Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend and the ranking member of the committee, for yielding me a generous amount of time. I would like to do several things in that time. First, I would like to commend a number of colleagues who have played pivotal roles in moving this important legislation, most specially the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of our judiciary subcommittee. He deserves particular praise for his open- mindedness and his perseverance on this issue. There were times when people sought to impugn his motives. Notwithstanding that and the total lack of basis for that, he rose above the human tendency to retaliate and proceeded ahead, I think, very fairly and in wonderful fashion to help us come to this kind of conclusion. Without his efforts, this bill would not have had a chance of passing. I also want to recognize several colleagues who have played pivotal roles: the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has been a champion for the rights of recording artists; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt); as well as two individuals, one on the majority side, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), who we spent a lot of time on airplanes to California discussing this issue, and a non-member of the committee who is particularly interested in this issue and the rights of recording artists, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). Section 2 of H.R. 5107 fulfills an important objective. It returns the law on the eligibility of sound recordings as ``works made for hire'' to its state prior to November 29, 1999. Equally important, it restores the state of the law without prejudicing the rights of any affected parties. Finally, section 3 of H.R. 5107 makes certain unrelated changes to the Copyright Act to improve the operations of the U.S. Copyright Office. H.R. 5107 is strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The bipartisan support for this bill is not surprising. It is wholly nonpartisan in nature. H.R. 5107 is also supported by all affected private parties of whom I am aware. In fact, the language of H.R. 5107 is the successful outcome of several months of negotiations between representatives of the recording artists and the reporting industry. For this accomplishment we owe a special note of gratitude to Jay Cooper and Cary Sherman, who represent the recording artists and recording industry, respectively. These gentlemen did yeoman's work and sacrificed many hours when they were supposed to be on vacation to craft acceptable language under often difficult circumstances and time constraints. I would also like to thank the recording artists and record companies who worked so diligently to build this consensus. The substance of H.R. 5107 is relatively easy to explain, while its impact is more difficult to express. Section 2(a)(1) of this bill would remove the words ``as a sound recording'' from paragraph (2) of the definition of ``works made for hire'' in section 101 of the Copyright Act, words that this Congress added less than a year ago through section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law Number 106-113. When Congress enacted section 1000(a)(9) last year, we believed it was a non-controversial, technical change that merely clarified current law. However, since that time, we have been contacted by many organizations, legal scholars, and recording artists who take strong issue with section 1000(a)(9), asserting that it constitutes a significant, substantive change in law. We have discovered that there exists a serious debate about whether sound recordings always, usually, sometimes, or never fell within the nine pre-existing categories of works eligible to be considered ``works made for hire.'' By mandating that all sound recordings are eligible to be ``works made for hire,'' section 1000(a)(9) effectively resolved this debate and impaired the ability of creators of sound recordings that argue that particular sound recordings and sound recordings in general cannot be made ``works made for hire.'' This, in turn, effectively prevents creators of sound recordings from attempting to exercise termination rights under section 203 of title 17, thus reclaiming their copyrights 35 years after an assignment of those rights. By undoing section 1000(a)(9), section 2(a)(1) of this bill will prevent any prejudice to the legal arguments of creators of sound recordings. However, we are sensitive that, in undoing that amendment made by section 1000(a)(9), we must be careful not to adversely affect or prejudice the rights of other interested parties. Specifically, we do not want the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' from the definition of ``works made for hire'' to be interpreted to preclude or prejudice the argument that sound recordings are eligible to be ``works made for hire'' within the nine preexisting categories. In essence, we want the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' from section 101 of the Copyright Act to return the law to the status quo ante so that all affected parties have the same rights and legal arguments that they had prior to enactment of section 1000(a)(9). It is for these reasons that we were convinced of the need to include section 2(a)(2) within this statute, which is intended to ensure that the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' will have no legal effect other than returning the law to the exact state existing prior to the enactment of section 1000(a)(9). With the inclusion of section 2(a)(2) in this bill, we ensure that courts will interpret section 101 exactly as they would have interpreted it if neither section 1000(a)(9) nor section 2(a)(1) of this bill were ever enacted. In short, and in conclusion, we believe passage of this bill is vital to ensure that whatever rights the authors of sound recordings may have had previously are restored and that such restoration is achieved in a way that does not unfairly impair the rights of others.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Edward J. Quijada who is retiring from the United States Navy after 30 years of distinguished service. Captain Quijada. is a community leader, a patriot, a businessman and a friend. A native of San Fernando, California, Captain QuiJada graduated from Loyola Marymount University in 1969 with a Bachelor of Business Administration and in 1980 with a MBA. His dedication to community service was evident early in his life, as he chose to work for United Community Effort, Inc., East Los Angeles immediately after graduating college. He also had a passion for service to his country and he entered Naval Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island and received his commission in November 1969. Captain Quijada served aboard the U.S.S. Albert David (DE-1050) as Supply Officer and was released from active duty in July of 1973. Captain Quijada's many military accomplishments include service in several Naval Regional Contracting Center and Defense Contract Administration Services Naval Reserve units. He proved himself to be a strong leader as the Commanding Officer of both the General VTU 1904 and NRCC 419, which was selected as the top unit of 41 units at the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Readiness Center Long Beach. Captain Quijada also held the position of Deputy/Vice Commander of NR Logistics Task Force, Commanding Officer of the AIRPAC SUPPLY 0294 at the North Island Naval Station in San Diego, and Commanding Officer of Defense Contract Management District West A919 in Irvine. Throughout his career, he received numerous military awards including two Meritorious Service Medals, a Combat Action Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Joint Service Achievement Medal. He also earned the designation of a qualified Naval Aviation Supply Officer. Once released from active duty, Captain Quijada applied his knowledge and leadership skills to the private sector. He helped manage companies including, Dataproducts Inc, Litton Data Systems and TRW, where he was Assistant Division Manager of Subcontracts and Material for sixteens years. Despite the pressures of his professional responsibilities, Captain Quijada has remained steadfast in his commitment to public service. He has served both on the Board of Directors and as President of Career Opportunities for Youth, an organization which provides scholarships to deserving students. Captain Quijada. is currently the Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of Tresierras Supermarkets. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Captain Edward J. Quijada for his outstanding 30 years of service to this country, and to congratulate him on his retirement.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th birthday of the Great State of California, and to pay tribute to California's 26th Congressional District, which I am honored to represent in Congress. The 26th District is located in the Northeast San Fernando Valley and consists of the Golden State and Hollywood Freeway corridors of the Valley, proceeding as far west as Van Nuys and the San Diego Freeway. Its history was recounted, with some creative license, in the movie Chinatown. Civic leaders encouraged city engineer William Mulholland to build a huge aqueduct from the Owens Valley to give Los Angeles water, and, in 1915, got the city to annex most of the Valley, large tracts of which they had already purchased. In addition to many neighborhoods of Los Angeles, the 26th District takes in the small independent city of San Fernando, which is home to the beautiful Mission San Fernando, Rey de Espana. This historic building was established by Frey Fermin Francisco De Lasuen on September 8, 1797 as one of a chain of missions built to convert the native peoples to Christianity and to consolidate Spanish power along the coast of California. The Mission Church is an exact replica of the original church, which was built between 1804 and 1806. The walls of the church are seven feet thick at the base and five feet thick at the top. The material used was adobe brick, and those who built it were primarily the native peoples, who were called the Gabrielinos or the Tongva. During the 1950s and 1960s, the 26th District was home to Holiday Lake at Hansen Dam, one of the most popular spots in the entire San Fernando Valley for family outings. On weekends, the lake was filled with swimmers and boaters and the shores teemed with picnics and games. But in 1969 and again in 1980, floods brought in millions of tons of sand, gravel and silt to Hansen Dam, transforming the beautiful 130- acre lake into a swamp. With the demise of the lake, the other parts of the park fell into disrepair. By the 1980's, the closing of the lake became a depressing symbol of overall neglect in this low- to middle-income area. From the day I came to Congress, its restoration was one of my highest priorities. In 1999, a fishing lake opened to paddle boats and rowboats and a swimming lake opened at Hansen Dam, making this area once again a central recreational area for Valley families. The 26th District was hard hit by the recession of the early 1990s. Many workers employed at nearby defense plants lost their jobs in the post-Cold War downsizing, while others were laid off in August 1992 when the General Motors plant located in the heart of the District in Van Nuys shut its doors. The magnitude of unemployment was dramatically illustrated in 1993, when a job fair held at the vacant GM site drew thousands of people. Today, the worst of that economic crisis seems to be over. Unemployment in the area is down, as it is throughout Los Angeles County, and a major commercial/manufacturing development is rising where the GM plant once stood. In addition, the 26th District continues to be home to a variety of manufacturing facilities. The Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994 had its epicenter just west of the 26th and destroyed or damaged many homes, stores, factories and office buildings. In fact, the building that housed the 26th District Office was among those that suffered damage so extensive that it had to be torn down following the quake. A section of Interstate 405 within the District collapsed, a gas leak started fires that consumed 70 homes in Sylmar and an oil line exploded in San Fernando (where the quake flattened 63 homes and damaged another 835.) After extensive rebuilding and retrofitting, however, virtually all vestiges of the damage have been repaired. In the last 150 years, the San Fernando Valley has changed from an empty open stretch of land into a busy metropolis, filled with houses and businesses, office towers, shopping centers, subdivisions and warehouse buildings. The 26th District is home to the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which presents the annual Emmy Awards. Among the notable alumni of the District are actor Robert Redford, who attended Van Nuys High School, and rock 'n roll star Ritchie Valens, of Pacoima. Mr. Speaker, California's 26th District is one of the fastest growing areas of Los Angeles. I am very proud to represent its citizens in the United States House of Representatives. I ask my colleagues to join the California Delegation today in celebrating the sesquicentennial of the Golden State--California.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Howard Coble and I have introduced H.R. 5107, the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000. Because of the very important nature of this bill, I believe it merits an extensive explanation. Section 2(a)(1) of this bill would remove the words ``as a sound recording'' from paragraph (2) of the definition of ``works made for hire'' in Section 101 of the Copyright Act--words that this Congress added less than a year ago through Section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law Number 106-113. When Congress enacted Section 1000(a)(9) last year, we believed it was a non-controversial, technical change that merely clarified current law. However, since that time, we have been contacted by many organizations, legal scholars, and recording artists who take strong issue with Section 1000(a)(9), asserting that it constitutes a significant, substantive change in law. We have discovered that there exists a serious debate about whether sound recordings always, usually, sometimes, or never fall within the nine, pre-existing categories of works eligible to be considered ``works made for hire,'' and thus there exists a serious debate about the substantive or technical nature of Section 1000(a)(9). In testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual property on May 25, 2000, esteemed legal scholars took broadly divergent views. Professor Paul Goldstein of Stanford University Law School stated that ``the contribution of an individual sound recording as one of several selections on a CD or other album will typically constitute a `contribution to a collective work,' '' while Professor Marci Hamilton of Cardozo School of Law maintained that, in a vast majority of instances, sound recordings would fail to qualify as ``contributions to collective works'' or as ``compilations.'' Marybeth Peters, the Register for Copyrights in the United States Copyright Office, testified that, depending on the particular facts surrounding its creation, a sound recording might, or might not, constitute a contribution to a collective work. In a letter received by Congressman Coble and me prior to that May 25, 2000 hearing, twenty-five highly respected professors of Law stated ``there may be particular situations in which a musical artist would be considered as having contracted to provide a `contribution to a collective work,' '' but asserted that, prior to the addition of the words, ``as a sound recording'' to Section 101 of the copyright Act, sound recordings would most often fail to qualify under the nine pre- existing categories of works eligible to be ``made for hire.'' As I stated, the testimony and correspondence of these intellectual property law experts and others demonstrate the existence of a serious debate about whether and the extent to which sound recordings were eligible to be ``works made for hire'' under paragraph 2 of the definition prior to enactment of Section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law Number 106-113. By mandating that all sound recordings are eligible to be works made for hire, Section 1000(a)(9) effectively resolved this debate, and impaired the ability of authors of sound recordings to argue that particular sound recordings and sound recordings in general cannot be works made for hire. Since it eviscerates the legal arguments of those on one side of this debate, Section 100(a)(9) may constitute a substantive change in certain situations and to the extent that courts might otherwise have upheld those arguments. This leads to the question of why it is necessary to undo Section 1000(a)(9) by removing the words ``as a sound recording'' from Section 1010 of the Copyright Act. The change embodied by Section 2000(a)(9) precludes authors of sound recordings from arguing that their sound recordings are not eligible to be considered works made for hire, and thus effectively prevents those authors from attempting to exercise termination rights under Section 203 of Title 17. Because Section 1000(a)(9) has the potential to have such a negative effect on the legal arguments and rights of authors of sound recordings, Congress should have undertaken more extensive deliberations before making this change. While Section 1000(a)(9) was published in the Congressional Record more than a week prior to its final passage, and while the Members on the Conference Committee were fully aware of its existence, there were no congressional hearings or committee mark-ups in which Section 1000(a)(9) was considered or discussed. It is my opinion that we should immediately undo Section 1000(a)(9) so as to prevent any prejudice to the legal arguments of authors of sound recordings. Then a future Congress, after more extensive deliberation and careful consideration, could decide whether this legal debate should be resolved through legislation. However, we are sensitive that, in undoing the amendment made by Section 1000(a)(9), we must be careful not to adversely affect or prejudice the rights of other interested parties. Specifically, we do not want the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' from the definition of works-made-for-hire in Section 101 of the Copyright Act to be interpreted to preclude or prejudice the argument that sound recordings are eligible to be works made for hire within the nine, pre- existing categories. In essence, we want the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' from Section 101 of the Copyright Act to return the law to the status quo ante, so that all affected parties have the same rights and legal arguments they had prior to enactment of Section 1000(a)(9). It is for those reasons that we were convinced of the need to include Section 2(a)(2) within this statute. Section 2(a)(2) intends to ensure that the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' will have no legal effect other than returning the law to the exact state existing prior to enactment of Section 1000(a)(9). Our legal research shows that a simple repeal of a previous amendment may not be interpreted by the courts as simply returning the law to its previous state, but may be seen as actually altering that state. For instance, in American Automobile Association v. United States, 367 U.S. 687 (1961), the plaintiff had for years been using an accounting method that it believed was permitted under a general provision of law despite the absence of a statute specifically allowing this practice. Subsequently, Congress enacted Section 452 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which specifically allowed this accounting practice, but one year later repealed Section 452. In interpreting this repeal, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority: ``the fact is that [Section] 452 for the first time specifically declared petitioner's system of accounting to be acceptable for income tax purposes, and overruled the long-standing position of the Commissioner and courts to the contrary. And the repeal of the section the following year . . . was just as clearly a mandate from the Congress that petitioner's system was not acceptable for tax purposes.'' The present set of circumstances are quite similar. For years, record companies have treated sound recordings as works made for hire, and have entered into contracts to this effect, whether enforceable or not, with recording artists. Though previous law did not specifically list sound records as a category of works made for hire, record companies regarded sound recordings as fitting with the nine, existing categories of works made for hire. Section 1000(a)(9) represented the first specific, statutory declaration by Congress that sound recordings are a category of works made for hire. As a result of the close parallel between the current situation and the facts in American Automobile Association, it appears possible that courts would interpret a simple repeal of Section 1000(a)(9) in the same way the Supreme Court interpreted the simple repeal of Section 452 in that case--namely as a sign that Congress does not consider sound recordings to be eligible for works made for hire status. The probability of the courts interpreting a simple repeal in this manner is increased by the existence of two U.S. District Court opinions that some may argue are on point. Under a well-known canon of statutory construction, courts assume that Congress is aware of existing judicial decisions when it enacts legislation and, unless Congress indicates otherwise and to the extent reasonable, courts interpret such legislation to be consistent with those decisions. Prior to the enactment of Section 1000(a)(9), U.S. District Courts in Staggers v. Real Authentic Sound and Ballas v. Tedesco stated, in dicta, that sound recordings were not eligible to be considered works made for hire because they were not specifically included as a category of works eligible to be works made for hire under Section 101 of the Copyright Act. Though the eligibility of sound recordings for inclusion within the nine categories of works made for hire was not briefed or argued by the parties in either case, and though the courts did not provide a detailed rationale for their comments in dicta, future courts might interpret a simple repeal bill to indicate Congressional acquiescence to these decisions. These considerations indicate that a simple repeal bill would negatively prejudice the argument, available prior to enactment of Section 100(a)(9), that a particular sound recording was eligible to be considered a work made for hire because it fit within one of the nine, pre-existing categories. Because of the potential prejudice to this argument, it appears that a simple repeal of the words ``as a sound recording'' would not accomplish our goal, which is to return the law on the eligibility of sound recordings for work made for hire status to its state prior to enactment of Section 1000(a)9). Therefore, we have crafted Section 2(a)(2) to ensure that the removal of the words ``as a sound recording'' will not have prejudicial effect. With the inclusion of Section 2(a)(2) in this bill, we ensure that courts will interpret Section 101 exactly as they would have interpreted it if neither Section 1000(a)(9) nor this bill were ever enacted. Lastly, Section 2(b)(1) gives Section 2(a) retroactive effect. The need to make these sections retroactive stems from the confusion and injustice that would otherwise result. Because these sections will have retroactive effect, there will be only one, uninterrupted law governing the eligibility of sound recordings to qualify as works made for hire-- namely the same law that existed prior to the November 29, 1999 enactment of Section 1000(a)(9). If Section 2(a) were not given retroactive effect, then sound records created or contracted for between November 29, 1999 and the date of enactment of this bill could be treated differently than sound recordings created before or after those dates. Such a result would be both confusing for the courts to administer and unfair to those who happened to enter into agreements to author sound recordings after November 29, 1999 and before the date of this bill's enactment. Unfortunately, there is some question as to whether it is constitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to give Section 2(a) retroactive effect. If the courts disagree with our conclusion that Congress can constitutionally make these provisions retroactive, we have added a severability clause in Section 2(b)(2) to ensure that the courts will not strike down the whole bill. In short, we believe passage of this bill is vital to ensure that whatever rights the authors of sound recordings may have had previously are restored, and that such restoration is achieved in a way that does not unfairly impair the rights of others. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation when it is brought to the House floor for their consideration.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mary Miyashita, who will be recognized as the Special Honoree for Lifetime Achievement at a reception held by Asian Week on August 13, 2000. This event will honor the Asian and Pacific Islander American Delegates to the Democratic National Convention 2000. Mary and I have been friends for 25 years and I am delighted to join her many admirers in honoring her lifetime of selfless and energetic service to the Asian-American community and to the Democratic party. I know of no one who has been more generous with her time, energy, money and even her home, than Mary has been in the pursuit of justice and equal opportunity for every individual. Mary has served on a plethora of civic organizations. She has been a board member of the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Women for Peace, the PTA and the Whittier Area Fair Housing Committee. She was a founding member of the Advisory Board of Meals on Wheels and of the Woman and Children's Crisis Shelter. The Democratic Party has no more stalwart member than Mary Miyashita. Since Adlai Stevenson's 1948 gubernatorial campaign, no major election has passed without Mary's active participation. She is a true believer in representative democracy, working tirelessly on behalf of numerous local, state and federal candidates and helping tip the electoral scales on more than one occasion. Mary has been either a delegate or an alternate to every Democratic National Convention since 1972. She served on the Los Angeles County Democratic Party's Central Committee for 20 years. Among the many awards showered upon her by grateful party organizations are Key Woman of the Democratic Woman's Forum, Democratic Woman of the Year in 1975 and ``Superstar of '78.'' Mary is definitely a Superstar every year as far as I'm concerned. In 1976, Mary helped found the first Asian Pacific Caucus, which has grown into a prestigious and highly effective advocacy organization. Her service to the Asian-American community is virtually without peer. She has been my confidant and advisor on issues of importance to her for decades. In short, Mary is one of my favorite people and I am delighted to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her--for her outstanding achievements, for her dedicated work, and for her charm and her delightful personality. I am very proud to have Mary as my friend.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague, Mr. Waxman, and I pay tribute to an extraordinary individual and good friend, Rabbi Morris Rubinstein, who was honored this Sunday by the Valley Beth Israel Synagogue for his twenty eight years of dedication, leadership and service. The occasion will mark his retirement and will be celebrated with a ``gala farewell dinner'' attended by family, friends and congregants. Throughout Rabbi Rubinstein's forty-one year rabbinical career he has demonstrated--through both his words and his deeds--an unwavering commitment to Torah and Mitzvos. For the past twenty-eight years, we in the San Fernando Valley have been blessed by his leadership, guidance, knowledge and understanding. He and his wife Miriam created a family- like atmosphere for all of the Valley Beth Israel congregants. Together they not only helped insure that Valley Beth Israel achieved a stellar reputation, but they made certain that the synagogue remained a unique and special place to worship, learn and congregate. In addition to his character, intelligence and hard work, Rabbi Rubinstein successfully accomplished so much at Valley Beth Israel because he was able to apply lessons learned from an impressive and diverse background. He graduated as a rabbi and teacher with a Master's Degree in Hebrew Literature in 1959. He entered the Air Force Chaplaincy as a First Lieutenant in the same year and his first assignment was in Ankara, Turkey. His next assignment was Kessler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi where he became involved in the civil rights movement. There, at a clergy conference, he joined with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in singing ``We Shall Overcome'' in Hebrew and English. After Biloxi, he left the military chaplaincy to take a civilian pulpit. Between 1964 and 1972, when he joined Valley Beth Israel, he served as the spiritual leader at synagogues in Mattawan, New Jersey and Scottsdale, Arizona. He and Miriam, his loving wife and partner of forty-three years, have raised five wonderful and accomplished children. We are honored today to ask our colleagues to join with us in saluting Rabbi Rubinstein for his dedicated service and tireless leadership. We wish him good health and every joy in his retirement.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which seeks to kill the Asia Foundation. If I had my way, we would be increasing the funding for that foundation, not straight lining it; but an amendment to eliminate the funding for the Asia Foundation is a classical example of the wrong amendment at the wrong time. It is the wrong amendment because it would be short-sighted to cut funding for an organization that plays a key role in advancing U.S. foreign policy interests in the Asia Pacific region. With a very modest appropriation, the Asia Foundation helps promote and strengthen democracy, human rights, open markets and the rule of law in more than a dozen Asian countries. So soon after the debate on NTR for China the notion that we are going to wipe out one of the premier agencies promoting rule of law in that part of the world makes no sense whatsoever. It is the wrong time because many Asian countries are experiencing profound socioeconomic and political change. The foundation's cost-effective work is more important than ever. Last year, an amendment much like this to slash the foundation's authorization was defeated with strong bipartisan support. I join with the chairman of the subcommittee and my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle in urging the body to support the Asia Foundation and to reject this counterproductive amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a change in the law. The debate, the argument that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) has put forward, among other things, was referring to the H-2A program, but the amendment deals with the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers program. H-2A workers are not covered under that law. They have no rights under that law. The only people this amendment affects are U.S. farm workers who happen to be represented by Legal Services as opposed to other private lawyers or other legal aid programs. There are many, many laws that provide attorneys fees for plaintiffs in the Labor law context; the gentleman selected out one law and one group of people, U.S. farm workers who happen to be represented by Legal Services Corporation. The gentleman is doing it on an appropriations bill, a fundamental change in a very narrow subset of one law that happens to deal with the lowest income workers in America today. If there is an argument, which I do not think there is, for allowing defendants against workers who win in lawsuits who ultimately prevail to collect attorneys fees, it should be done across board. It should be given the appropriate hearings. It should go to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and/or to the Committee on the Judiciary, and there should be a discussion of the merits of it to select out farm workers, U.S. farm workers, not H-2A workers, not foreign guest workers; they have no rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act, but to select them out is wrong and also by the way, not authorized under the rules, I think we will find out.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have to disagree with his conclusion. If there is one group of workers in America who are not able to get the services of the private bar because they do not have anywhere near the income to possibly retain them, it is migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. They are employed seasonally; they are getting very low pay; they have no ability to retain private lawyers. This is the classic example of whom the Legal Services Programs should be representing.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to repeat again, this amendment and the law that it seeks to amend have no application to H- 2A workers. None of the regulations, none of the laws affecting them are covered in this law, and the H-2A workers are excluded from coverage under this law. The gentleman's amendment will not even deal with the lawsuits dealing with H-2A that the gentleman is seeking to address with the amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this amendment. A year ago, on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, we debated the Sanders amendment dealing very specifically with Asian and African countries applying specifically to pharmaceuticals. The amendment now that we have before us seems to me to apply far beyond pharmaceuticals to any medical technology. It could cover laser equipment used in cosmetic surgery, prohibit the executive branch from encouraging nations to provide TRIPS Plus protection to patents which cover such laser technologies. It also seems like the Sanders amendment last year was designed to make pharmaceuticals more affordable. It specifically was approaching trade representative activities which enforced patent laws that would make drugs more expensive. This does not have that kind of limitation. The Brown amendment would prohibit the executive branch from seeking to appeal a TRIPS compliant law covering IPR and pharmaceuticals that is intended to discriminate against U.S. pharmaceuticals. So a Western European law that has nothing to do with getting drugs to Africa, which has nothing to do with dealing with the crisis in Africa, but which is designed to discriminate against U.S.-made pharmaceuticals or medical technologies, the USTR would be prohibited from focusing on it if it did not violate TRIPS. I think that it may overreach in that regard, and that is why I have some concerns about this amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I must regretfully vote against the Coble amendment. I say regretfully because, while I fully support the objective of the amendment, I cannot support the program cuts it uses as offsets. The objective of the amendment is to restore to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the ability to spend $134 million in fees paid by patent and trademark applicants, and thus to restore its ability to perform critical functions. However, I do not believe that we should restore these funds by cutting in half the funds provided to the cultural and educational exchange programs operated by the Department of State. I do not want anyone to interpret my vote against this amendment as a sign I condone the now-annual raids on PTO fees to pay for other programs. I unequivocally oppose these raids, and will work to ensure that such raids cannot and do not occur in the future. Over the past few years, Congress has diverted to other agencies hundreds of millions of dollars in fees paid to the PTO by patent and trademark applicants. The Congress has tried to cover up these diversions by engaging in an accounting shell game, but the end result each year is the same: hundreds of millions in fees paid to the PTO go to fund other agencies. This year, the diversion has gotten totally out of control. While the President's budget for fiscal year 2001 proposed diverting ``only''--and I use that word cynically--$113 million from the PTO, the appropriators saw fit to divert another $134 million, for an unprecedented total of almost $250 million in diverted fees. In other words, 25 percent of the fees paid to the PTO, or 25 cents out of every dollar paid by each independent inventor, would be spent for totally unrelated purposes. These diversions are not only an injustice to those who paid the fees, but effectively kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The U.S. patent system, and the PTO that administers it, deserve a large measure of credit for encouraging and sustaining the current American technology boom. As our Founders clearly recognized, the availability of patent protection plays a critical role in encouraging inventiveness. Sure enough, many information, telecommunications, biotechnology, and Internet technologies are patented. And, as my colleagues are only too aware, these recent technology advances are largely responsible for the greatest economic boom our nation has ever experienced. Don't just take my word for it: the central role of the PTO in advancing this technology boom can be seen through the array of technology companies, from IBM and Intel to Amazon.com and Sun Microsystems, that have come out in strong opposition to these funding cuts. The Information Technology Industry Council considers restoration of PTO fees important enough to score this vote in its High Tech Voting Guide. These technology companies recognize that the PTO must be adequately funded for the technology boom to be sustained. It is not hard to see that the funding cuts made by H.R. 4690 to the PTO budget will seriously impair the PTO's ability to carry out its critical functions, including review of patents, and thus will have a deleterious effect on the American technology boom. Patents already take too long to be processed, with the pendancy of a patent application currently averaging two years. Even before these funding cuts, the pendancy of a patent was due to rise to 31 months by 2005. After these cuts, will we be talking about 4 or 5 years for reviews of patent applications? Whether the pendancy is two years or five, it is clearly too long to make a patent useful in Internet time. We should be shortening patent pendancies, not lengthening them. Moreover, these cuts couldn't occur at a less opportune time. The workload of the PTO has grown by almost 75 percent since 1992. This year alone, patent and trademark filings are increasing at a dramatic rate--a 40 percent increase in trademark applications filings and a 12 percent increase in patent application filings. The complexity of this workload has also increased dramatically. The technology boom in the United States has resulted in applications for patents on inventions in areas of technology that did not exist just a few years ago. On a daily basis, the PTO is asked to review applications for patents on such things as genetic tests, laser vision technologies, software, and Internet business methods. To ensure that it can adequately process such patents, and thus preserve the integrity of the patent system, the PTO must hire new examiners with the requisite skills in these areas, or fund extensive retraining for current examiners. For example, in the Internet business method area alone, the PTO needs to hire fifty (50) examiners with software engineering and business degrees. The diversion of fees will greatly impair the PTO's ability to handle this increasingly complex workload. It is also important to note that the PTO is completely funded by fees paid by patent and trademark applicants. That's right: 100 percent funded by fees. The $250 million dollars that H.R. 4690 takes away from the PTO were paid by patent and trademark applicants expecting to receive PTO services for that money. The small, independent inventor who has paid approximately $500 to file an application or $1500 to maintain a patent should be outraged that his money has been diverted to other programs while his patent application remains stalled in bureaucratic limbo. In summary, I note again that diversion of PTO fees provided for in H.R. 4690 will greatly impair the PTO's ability to adequately fulfill its role in encouraging the current technology boom. Furthermore, these fee diversions are a manifest injustice to the inventors who pay them. However, I cannot support eviscerating one valuable program to restore funds taken from another. Thus, I must regretfully vote against this.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns about the serious, negative consequences that H.R. 4616 will have on the operations of the U.S. Copyright Office. While it appears we will not have the opportunity to resolve these concerns before the House votes on H.R. 4616, I ask the bill's sponsors to address these concerns during conference. H.R. 4616 cuts the Copyright Office's total net appropriations by 38 percent, or over $5 million. As I stated, the consequences of these budgetary cuts are serious: the Copyright Office may be forced to fire as many as 130 people, and certainly will not be able to perform a variety of critical functions. Though not a high-profile agency, the Copyright Office provides a variety of very important, useful services to this Congress and the American people. The Copyright Office provides legal and policy advice to the Congress on copyright issues, advice on which the Congress relies on an almost daily basis. The Copyright Office advises foreign governments on the development of copyright laws, and plays an integral role in inter-agency deliberations over intellectual property trade matters. It undertakes studies and rule-makings at the direction of Congress, and is currently engaged in a variety of important studies mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In fiscal year 1999 alone, the Copyright Office registered over one-half million copyrighted works. It administers the collection and distribution of royalties under compulsory licenses, and in doing so processes filings from tens of thousands of cable operators, satellite carriers, and equipment manufacturers. It conducts Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels, or CARPs, to settle disputes over copyright royalties. Perhaps most importantly, the Copyright Office plays a key role in ensuring that our Library of Congress contains the most comprehensive collection of creative works in the world. As I indicated, the $5 million cut in its $12 million net appropriation will cause a reduction in force of 130 Copyright Office employees. To put it another way, this reduction works out to cutting 27 percent of the entire Copyright Office staff. Such a drastic cut in personnel will render the Copyright Office unable to perform many of the critical functions I have discussed. I don't even know how they will begin to decide which congressional mandates to ignore, or whose requests for policy support it will not honor. It seems to me ``penny-wise but pound foolish'' to save $5 million by drastically reducing the services rendered by the Copyright Office. In fact, pound for pound, the Copyright Office is easily one of the most efficient and effective agencies in the entire federal government. Simply put, it does a terrific and important job with already limited resources, and there is not a pound of fat to cut. I recognize that the intent of these cuts was not to gut the operations of the Copyright Office. In fact, H.R. 4616 attempts to enable the Copyright Office to cope with this serious budgetary shortfall in the out years by suggesting that it raise fees to cover the shortfall. Unfortunately, the Copyright Office cannot, either as a legal or practical matter, raise its fees to cover the shortfall. Effective July 1, 1999, the Copyright Office implemented a 3-year schedule of fees that raised fees for a variety of services from 50 percent to 220 percent. As a practical matter, the Copyright Office cannot turn around and raise its fees yet again: a comprehensive economic analysis undertaken pursuant to the recent fee increases indicated that higher fee increases would not be paid by the public, and thus would result in a decrease in fee revenue. I must remind my colleagues that, due to treaty obligations, we have a voluntary system of registering and recording copyrights. Thus, fees can only be increased so high before copyright holders simply stop registering and paying. The economic analysis undertaken by the Copyright Office indicates that the recently implemented fee increases reach that maximum level of acceptance. As a legal matter, the Copyright Office cannot simply raise its fees yet again. The Copyright Act mandates a procedure that the Copyright Office must follow in setting new fees, and this process takes approximately two years to implement. Thus, while H.R. 4516 assumes that the Copyright Office will make up for a fiscal year 2001 budget shortfall by raising fees, the Copyright Office would not legally be able to raise fees until fiscal year 2002. In closing, I urge that the $5 million cut in the Copyright Office budget be restored, if not now then during conference consideration of H.R. 4516. It seems a small expense to provide such important services.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to our friend, Dan Sandel, who will be awarded the Yitzhak Rabin Peace Award tonight by Americans for Peace Now. Dan has been chosen for this prestigious award for his many years of leadership and outstanding service in the struggle for peace in the Middle East. Dan has not only served on the Board of Americans for Peace Now, he has served on many others including the Tel Aviv University Board and the Education for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace Board. His work to provide solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict would certainly make the reserve officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces who founded Americans for Peace Now in 1978 proud. In addition to being a peace activist, Dan is a very successful businessman who founded Devon Industries. He not only invented and patented all of the disposable surgical equipment manufactured and distributed by Devon Industries, but he lead the company so well that it was hailed as one of the fastest growing companies in the medical industry. In 1994 after the devastating Northridge earthquake, Dan used his political acumen and understanding of business needs to help the Small Business Administration address the concerns of the local business community. His efforts helped effectuate a change in the law pertaining to the amount of money a business can receive for recovery from a natural disaster. Dan is also involved with many political, community and charitable programs both in the U.S. and in Israel. The groups he has helped run the gamut from Bedouin communities in Israel to students and faculty in Malibu. He has been particularly concerned with the homeless and has even created a new program called ``Fresh Start'' which offers homeless people housing and jobs. It is our distinct pleasure to ask our colleagues to join with us in saluting Dan Sandel for his outstanding achievements and to congratulate him for receiving the prestigious Yitzhak Rabin Peace Award.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of passage of the conference report. When the bill first came before the House, I had some very serious concerns that it might undermine the many consumer laws that we have fought hard to develop, the laws that are the very basis of relationships of trust between consumers and merchants. At that time, many of us warned that a bill unfriendly to consumers would not be good for the very industries that wanted it, those moving into the new world of electronic commerce. Validating electronic signatures and contracts is essential for the continued growth and security of e-commerce. But this important goal is expanded by some with the aim of eliminating virtually all paper requirements; and that expansion, to my way of thinking, was excessive. For instance, H.R. 1714 as originally passed allowed regulated industries to eliminate paper records but did not require businesses to maintain their records in a form that could be accessed by government regulators. Our efforts to oppose the worst of this legislation have led to a very good result. The conference has reshaped the bill to protect consumers from fraud and to provide assurances that consumers will know their legal rights before they opt-in in receiving electronic records, understand what records will be affected, and to be able to get the records in paper should they need to. Further, the report preserves State and Federal unfair deceptive practices laws. The conference report establishes a principle that the Internet must be a safe place for consumers. I credit my Democratic colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his other colleagues on the conference committee, for defending the need to preserve consumer protections and the excellent leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) in achieving an appropriate balance in an excellent piece of legislation. I am confident that, in passing this report, we will be passing a bill that will enable electronic conference to go ahead without undermining consumer protections or the Government's ability to fulfill its role in industry oversight. A very good job has been done by the conference committee. I urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my close friend, Carol E. Schatz, who will be recognized tonight at this year's Deborah Awards Women of Achievement Dinner. The Anti-Defamation League has chosen this night to honor Carol for her exceptional professional achievements and her outstanding dedication to community and civic activities. I have known Carol for many years, from her days in state government in Sacramento. She has always impressed me with her dynamism, intelligence and integrity. When she was named by the Los Angeles magazine as one of the ten most powerful business leaders in Los Angeles, I was not surprised. Her passion for her work is second only to her devotion to her husband Fred and her son Jacob. Carol crashed through the ``glass ceiling'' when she served as the first woman President and CEO of the Central City Association of Los Angeles. She led that organization to new heights and made it a powerhouse among business advocacy organizations in Los Angeles. Under her leadership, CCA helped transform Downtown Los Angeles by resurrecting the Civic Center Authority, planning for a revitalization of the Figueroa Corridor and advocating for the Staples Center. In addition to her extensive responsibilities at CCA, Carol has tackled many civic roles and public responsibilities. She served as Mayor Riordan's appointee to the Convention and Exhibition Center Authority and as his appointee to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Carol, who holds a B.A. from the University of California Berkeley and a J.D. from Loyola University School of Law, is exceptionally bright and extraordinarily accomplished. However, she stands out not just because of her intelligence, but because she has chosen to focus her energy and vision on improving all of our lives in the greater Los Angeles community. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Carol Schatz for her outstanding achievements, and to congratulate her for receiving this prestigious recognition from the Anti-Defamation league.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is the exact same language as an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I offered in the Committee on Rules we sought to have incorporated in the base bill or to be offered as an amendment, but we were not allowed to so. It is very simple. It simply says that PNTR is automatically revoked if China attacks, invades, or blockades Taiwan. Now, when we talk to people in the administration or even outside in the academic world, people who are China experts, they all say, but if China invades, attacks, or blockades Taiwan, of course we would revoke PNTR and much more. But, over and over again in history, we know that when nations do not tell the consequences for conduct for aggressive actions, other countries misread those consequences. Having studied what happened prior to the Gulf War for a very long time, I believe if we had made more clear to Saddam Hussein what would have happened should he invade Kuwait, that particular bloody battle could have been avoided. If all we are going to do is agree to revoke PNTR should this very real threat be implemented, then let us tell the Chinese beforehand. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), reach out to the future. But as we do so, remember the past, give the specific announcement of the consequence for the threat to our national security interests for which we spend billions of dollars in forward deployment in the Western Pacific. And, by the way, this is GATT pursuant to article 21. Arguments being spread around this Chamber that this somehow is GATT violative are inaccurate, wrong, and improper legal analysis.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the scare is unlimited indemnification by the United States in the case of a North Korean light-water nuclear reactor. But the amendment does not address the scare. The amendment sweepingly prohibits any and all indemnification or liability agreements without regard to how limited, how widespread, who is participating and what is happening. Some people in this House do not like to see nuclear energy. Probably everyone in this House looks at North Korea as an adversary who has undertaken and engaged in irresponsible conduct domestically and in foreign policy. But everyone who votes for the amendment should think first about the fact that they could be torpedoing the agreed framework and the ability to get meaningful inspections about what the North Koreans have done with the plutonium that is not even reached yet by the present freeze in the North Korean nuclear program. That is a very high price to pay for the pleasure of voting for an amendment which, on its surface, seems very attractive. I think for purposes of making sure that we rid North Korea of any nuclear program whatsoever, of getting it in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, of making it certified by the IAEA and of finally getting an account and disposing of the plutonium that we all know they have, it is a terrible mistake to vote for this amendment, and I urge the body to reject it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are greatly honored today to pay tribute to Stephen S. Wise Temple which will, on Sunday evening, May 21st, celebrate its 36th Anniversary. This anniversary has special significance in the Jewish faith. The Hebrew letter chai represents the number 18 and means ``life.'' Thirty-six, then--is a Double Chai or ``double-life'' and an event of great importance. Also on that evening, another event of great importance will be celebrated: the 80th birthday of the founder of Stephen S. Wise Temple, the distinguished scholar and nationally respected teacher, Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin. In the short span of 36 years, Stephen S. Wise Temple has grown into the largest Jewish congregation in the West and the second-largest Jewish congregation in the world. It is both a caring and active congregation and a renowned center for spiritual, cultural and educational studies. On its beautiful campus in the hills above West Los Angeles, is found--in addition to the temple--a dynamic elementary school, a unique Jewish community high school and a religious institute, all highly acclaimed for the excellent education they offer. They represent one of the greatest legacies of Rabbi Zeldin--the origination of Reform Judaism's day school programs in Los Angeles. It is hard to overstate the vision and the commitment that led Rabbi Seldin to build such an extraordinary facility. This complex of eleven buildings on an 18-acre site carved out of a mountain which serves more than 3,000 families is a true testament to his hard work, his dedication, his visionary guidance, his strong sense of community and his great interest in training young people in the traditions of their religion as well as the knowledge of the world. Upon Rabbi Zeldin's graduation from the Cincinnati School of Hebrew Union College, he became the assistant rabbi of the largest Reform congregation in New Jersey. He spent the next several years serving as a spiritual leader at various congregations and, in 1964, founded the Stephen S. Wise Temple. He is the former president of the San Fernando Valley Synagogue Council, the American Zionist Federation of Southern California, the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis and the American Zionist Council. On a personal note, Rabbi Zeldin did a wonderful job of officiating at the bat mitzvah of Lindsey Berman. We are very proud, Mr. Speaker, to ask that our distinguished colleagues join us in congratulating Stephen S. Wise Temple on its Double Chai Anniversary, and in extending our gratitude and appreciation to Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin for his enormous accomplishments and his tremendous contributions to the Jewish community of Los Angeles. We wish him many happy returns.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide, one of the most horrific episodes of human history. In early 1915, Britain and Russia launched major offensives intended to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the first World War. In the east, Russian forces inflicted massive losses on the Ottomans, who reacted by lashing out at the Armenians, whom they accused of undermining the Empire. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community and political leaders suspected of harboring nationalist sentiments. Most of those arrested were executed without ever being charged with crimes. The government then moved to deport most Armenians from eastern Anatolia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never reached that destination. The U.S. Ambassador in Constantinople at the time, Henry Morgenthau, wrote ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race.'' From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation or disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining Armenians from Turkey. We mark this anniversary each year because this horrible tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all humanity. We must remember, speak out and teach future generations about the horrors of genocide and the oppression and terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people. Sadly, genocide is not yet a vestige of the past. In recent years we have witnessed the ``killing fields'' of Cambodia, mass ethnic killings in Bosnia and Rwanda, and ``ethnic cleansing'' in Kosovo. We must renew our commitment to remain vigilant and prevent such assaults on humanity from occurring ever again. Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all over the world have clung to their identity and prospered in new communities. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians live in California, where they form a strong and vibrant community. The strength they have displayed in overcoming tragedy to flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Surrounded by countries hostile to them, to this day the Armenian struggle continues. But now with an independent Armenian state, the United States has the opportunity to contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's emerging democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system. Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi Holocaust, once remarked ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will continue to remember the victims of the 1915-23 genocide because, in the words of the philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay a heartfelt tribute to Dolores Huerta, pre-eminent American labor leader and social activist, on the occasion of her 70th birthday, which we celebrate today. Dolores Fernandez Huerta was born April 10, 1930, in Dawson, New Mexico. The mother of 11 children, the grandmother of 14, and the great-grandmother of four, she is a hero to farmworkers, to the Latino community, to women, to the labor movement and to me. I have known and worked with Dolores for many years, and I can say that this is a person whose brilliance, incomparable leadership ability and sheer energy would have propelled her to prominence no matter what field she might have chosen for her life's work. How very fortunate for the farmworkers of this nation--and for all of us--that she chose La Causa, the cause of justice for farmworkers. I say all of us because our nation is diminished when some among us, those who do the hard work of harvesting the food we eat, are deprived of decent wages and working conditions. She organized and co-founded the United Farm Workers of America with Cesar Chavez in 1965 in the belief that in the union there is the strength to achieve economic and civil rights for farmworkers. In the 35 years since then, she has fired the souls and minds of poor farmworkers who, thanks to her, can imagine and achieve better lives for themselves and their children. She is a wellspring of ideas and a brilliant strategist--I can personally attest to that--but she has also physically put herself on the line for her fellow workers and has been subjected to life-threatening injury for it. It has been my great personal fortune to be able to count Dolores Huerta as a colleague and a friend. Dolores, for the inspiration that you provide by your selfless devotion to improving the lives of farmworkers, for the breakthroughs you have achieved and the goals you continue to set for all of us, and for your example of a life spent in service to others, we thank you and wish you a joyous birthday and many happy returns.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Waxman and I, rise today to pay tribute to Lisa Specht who will be honored by the American Jewish Committee as the recipient of the prestigious Learned Hand Award, named in memory of Judge Learned Hand and presented annually to a leader of the legal profession who has been ``a voice of understanding and goodwill.'' We have known Lisa for many years and have greatly enjoyed our friendship with this charming and accomplished woman. She is an individual of many talents. In her distinguished career, she has been a television commentator and panelist, a community activist, a feminist and of course, a top-notch lawyer. The Los Angeles Business Journal lists her as one of Los Angeles County's most prominent attorneys and California Law Business has named her as one of California's top 100 Attorneys. As a senior partner at the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Lisa specializes in representing the firm's clients before governmental entities. Her considerable political acumen makes her a powerful force on their behalf. in addition, she serves as a strategic policy and business advisor to many corporate presidents and CEOs. A champion of women's rights, Lisa was a co-founder of the Women's Political Committee over twenty-five years ago and has worked tirelessly to recruit and support progressive woman candidates who run for public office. She serves on the national board of the National Organization of Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, and she is a Board Member and former officer of Bet Tzedek Legal Services. Her interest in improving her community has led her to give generously of her time, energy and skills to numerous boards and commissions including the Industry Policy Committee of the United States Department of Commerce and the Recreation and Parks Commission of the City of Los Angeles. She is also a Trustee of Pitzer College. Supported by her husband, Ron Rogers, Lisa has been a great force for good in her chosen profession and in her community. We are extremely proud of her many accomplishments and ask our colleagues with great pleasure to join us and the American Jewish Committee in paying tribute to a remarkable person and a wonderful friend, Lisa Specht.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on the Boehlert amendment to H.R. 2372. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Also, I was unable to cast a vote on the motion to recommit H.R. 2372, Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Also, I was unable to cast a vote on final passage of H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''