Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the military coup in Pakistan is an unfortunate setback for democracy in South Asia. It stands in stark contrast to last month's elections in India, which reaffirmed that nation's strong commitment to democratic values. Until democracy is restored in Islamabad, it would be a mistake for the Clinton administration to waive existing sanctions that prohibit arms transfers and military training. In addition, the administration should immediately take steps to invoke section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which prohibits certain foreign assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government has been deposed in a military coup. Democracy in Pakistan was far from perfect under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Indeed, his government severely limited free political expression and often failed to respect basic human rights. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Sharif and his party were supported by an overwhelming majority of voters in 1997 elections judged to be free and fair. The failings of his administration do not justify the military's subversion of the constitutional order. At times the Clinton administration has gone out of its way to avoid triggering section 508. For example, Hun Sen's bloody 1997 takeover of the Cambodian Government, in which over 40 military and political leaders were killed, was never designated as a coup. Although Gen. Pervez Musharraf's recent coup was ``bloodless,'' and despite the fact that applying section 508 to Pakistan would only involve only a very limited amount of aid, we must send a strong signal to other would-be military strongmen that the United States will not tolerate such anti- democratic actions. I urge the Clinton administration to promptly apply section 508 to Pakistan.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. He is exactly right. Very much of the military budget is for foreign aid purposes and for foreign policy purposes. How much more expensive it is to go into an area because our foreign policy did not work.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I have a great deal of affection for both the chair and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. Even as we speak, my office is seeking to facilitate one of the chairman's most recent requests. But even though ever since Mr. Callahan has become chairman of that Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I have never before voted against a foreign operations bill or a conference report. I am compelled to do so now. There are only two groups of people who should oppose this conference report: one are people who hate foreign aid, because this is $12.7 billion of foreign aid; the other group are the people who like foreign aid, because this bill is woefully inadequate to meet the needs we have now. That is not the fault of the chairman. He was given an allocation. He has done as well as he could possibly have done with that allocation. But the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) have all pointed out defects in this bill. I want to focus on one particular item in the bill that is $1.9 billion less than the President requested, a cut of more than 13 percent. We are not talking 1 percent here, 3 percent, a 13 percent cut from the President's request, a billion dollars below last year's funding level, and when we count for inflation, way below any other bill that the chairman has asked us to vote for in the past. But on the particular issue that he has spoken about with respect to the Middle East, this bill does not meet the administration's request or the interests that are served by promoting the peace process in the Middle East. Because this bill includes no funding for the Wye plantation supplemental request of the administration. Now, some in the leadership on the other side say, oh, well, we will do that later. And I say, when? This year? And they say, oh, no, no, not necessarily. It might be next year. And I say to not do the Wye supplemental, to not appropriate those monies before the February framework agreement is to tell both parties that America's commitments cannot be accounted on, that the sacrifices and the compromises that need to be made cannot be carried out because the funding will not be there. Who knows what is going to happen next spring or next summer when the Republican leadership may choose to bring up a supplemental, and who knows what will be in that supplemental. This is the time to deal with it. This is when we are concluding our budget request. This accord is being implemented as the parties agree now, and we can do no less than to try to fund something that is so essential to American foreign policy interests. I urge a no vote on the conference report.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 181, which condemns the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia--known as FARC--for the kidnapping and brutal murder of three American citizens earlier this year. These individuals--including Terence Freitas, whose mother lives in my congressional district--were in Colombia only to provide assistance to the indigenous U'wa people in the northeast part of the country. Although the FARC has admitted that their guerillas abducted and killed the Americans, they have refused to cooperate with Colombian or United States authorities to resolve the case. This important resolution condemns the senseless murders and demands that those responsible for this heinous crime are swiftly brought to justice. As we condemn atrocities committed by the FARC, we must also condemn the numerous extrajudicial killings carried out by Colombian paramilitary forces. The cycle of violence that has consumed Colombia and claimed the lives of these three innocent Americans will end only when all sides agree to lay down their arms and work together to achieve a lasting peace. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report due to a family emergency. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Agriculture Appropriations conference report. I am especially concerned about the Senate rider, not included in the House version of the bill, which would deny jobs to United States farmworkers by allowing agricultural employers to secure vulnerable foreign guest workers without any meaningful recruitment of U.S. farmworkers. This rider makes a mockery of the obligation of employers to show a labor shortage before gaining access to temporary foreign agricultural workers. The General Accounting Office has reviewed the unemployment rates in America's counties where there are major populations of migrant farmworkers and found that in most, there were double-digit unemployment rates. From this, one would expect that agricultural employers would develop new methods of recruiting this readily available pool of unemployed and underemployed farmworkers. But that is not what has happened. Instead, they have sought this legislation to permit employers to escape the requirement that they recruit U.S. workers before gaining access to vulnerable foreign workers. This proposal, offered by Senator McConnell of Kentucky, (where many tobacco growers use the H-2A guest worker program), would drastically shorten the time period for recruitment of U.S. workers before the Department of Labor must decide whether the growers actually faces a labor shortage. Agricultural employers, under this provision, will apply for guest workers 45 days before the first day of work. The Department of Labor then will have 7 days to make sure that the wages and working conditions meet applicable standards. If they do meet applicable standards, then the employer begins recruitment inside the state and in other states where migrant workers reside. That leaves just 38 days before the season begins. But the Department of Labor must decide whether recruitment was successful no more than 30 days before the season begins. So in reality, employers have just 8 days to recruit U.S. farmworkers. This would be bad enough, but there are even more problems: Often, the employer offers wages and working conditions that do not meet DOL standards. The Department must then give such an employer 5 additional days to correct the job terms. Recruitment does not begin until that approval is granted, at about 33 days before the season begins. But DOL is still bound to decide whether a labor shortage exists no more than 30 days before the season begins. This leaves only three days to recruit U.S. workers--a scenario utterly designed for failure. In the meantime, many agricultural employers have elaborate recruitment networks that have been seeking foreign guestworkers for months. I recognize that the H-2A law contains job preference requirements for U.S. workers. But there exist great economic incentives for H-2A program employers to hire foreign guest workers rather than domestic farmworkers. Guestworkers are far more docile and compliant than U.S. workers who have legal protections. Also, employers save money because guestworkers' wages are not subject to unemployment taxes or Social Security contributions. Once DOL has give approval to hire foreign guestworkers, U.S. farmworkers know that they usually won't be welcome at those jobs. The General Accounting Office report on the H-2A program made recommendations about the very issues the McConnell rider addresses, and the McConnell amendment is inconsistent with the GAO recommendations. The GAO recommended shortening the H-2A progress, which the Department of Labor recently did through regulation changes. But the GAO warned that recruitment of U.S. workers should not be reduced and that is precisely what the McConnell amendment does. I am firmly opposed to the conference committee report because this appropriations bill contains the McConnell amendment that unjustifiably denies jobs to the poorest of the working poor, America's farmworkers.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Representative Henry A. Waxman, and I, rise to pay tribute to Los Angeles Valley College, which this year is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Over the past five decades, Valley College has exemplified the best in American public education. Despite charging nominal fees to its students, the college has a top-notch faculty, the largest library in the San Fernando Valley and today offers more than 50 academic majors. Forty percent of the students who attend Valley College view it as a pathway to facilitate transfers into four-year colleges and universities. When Valley College opened its doors in 1949, the San Fernando Valley was a suburban/rural community. The changes in the college since that time have paralleled the changes in the Valley, which is much more diverse than it was at the end of the Second World War. The College had done an outstanding job of adapting its curriculum and facilities to new and different circumstances. Valley College has also kept up with the rapid pace of technological change at the end of the 20th century. The library recently completed its automation project and is now on-line with access to four separate databases. The College currently maintains a Bio-Tutorial Lab, Computer Science Lab, Music Listening Lab, Speech Lab, Foreign Language Lab, Statistics Lab and several open labs with Internet access for all students. Valley College has developed a program that provides a number of one- and two-year technical programs such as accounting, business administration and computer sciences. Through the years, thousands of students have used these programs to enter rewarding careers. Valley College has also made a concerted effort to meet the educational needs of high school students in the San Fernando Valley. The Afternoon College enables these young people to improve their basic skills before they graduate, which helps ensure that they will succeed in college. The Early-Start Program allows college-bound high school students to earn college credit while still attending high school. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Dr. Tyree Wieder, President of Valley College, and the entire faculty and staff on this special occasion. Thanks to these dedicated educators, Valley College is a superb example of the best that California's Community College System has to offer. With the continued hard work of such committed individuals, the next 50 years at Valley College will be equally successful in serving our community.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, among the many benefits of this procedure of clustering votes after the debate on a number of amendments, in addition to the far better use of a Member's time, is the fact that a Member who comes in too late to debate the amendment he wanted to debate, gets a chance to debate that amendment on the next amendment. So I rise in support of the Waters amendment but also in support and speaking on behalf of the Frank amendment. We have heard a lot about the problems of judicial vacancies in the context of this particular amendment. I think it cannot be disputed that as a result of what this bill seeks to do, with its very open and permissive abilities to remove class-action suits to Federal court, the vast majority of class action suits, which raise State law issues and only State law issues, will end up being heard in the Federal courts. This in a system bogged down with large backlogs; bogged down with a number of judicial vacancies. I am sure no one could have put it better than the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), whom I missed in terms of his debate on his amendment, the relative absurdity of the situation where now, with very permissive removal rules, a class-action case involving a State law is removed to a Federal court, and the Federal judge determines that, applying his notions of the law, that that class is not appropriately certified. At that particular point one would normally expect that it could be remanded back to the State level for a determination by the State courts of whether under State law it is appropriate to certify the class. Without the Frank amendment, such an action will then again, with the new lawsuit, be removed back to Federal Court. And we will never get out of this revolving door. So the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, which makes it clear that once a Federal judge has refused to certify the class, that action may be brought in State court, cannot be removed, and it will be up to the State justice system to decide whether there is an appropriate class to certify makes a little bit of sense out of this otherwise both, I think, damaging and somewhat senseless proposal that, in effect, will deprive huge numbers of people of class action remedies in State courts or in Federal courts on matters that are essentially matters of State law. I support the Frank amendment; I support the Waters amendment. If those amendments do not pass, I urge this bill be defeated.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Terry and Carole York, who are being honored this year by the Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley as the recipients of their Golden Hands Award. Terry and Carole have, for decades, given unstintingly of their time, talents and resources to worthy organizations throughout the San Fernando Valley. Their dedication and sense of compassion, especially where children are concerned, know no bounds and their altruism and community spirit serves as a shining example. The Yorks have been among the strongest boosters of the Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley for over 25 years. During that time their support has enabled the club to assist hundreds of youth from underprivileged backgrounds get a fresh start with their lives. Terry and Carole have also been strong supporters of the City of Hope, American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, and a myriad of other civic, charitable, and humanitarian causes. On her own, Carole has worked as a volunteer with Penny Lane, a home for girls in need, and has been involved with Olive View Medical Center. While contributing tirelessly to their community, the Yorks have raised a close and devoted family of four. Carole paints, gardens and loves to spoil her two grandchildren. Terry is a successful and distinguished businessman. Within 5 years, he moved from file clerk to general manager and part owner of an auto dealership. Today there are 10 franchises in the Terry York Automotive Group. His best sale, he loves to say, was to his future wife, over 30 years ago. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Terry and Carole York, who have made a positive difference in the lives of so many. I wish the best to both of them, their children, Todd, Natalie, Tom, and Tiffany, and their two grandchildren, Logan and Weston.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the time. First, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for introducing the legislation, for allowing me to be a participant in the development of the legislation and its cosponsorship, and to the Republican leadership for putting the bill over until after the recess to deal with some of the concerns and misunderstandings that I think would have existed which would have impeded the progress of this bill, had we rushed to a markup the last week before the recess. I do appreciate that delay. I rise in very strong support of the bill. The purpose of this legislation is not to bash Russia. It is not to kill the Space Station. It is not even to bash Iran. One thing we know, it has been reported everywhere and we all know it, Iran is on a program to develop nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver those weapons. Iran has determined that that is in their national interests. A recent CIA report estimates that in the next few years Iran could test a long-range missile capable of delivering a small payload to many parts of the United States. Within a decade, Iran could test a more advanced nuclear-capable ICBM. Again, my goal is not to demonize Iran. I would welcome improved U.S. ties with Iran. If they would simply stop supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups who seek to disrupt the Middle East peace process, release the 13 Jews currently in detention, and otherwise moderate their behavior, I would like to have our relationship with Iran improve. But no matter what the status of our bilateral relationship, it will always be in our clear interest to prevent or delay Iran's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. I doubt we will ever convince the Iranians to halt their weapons programs. Therefore, the next best thing we can do is to do everything in our power to cut off the flow of technology and expertise from other countries to Iran. This legislation will do several things. First, it will help us get a more complete picture of which foreign entities are transferring technology to Iran, and authorize, he already has the power, but authorize, it will authorize even more clearly, but not require, the President to impose sanctions on those entities. Congress has a right to know and understand the full extent of the proliferation to Iran. This bill helps to provide that information to the Congress. The bill will also limit extraordinary payments to Russia for the international Space Station. Certain exemptions have been made, but it will limit the extraordinary payments and new programs on the Space Station; in other words, payments for work that Russia already pledged to do at their own expense, unless the President certifies that the Russian Government is taking concrete steps to stop proliferation and that the Russian space agency and the entities under its jurisdiction or control have stopped making unauthorized transfers. I do not want to bash Russia. I am not interested in playing the blame game, as some of my colleagues are right now, for this situation in Russia and the U.S. policy towards Russia. I believe, particularly in the last couple of years, that this administration has made great efforts to try and persuade the Russians to do more to stop the proliferation. I believe Russia and its top leadership understand that proliferation to Iran is no more in their interest than it is in our interest. But the fact is that if, in a program that we are participating in through the Russian space agency, they allow their own subsidiaries and subordinate agencies that they can control to proliferate and to continue that technology, they should not expect to be partners with us in new programs. They have to make a choice. The entity that is a joint venture, the entity that is a joint venture with us, with Lockheed on the launches, has understood that and has made that choice, and has resisted any temptations to proliferate. We want the Russian space agency to do the same thing with all their agencies. That is why this legislation, prospective in nature, is being introduced. I congratulate the chairman, again, and the other cosponsors, and urge its adoption.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Sherman, and I, rise to pay tribute to our good friend, Ira Freeman, who is this year's recipient of the Annual Achievement Award from Action Democrats of the San Fernando Valley. Ira Freeman has built his life on the proposition that we are put on earth to help others. The list of organizations, associations and causes that have benefitted from Ira's tireless activism is almost as enormous as his heart. We have no idea how he has managed--for nearly 40 years--to balance his busy and distinguished career with his myriad civic and political activities. In 1964, Ira opened Key Pharmacy--a community resource pharmacy--in North Hollywood. While building a very successful business, he also played a leadership role within his profession. From 1972 to the present, Ira has served as a board member of the Pharmacists Professional Society of the San Fernando Valley. He is a member, a past-Treasurer and a past-President of the statewide Pharmacists Political Action Committee and from 1996 to 1998 was Chief Financial Officer of the United Pharmacists Network. A tireless booster of his community, Ira served as President of the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce in 1985 and again in 1988. He has been a member of the Sun Valley Chamber Board for 14 years, and was appointed by Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg to his Small Business Advisory Commission. Ira loves politics. He is a voter, contributor, fund raiser, volunteer and unofficial advisor. Virtually every campaign in the San Fernando Valley has benefitted from Ira's hard work and generosity. He has served on the Leadership Council of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, and is a member of Action Democrats, Democrats for Change and the Sherman Oaks Democratic Club. Ira gives his talents and resources to charitable causes ranging from AIDS to Diabetes. He is a contributing member to The Executives, a support group for the Jewish Home for the Aging and works with the Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley. Ira has been awarded the Circle of Friends Award by the Juvenile Justice Connection Project (1987), the Dareen McDonald Award from the Independent Living Centers of Southern California (1994) and the Helen and Sam Greenberg Award, as well as recognition from the California Pharmacists and the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Ira Freeman, whose selfless acts and dedication to this community inspire us all. We are proud to be his friend.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Pauline ``Polly'' Barclay, who is retiring after a distinguished 44-year career as an elementary school teacher in the Pacoima-Lake View Terrace area. Mrs. Barclay's commitment to education and her rapport with students of all races and backgrounds is legendary throughout the Northeast San Fernando Valley. She nurtured a love of learning in hundreds of children through the years and she is--to her colleagues and students-- an outstanding example of the best our public schools have to offer. Mrs. Barclay came to Pacoima in 1956, when she took a job at Vaughn Street School. She spent 4 years at Vaughn, and then a decade at Fillmore Street School, also located in Pacoima. Her next position was at Fenton Avenue School in the adjoining community of Lake View Terrace. She spend 23 years at Fenton Avenue, and then an additional 5 years at Fenton Avenue Charter School. This past year Mrs. Barclay taught at Coldwater Canyon Elementary School in North Hollywood. Mrs. Barclay has often observed that ``teachers must provide our children with a strong sense of values and respect for others, while providing them with the education and skills necessary to succeed.'' As her many honors and awards attest, Mrs. Barclay put this philosophy into practice in the classroom. In 1975, she was recognized by the Los Angeles Unified School District's Office of Urban Affairs School- Community Relations for outstanding contributions in improving relations between schools and the community. Ten years later, she was named Pioneer of the Year by the Pacoima Community Coordinating Council. Mrs. Barclay has traveled extensively, and has made a point of sharing her experiences with fascinated students over the years. The many countries she has visited include Botswana, Yemen, Iran, Egypt, Cuba and Venezuela. I strongly suspect that Mrs. Barclay will be adding to this list during her retirement. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Pauline Barclay, whose devotion to her students and her passion for life inspire us all. I wish all the best to her and her husband, Dave, children, Steve and Danielle, daughter-in-law, Darna, and grandchildren, Candace, Chloe and Sean.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio very much for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bass-Kucinich amendment which addresses the efficient allocation of telephone numbers. I wholeheartedly agree that the FCC should develop and implement a plan to address the problem of area code proliferation which is plaguing communities across the United States. Moreover, I concur that State Commissions should be given the authority to implement number conservation methods, especially if the state is about to reach its capacity of numbers. States should be given the authority to deal with the hoarding of unused area codes by local carriers. Throughout California, the proliferation of area codes is a problem. During the last two years, the number of area codes in California has risen from 13 to 28, and as many as 14 additional area codes may be implemented by 2002. By contrast, it took 45 years for California to acquire 13 area codes. In fact, there is a plan in my district either to split the San Fernando Valley into two area codes or subject us to an ``overlay.'' I have heard from many constituents who feel either option will inconvenience them unnecessarily. Homeowners have told me that they do not want to dial ten numbers to call their next-door neighbors. Business owners are upset because they fear they will lose contact with their customers. Their feelings of frustration and annoyance are totally understandable. I want to leave you with one statistic: the California Public Utilities Commission estimates that only 35 to 40 million numbers are in use, while 206 million numbers will be available by the end of this year in California. It is clear that the current capacity of numbers has not been exhausted. I believe California is not alone in its predicament and many reports have documented a similar underutilization in other states. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I take the floor today to bid farewell to a giant in California governance and politics. George Brown was the epitome of a great public servant. Elected as a spirited anti-war crusader, he never lost his bearings. Although he mellowed with time, he never strayed far from his Quaker roots and his strong principles. In a recent campaign, George's opponent ran a series of ads called ``Guilty as Charged,'' that accused him of being out of touch--a common theme of challengers. George was not out of touch, but in a very different context, he was indeed ``guilty as charged.'' George was guilty as charged for tireless work on behalf of those less privileged, against discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or gender; for better education, for the nation's working men and women, for children, for the environment, and always--against weapons of mass destruction, for arms control and for peace. He will always be remembered as a man of principle, unafraid to stand alone, impervious to pressure. In 1966, George cast the sole vote in the House of Representatives against the Defense Appropriations Bill-- his act of defiance against the Vietnam War. From his time as Mayor of Monterey Park to the California Assembly, to Congress where he served as Chairman and then Ranking Member of the Science Committee, he always held his office in spite of ferocious opposition--simply because he paid close attention to his constituents and won the undying loyalty of a tight, but determined majority. They loved him and they wanted him to represent them. Gruff, crusty and colorful, no one could turn a phrase just like George. If he disagreed with a proposal, it ``bordered on lunacy.'' He loved the thought that he had become a virtual legend in his own time. We hope that his family will be comforted by his legacy and by knowing that he was one of a kind and a shining example of integrity and principle. George Brown is simply irreplaceable in this House of Representatives.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation I yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for any thoughts he has.

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just to add one thing. There are other offsets, some of them I have to admit I do not like, I would not have chosen. But I have to sympathize with the subcommittee, too. I could not come up. The cap for this subcommittee is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department and Legal Services Corporation. It is woefully inadequate to do that. Any offset is going to pay a price, but the principle here is the principle, do we continue our commitment to legal services for the poor? I urge an aye vote on the amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BERMAN. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment just to review the bidding on the Legal Services Corporation. In 1981 this program took an unbelievably deep cut which it took 11 years, until Fiscal Year 1993, to get back to where it was in 1981. In Fiscal Year 1995, we finally reached the $400 million level on Legal Services Corporation appropriations, a level which served nowhere near 50 percent of the population then living in poverty in terms of legal services programs. Since that time the program has been reduced to the present level of 300 millions, so the bill in front of us which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) seek to amend is a 53 percent cut for a program that is already $100 million less than it was in Fiscal Year 1995. This is a massive cutback in an essential program. All the laws we have to protect consumers and tenants and employees, our whole quality of life, these are rendered virtually meaningless for low-income people if they cannot get a lawyer to advocate on their behalf. When I hear the leader talk about the different sins of the Legal Services Corporation, and on each one there is an answer, there is a different interpretation; I believe there is a fairer interpretation. What I do know is that the distinguished majority leader has opposed the Legal Services Corporation every year with the GAO report, without a GAO report, with an Inspector General comment, without an Inspector General comment. The majority leader does not like the program. Now there is an alternative to Legal Services Corporation. It is creating the most massive bureaucracy of enforcers of these laws one could imagine at a time when we surely do not want to do that to regulate and control every aspect of commercial and landlord-tenant and other kinds of private relationships to make sure that low-income people are getting a fair shake. I suggest this program is the most efficient and most effective way. It utilizes the skills of tremendously talented people who get very low wages. No one in this Chamber would work for the salaries that these people are working for. These people could make factors of two and three times as much money going off in the private sector, but their commitment to serve low-income people allows them and motivates them to serve in these kinds of jobs. The American people and the low-income people in this country are getting tremendous service from this. We talk about case numbers. One can have a case that involves a phone call for 20 minutes and an interview for 15 minutes and a letter that takes another 10 minutes, or one can have a case that takes hundreds of hours of research and judicial time and court time and deposition time and discovery time. To get into a clinical analysis of numbers of cases and then make automatic assumptions about budget makes no sense whatsoever in terms of the real world of the legal practice of these people who again, I repeat, are working at far below the incomes that their talents would justify. I myself think the amendment in front of us is much too low; $250 million is not an acceptable figure. That would leave a cut of $50 million from the already too low level we are at this year. I myself do not like the offsets, but I know that in a conference committee we can change the offsets, we can continue this effort; and if my colleagues believe in what the Legal Services programs represent in this country, they have to vote aye on this amendment, and I urge an aye vote.

Mr. BERMAN. Under my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, for the life of me I never understand why when we go to the Committee on Rules we do not come out with a set time limit so that time can be allocated at the beginning based on the demand for people to speak, but at this particular point I just think we are not quite ready to entertain this. I suggest submitting it in a little while, but we are not quite ready, and so I object.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1907. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, I can attest to the longstanding efforts of my colleagues and predecessors on the Subcommittee, Carlos Moorehead, Pat Schroeder, and Barney Frank, on behalf of this legislation. Now thanks to the very hard work of the gentleman from North Carolina and his staff, with the assistance of the gentlelady from California, we now move one step closer to enactment of reforms that will more effectively protect the creativity and investments of American inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses. A voluminous record has been complied by our subcommittee in support of this legislation, comprising many days of hearings over several Congresses. As a result of that record, I am convinced that this bill is unquestionably in the national interest. I embrace the conclusions of the 21st Century Patent Coalition that the bill will improve the quality of patents, reduce the costs of resolving patent disputes, put an end to rules favoring foreign applicants over American companies, protect American businesses and jobs, and not least of all, strengthen the rights of inventors who now suffer from delays at PTO that are not their fault. In view of the strong support of a wide range of associations and interests, including a very large number of Fortune 500 companies, the Biotechnology Industry Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers--why even the Indiana Manufacturers Association--the obstacles that have been thrown up to our efforts to get this bill scheduled for consideration are very hard to understand. While I supported earlier versions of this legislation, including H.R. 400 as approved by our Committee last year, I am always loathe to make the best enemy of the good. Today's legislation has won broader support than previous versions of this legislation, and I salute my colleague from North Carolina and his staff for their patience and persistence in bringing us a giant step closer today to our mutual goal of patent reform. I strongly support this bill, and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. Cutting development assistance for India at this time would be totally counterproductive because it would undermine U.S.-India relations just when we're starting to make some real progress. India showed great restraint in the recent Kashmir crisis, and the Indian government has made a strong commitment to resuming bilateral discussions with Pakistan as soon as all militants have withdrawn behind the Line of Control. India has also indicated that signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be a high priority. On both counts, India is moving in a direction that's totally consistent with U.S. security interests in South Asia. It would be foolish to put this progress in jeopardy by cutting India's development assistance. Mr. Chairman, human rights abuses should be taken seriously wherever they occur. India, like most countries in the world, doesn't have a perfect record. But according to the latest State Department report on human rights practices, India is making real progress. The Indian Supreme Court has acknowledged and condemned earlier human rights abuses in Punjab, and the independent National Human Rights Commission is conducting an investigation. The best way to improve human rights in India is to continue an open and frank dialogue, not to cut programs that limit the spread of AIDS, improve access to reproductive health services, and provide basic health care for mothers and children. With some 500 million Indians living below the poverty line, the modest amount of assistance we provide barely scratches the surface when compared to the overall need. But it's an important symbol of the relationship between the world's two largest democracies and it should be continued. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so simply to yield to my friend from North Carolina to indicate his intentions with respect to bringing up the Senate bill at this time.