Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining for each side?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker, and then I will close on our side. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) who has done excellent work on this bill. (Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for their hard work on behalf of women screened under the CDC National Breast and Cervical Cancer screening program. H.R. 1070 has tremendous support with 315 cosponsors. In 1990, Congress passed a Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act authorizing funding for a national breast and cervical cancer screening program, focusing on uninsured and under-insured women. The program is federally funded and locally operated, and it works. My home State of Ohio set up 12 local screening sites providing coverage for all of Ohio's 88 counties. Since its inception, some 16,000 women in my State have been screened for cervical and breast cancer, and cancer has been detected in more than 200 women. Early detection alters the odds of successful treatment dramatically, restoring precious years otherwise lost to these devastating cancers. But there is a catch. Early detention is a futile and ultimately cruel exercise if the cancer diagnosis does not trigger appropriate treatment. They go hand in hand. The 1990 bill authorizes funding for screening but not for treatment. Screening alone surely cannot reduce cancer mortality. Thankfully, only a small percentage of women screened under the CDC program were actually diagnosed with cancer. Imagine if one of these women was your sister, your mother, your wife, your daughter. Maybe she works for a company that does not offer health insurance. Maybe she is out of a job. Maybe you are. With our encouragement, she participates in the CDC cancer screening program and learned she has life threatening cancer. What is next? If we pass this bill, she will face cancer with doctors and in a setting that makes sense. If we do not, she will be relegated to charity care. It is as simple as that. The Nation can make a small investment and, in so doing, reduce cancer mortality, promote cost-effective early detection and prevention of cancer, and spare seriously ill women the added trauma of cobbled together often-ineffective care. Or we can look the other way. There is only one right answer, Mr. Speaker. We need to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask House support for H.R. 4386. When women are diagnosed under a Federal program that has been in existence for about a decade with breast cancer, some women clearly have nowhere to turn, they must cobble together various kind of charitable care and any health services that they can get. I would hope this legislation, Mr. Speaker, will change that and take care of those women once they are diagnosed with breast cancer. I hope that H.R. 4386 will set the tone in this House and set the direction in this House for universal coverage for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask House support of H.R. 4365. This legislation has been a good faith effort with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my office, and this committee working together. It will mean an absolute difference in children's lives; children who have often been ignored by the system in juvenile arthritis or juvenile diabetes and tests conducted not always for children and the unique diseases they have. Mr. Speaker, I ask House support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), my friend who has done as much or more on this legislation than any Member of the House.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are times, Mr. Speaker, when I feel especially privileged to be here and this is one of those times. This bill can help children I have met. It gives hope to parents I have met. I have two amazing daughters. I know how it feels when the only thing that matters is to end whatever it is that is causing your child pain. When the only thing that matters is to smooth the path for them to make sure the odds are and stay solidly in their favor. I can only imagine how the parents of a child with autism or arthritis or epilepsy must feel as they seek help for their children only to encounter dead end after dead end; to look for answers and to be told that the knowledge simply is not there, to be told that research is lacking. H.R. 4365 is not a glamorous bill. Its passage is not going to make or break any campaigns. You are not going to hear about it on Meet the Press. But H.R. 4365 responds to very real needs. It does several good things. The initiatives authorized in H.R. 4365 intensify efforts to find a cure for autism. The initiatives authorized could contribute to the cure and the prevention of juvenile diabetes, juvenile arthritis, epilepsy and asthma. The initiatives could contribute to the prevention of birth defects. It could help children with traumatic brain injury and protect more children from the environmental injuries like lead poisoning. H.R. 4365 promotes children's health in other important ways. It extends the authorization for resources to support graduate medical education in our Nation's freestanding children's hospitals. It establishes a pediatric research initiative within NIH to create a more level playing field for research targeting children. The bill offers hope to children and hope to their families and if we put the resources behind it as we should, this bill will deliver children in the future from illnesses and disabilities that compromise their health and their well-being. I feel privileged to have worked with families and community leaders and Members on both sides of the aisle who are committed to the goals of this bill and who have worked tirelessly to see that something actually gets done to achieve these goals. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his good work, Jason Lee and Anne Esposito in his office and Donna Pignatelli, Ellie Dehoney and Katie Porter in mine. I hope the House will join in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting time to be in our Nation's capital. There are more chief executive officers, more CEOs, of the country's largest corporations roaming the halls this week and next week than perhaps anytime in recent American political history. The reason? The United States Congress is considering giving Permanent Most Favored Nation status trading privileges to the People's Republic of China. When it comes to competing for U.S. trade and investment dollars, democratic countries in the developing world are losing ground to more authoritarian countries in the developing world, like China. The CEOs that come to our offices and implore us to support permanent trade advantages for the People's Republic of China and its communist regime tell us that China is a lucrative market, with 1.2 billion potential consumers. What they do not tell us, but what is the most important to them, is that China is a nation of 1.2 billion potential workers, workers who are paid 30 cents an hour, workers who do not talk back, workers who cannot form unions, workers who do not benefit from any worker safety legislation or environmental laws or food safety standards. In the post-Cold War decade, the share of developing country exports to the U.S. for democratic nations fell from 53 percent to 34 percent, a decrease of 18 percentage points. American CEOs prefer doing business in totalitarian countries like China because western investors enjoy the benefits of child labor and slave labor and 25-cent-an-hour wages. In manufacturing goods, developing democracies' share of developing country exports fell 21 percentage points, from 56 to 35 percent. American CEOs prefer doing business in countries like China, authoritarian countries like China, where workers can never speak up, where human rights are dismissed, where worker rights are simply nonexistent. Nations that do not support democracy have gained five percent of U.S. investment over the last 10 years. China was responsible for 95 percent of foreign investment gained for non-democratic countries. American CEOs prefer doing business in authoritarian nations like China with an obedient, docile workforce that has no ability to organize unions. Western corporations have shown they want to invest in countries that have below poverty wages, poor environmental standards, no opportunities for unions. They love to invest in authoritarian countries that suppress labor rights, allow slave labor, allow child labor, pay 25 cents an hour. The United States talks a good game about democratic ideals worldwide through all of our trade programs. But, as developing nations make progress toward democracy, something we say we applaud in this institution, the American business community penalizes those countries that are becoming more democratic by pulling its trade and investment in favor of totalitarian countries like China. CEOs tell us that engaging with China will bring more democracy to that country and more freedom and more enterprise and all of that. But who are the real decision-makers in China? Who gains from the system the way it is in China? Who is in charge in the People's Republic of China? First, the Chinese Communist Party makes most decisions in that country; second, the People's Liberation Army, which owns many of the export businesses in China, the big manufacturing concerns; and third, the western investors are very influential that have businesses set up in China. Which of those groups wants to see change? Which of those groups wants China to democratize? Which of those groups wants workers in that country to have more rights, to have more ability to speak up, to be able to form unions and bargain collectively and bring their wages up? The Chinese Communist Party? I do not think so. The People's Liberation Army? I do not think so. Western investors in China? I do not think so. Those three groups, the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, western investors, lump them all together and they are all aiming for the same thing. They like doing business. They like the synergism that results when the three of them work together. They like the way things are in the People's Republic of China. That is why we should vote ``no'' on Permanent Most Favored Nation status for China. Shame on us, shame on this Congress if we give Permanent Most Favored Nation status trading privileges to the People's Republic of China, a communist government that flies in the face of all human rights, that cares nothing about its workers, that exploits child labor, slave labor, that persecutes Christians, allows and encourages forced abortion. Shame on us in this Congress if we give Permanent Most Favored Nation status to that country.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time and ask for House support of H.R. 3244.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War opened up a 10-year flood of new trade investment and economic growth in the world. But underneath this trend lies an unsettling pattern. When it comes to competing for U.S. trade and private investment dollars, democratic countries in the developing world, countries like India and Taiwan and Bangladesh and South Korea, are losing ground to more authoritarian countries, like Indonesia, and especially the People's Republic of China. In the post-Cold War decade, the share of developing country exports to the U.S. for democratic nations fell from 53 percent in 1989 to 34 percent in 1998, a decrease of 18 percentage points. Nondemocratic nations increased their share commensurately. In manufacturing goods, developing democracies' share of developing country exports fell 21 percentage points, from 56 percent to 35 percent. Regarding U.S. foreign investment in manufacturing, developing democratic countries gained 1 percent over the last 10 years. Nations that do not support democracy gained 5 percent of U.S. foreign investment over the last 10 years. China was responsible for 5 percent of foreign investment gained for nondemocratic countries. Not only have the U.S. export market shares decreased for developing countries that have always been democracies, countries that have recently become democracies have also lost market share. Understanding that basis for the vote that is coming in the next couple of weeks about giving permanent trade, Most Favored Nations status trading privileges to China should make the difference in this vote. Western corporations want to invest in countries, like China, that have below-poverty wages, that have unenforced environmental laws or nonexistent environmental standards, and have no opportunities to unionize. As a result, they are turning to the authoritarian countries that can suppress labor rights and guarantee high profits for American companies. China, for instance, is much more attractive to an American investigator than is India; China, a country which has a docile hierarchal workforce where workers cannot join unions, where workers cannot talk back, where workers often cannot switch jobs and go to a competing factory. United States pretends to promote democratic ideals worldwide through foreign aid and through the rhetoric in this chamber. But as developing countries make progress towards democracy, the American business community rewards them by pulling its trade and investment and depositing their investments in money in other totalitarian countries. Understand, where corporate CEOs walk the halls of Congress asking Members of Congress to support permanent trade advantages for China, understand where they say that we need to engage with China so China improves its human rights record, where China will quit persecuting Christians and China will quit allowing forced abortions in their country, understand that the three major economic players in China are the Communist party of China, the People's Liberation Army of China, which runs many of the factories there, and Western investors. Those Western investors, the Communist party, the People's Liberation Army, none of them want to change the rules. The rules work just fine for them. They like an authoritarian government structure that does not reward an ability to organize and bargain collectively, that does not tolerate any kind of dissent, that does not allow for any kind of worker rights. That is why American investment is more and more likely to go to China instead of India, instead of Taiwan, instead of South Korea, instead of a country that really is a democracy. That is why China's permanent Most Favored Nations status trading privileges are such a bad idea. Shame on this country, shame on this Congress if we give permanent Most Favored Nations status trading privileges to a country that violates every human rights standard, every value that we in this country hold dear.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this education problem is not only a big city problem in spite of the comments of the previous speaker. Yesterday, the National Education Association estimated the country's construction needs at over $300 billion. This includes basic necessities, a desk in a classroom rather than in a broom closet, plumbing that works, computers capable of reaching the Internet. My State, the State of Ohio, rural, urban, suburban, is home to one of the greatest needs, ranked 49th in the country for infrastructure, in spite of local effort and State effort. Ohio faces a $25 billion bill to provide children a safe and healthy learning environment. The State recently committed to spending $10 billion over 26 years to do just that. Unfortunately, that is just not enough. In my district, Elyria High School is over 70 years old and does not qualify for any State funds. The children of Elyria, as are other places across the country, simply cannot wait any longer. If we work together, they will not have to. I am cosponsor of the America's Better Classroom Act by providing zero-interest bonds, it would leverage local and Federal resources to begin to take care of this national disgrace. Only a unified front can fix this problems. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Lake County, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and my friend, the gentleman from Mahoning County, Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation about former Congressman Don Pease. Don Pease began his long and distinguished congressional career in 1976, a time when Gerald Ford was President of the United States and Ohio's 13th Congressional District was characterized by growing industrialization and rural communities. Upon his retirement in 1992, Don Pease could look back and see a fundamentally changed landscape that he held shaped both on a local and national level. A native of Toledo, Ohio, Pease is a graduate of Ohio University and served in the Oberlin City Council, the Ohio House and Senate and as editor of the Oberlin News-Tribune. In 1976, he won election to this House of Representatives. Pease spearheaded the fight for human rights protections with his standing on the International Relations Committee. In 1981, he secured his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means and further dedicated himself to tax policy. His numerous legislative victories were marked by an ability to reach consensus. His efforts to work with both sides of the aisle included service on the conference committee for the hotly debated tax reform bill of 1986, and mediation between congressional leaders and the Bush administration on tax policy. Also, as Congress prepares to consider China's trade status at the end of this month, I think it is especially important to note Pease is largely responsible for introducing labor rights into trade legislation. Since leaving Congress, Don has returned to Ohio. He has served on the Amtrak board and currently serves as Visiting Distinguished Professor in Oberlin College's Department of Politics. Don Pease was, and still is, committed to Ohio's working families. His efforts to improve education, expand access to health care, and support workers have made a difference in our lives. By renaming the Medina Federal Building on West Liberty Street in Medina, Ohio, as the Donald J. Pease Federal Building, this bill, Mr. Speaker, honors his hard work in the district that he loves so much. Don Pease was held in high regard as both an ethical and able legislator. He devoted 16 years of service to the 13th district in Ohio, and he served the Nation and the State well. I am pleased to join my colleagues in both parties in recognizing Don's dedication to improving people's lives. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support for this legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in 3 weeks the Republican leadership will ask this body to vote for permanent most favored nation status trading privileges for the People's Republic of China. They tell us engagement with China, that more trade with China, that giving trade advantages to China, will make everything better. It all started back about a dozen years ago with Ronald Reagan, then President George Bush and President Bill Clinton, telling us that things would get better with China. Eleven years ago the United States had a $100 million trade deficit, with an ``M,'' with Communist China, the People's Republic of China. Today that trade deficit has grown to $70 billion, that is billion with a ``B,'' from $100 million in 11 years to $70 billion trade deficit with China. We sell only $15 billion worth of goods to China every year. We buy $85 billion worth of goods from China. We sell more to Singapore, we sell more to Taiwan, we sell more to Belgium, than we do to China, because China's markets are closed to American products by and large. In fact, those products we sell to those countries, Belgium, Taiwan, Singapore, those are countries with about \1/50\ the population of the People's Republic of China. This process of engagement and giving them most favored nation status and giving China trade privileges simply has not worked. Other conditions have worsened. The trade deficit, as I said, went from $100 million to $70 billion in 11 years. Other conditions, child labor has worsened, slave labor conditions in China have worsened. We continue to give them trade advantages. They answer by continuing their thumb in the eye of the values that we hold dear. The Chinese communist party persecutes Christians and Buddhists and Muslims, not to mention their indigenous religious organizations such as the Falun Gong. The Chinese government winks at, sometimes even encourages, forced abortions, something that almost every country in the world, probably every country in the world, finds absolutely abhorrent. Today, China continues its assault on Taiwan. A few years ago, I believe 3 years ago when Taiwan held the first free elections in Chinese history, the People's Republic of China sent missiles into the Straits of Taiwan to warn them against democracy. Today, as Taiwan begins a new era where their first native Taiwanese will be inaugurated president later this month, the Chinese again are threatening military maneuvers on the east coast of China. If we let China in the World Trade Organization with full trading privileges, as the Republican leadership and the President here wants to do, what is to stop China from doing even more to Taiwan? They will not have any check on their behavior. Perhaps the most insidious part of this whole debate is how American corporations have lined up on behalf of the Communist party dictatorship. The CEOs of the largest businesses in America, the most prominent corporations in America, are walking the halls of Congress today and all the House and Senate office buildings imploring Members of Congress to vote to support the People's Republic of China, to support most favored nation status trading privileges for China. Wei Jing Sheng, a Chinese dissident, said the vanguard of the Chinese Communist Party revolution in the United States is America's most prominent and prestigious CEOs. There are more corporate jets at National Airport today, leading up to the MFN vote, the most favored nation status, trading privileges for China vote, than at any time during the year. Corporations understand. They tell us that China has 1.2 billion potential consumers, that America needs to sell to them. What they really mean to say is China has 1.2 billion workers, investments made from American companies, in China, people making 13 cents and 15 cents and 20 cents an hour, working 60 and 70 and 75 hours a week, selling products back to the United States, exploiting Chinese workers and costing American jobs. Most favored nation status privilege is permanent. MTR for China is a bad idea. I ask this Congress to defeat it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, 3 weeks from this week, the Republican leadership will ask this House to pass legislation granting Permanent Most Favored Nation status trading privileges to China. This is a very bad idea. Let me count the ways. First of all, China is a nation that practices slave labor and practices child labor. Why should we give trade advantages to a nation that engages in that kind of behavior with no oversight from us, with no check on Chinese behavior? China is a nation that allows forced abortions, a government that sometimes encourages forced abortions, again, a violation of any kind of behavior that we and most of the nations around the world find unacceptable. The Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, is also a nation and a government that persecutes Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and also local religious sects such as the Falun Gong in a China that, again, has no respect for human rights. The government of China also has repeatedly sold nuclear technology to countries that have no business having that kind of nuclear technology that can very easily turn into weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, in the last few weeks, we have seen the People's Republic of China threaten the Republic of Taiwan. Three or 4 years ago, during the last Taiwanese elections, the Chinese government, the People's Republic of China, the Communist Chinese Government sent missiles shooting into the Straits of Taiwan to threaten that Nation that was holding the first free elections ever in Chinese history. Giving China Most Favored Nation status, giving China permanent trading privileges with the West simply makes no sense. China is a market that has been closed to us. We, 10 years ago, 11 years ago, when President Reagan and President Bush, now President Clinton, began this policy of engagement with China where we would trade freely back and forth with China, in those days, 11 years ago, we had $100 million, with an ``M,'' $100 million trade deficit with the People's Republic of China. Today, after 11 years of this policy, we have a $70 billion, with a ``B,'' $70 billion trade deficit with the People's Republic of China. Why? Because of slave labor, because of child labor, because they have simply closed their markets to us. Last year, we bought $85 billion worth of goods from the People's Republic of China. They only let us sell $15 billion of goods into their market. We sell more to Belgium than we do to China. We sell more to Singapore than we do to China. We sell more to Taiwan than we do to China, countries that have, at most, 1-50th the population of the People's Republic of China. No issue in my 8 years in Congress has been debated as heavily or lobbied most importantly, lobbied as heavily by as many wealthy special interest groups as the annual MFN review for China and now permanent trade relations with China. There are more corporate jets at National Airport when the China vote comes up. There are more CEOs individually, the CEOs of the largest corporations in America, walking the halls of Congress, stopping in every Member's office, lobbying them about supporting permanent trade privileges for the People's Republic of China. Wei Jing-Sheng, a Chinese dissident who spent time in Chinese prison camps, said that the vanguard of the Chinese communist party in the United States is American CEOs. Think about that. CEOs of the largest companies in this country are doing the dirty work, doing the heavy lifting, doing the lobbying for, doing the support of the Communist leaders in the People's Republic of China. This body would never even consider, would not even come close to supporting permanent trade relations with China, would not even come close to supporting any kind of tariff reductions, Most Favored Nation status, trading privileges for China, if these CEOs of America's largest corporations were not walking the halls and lobbying for the Communist leaders in the People's Republic of China. These same CEOs say, well, the reason we need to knock down all barriers to China and ignore human rights violations, ignore the forced abortions, ignore the persecution of Christians and Muslims, the reason that we in the United States should ignore the nuclear sales to rogue nations, the reason we in the United States should ignore slave labor and child labor in China is because it will help the United States of America, and they say it will mean 1.2 billion consumers for American products. The fact is their excitement is not over 1.2 million consumers, it is over 1.2 million workers. We should defeat China MFN.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and I have introduced the Stop Tuberculosis Now Act. The legislation proposes to amend the Foreign Assistance Act. It authorizes $100 million appropriation to USAID for the purposes of diagnosing TB in high incidence countries. TB is one of the greatest infectious killers of adults worldwide, killing 2 million people per year, killing more people last year than any year in world history. Thirteen hundred Indians, for example, die every day from tuberculosis. It is the biggest killer of young women and the biggest killer of people with HIV/AIDS in the world. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world's population is infected with the bacteria that causes TB including at least 10 million individuals in the United States. Eight million people around the world will develop active TB each year. TB is spreading as a result of inadequate treatment, and it is a disease that certainly knows no national boundaries. We have a remarkably cost effective strategy for TB control, DOTS, the Directly Observed Treatment Short course, that uses inexpensive drugs at a cost of as little as $15 per person in developing countries. The strategy is only reaching one person in five. The question is not a medical one, it is a political one.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3707. I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for their good work on this legislation. The recent election of President Chen was a monumental event in Taiwan's history. The peaceful transfer of power will stand as a model for all other nations struggling for the Democratic ideals that our Nation holds so dear. Under threats of violence from the People's Republic of China, the people of Taiwan demonstrated their desire to elect the candidate with the ability and the vision to lead them into the 21st century. The United States must recognize its responsibility to assist the Taiwanese leadership in establishing a peaceful Taiwan. Any resolution to the dispute between China and Taiwan will be through peaceful negotiation with the ascent of the Taiwanese people. Assisting Taiwan in their pursuit of a Democratic future, we must provide the American Institute in Taiwan with the necessary resources to perform all of their functions properly. The allocation of funds for planning, for acquisition, and for construction for a new facility is a clear gesture of the U.S.'s long-term commitment to the people of Taiwan. The American Institute in Taiwan plays a valued role in U.S.A.-Taiwan relations. For more than 20 years, the AIT has implemented all programs and transactions for the United States Government in Taipei. But the current conditions of the AIT's facilities are undoubtedly inadequate. Built as temporary structures some 50 years ago, the cost of maintenance and repair are becoming increasingly more expensive. The facilities also have virtually no setback, and steps to meet security standards are not cost effective. The AIT needs a modern and effective base of operations to perform its duties in these historical times. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.