Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for confirming my understanding.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, section 4 of this bill requires that agents directed by the copyright office to distribute webcasting royalties must make direct payment of those royalties to featured and nonfeatured recording artists and musicians. Section 4 also allows such agents to deduct their administrative and other reasonable expenses from the royalties they distribute. These provisions are somewhat unusual, so I want to confirm my understanding of their import with the distinguished chairman. It is my understanding that both provisions simply codify what is the current practice in the marketplace. Copyright office regulations require direct payment of royalties for the years 1998 to 2002, and the only distributing agent currently designated by the copyright office has contracted to make direct payments. Further, royalty recipients have agreed to allow that distributing agent to deduct its expenses from royalties. Is it the chairman's understanding that these provisions simply codify those current practices?

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Patsy Mink was a wonderful person with a compassionate heart and a warm and loving spirit. She was tireless and forceful in her advocacy for civil rights, for justice, for the environment, and for adequate health care and education for the disadvantaged. Throughout her distinguished legislative career, her work was characterized by great skill and a straightforward approach that instilled confidence and won her a reputation for being forthright and honest. She was known for her ability to build coalitions for progressive legislation. Hawaii was not yet a state when Patsy started down the path of political activism. As the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress, indeed the first woman of any ethnic minority elected to Congress, she took very seriously her responsibilities as a role model and mentor. She fought fiercely against words, actions, and policies that she saw as unfair or intolerant. She spent her life breaking down barriers and dedicated herself to fighting for equality. For me, Patsy was not only a talented professional, but a friend and I will miss her greatly. Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the works of a great mentor, friend, colleague, and champion in Congress, Representative Patsy Mink. I am saddened by the sudden loss of such a great leader and heroine. She inspired many of us through her tireless work, commitment, and dedication throughout her tenure in Congress. I send my love and condolences to Representative Mink's family, Mr. John Francis Mink, her husband, and Gwendolyn Rachel Mink, her daughter. You are in my thoughts and prayers. Congresswoman Mink was the first Asian American woman to serve in Congress. During her time in Congress she championed many issued including women's rights, education, the environment, equal opportunity for all citizens, and Title IX of the Education Act. She will always be remembered as an outspoken advocate for women, children, the under represented and humanity. She was the kind of public servant we all want to emulate. She left a lasting legacy behind that has inspired us to continue her work. She touched the lives of many individuals, particularly women through her work on Title IX, which mandates gender equality in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX has been instrumental in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and sports activities that receive federal funding. Before Title IX, many schools saw no problem in maintaining strict limits on the admission of women or simply refusing to admit them. Since the passage of Title IX, this has changed dramatically. In 1994, women received 38% of medical degrees, 43% of law degrees, and 44% of all doctoral degrees. In 1972, women received only 9% of medical degrees, 7% of law degrees and 25% of doctoral degrees. Female participation in sports, like receiving a college education, has had unexpected benefits for women through Title IX. Studies have shown that values learned from sports participation, such as teamwork, leadership, discipline and pride in accomplishment, are important attributes as women increase their participation in the workforce, as well as their entry into business management and ownership positions. More and more women are entering and graduating from college and graduate school. More women are entering and excelling sports activities. And, more women are entering the corporate world and holding management positions. Representative Mink's leadership is enacting Title IX will continue to make a difference for young women. Thanks to her courage and foresight the country is better as women have the opportunity to achieve their full position. Her work enabled many young women to enter the field of sports, medicine, law, and business. Women today have been empowered to reach as far as they want because of the work Representative Mink championed in Congress. Representative Patsy Mink's dedication and perseverance will be admired. She will be forever known as a strong, intelligent, and inspirational woman. She left a legacy behind that motivated and touched me deeply. Her work has allowed women to accomplish and reach for any dream they desire to achieve. Thank you, Patsy Mink.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I've heard many arguments against H.R. 4600, but there is one that I've not heard mentioned yet today. I suspect that the drafters did not intend the bill to have this effect, but as drafted the HEALTH Act endangers the effectiveness of the most successful anti-fraud tool that the government has at its disposal--the False Claims Act. In 1986, Congress passed and President Reagan signed legislation strengthening the False Claims Act, a law originally signed by President Lincoln in 1863. The amendments passed in 1986 have made it possible for the government to recover close to $9 billion that would otherwise have been lost to health care fraud and abuse. The definitions of ``health care lawsuit'' and ``health care liability action'' in this bill are very broad. Broad enough to encompass fraud cases brought under the False Claims Act. If a False Claims Act case was determined to fall under the HEALTH Act, it would be devastating to the effectiveness of this anti-fraud tool. Under False Claims the government can recover up to treble damages. In a decision 2 years ago, the Supreme Court determined that these recoveries constitute punitive damages. The Health Act would cap punitive damages at $250,000 or twice the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater. Let's use as an example the 1996 case against Laboratory Corporation of America, a fraud case based upon false claims for medically unnecessary ``add-on'' tests submitted to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHAMPUS. The government recovery in this case was $182 million. These are not small cases. The treble damages serve as a deterrent--a very effective deterrent. By some estimates the deterrent effect of the False Claims Act amendments was between 150 and 300 billion dollars during their first ten years of existence. By blocking punitive damages in these cases, the bill could make the False Claims Act useless to the government as a tool against fraud. In a report released last year, Taxpayers Against Fraud estimated that using the False Claims Act, the government was recovering $8 for each tax dollar spent fighting health care fraud. There are very few government efforts that can claim this level of efficacy. I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and permit the government to continue to protect itself from health care fraud.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement from the Broadcasting Board of Governors, it is a pleasure to recognize Marc Nathanson, who was named to the Board in 1995 and has served as its Chairman since 1999. Marc is a very dear friend to us; a person of the highest integrity and intelligence and it is with considerable pride that we share with our colleagues some of the many challenges he faced during his tenure and the outstanding manner in which he has served. Marc led the BBG through its transition to independence in the Fall of 1999, ensuring the appropriate distribution of resources and authorities as the responsibilities of the U.S. Information Agency were divided between the new broadcasting entity and the State Department. He set the standard for cooperative relationships between the State Department and the White House in a manner that protected the journalistic independence of the broadcasters, yet supported the new agency's ability to carry out its mission to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively. Marc chaired the Board during strong tests of its legislated role as a firewall--both in ensuring that the broadcast entities acted according to strong journalistic standards and principles, and ensuring that the broadcasters were protected from unwarranted interference from the State Department. He led the Board through periods of foreign policy crisis, where the BBG's ability to surge its broadcasting to meet foreign policy priorities was severely tested. For example, during the crisis in the Balkans, the BBG established the ``Ring Around Serbia''--a series of transmitters quickly established to allow the people of the region to have accurate news and information about the war around them, and of the crimes being committed against civilian populations. The success of this effort was evident when Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was named the most popular radio station in the region at the height of the crisis. He faced the challenge of terrorism, and ensured that the BBG was a strong part of the war on terrorism as the agency's broadcasts surged in the Dari and Pashto languages to Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East and South Asia. Marc challenged the agency to confront the need for new broadcast activities in this region where news and information is either government controlled or unavailable. He chaired the Board as it created the agency's new Middle East Radio Network (``Radio Sawa''), putting U.S. international broadcasting high in the ratings among young Arab audiences throughout the Middle East. He helped lead the agency into the 21st Century by stressing the use of new technologies and the need to provide programming targeted at key audiences. He emphasized the need for more effective research, both to evaluate current programming and to lay the foundation for new programming, allowing the agency to more efficiently use its limited resources. He shared a vision with other BBG members for enhanced television programming worldwide--and especially to Islamic audiences--encouraging the consideration of opportunities for television broadcasting to the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in congratulating Marc Nathanson for his many accomplishments as head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and to thank him for giving so freely of his time and expertise to help deliver America's message abroad.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to pay tribute to Doug Linney, a young man who has dedicated his life to helping preserve California's environment. Doug was a member of my District Office staff in 1983 and 1984, so he is special to me. Doug is being presented with the Mark Dubois Award by the Friends of the River on October 3rd. This is a most deserved honor as Doug has served California's environmental community for more than twenty years. He has been a passionate advocate, a savvy strategist, a coalition builder and an exceptional fund raiser. Doug began his career with Friends of the River as a staff member, later becoming a member of the Board of Directors and a generous supporter. From 1988 to 1994, he was Political Director of the California League of Conservation Voters, where he worked to elect pro- environment candidates. He still serves as a board member of that organization, and also as co-chair of its Environmental Leadership Forum. Over the years, Doug has developed expertise in the areas of water, solid waste, forestry and environmental tax reform issues, and many organizations have benefited from his knowledge and experience. In addition to his work on behalf of the California League of Conservation Voters and Friends of the River, he has served on the boards of directors of EcoVenture and the Planning and Conservation League. He is also a Director of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Doug founded The Next Generation, a public relations and campaign consulting firm based in Oakland, California. He is now president of that company. He is committed to creating a healthier environment for generations to come. We are indebted to him for caring about our future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Doug Linney whose life work is an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Three points: first, the logic of the amendment from the gentleman from Florida is simple. Consular employees, State Department consular employees have granted visas to bad people. They have made mistakes. Therefore, eliminate them. Eliminate the State Department role. Under that logic, the CIA should be taken out of intelligence-gathering because they did not know that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons during the 1980s. The central office of the FBI should be collapsed because they did not act on messages from the Phoenix and Minneapolis offices regarding suspicious activities by people in the United States. And the National Security Agency should be folded up because it did not translate intercepted communications fast enough to warn us about September 11. I would suggest that for 2 days we have been debating amendments with arguments tossed back and forth. ``Listen to the committees of jurisdiction, they have expertise.'' ``Defer to the administration, they know what is best.'' ``Take the approach of the Special Committee on Homeland Security because they have the right synthesis.'' Well, in this case the administration, the three committees of jurisdiction, and the Special Committee on Homeland Security have considered the gentleman's amendment and have rejected it. Moreover, had the other gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) talked to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), I am sure he would have learned that in the case of Saudi Arabia, the Weldon amendment, the other Weldon amendment, exists in this bill that says as to Saudi Arabia visas, someone from Homeland Security has to make every single interview in this context. In this bill, policies, training and ultimate final decisions are made by the Department of Homeland Security but do not try to re- create, because you will not be able to, an incredible bureaucracy of language-trained people in many countries to do this process. It will not work. It will fall on its face. This compromise is the sensible compromise. I urge the amendment be rejected.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the P2P Piracy Prevention Act--legislation that will help stop peer-to-peer piracy. The growth of peer-to-peer (P2P) networks has been staggering, even by Internet standards. From non-existence a few years ago, today nearly a dozen P2P networks have been deployed, a half-dozen have gained widespread acceptance, and one P2P network alone is responsible for 1.8 billion downloads each month. The steady growth in broadband access, which exponentially increases the speed, breadth, and usage of these P2P networks, indicates that P2P penetration and related downloading will continue to increase at a breakneck pace. Unfortunately, the primary current application of P2P networks is unbridled copyright piracy. P2P downloads today consist largely of copyrighted music, and as download speeds improve, there has been a marked increase in P2P downloads of copyrighted software, games, photographs, karaoke tapes, and movies. Books, graphic designs, newspaper articles, needlepoint designs, and architectural drawings cannot be far behind. The owners and creators of these copyrighted works have not authorized their distribution through these P2P networks, and P2P distribution of this scale does not fit into any conception of fair use. Thus, there is no question that the vast majority of P2P downloads constitute copyright infringements for which the works' creators and owners receive no compensation. The massive scale of P2P piracy and its growing breadth represents a direct threat to the livelihoods of U.S. copyright creators, including songwriters, recording artists, musicians, directors, photographers, graphic artists, journalists, novelists, and software programmers. It also threatens the survival of the industries in which these creators work, and the seamstresses, actors, Foley artists, carpenters, cameramen, administrative assistants, and sound engineers these industries employ. As these creators and their industries contribute greatly both to the cultural and economic vitality of the U.S., their livelihoods and survival must be protected. Simply put, P2P piracy must be cleaned up. The question is how. The answer appears to be a holistic approach involving a variety of components, none of which constitutes a silver bullet. Wider deployment of online services offering copyrighted works in legal, consumer- friendly ways, digital rights management technologies, lawsuits against infringers, prosecutions of egregious infringers, and technological self-help measures are all part of the solution to P2P piracy. While Pursuit of many of these components to the P2P piracy solution requires no new legislation, I believe legislation is necessary to promote the usefulness of at least one such component. Specifically, enactment of the legislation I introduce today is necessary to enable responsible usage of technological self-help measures to stop copyright infringements on P2P networks. Technology companies, copyright owners, and Congress are all working to develop security standards, loosely termed digital rights management (DRM) solutions, to protect copyrighted works from unauthorized reproduction, performance, and distribution. While the development and deployment of DRM solutions should be encouraged, they do not represent a complete solution to piracy. DFM solutions will not address the copyrighted works already ``in the clear'' on P2P networks. Additionally, DRM solutions will never be foolproof, and as each new generation of DRM solutions is cracked, the newly-unprotected copyrighted works will leak onto P2P networks. Similarly, copyrighted works cannot always be protected by DRM solutions, as they may be stolen prior to protection or when performed in the clear--for instance, when a movie is copied from the projection booth. Shutting down all P2P systems is not a viable or desirable option for dealing with the massive copyright infringement they facilitate. While the 9th Circuit could shut Napster down because it utilized a central directory and centralized servers, the new P2P networks have increasingly engineered around that decision by incorporating varying levels of decentralization. It may be that truly decentralized P2P systems cannot be shut down, either by a court or technologically, unless the client P2P software is removed from each and every file trader's computer. As important, P2P represents an efficient method of information transfer and supports a variety of legitimate business models. Removal of all P2P networks would stifle innovation. P2P networks must be cleaned up, not cleared out. Copyright infringement lawsuits against infringing P2P users have a role to play, but are not viable or socially desirable options for addressing all P2P piracy. The costs of an all out litigation approach would be staggering for all parties. Copyright owners would incur overwhelming litigation expenses, other-wise-innocent P2P users would undoubtedly experience privacy violations, internet service providers and other intermediaries would experience high compliance costs, and an already overcrowded federal court system would face further strain. Further, the astounding speed with which copyrighted works are spread over P2P networks, and thus their immediate ubiquity on millions of computers, renders almost totally ineffective litigation against individual P2P users. Certainly, a suit against an individual P2P user will almost never result in recovery of sufficient damages to compensate for the damage caused. In short, the costs of a litigation approach are likely to far outweigh the potential benefits. While litigation against the more egregious P2P pirates surely has a role, litigation alone should not be relied on to clean up P2P piracy. One approach that has not been adequately explored is to allow technological solutions to address technological problems. Technological innovation, as represented by the creation of P2P networks and their subsequent decentralization, has been harnessed to facilitate massive P2P piracy. It is worth exploring, therefore, whether other technological innovations could be harnessed to combat this massive P2P piracy problem. Copyright owners could, at least conceptually, employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted works over a P2P network. Using interdiction, decoys, redirection, file-blocking, spoofs, or other technological tools, technology can help prevent P2P piracy. There is nothing revolutionary about property owners using self- help--technological or otherwise--to secure or repossess their property. Satellite companies periodically use electronic countermeasures to stop the theft of their signals and programming. Car dealers repossess cars when the payments go unpaid. Software companies employ a variety of technologies to make software non-functional if license terms are violated. However, in the context of P2P networks, technological self-help measures may not be legal due to a variety of state and federal statutes, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. In other words, while P2P technology is free to innovate new, more efficient methods of P2P distribution that further exacerbate the piracy problem, copyright owners are not equally free to craft technological responses to P2P piracy. Through the legislation I introduce today, Congress can free copyright creators and owners to develop technological tools to protect themselves against P2P piracy. The proposed legislation creates a safe harbor from liability so that copyright owners may use technological means to prevent the unauthorized distribution of that owner's copyrighted works via a P2P network. This legislation is narrowly crafted, with strict bounds on acceptable behavior by the copyright owner. For instance, the legislation would not allow a copyright owner to plant a virus on a P2P user's computer, or otherwise remove, corrupt, or alter any files or data on the P2P user's computer. The legislation provides a variety of remedies if the self-help measures taken by a copyright owner exceed the limits of the safe harbor. If such actions would have been illegal in the absence of the safe harbor, the copyright owner remains subject to the full range of liability that existed under prior law. If a copyright owner has engaged in abusive interdiction activities, an affected P2P user can file suit for economic costs and attorney's fees under a new cause of action. Finally, the U.S. Attorney General can seek an injunction prohibiting a copyright owner from utilizing the safe harbor if there is a pattern of abusive interdiction activities. This legislation does not impact in any way a person who is making a fair use of a copyrighted work, or who is otherwise using, storing, and copying copyrighted works in a lawful fashion. Because its scope is limited to unauthorized distribution, display, performance or reproduction of copyrighted works on publicly accessible P2P systems, the legislation only authorizes self-help measures taken to deal with clear copyright infringements. Thus, the legislation does not authorize any interdiction actions to stop fair or authorized uses of copyrighted works on decentralized, peer-to-peer systems, or any interdiction of public domain works. Further, the legislation doesn't even authorize self-help measures taken to address copyright infringements outside of the decentralized, P2P environment. This proposed legislation has a neutral, if not positive, net effect on privacy rights. First, a P2P user does not have an expectation of privacy in computer files that she makes publicly accessible through a P2P file-sharing network--just as a person who places an advertisement in a newspaper cannot expect to keep that information confidential. It is important to emphasize that a P2P user must first actively decide to make a copyrighted work available to the world, or to send a worldwide request for a file, before any P2P interdiction would be countenanced by the legislation. Most importantly, unlike in a copyright infringement lawsuit, interdiction technologies do not require the copyright owner to know who is infringing the copyright. Interdiction technologies only require that the copyright owner know where the file is located or between which computers a transmission is occurring. No legislation can eradicate the problem of peer-to-peer piracy. However, enabling copyright creators to take action to prevent an infringing file from being shared via P2P is an important first step toward a solution. Through this legislation, Congress can help the marketplace more effectively manage the problems associated with P2P file trading without interfering with the system itself.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to respond to the comments of my very good friend, my colleague from Alabama, because there is a certain quick appeal in the argument that this process is still under way, the sentencing occurs next week, there are appeals, there are writs of habeas corpus following that process. The motion to postpone is a motion to postpone till September 4. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has made a motion for a new trial, and that motion has been denied with an extensive opinion by the judge. No one can argue that this appellate process will be even seriously under way, little less completed, by September 4. The logical conclusion of a process which says we wait until all appeals are exhausted means that the provision of the Constitution which provides that we expel Members for the most egregious behavior is rendered a nullity. I do not think that is what our Founding Fathers intended, and that is not what we should do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former judge, a former prosecutor, a great member of our committee.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself up to 7 minutes. I oppose the motion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), who is a very diligent and very valuable member of the committee, who joined in the unanimous vote to recommend expulsion. A word about the testimony before the committee of Richard Detore, for when we hear the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) argument, we realize that only one issue has come up since the time that the committee recommended expulsion that changes the facts before us since the committee completed its deliberations, and that is the comments of jurors. I will address those comments in a few moments, but first I want to talk about the testimony that I think is underlying some of the concern, that of Richard Detore. Unlike the jurors in Cleveland, the eight members of our adjudicatory subcommittee, including myself, heard Mr. Detore's efforts to exculpate Mr. Traficant. We nonetheless determined that the allegations against the gentleman had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, including count 3, the only count, the single count on which Mr. Detore arguably had pertinent firsthand information. Despite his limited familiarity with the full range of charges against Mr. Traficant, Mr. Detore nonetheless spoke with assurance about matters of which he could not possibly have had direct knowledge, including events in Youngstown, of which this Washington area resident could not have been aware and private conversations which did not include him. He testified about conversations between Mr. Traficant and J.J. Cafaro, a business plan for whom Mr. Traficant secured a $1.3 million appropriation and who engaged in a sham transaction involving $13,000 in cash and $26,000 additionally in repairs and boat slip fees in a sham transaction pretending to buy Mr. Traficant's boat. Cafaro and the former USAG chief engineer, Al Lange, Cafaro and Cafaro Company treasurer Dominic Roselli, and Cafaro and his accountant Patricia DiRenzo. Mr. Detore testified on all of these conversations and there is not a bit of evidence that he was a party to or a participant in any of these conversations. The adjudicatory subcommittee found Mr. Detore either lacking in credibility or found his testimony outweighed by the overwhelming evidence against Mr. Traficant. It has been argued that as an indicted co-defendant, which he is, he placed himself in great peril by testifying before our committee and that this bolsters his credibility. I think it can be argued just as well that this was his Hail Mary pass to discredit the Assistant U.S. Attorney before his case goes to trial. Mr. Detore clearly demonstrated that ours is the forum where he intended to try to save his neck. He has repeatedly failed to show up at pretrial hearings in Cleveland citing ill health, yet he managed to make a surprise appearance before our committee last week, testifying for hours late into the night. For that reason, he is now facing contempt charges in Cleveland, charges that he and the gentleman from Ohio will doubtless argue is further evidence by their persecution by the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Casting further doubt on the voracity of Mr. Detore's allegations of misconduct by the assistant U.S. attorney, is the fact that he similarly hurled accusations of misconduct against the staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, staff which we know to a certainty acted appropriately and the allegations are patently false. Let us look at the recantations by juror Leo Glaser. He has been cited as saying that he heard at trial the testimony he heard of Mr. Detore last week. If he had heard that, he might not have voted to convict. I would point out that the conclusion of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee and the recommendation that the gentleman be expelled were based not to the conviction, but on the evidence presented at trial. Furthermore, Mr. Glaser has gone on to say to the press that he also did not have the opportunity to hear how the Assistant U.S. Attorney might have cross-examined Mr. Detore so he cannot be sure how he would have weighed the Detore testimony. Nor does he know what his fellow jurors might have argued in their deliberations after Mr. Detore's testimony in cross-examination. And finally, Mr. Detore could have testified at trial. Mr. Traficant did not call him. We do not know whether he would have taken the fifth amendment at trial. He did not take it in our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct hearing. If anyone denied Mr. Glaser the opportunity to hear Mr. Detore during the trial, it was the gentleman from Ohio. It is intriguing to me that suddenly Mr. Detore is made available to make a statement to us. With regard to the second juror, he did not even participate in the jury deliberations at all. He left the jury to attend a family funeral, an alternate was selected. He has no idea what the give and take was inside the jury room during the deliberations. Let me reiterate that unlike the jurors in Cleveland, we did hear from Mr. Detore, yet we were not persuaded. We voted for the count with regard to which he testified, count 3, and for eight other counts, finding that the evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that the rules of the House have been violated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the subcommittee that investigated and prepared the statement of alleged violations. She has been a member of this committee for 5\1/2\ years. She has performed wonderfully far more than her share of the burdens of this committee in this and other matters.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, like the chairman, I rise in sadness, but in strong support of the motion to expel. The gravity of the offenses of the gentleman from Ohio against the rules of the House compel us to impose the most severe of sanctions, and thereby uphold the honor and integrity of the people's House. I say this, and I can say this with certainty, because of the rigor and the evenhandedness of the process undertaken by the committee, consistent with House and committee rules, and with the resolve of a chairman who, in every instance he could, bent over backwards to ensure fairness and afford the gentleman from Ohio a full and fair opportunity to present his defense. We gave the assertions of the gentleman every consideration. We entertained every motion, admitting into evidence virtually every document he offered, and, despite having the trial transcript before us, nonetheless heard from a number of additional witnesses, including some who had testified for him at trial. And what was the gentleman's defense? That he paid for the labor and materials provided to him on his farm; that, in the alternative, the farm wasn't his; that he paid for the cars provided to him; that the kickbacks he demanded from the staff were in fact loans voluntarily tendered to him and repaid by him. But take a closer look. The gentleman had a very busy winter of 1999- 2000. The Federal investigation of him had started, and suddenly he was constructing his defense. In December 1999, he transfers the title to his farm to his wife and daughter. He pays J.J. Cafaro $7,000 for three cars that had been given to him from 1997 to 1999, and he pays, this is count two, David Sugar's company $1,100 for work done on the farm 6 months earlier. Not until April of 2000 does Sugar instruct his secretary to create false invoices for the work. In January 2000, after learning of the investigation, he gives his Congressional employee, Alan Sinclair, $18,500 in cash, indicating that the cash came from Cafaro, telling Sinclair to keep the cash at home to justify the withdrawals he had made from his paycheck. He gives Sinclair a note, again after he knows the investigation is going on, saying, ``They may ask you if you ever gave me money, and you did. You lent me cash on several occasions and I did pay you back in cash.'' The next month he gives Sinclair another $6,000 and gives Cafaro $3,000 more for the three cars. These transparent fabrications did not impress the committee. Mr. Traficant protests that he is the victim of selective prosecution, indeed of government misconduct, but in order to believe his assertions you would have to accept the gentleman's notion of a vast, unparalleled conspiracy involving not only the self-interested and disreputable characters from Youngstown, but also involving the Office of the U.S. Attorney, the IRS, the FBI, a respected U.S. District Judge, the counsel for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a conspiracy designed by Janet Reno and implemented by John Ashcroft. You would have to believe that thousands of pages of testimony by prosecution witnesses, including many low-ranking employees accused of no wrongdoing who testified of being ordered to do work for the gentleman, and the hard documentary evidence against him, are all a tissue of lies, the result of evil intent, manipulation, coercion and intimidation by a treacherous cabal, for which there is simply no evidence and which is preposterous on its face. In the end, the committee found that the evidence was overwhelming, establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the rules of the House had been violated, flagrantly, I would add. Mr. Speaker, we are much preoccupied these days, both as elected officials and as private citizens, by breaches of public trust. We may enact legislation before we recess to protect the public from unethical conduct in the corporate arena. But to state what should be obvious, each of us in this very body has weighty responsibilities in this vein as well; not to abuse those who seek government assistance through our offices and not to abuse those who work for us. To fail to expel the gentleman from Ohio in the face of the vast evidence spread out in the record is to say that a Member can behave as he has and retain membership in this institution. That cannot be our message today. I urge my colleagues to take the difficult action, thankfully rare, but abundantly warranted in this case, of voting for the motion to expel. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. One additional member of the committee and myself.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is our colleague. We are involved in what is in a certain way a profoundly anti-democratic decision, one contemplated by our Founding Fathers, but anti-democratic because we are talking about expelling a Member who was elected for a term of office before that term is completed. He is a friend to many. He has an irrepressible nature that all of us coming from a lot of different backgrounds have known about for a long time. In many ways he has been an effective colleague for the causes and issues that the gentleman believes in. But this body in its wisdom created a committee. The leadership of both sides appointed Members who have spent an incredibly large amount of time sifting through the evidence relating to four counts of conspiracy to commit bribery, each of them involving totally separate transactions with totally different witnesses; illegal gratuities under our bribery statute, filing false tax information, two separate counts; obstruction of justice. Our committee, involving an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, covering an incredible range of philosophies and ideologies, going from people who barely new the respondent to a gentleman who has termed himself publicly as his closest friend in this House, have applied our rules to the facts as we see them and unanimously recommended expulsion. No one did it easily. For some, it was an incredibly difficult conclusion to reach. Mr. Speaker, I think in the context of this process and our obligation to the American people, we are compelled to vote ``aye'' on the resolution to expel. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the quote ``rush to judgment.'' Quite a long time ago, well over a year and a half ago, the Chair and the ranking member of the committee and the staff of the committee were aware of articles talking about indictments, investigations, facts for which there would have been ample evidence for the committee to proceed at that time to investigate totally separate from the criminal justice process. The committee chairman and the ranking member said no, let us wait; let the criminal justice system work. Let us not rush and push this. We know the complications when there is a dual-track investigation, and we refrained from acting. There was a trial and there was a conviction, and the only thing this committee did was to make sure they gathered the information and the transcripts from the trial as that trial went on. Now the conviction comes in; and many Members of this body, either proposed or wanted to propose privileged resolutions essentially saying we have a Member of our body, a colleague of ours who has been convicted of 10 felony counts. This is intolerable, we want to expel, and they could have brought a privileged resolution to this floor. We went to those colleagues, and we persuaded them to defer to this process. Let us do it according to the rules, give the subcommittee the adjudicatory committee and the full committee a chance to look at the evidence, gather it, and produce it. We did that. We come forward in regular order. I ask Members to reject the motion, do not reject the committee's process and the process of restraint and justice that we have shown and vote ``no'' on the motion to postpone.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by applauding Chairman Hyde for his tireless work on this bill. It is his push, his creativity, and his efforts that have brought this bill into introduction, through passage in committee and now to the floor. He has a strong personal commitment to enhancing our public diplomacy programs and he is showing tremendous leadership on that critical issue. I would also like to commend my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his great dedication to public diplomacy. As both of these distinguished Members are well aware, winning the information war is critical to winning the war on terrorism. Helping prevent one key element in the prevention of future terrorist attacks must be the enhancement of international understanding of U.S. policies and values and a response to the hateful anti-American propaganda that often fuels terrorism. This can only be done through strong public diplomacy, including expanded international broadcasting and enhanced educational and cultural exchanges, particularly in the Middle East and in other countries with large Muslim populations. Mr. Speaker, in the struggle against international terrorism, the United States must not be afraid to proclaim the universal values we espouse, democracy, free markets, human rights and social justice. These ideals represent the strongest weapons in America's arsenal and are the ultimate guarantors of our victory in this struggle. Disseminating these values more broadly and more effectively is the purpose and the promise of this legislation. This compromise bill represents the best in bipartisanship in pursuit of U.S. national security interests. In the Committee on International Relations, we worked together to craft an amendment that streamlines the management of our international broadcasting operations while at the same time maintaining a bipartisan board as a firewall to shield broadcasting from inappropriate political influence. This structure is key to preserving journalistic integrity and the credibility of our broadcasts. We also adopted important amendments to increase funding for the National Endowment for Democracy's activities in the Middle East, to more systematically advertise our foreign assistance to overseas audiences, and to ensure that the predominantly Muslim countries of Africa are not overlooked. Finally, we adopted an amendment that I offered with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to provide additional resources for a 24- hour Arabic language satellite television service in the Middle East, as well as new television services and expanded radio broadcasts to countries with large Muslim populations in Central, South and East Asia. It is critical that we offer people in these countries a balanced alternative to al-Jazeera and other media sources that have contributed to growing anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the brave men and women fighting for freedom in Afghanistan and beyond are the best trained, best equipped, and best led in the world. We also have a duty to provide our diplomatic corps and our broadcasting personnel, who are on the front lines of our public diplomacy efforts, with the same moral and material support. The funds authorized in this bill are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount we have already spent in the war on terrorism, but they will make a difference in our public diplomacy efforts. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of last September's horrific events, this Chamber has united to take bold and courageous action in support of our war against international terrorism. The legislation before us is an integral part of that war effort and deserves the same strong bipartisan show of support. I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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