Congress made it clear to the Chinese that the United States would maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial ties with Taiwan. Moreover, as mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States provides defense material and training to Taiwan to enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. The question then is: Why the President of Taiwan would not be permitted to make a private visit to the United States to receive an honorary degree at and I quote, ``a visit by a person of President Lee's title and symbolic importance, whether or not the visit were termed `private,' would unavoidably be seen by the People's Republic of China as removing an essential element of unofficiality in the United States-Taiwan relationship.'' That may be the case, even though that is not an objective conclusion by the PRC, but that conclusion on their part should not be the determining factor in the administration's decision. The State Department is obviously correct in noting that we have major interests in maintaining a positive relationship with Beijing. In fact this gentleman is committed to improving and deepening that relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China. In several of my statements as chairman of this subcommittee, for example, this Member has stressed his view that we should not isolate or demonize China. But, at the same time, we cannot let Beijing dictate to us who can or cannot make a private visit to his alma mater in the United States. What this resolution is endorsing is a very reasonable and specifically limited exception from the current U.S. policy. The State Department seems to have ignored one key principle when making this decision. That principle is that our foreign policy, if it is to be sustainable with the American people and Congress, must meet the commonsense test. In this Member's view, refusing to grant a visitor's visa to the President of a thriving democratic friend of the United States, who would enter our country simply to receive an honorary degree at his alma mater, does not make sense. It is not a commonsense, foreign policy judgment. The resolution before us today would call for the administration to make an exception to its policy in this instance so that President Lee can visit Ithaca, NY, to receive an honorary degree from his alma mater, Cornell University. Mr. Speaker, this Member will vote for House Concurrent Resolution 53 and urges all his colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for his support and assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. The same is true of the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York, and I especially commend my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], for his initiative in bringing this legislation to the floor, and indeed all of the speakers who have eloquently testified in support of the resolution before us. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] for his remarks regarding the fact that this resolution is not passed in contradiction to the one-China policy that has been the position of previous administrations and this administration. Indeed, we do not seek an additional confrontation with the People's Republic of China. It is this Member's view and the policy of the administration to encourage an improved relationship with the People's Republic of China. But we also want to sustain and enhance our relationship with the Government of Taiwan, and indeed we want common sense applied in our foreign policy. We will not be intimidated by any kind of concern in eliminating an opportunity for a visit from President Lee to receive an honorary degree from his alma mater. I urge my colleagues to give their unanimous support to House Concurrent Resolution 53.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

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 House Concurrent Resolution 53.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in reluctant support of this measure. This Member will vote for H.R. 1215, as it does contain many positive provisions, but he remains concerned that this bill was not allowed to be made better through the amendment process. This Member believes the Senate will improve the bill. Sounds emanating from the Senate indicate a more equitable and reasonable approach on some expected parts of this omnibus tax-cut legislation. And Mr. Chairman, it must be improved before this Member will support a conference report. Specifically, an improved bill must target its tax breaks toward truly middle income Americans. Still, this Member does support this bill because of the many positive steps it will take to restore a sense of tax fairness to the American people. These include: A 50 percent cut in the capital gains tax and prospective indexing for inflation. After years of taxing individuals and businesses at the current rate, without any relief through indexing for inflation, this cut and the beginning of indexation to account for the ravages of inflation is the least we can do. Elimination of the Marriage Penalty. The bill at long last would provide married couples who file joint returns with an income tax credit of up to $145 to at least reduce the marriage penalty for most couples. This provision ends the inequitable and irrational current policy of taxing married couples more than if the couple filed separately. It is notable that this bill eliminates this problem, which was exacerbated by the Clinton tax increase of 2 years ago. Expansion of existing IRAs and creation of a new type of IRA. The measure modifies present law governing deductible IRAs to permit annual deductible contributions of up to $2,000 for each spouse, thus finally eliminating a penalty on spouses who choose to be homemakers. Additionally, the measure provides for creation of American Dream Savings [ADS] accounts. Individuals will be able to contribute up to $2,000 per year--$4,000 for married couples--into a tax-free, nondeductible ADS account. Contributors will pay income tax when funds are deposited, but not when withdrawing the funds, effectively making the interest on the account tax free. Contributors may make tax-free withdrawals of funds after 5 years for retirement income, purchase of a first home, education expenses, or medical costs--including the purchase of long-term care insurance. Increasing the exemptions under the Estate and Gift tax from $600,000 to $750,000 to account for the ravages of inflation since the current exemption was first enacted and then indexing the exemption to inflation. Families and small business owners have been hit hard by an exemption which has not been indexed for inflation. They have seen their ability to pass on family businesses and farms diminished by the increasing value of the property. By increasing the exemption we make up for past inflation and indexing the exemption assists families and small businesses down the road. Increasing the depreciation on equipment and inventory for small businesses. The current depreciation limit of $17,500 is increased over 4 years to $35,000. This increase provides some relief to small businesses--allowing them to expand and update, thereby creating new jobs and a stronger economy. Increase in the Social Security Earnings Limit. The bill raises the current $11,280 earnings limit for seniors to $30,000 over 5 years. This change which I have long supported eliminates what amounts to a 33-percent marginal tax rate on seniors earning up to $30,000. It is ridiculous that we punish seniors who want to remain productive and pay more income taxes past the age of 64; this measure ends that punishment. Tax incentives for private long-term health care insurance. To encourage people to provide for their long-term care needs, the bill treats long-term care insurance as a tax-free employee benefit--up to $73,000 annually--like regular health insurance; allows life insurance policies to offer tax-free accelerated death benefits in the event of terminal illness or confinement to a nursing home; allows tax free withdrawals from IRA's, 401(k) plans and other pension plans for the purchase of long-term care insurance; and allows deductions for long- term care premiums. Repeal of the Social Security Benefits Tax. This measure reduces, over 5 years, the amount of Social Security benefits subject to income tax back to 50 percent, eliminating the increase to 85 percent which was passed as part of President Clinton's tax increase package, passed by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1993. Elderly citizens earning more than $34,000 individually, or couples earning more than $44,000 will now be taxed on 50 percent of their benefits, not 85 percent as they were under the Clinton plan. Adoption Assistance. The bill creates a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. The credit starts at $5,000 per child and is proportionally reduced to zero for incomes exceeding $60,000, eliminating it totally for adjusted gross incomes over $100,000. Despite these many positive provisions this Member's support is reluctant because only one amendment was made in order under the rule. This closed rule violates the spirit of the Contract With America since it calls for full and open debate and a clear and fair vote on each of the 10 Contract items. The Ganske/Roberts amendment should have been ruled in order. At least 102 Republican Members and many Democrats wanted to vote for the Ganske/Roberts amendment. It was a reasonable and fair amendment which helped maintain equity in this bill for people who really are middle-income Americans. Those provisions, limiting the $500 per child tax credit to families earning $95,000 per year or less, were intended to fine tune this measure toward assisting those we have pledged to help--the middle income. A $95,000 per year income is a much more realistic cut-off for determining who is middle income. Try telling the people of Nebraska that families earning up to $200,000 are middle income; you won't have much success. This is a very substantial tax cut for wealthy and upper- income Americans--a loss of revenue that should have been devoted to reducing the deficit. And I might add, Mr. Chairman, my informal survey of my constituents shows that, on an 8 to 1 ratio, they believe that savings from reduced expenditures should first be used for deficit reduction. Provisions in this bill like the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations are not helpful to middle income Americans and it is bad tax policy which reverses recent reforms. Savings achieved by the cuts made in this measure should either benefit people who truly are middle income or go toward reducing the deficit. They should not provide additional tax benefits to corporations and the wealthy. Mr. Chairman, despite my concern about some of the provisions of this bill, the positive reform elements just mentioned on balance easily make this a good and needed bill. This Member urges its passage, while lamenting that all of the provisions in the bill are not as effective and reasonable as those positive ones that this Member has highlighted.