Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give my prepared remarks; I would rather at this point take a little time to respond to some of the comments that have been raised on this issue, because I think that the resolution of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) has received a bit of an unfair rap. This is not a resolution to catalog all of the violations that have occurred by one party or another and to make an accurate statement of who has been wronged and who has not been wronged. It is not about the past, it is about the future. I say most respectfully, when I hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) say, I want to see a Palestinian state, my guess is, if asked, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), would say, I never want to see a Palestinian state. I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) wants and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) wants or what I want is irrelevant. The parties agreed at Oslo to decide this most fundamental of issues: the negotiations over what kind of entity will be there in the final status talks and negotiations between the parties. It is not a U.S. decision, and it is not a Members of Congress decision. Mr. Speaker, all this resolution does is say, Congress opposes in every way it can such a fundamental and material breach of the Oslo process as the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. If the Israeli cabinet and the Israeli Knesset announced tomorrow that they were going to annex every portion of the West Bank now under Israeli military occupation, which is the vast, vast majority of the West Bank, people would say, wait a second, you are fundamentally breaching the commitments you made under Oslo, and they would be accurate in saying so. This is the exact equivalent. However, no one in responsible positions in Israel has suggested annexation, a unilateral annexation, except in retaliation for the declaration of statehood; but on the Palestinian side, a number of leaders under the Palestinian Authority have threatened the unilateral declaration. So I can sit here and talk about whether enough guns have been confiscated by the Palestinian Authority or whether terrorists have been released or what is the state of Israel's settlements, and I have opinions on all of those different issues. This is not a resolution to catalog all of those questions; this is a resolution that goes to the heart of the breach that will destroy the peace process, and that is unilateral declaration of statehood. One final point. There is a lot of talk here about U.S. as honest broker, U.S. as evenhanded. Let me tell my colleagues, the Palestinians, Chairman Arafat, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, wants the U.S. involved in the peace process because of the U.S.'s relationship with the State of Israel, because the U.S. has been Israel's strongest ally, because Israel has come to the U.S. The U.S. role, yes, is to be an honest broker and to play a facilitating role and to bring the parties together and to push the peace process forward. But make no mistake about it. If parties wanted evenhanded, neutral people who have demonstrated equal distance from all of the parties, they could have gone to the Swedes or Norway or to the European Union to play this role. No. The Palestinian Authority recognizes that it is the U.S. and its relationship with Israel, close as it is, that makes it a useful party to help facilitate these talks. It is not for the U.S. to be evenhanded; it is for the U.S. to recognize its relationship with Israel and to play that kind of a role, and that is the way this process will succeed, with the United States playing that role. So I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon). I think this is a good resolution. This recognizes that a fundamental breach might very well occur and we should right now let everyone know that this destroys the peace process and we think it is a big mistake, and on the other issues, let us work to resolve them and move that process forward. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. The most basic and fundamental principle of the Middle East peace process is that all issues related to the permanent status of a Palestinian entity must be addressed through negotiations. A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would, by definition, constitute a blatant violation of that principle and fly in the face of Palestinian commitments under the Oslo accords. Palestinian statehood--more than any other issue--goes right to the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One side cannot act alone in determining this status and in answering the numerous questions that it raises: Where should its borders be? What should be the limitations on its sovereignty? How will Israel's security be guaranteed? A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would destroy the peace process. Years of hard work, sacrifice and efforts to build trust would go down the drain in the blink of an eye. There would be no winners, only losers. As Prime Minister Netanyahu recently stated, Israel would respond ``very forcefully'' if such a declaration were made. This response would probably include an Israeli decision to annex portions of the West Bank currently under their control. Although you wouldn't know it from reading the text of this resolution, President Clinton has repeatedly declared strong opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and made it abundantly clear that it would not be recognized by the United States. Nevertheless, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassar Arafat has refused to rule out the possibility. As recently as February 20, a high level Palestinian Authority official said, and I quote, ``We are moving forward in our preparations for the day, May 4, the date of the declaration of a Palestinian state.'' So, as much as I'd like to believe the conventional wisdom that Chairman Arafat will not make a unilateral declaration of statehood, it is clear that we as a body must go on record to express our complete and total opposition to such an act. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 24.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Sherman and I rise today to pay tribute to our very good friend, Ricardo Icaza, President of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770. This year Ricardo is receiving the International Humanitarian Award from the Israel Humanitarian Foundation. Having traveled outside the United States many times as a representative of the AFL-CIO, advocating on behalf of working people, it is no exaggeration to say that he is a perfect choice for this prestigious honor. Ricardo joined Local 770 in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States and Elvis Presley had his first hit records. In the ensuring 43 years, the fortunes of organized labor have ebbed and flowed, along with those of the American economy as a whole. Through it all Ricardo's commitment to the Union, its policies and its goals, has never wavered. He is too busy fighting for the rights of workers to worry about whether the role of unions is diminishing, or to fret over the standing of the labor movement in public opinion polls. Ricardo has held many important positions with Local 770, including Research Assistant, Organizer, Business Representative and Secretary- Treasurer. He has been President of Local 770 since 1981. Many of his duties have involved helping his brothers and sisters in foreign countries. In 1979, for example, he represented the Retail Clerks International Union as an advisory committee member in a delegation that went to Portugal, Spain and Brussels. He has also traveled to China, Geneva and Germany as a representative of the AFL- CIO. In 1998, Ricardo represented labor in Mayor Riordan's delegation that visited Japan for the purpose of encouraging business with the City of Los Angeles. Ricardo's involvement with labor does not stop with Local 770. He is also President of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Treasurer of the Food and Drug Council and Vice President of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and trustee of the Southern California United Food and Commercial Workers Unions. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Ricardo Icaza, a man of integrity, compassion and justice. His unshakable commitment to improving the lives of working men and women inspires us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joel Rucker, a good friend of many years and a man who cares deeply about the future of the Northeast San Fernando Valley. During the time I have known Joel, I have had many opportunities to see firsthand his extraordinary dedication to the causes in which he believes. I can say without hesitation that I have rarely met anyone as willing to make the time and effort on behalf of his community. Joel has made a special point of working tirelessly to improve the economy of Pacoima and surrounding areas. For example, he played an invaluable role in helping my office coordinate an international job fair in 1995. It was Joel who first brought to my attention the need to provide local small businesses with tips on selling their products overseas. At that time Joel was President of the Pacoima Chamber of Commerce, a post he held with distinction for several years. Joel has also served on the Board of Directors of San Fernando Valley Economic Alliance and is a member of the Minority Business Opportunity Commission of Los Angeles International Trade. He has become a forceful advocate for the economic interests of the Northeast San Fernando Valley. To be sure, Joel is involved in a variety of organizations, including the Northeast Valley Health Corporation, the NAACP and the Valley Interfaith Council. He has somehow managed to combine running a successful business (Rucker's Mortuary) with many extracurricular activities. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Joel Rucker, a deeply spiritual man who has dedicated his life to community service. His selflessness and sense of public duty inspire us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Dennis O'Sullivan, who has recently completed a highly successful term as President of the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce. Throughout his tenure, Dennis has worked tirelessly and with considerable success to promote the economic interests of Sun Valley. Dennis has a warm and winning manner that invariably brings people over to his side. I know I've enjoyed immensely working with him on numerous occasions. Dennis is that rare person equally at ease working on business and community issues. In addition to his involvement with the Sun Valley Chamber, for the past several years he has served in the position of Program Director for People In Progress, Inc. In that capacity, Dennis has established programs to assist the homeless and indigent who suffer alcohol and drug dependencies. He and his organization have stepped in where government cannot--or will not--get involved. It's no exaggeration to say that Dennis has provided a lifeline for people who would otherwise have nowhere else to turn. Dennis has made an invaluable contribution to many more community- based organizations in the Northeast San Fernando Valley. Among others, he has been active with the San Fernando Valley Alcohol Policy Coalition, the San Fernando Valley Homeless Coalition and Providers Collaborative of the San Fernando Valley. He is also one of the prime movers behind the Hansen Dam Fourth of July Celebration, which in only a few short years has become a major attraction in the Northeast Valley. Dennis has led a rich and interesting life, which includes raising a daughter, who now teaches school, and two sons who are officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. He also served with the U.S. Army in Vietnam, receiving an honorable discharge, and worked for 15 years as a motion picture camera technician in the film and television industries. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Dennis O'Sullivan, a man who cares deeply about his community. His generosity of spirit and dedication to public service are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Sherman, and I rise today to pay tribute to our dear friend Dick Volpert, who this year is receiving the Learned Hand Award from the American Jewish Committee. Certainly we can think of nobody more deserving of an award that honors both superior intellect and humanitarianism. Dick is that all-too-rare person who cannot remain aloof when he sees a person or group in need of help. He has a widespread and richly-deserved reputation for getting passionately involved in a range of causes. Dick and his wife, Marcia, were without question among the most forceful and tireless advocates anywhere in the world on behalf of Soviet Jews in the 1970s and 80s. There is no doubt that their efforts enabled many Jews to emigrate from the Soviet Union at a time when the freedom to practice their religion had been eliminated and in a very real sense their lives were in peril. The Volperts educated the Jewish community of Southern California and beyond about the dire circumstances of Soviet Jews and the absolute necessity of doing whatever all of us could to bring about their release. As far as we're concerned, Dick and Marcia merit at least a chapter in any history of the Soviet Jewry movement in the United States. While this was going on, Dick also spent countless hours engaged in pursuits relative to the Jewish community of Southern California. And though the cause of Soviet Jewry waned with the fall of the Soviet Union, Dick today remains extraordinarily active in local Jewish affairs. Since 1996, he has been a board member of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute, and he continues as both a member of the Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation Council of Los Angeles and the Executive Board of the American Jewish Committee. Dick has also been active with the University of Judaism and Valley Beth Shalom, a large synagogue in the San Fernando Valley. Dick has other causes that occupy his time, not to mention a thriving practice in real estate law. For example, he is president of the Board of Governors of the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, a position that allows him to help determine the future of cultural life in Southern California. The Museum is in fact one of the most important places to experience art and culture in the entire region. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Dick Volpert, a man whose dedication to making ours a better world is an inspiration to us all. We are in awe of his accomplishments and proud to be his friend.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Reverend Canon Jose Daniel Carlo, beloved spiritual leader of St. Simon's Episcopal Church in San Fernando. Father Carlo recently announced that he is retiring from St. Simon's after 18 years. I know his parishioners reacted to his decision with mixed emotions. While they wish him the best, they know that he is virtually irreplaceable. His extraordinary contributions to the Church and the Northeast San Fernando Valley will be remembered with great appreciation. Father Carlo constantly sought ways for the Church to build strong bonds with the community. For example, every Sunday, he conducted four services, two in English and two in Spanish. In this way, Father Carlo ensured that St. Simon's would be a place of worship open to every resident of San Fernando and its surrounding areas. Father Carlo also turned the Church into a home for many programs providing much-needed services to residents of the Northeast Valley. He recognized the special responsibility of the Church to become involved during a time of government cutbacks. The Parish became the site for community and outreach programs relating to alcoholism, drugs, teen pregnancy, senior citizens, pre-school kids and clothing and food. In addition to these ongoing programs, Father Carlo was adamant that St. Simon's provide assistance during times of urgency or crisis. In 1986, the Church assisted over 4500 persons applying for their cards during the Amnesty Program for Undocumented Aliens. For six months after the devastating Northridge Earthquake of 1994, St. Simon's made available tons of emergency food, clothing, diapers, sleeping bags and other necessities to more than 2500 families. Within the diocese of Los Angeles, Father Carlo promoted the implementation of the first Five Year Plan for the Development of Hispanic Ministry at the national and provincial levels. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Father Daniel Carlo of St. Simon's Episcopal Church of San Fernando, whose dedication to his Parish and the community inspires us all. During his 18-year tenure at St. Simon's, Father Carlo had a positive affect on the lives of so many people. I join his congregation in wishing Father Carlo and his family all the best as he embarks on new challenges.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend and esteemed colleague, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), has described in detail the effects and provisions of this amendment that he and I are sponsoring to the existing rules, and along with the leadership of both of our parties in this House. I only wanted to add a couple of points. Under this proposal, the rule provides a limit on gifts from any one source of $50 individually, $100 cumulatively. I ask the Members to recall that 2 years ago, the rule was at the indefensibly high level of $250, and we allowed individual gifts of up to $100. It excluded all limits on local meals and all personal hospitality. Setting limits at the Senate standard of $50 and a cumulative value from any source of $100, is a vast improvement, and groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen said in November of 1995 just that when the Committee on Rules first proposed that the House adopt the Senate standard. At that time Ann McBride, President of Common Cause, told the Committee on Rules, ``We strongly urge you to report to the floor the same gift and travel rules adopted by the Senate. Passage of this rule, which is just what we are doing now, would be an important step towards restoring the basic integrity of this institution, restoring public confidence in Congress, and curbing Washington's influence money culture.'' Also, at those same hearings, Joan Claybrook of the Ralph Nader group Public Citizen, made these comments in her testimony before the Committee on Rules on a proposal identical to the one we have before us now. ``We support the adoption of a rule identical to that approved by the Senate. We also believe that there is a significant advantage in having the same rules apply to the House and the Senate. The more differences there are between the Chambers, the more difficult it will be for lobbyists and the general public to understand what is permissible and what is not in a given circumstance.'' Not one witness at the Committee on Rules's public hearings espoused the present ``zero tolerance'' rule which was adopted by floor amendment to the Committee on Rules package. Adopting the Senate standard will greatly simplify the House rule, and I concur with Ms. Claybrook that this action will greatly increase understanding of and compliance with the rule, and that should be our objective. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which I have the privilege of being the ranking minority member of, with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), our chairman, unanimously voted to support this recommendation. The impacts on our committee's resources will be benefited tremendously, and we will be able to focus on the serious issues with this kind of a rules change. I strongly urge that the House join these reform organizations, the leadership of both of our parties, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) in adopting this modification. I just want to make one final comment. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), after 14 years of membership and leadership on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is going off for this Congress; and while I have had a chance to work with him for only the past 2 of those years, I just want to say in the most sincere possible fashion that it has been a pleasure and an honor to work with him and under his leadership. He has done a tremendous job, I think, in restoring the sense of bipartisan confidence in the process. I can say, never once in the year-and-a-half since the moratorium ended and our committee has been functioning did the Democrats ever have to caucus as a party on that committee. Everything was done by consensus in a bipartisan and nonpartisan fashion. We will miss the gentleman greatly. We look forward to working with a very distinguished member of the committee these past 2 years who will be taking over as Chair, but we will see the gentleman around and cannot wait to bring you before the committee sometime. As ranking member of the Committee on Standards, I am completely convinced that amending the House gift rule to make it conform to the Senate standard is both in the interest of sound public policy and in the interest of the effective fulfillment by the Committee of its important responsibilities. Under the bill I have introduced with my valued colleague Jim Hansen, the House gift rule would still be vastly more restrictive than the pre-1996 House rule. That rule set a limit on gifts from any one source at the indefensibly high figure of $250, and allowed individual gifts up to $100. Just as bad, the old rule completely excluded from the limit all local meals, and all personal hospitality. Clearly, setting limits at the Senate standard of $50 and a cumulative value from any source of $100 is a vast improvement--as groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen said in November of 1995, when the Rules Committee first proposed that the House adopt the Senate standard. At that time, Ann McBride, President of Common Cause told the Rules Committee, ``We strongly urge you to report to the Floor the same gift and travel rules adopted by the Senate. . . . Passage of this rule would be an important step toward restoring the basic integrity of the institution, restoring public confidence in Congress and curbing Washington's influence money culture.'' Also at those hearings, Joan Claybrook, of the Ralph Nader group Public Citizen, made these comments in her testimony before the Rules Committee: ``We support the adoption of a rule identical to that approved by the Senate. . . . We also believe that there is a significant advantage in having the same rules apply to the House and the Senate. The more differences there are between the chambers, the more difficult it will be for lobbyists and the general public to understand what is permissible and what is not in a given circumstance.'' Not one witness at the Rules Committee's public hearings espoused the present ``zero tolerance'' rule which was adopted by Floor amendment to the Rules Committee package. Adopting the Senate standard will greatly simplify the House rule and I concur with Ms. Claybrook that this action will greatly increase understanding of--and compliance with--the rule. And that should be our objective. Let me put this in terms of the expenditure of time and effort by the members and staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. An enormous percentage of the Committee's resources are devoted to answering innumerable questions about the current gift rule. In many cases, those questions are raised by Members and their staffs because they hope to avoid the hurt feelings and the embarrassment that occur when they have to tell constituents and other outside groups that they cannot accept even small gifts extended as courtesies. Huge numbers of these questions would be eliminated--flat out eliminated--if we said that acceptance of gifts under $50 are no longer a concern. And if we did so, we could focus the Committee's attention where it really belongs. Not on a free lunch, tendered by a group that wants to talk to one of us (or one of our staff members) away from ringing phones and office interruptions in a place where we can hear ourselves think--but rather on real problems which may exist and which we need to address. The present zero tolerance rule mistakenly directs our attention to what some unfairly assume is the per se appearance of impropriety whenever a gift is tendered. I reject that assumption and I contend that it detracts from the Committee's proper function--which is to counsel our colleagues against activities which could constitute real impropriety and which we must marshal our resources to combat. My view of each and every one of you is that you want to conduct yourselves ethically. I assume the best, not the worst, about everyone in this body. And my view of lobbyists is that they perform an important and honorable function for us in the legislative branch, bringing us information about how bills may affect our constituents and our society as a whole. I do not assume that something illicit occurs every time a Member--or his or her staff--gets together with a lobbyist. But I do believe that it is our task as Members of the House of Representatives to make sure that we seek to understand the consequences of legislation for all Americans--not just the well-heeled, to make sure that we open our doors and our ears to the dedicated advocates who plead the case of the poor and disadvantaged. Our present gift rule does nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure that this House is accessible to all, but it does create problems which I, as ranking members of the Committee on Standards, believe we can avoid by adopting the Senate standard. At our last meeting, my colleagues on the committee voted unanimously to endorse this rules change. We are telling you that this rules change is appropriate and it is sound. Please join us in approving it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Dixon, and I rise today to congratulate the AYSO, Culver City, Region 19, Boys U12 Division team, INTER-MILAN. Headed by the superb leadership of coach, Ernesto Martin and assistant coach, Chris Labra, INTER-MILAN finished a proud second in entire Boys, Region 19, U12 Division. Coach Martin and Assistant Coach Labra knew how to get things done. Their utter commitment, boundless energy, no nonsense coaching and clear sense of direction are responsible in a large measure for Inter-Milan's success. Team members Charles Hicks, Persy Trejo, Michael Case, Cristian Dascalu, Gustavo Sanchez, Steven Bressler, Kenny Perez, Daniel Willis, Dorian Bey, Ernesto Martin Jr., Christopher Labra, Jerry Lara, and Henry Bergmans played hard, tough, competitive soccer. They gave their best efforts at every practice. Each player displayed a passion to improving their individual skills equal only to their determination to improve as a team. Every game played exceeded the skill of the game before. Inter-Milan always demonstrated good sportsmanship. The enthusiasm and zest for soccer expressed by the team was matched by the commitment and support of the parents. The parents in Inter- Milan dedicated time and energy and kept the team spirit high. We ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Inter-Milan, for their outstanding achievement in the 1998, AYSO Region 19, Boys U12 Division, Culver City.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if Members followed the Committee on the Judiciary proceedings, they already know that I strongly oppose impeachment. Given the totality of the wrongdoing and the totality of the context, the allegations of misconduct do not rise to the standard required for impeachment. With apologies to those who heard my statement in the Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to repeat those remarks that address another issue, whether a failure to vote impeachment could cause a decline in the fabric of our culture and the strength of our legal system. The corrosive effects on American culture and America's legal system of allowing the President to serve out his term have been overstated. The President's defense is very troubling. His grand jury testimony, his public statements following the grand jury testimony, his agents' public statements are more egregious than any wrongdoing that caused this process to begin. Alice in Wonderland-like notions pop into my head, watching someone so smart and so skilled, so admired by the American people for his intellect and his talents digging himself deeper and deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole, and us along with him. This spectacle troubles many and may motivate many of the calls for impeachment. People do have a right to ask, what will America's children believe about reverence for the law, about lying under oath? Many thoughtful Americans wonder whether the deconstruction of our language will damage the culture. What will happen if words no longer have common sense meaning, if everything is equally true or not true because, after all, it depends on what your definition of ``is'' is. Of course, there has been and there will be harm to our culture and the legal system. But let us keep it in perspective. While not above the law, the President, the most powerful man on the planet, the man who has control over our nuclear weapons arsenal, the man whom we invest with the authority to protect and defend the interests of the people of the United States, indeed protect all of civilization, is a special case. Everyone is equal under the law, but we make special provisions for one person only while he is serving as President. Few would dispute the fact that the President is immune from criminal prosecution during his term of office. Many would argue that a wise Congress should pass legislation to immunize future presidents from civil litigation during the term of their office. We invest the Secret Service with the responsibility of taking the bullet so our Commander in Chief will serve out his term. That the President's conduct is not impeachable does not mean that society condones his conduct. In fact, it does not mean that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution after he leaves office. It just means that the popular vote of the people should not be abrogated for this conduct when the people clearly believe that this conduct does not warrant that abrogation. Most Americans know and will teach their children to know that conduct that may not be impeachable for the President is not necessarily conduct that is acceptable in the larger society. Those who argue that the institutions of government or the fabric of our society will be irreparably harmed by a failure to impeach the President seriously underestimate the American people. America is too strong a society, American parents too wise, the American sense of right and wrong is too embedded to be confused. We all know that the word ``is'' has a common sense meaning. We all know that lying under oath is wrong and could get us in a lot of trouble. I ask those of you who sincerely believe in limiting Federal power, in elevating the role of the individual and of individual responsibility, do you really want to impeach a popularly elected President to teach our children a lesson? Former First Lady Barbara Bush said, your success as a family, our success as a society depends not on what happens at the White House but what happens inside your house. Impeachment is not a substitute for good parenting or personal moral values. I ask those who are open to a second thought to rethink this issue. Impeachment is not the proper vehicle for symbolic gestures. These articles of impeachment must be opposed.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to World Wins Corporation and its president, Wilda Spalding. I'm convinced that if there were more people like Wilda Spalding, than such lofty goals as world peace would not seem nearly so elusive. For 25 years, Ms. Spalding, the President of World Wins Corporation, has waged a one- person campaign in support of universal human rights, peace, and justice. She has devoted an incredible amount of her own time and resources in this effort. Among her proudest accomplishments was working with the United Nations to establish the UN's Year of the Child. I first became aware of Ms. Spalding in the summer of 1998, when World Wins Corporation issued a medal of excellence to my close friend, Blinky Rodriguez. Blinky is the architect of the Valley Peace Treaty, which during the past five years has brought about a remarkable reduction in the number of gang killings in the Northeast San Fernando Valley. Those of us who live and work in the Northeast Valley are well aware of Blinky's work, and we were all very moved when he was recognized by Wilda Spalding and World Wins Corporation. Blinky joined 14 other winners of the Medal of Excellence in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was feted in front of an international audience of dignitaries. I will always be grateful to Ms. Spalding for bestowing this prestigious and richly-deserved honor on Blinky. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Wilda Spalding, President of World Wins Corporation, for her dedication to making ours a better world. She is a shining example for us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bud Mauro, who has just completed his term as President of the Southland Regional Association of Realtors. Bud leaves with a remarkable record. During his tenure, San Fernando Valley realtors experienced one of their most productive years in memory, as a housing slump gave way to a housing boom. I'm sure Bud's leadership was a key reason for the stellar performance of the Valley real estate industry in 1998. Bud had both the experience and background to be a successful President. His real estate career began in 1972, the same year he became a member of the Association. Beginning in 1978, when he joined the Grievance Committee, Bud steadily rose through the ranks. He served on the Professional Standards Panel, Ethics and Arbitration Policy Committee and the Board of Directors. Bud is a person of considerable charm and an intimate knowledge of the real estate business. Both traits served him well as President. He motivated more than 200 members of the Association to serve on various committees and task forces. I know firsthand how important such groups are in keeping politicians and community leaders informed about the Association and the condition of the real estate industry. Bud was also actively involved with the seminars and training sessions that are such an important part of the Association's function. Bud played a big part in upgrading the technological capacity of the Association. He worked to expand and improve computer efficiency, and helped to develop the Association's own web site by establishing cooperative marketing agreements with the California Living Network and REALTOR.Com. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Bud Mauro, who compiled an outstanding record as President of the Southland Regional Association of Realtors. His leadership skills and dedication to his work are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my close friend, Jack Levine, who is receiving the 1998 TZEDEK (Justice) Award from the Labor Zionist Alliance. Before I ever ran for office, I practiced law with Jack Levine. I was overwhelmed by his brilliant legal mind, love of ideas and compassion for the less fortunate. After all these years, he remains a profound influence on my own beliefs and system of values. I know I'm a better person for having absorbed his wise teachings. The twin themes that dominate Jack's life are Zionism and the rights of working men and women. Jack's father, an Orthodox rabbi from Lithuania, instilled in his young son the importance of a Jewish homeland. The Rabbi was very persuasive: at the age of 10, Jack made a pitch for the Jewish National Fund at his father's synagogue in Brooklyn. Ten years later, as a student at City College of New York and a member of Avukah, the student Zionist organization, Jack had what can only be described as a political awakening. He found in Labor Zionism-- a literal synthesis of Zionism and Socialism--the perfect balance for his own emerging political philosophy. It was not much later that Jack became actively involved with the American labor movement and the Jewish Labor Committee, associations that continue to this day. After serving with the Merchant Marines in World War II, Jack worked on the assembly line at Ford and as a Longshoreman in San Pedro. In 1951, he entered law school at UCLA, eventually graduating third in his class. Upon graduation Jack joined Abe Levy's law firm, where he ultimately specialized in labor law. I joined him there in the mid- 1960s. It's probably superfluous to note that Jack did more than practice law. In fact, Jack spent much of his ``free'' time working tirelessly for causes in which he believed. In 1959, he successfully defended the world-famous Watts Towers from demolition by the City of Los Angeles. Sixteen years later, he served as attorney for the chairman of the Agricultural Relations Commission in Sacramento, administering the law that I sponsored in the California Assembly. Today Jack has immersed himself into the study of modern Hebrew literature at the University of Jerusalem. His hunger for knowledge is boundless. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Jack Levine, whose sense of decency and intellectual curiosity are a model for us all. I know his wife, Ann, children, Elinor Levine and Deborah Zimmer, son-in-law Tim Zimmer, and grandchildren, Jeremy and Daniel, are all very proud of his achievements.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, anyone trying to discern the meaning of the anticircumvention provisions of H.R. 2281 risks bewilderment by the many pages of the Congressional Record that have been devoted to the detailed analyses submitted by one or another Member of this House. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, which reviewed this legislation in detail, and which reported the key provisions in a form in which they ultimately received the approval of the House and of the conference committee, on which I also served. First, the operative provisions which define the key prohibition of trafficking in the tools of circumvention of technological protection measures--section 1201(a)(2) and (a)(3), and section 1201(b)(1) and (b)(2), of Title 17--were not changed throughout the legislative process. They read almost verbatim in the final version of this legislation, which is on the way to the President's desk, as they read when the legislation was first introduced, when it was reported by the Judiciary Committee, and when it was unanimously approved by the House. Thus, statements on the floor that purport to explain how these provisions have been narrowed, or how implicit exceptions to them--not spelled out in the language of the bill--have been expanded, deserve little attention. In particular, the three-point test spelled out in sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1) for determining whether a particular product or service runs afoul of the legislation has never been substantively amended. This test remains operative, not the test of ``no legitimate purpose'' imagined by some of my colleagues. Second, the operative provision defining the prohibition on the act of circumvention of technological protection measures that control access to copyrighted materials--contained in section 1201(a)(1)--has also emerged from the legislative process completely unchanged. It is true that the effective date of this prohibition has been delayed, and that a rulemaking proceeding has been grafted on to this provision to determine whether, with regard to particular classes of copyrighted materials, the applicability of this particular prohibition should be delayed even further. But the prohibition itself remains unchanged, and means exactly what it meant when our committee first reported it several months ago. Third, section 1201(c)(3)--the no mandate provision--in the final text of this legislation is identical to the provision that emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee over six months ago. The changes proposed by the House Commerce Committee, which threatened to open a huge loophole in the protections afforded by the legislation, were rejected by the conference committee. The no mandate provision means what it says, and what it says is this: there is no design mandate in this legislation, other than the negative mandate to avoid designing a product primarily for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure. The addition, by the conference committee, of specific provisions concerning certain protections used to control copying of audiovisual works in analog formats does not change the meaning of section 1201(c)(3) one iota. If the conferees had intended that these new provisions were to have had any impact on the application of the ``no mandate'' provisions to other technological protection measures, we would have said so. We did not, in fact, we said the opposite. Fourth, on the much-contested issue of playability, the language adopted in the conference report is the most definitive statement substantively on the circumstances under which product performance adjustment does or does not violate the anticircumvention provisions of this legislation. The conference report, which specifically addresses this issue, has been adopted without recorded dissent in both Houses, and any subsequent inconsistent interpretation should carry no weight. I do not seek to put a new gloss on the words in the conference report. Those words speak for themselves. I would simply point out that nearly all the fundamental operative provisions of Title 1 of H.R. 2281, and indeed, of much of the rest of the bill as well, simply recapitulate the provisions that have been part of this legislation since it was introduced, that have remained unchanged throughout the complex and protracted legislative process, and that are amply explained by the reports of the respective Judiciary Committees, which first approved them.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this election day Robert Kent Boyer will be retiring from government service. Bob has been a close friend and colleague to many members and staffers in the Congress. His career has been marked by a long commitment and deep dedication to America's place in the world. Bob worked his way up from hardscrabble beginnings in Arkansas through perseverance and elbow grease. He served our nation in the United States Air Force before coming to the U.S. Congress as a staffer in 1968. Bob served on the staffs of Senator John McClellan and Representatives Allard, Lowenstein, William Roth and William Mailliard with distinction. In 1971, Representatives Thomas (Doc) Morgan, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Representative Mailliard, the Ranking Minority Member appointed Bob to the professional staff of the full Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he worked for more than 22 years. During his tenure on the Hill, Bob oversaw some of this nation's most important international work in combating narcotics, improving diplomatic security, fighting terrorism and assisting refugees who were the innocent victims of conflict and disaster. In 1993 Bob, was appointed as the Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at the U.S. Agency for International Development, a post he still holds. Bob's sage counsel and abiding knowledge of international affairs has helped USAID make it through some of its most difficult times. I know Bob's colleagues at USAID will miss him every bit as much as we will. In closing, let me just say that Bob Boyer is genuinely one of the kindest, most warm-hearted and talented people I have had the pleasure to work with. We will miss seeing him in his cowboy boots dispensing advice during the authorization and appropriations process. I wish he and his lovely wife, Sandy, and daughter, Vanessa, the very best in his retirement. He has served the country well and in the best tradition of government servants everywhere.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that House Concurrent Resolution 283, expressing the sense of the Congress on the December 1997 report on Tibet of the International Commission of Jurists and on United States policy on Tibet, is being considered now. I offered this Resolution in an effort to maintain the world's attention on developments in Tibet. A comparable provision has been offered and passed in the Senate. With 66 cosponsors in the House, this resolution has strong bipartisan support. Tibet remains on the American foreign policy agenda today and it remains on the international community's agenda largely because the U.S. Congress does not let anyone forget what is happening to Tibetans and Tibet culture under Chinese rule. This resolution reflects our serious concern for the plight of the Tibetan people and our strong support for the Dalai Lama's efforts to enter into serious discussions with the Chinese leadership on the future of Tibet. The resolution cites a recent and comprehensive report by the International Committee of Jurists entitled ``Tibet: Human Rights and the Rule of Law.'' It is the fourth report on Tibet by this distinguished body since 1959 and their first since 1964. The December 1997 report was inspired by the situation in Tibet that by all credible accounts, including the Department of State, remains unsettled and in many ways has grown more desperate. The President has appointed a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues. Until recently, this position was held by Mr. Gregory Craig of the U.S. Department of State. I understand that he has played a very active and productive role behind the scenes in promoting discussions between the Dalai Lama and his representatives and the Chinese. I would hope that further progress will be made on opening this dialogue as President Jiang Zemin indicated that he would do during his summit meeting with President Clinton. Discussions must lead to negotiations and a positive outcome to those negotiations would improve substantially American relations with China. Finally, I would like to draw the House's attention to the continuing detention of Gendun Choekyi Nyima. Over three years ago, the Dalai Lama announced the recognition of this young boy, then only six, as the Panchen Lama of Tibet. Within days, this child disappeared from his home. It was not until a year later that the Chinese Ambassador to Geneva admitted to a meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child that Gendun Choekyi Nyima was under the ``protection'' of the Chinese government. Repeated requests from governments and private humanitarian organizations to meet with the boy have been denied. No one knows where he is nor the conditions under which he lives. It is unconscionable that in today's world a young child, now nine years old, has apparently become a pawn in Beijing's political efforts to control Tibet. I would like in particular to thank Mr. Porter, an original cosponsor of this resolution; Mr. Gilman, chairman of the International Relations Committee, and Mr. Bereuter, chair of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, on which I serve as Ranking Member, for doing all they could to see that this resolution was brought forward for consideration. I appreciate the efforts they both made to achieve a compromise which would permit the House to consider this initiative. I would also like to note the contribution made by Mr. Bereuter's subcommittee counsel, Dan Martz, who has negotiated in good faith with my staff to reach accommodation on this legislation. I understand that Mr. Martz will be soon leaving the subcommittee staff to join the private sector in New York City. His advice will be missed in the subcommittee but we all wish him well in his next endeavor. I urge my colleagues to join me in introducing this resolution which calls for the release of Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet, and for a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and Chinese authorities. H. Con. Res. 283 Sponsor: Rep. Berman (introduced 05/22/98). 66 Cosponsors Rep. Porter--05/22/98. Rep. D. Payne--05/22/98. Rep. Lantos--05/22/98. Rep. Lowey--05/22/98. Rep. Wolf--05/22/98. Rep. C. Smith--05/22/98. Rep. J. Kennedy--05/22/98. Rep. Scarborough--06/25/98. Rep. Menendez--06/25/98. Rep. Hinchey--06/25/98. Rep. Borski--06/25/98. Rep. Woolsey--06/25/98. Rep. LoBiondo--06/25/98. Rep. Ehlers--07/17/98. Rep. Allen--07/17/98. Rep. Waxman--07/17/98. Rep. S. Brown--07/17/98. Rep. King--07/17/98. Rep. Meehan--07/17/98. Rep. Faleomavaega--08/06/98. Rep. Cramer--08/06/98. Rep. Olver--08/06/98. Rep. Calvert--08/06/98. Rep. Forbes--08/06/98. Rep. Kelly--08/06/98. Rep. Adam Smith--08/06/98. Rep. Underwood--08/06/98. Rep. Engel--08/06/98. Rep. Kennelly--09/23/98. Rep. Ackerman--09/23/98. Rep. Furse--09/23/98. Rep. Watts--09/25/98. Rep. Slaughter--10/05/98. Rep. C. Maloney--05/22/98. Rep. Abercrombie--05/22/98. Rep. Rohrabacher--05/22/98. Rep. Gilman--05/22/98. Rep. Cox--05/22/98. Rep. Lofgren--05/22/98. Rep. Pelosi--05/22/98. Rep. Dixon--06/25/98. Rep. Nadler--06/25/98. Rep. Skaggs--06/25/98. Rep. Farr--06/25/98. Rep. Pappas--06/25/98. Rep. Frank--06/25/98. Rep. Rivers--07/17/98. Rep. Roybal-Allard--07/17/98. Rep. Solomon--07/17/98. Rep. Pascrell--07/17/98. Rep. Goodling--07/17/98. Rep. Gejdenson--08/06/98. Rep. John Lewis--08/06/98. Rep. Stark--08/06/98. Rep. McGovern--08/06/98. Rep. Sherman--08/06/98. Rep. English--08/06/98. Rep. Dreier--08/06/98. Rep. Sanders--08/06/98. Rep. Rangel--08/06/98. Rep. G. Miller--09/23/98. Rep. Christensen--09/23/98. Rep. Inglis--09/23/98. Rep. Kilpatrick--09/23/98. Rep. Salmon--10/05/98. Rep. McKinney--10/07/98. H. Con. Res. 283 Whereas the International Commission of Jurists is a nongovernmental organization founded in 1952 to defend the rule of law throughout the world and to work toward the full observance of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Whereas in 1959, 1960, and 1964 the International Commission of Jurists examined Chinese policy in Tibet, violations of human rights in Tibet, and the position of Tibet in international law; Whereas these findings were presented to the United Nations General Assembly, which adopted three resolutions (in 1959, 1961, and 1965) calling on the People's Republic of China to ensure respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life, and to cease practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms; Whereas in December 1997, the International Commission of Jurists issued a fourth report on Tibet, examining human rights and the rule of law; Whereas the President of the United States has repeatedly indicated his support for substantive dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives; and Whereas on October 31, 1997, the Secretary of State appointed a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues to oversee United States policy regarding Tibet: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress-- (1) expresses grave concern regarding the findings of the report of the International Commission of Jurists on Tibet issued in December 1997, that-- (A) repression in Tibet has increased steadily since 1994, resulting in heightened control on religious activity, a denunciation campaign against the Dalai Lama unprecedented since the Cultural Revolution, an increase in political arrests, suppression of peaceful protests, and an accelerated movement of Chinese people to Tibet; and (B) in 1997, a senior office of the People's Republic of China labeled the Tibetan Buddhist culture, which has flourished in Tibet since the seventh century, as a ``foreign culture'' in order to facilitate indoctrination of Tibetans in Chinese socialist ideology and the process of national and cultural integration; (2) supports the recommendations contained in the report referred to in paragraph (1) that-- (A) call on the People's Republic of China-- (i) to ensure respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people; and (ii) to end those practices which threaten to erode the distinct cultural, religious, and linguistic identity of the Tibetan people; (B) call on the United Nations General Assembly to resume its debate on Tibet; and (C) call on the Dalai Lama or his representatives to enter into discussions with the Government of the People's Republic of China; (3) commends the appointment by the Secretary of State of a United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues-- (A) to promote substantive dialogue between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives; (B) to coordinate United States Government policies, programs, and projects concerning Tibet; (C) to consult with the Congress on policies relevant to Tibet and the future and welfare of all Tibetan people, and to report to the Congress in accordance with the requirements of section 536(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236); and (D) to advance United States policy which seeks to protect the unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage of Tibet, and to encourage improved respect for Tibetan human rights; (4) calls on the People's Republic of China to release from detention the 9-year-old child identified by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, to his home in Tibet from which he was taken on May 17, 1995, and to allow him to pursue his religious studies without interference and according to tradition; (5) recognizes that the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence but genuine autonomy and calls on the People's Republic of China to respond positively to the Dalai Lama's proposal for Tibet and to enter into discussions with him or his representatives; (6) commends the President for publicly urging President Jiang Zemin, during their recent summit meeting in Beijing, to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama; and (7) calls on the President to continue to work to secure an agreement to begin substantive negotiations between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House yesterday passed H.R. 4757 to rename the North-South Center in Miami after former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante B. Fascell. I am proud to have cosponsored the bill, and I commend International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman and Ranking Member Lee Hamilton for their leadership in introducing it. I had the great pleasure of working with Dante on what was then known as the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He richly deserves the honor of having the North-South Center renamed after him. As the Committee's senior expert on Latin America, Dante Fascell contributed substantially to U.S. policy toward the region even before becoming chairman in 1983. A stern opponent of Cuba's Communist regime, Dante was a driving force behind the establishment of Radio Marti in 1982. He promoted democracy throughout Latin America and the world. I remember his years as chairman with deep respect and fondness. Watching Chairman Fascell officiate over foreign affairs legislation was the political equivalent of watching a great maestro conduct a fine orchestra. During his tenure as chairman, Dante frequently bridged the Committee's deep ideological divisions by working out compromises. He tried to strengthen the Committee's voice in foreign policy by defending its prerogatives on foreign aid authorizations. He also fought for Congress's overall role in making foreign policy. In 1987, Dante served as vice chairman of the special committee that investigated executive branch conduct in the Iran-Contra scandal. Dante Fascell helped establish the North-South Center, an independent research and educational organization that produces policy-relevant studies on such critical issues as democracy, trade, sustainable development and the persistent gap between the rich and the poor. Formally associating Dante's name with the Center is especially appropriate because of their shared emphasis on the Western Hemisphere. Renaming the Center after him is fitting recognition of his many years of hard work in foreign affairs. We all miss his presence and wish him well in his retirement in his beloved Florida.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, few elections have given me greater satisfaction than Tom Bradley's victory as mayor of Los Angeles in 1973. At a time when militants and cynics were beginning to dominate the debate over race, Tom ignored the trend and assembled a coalition of blacks, whites and Latinos in his campaign. I know Martin Luther King would have been proud of Tom's accomplishment. Courage and strength are the words that come to mind when I look back at the life of Tom Bradley. I can't imagine many of us would have persevered when faced with the same barriers that Tom faced again and again. Grandson of a slave, son of sharecroppers. Tom moved to Los Angeles at the age of seven in 1924. LA in those days was not a city especially hospitable to black people. Certainly there were very few examples anywhere in the country of African-Americans who had achieved success in politics or other fields. But Tom embarked on his career as if none of that mattered. In 1941, Tom became a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, placing near the top on a recruitment exam. He spent 20 years on the force, eventually becoming lieutenant. At the time of his retirement, Tom was the highest-ranking black officer in the Department. Now began the most famous phase of Tom Bradley's life. Two years after leaving the LAPD, he ran for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. In a preview of what was to come, Tom brought together blacks, Asians and whites to defeat a white candidate for the seat. He was the first African-American in the history of Los Angeles to be elected to the City Council. Tom always remained true to the idea of building coalitions among different groups. This was not only a political strategy, but an honest expression of Tom's humanity. He genuinely liked people, and was as comfortable in the neighborhoods of Fairfax Avenue, Chinatown and Boyle Heights as in South Central Los Angeles. He was exactly the kind of person you would want to be mayor of a large and incredibly diverse city. In 1969, Tom Bradley ran for mayor of LA. The incumbent, Sam Yorty, waged a blatantly racist campaign to defeat Tom. Rather than reacting with anger and hostility, which would have been understandable, Tom took the loss with equanimity. He vowed to fight again--at the ballot box. Tom's 1973 victory changed Los Angeles forever. For one, he proved that a black person could be elected mayor in a city with a relatively small black population. Even more important was the vivid demonstration that unity can triumph over divisiveness. Unlike many others then and now, Tom didn't play the ``race card.'' I don't want to cover in detail Tom's 20-year record as mayor, except to note that he opened up city hall to people from all backgrounds and brought the Olympics to LA in 1984. It says something that he was re- elected four times with only token opposition. I can't imagine Los Angeles will ever have a more popular mayor than Tom Bradley. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Tom Bradley, who represented the best America has to offer. He was a gentleman, a fighter for equal rights and justice and a man who fervently believed in the idea that through hard work and determination anything is possible. I hope that future generations will look to Tom Bradley as a model for how to live one's life.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very gratified that we finally have before us today the conference report on H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Enactment of this legislation will make it possible for the United States to adhere to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, and to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. These treaties, in turn will lead to better legal protections for U.S. copyrighted materials--movies, recordings, music, computer programs, videogames, and text materials--around the world, and thus will contribute to increased U.S. exports and foreign sales of this valuable intellectual property, and to a decrease in the unacceptably large levels of piracy these products experience today in far too many overseas markets. As the global market for copyrighted materials increasingly becomes a digitized, networked market, there is no step that Congress can take that is more important for the promotion of global electronic commerce in the fruits of Americans creativity. This bill is the fruit of many long months of labor and I salute all of those inside and outside this body who worked long and hard together to achieve this goal.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 334, Relating to Taiwan's Participation in the World Health Organization. I congratulate Mr. Sherrod Brown for the intense efforts he has made to bring this resolution before the House. House Concurrent Resolution 334 is a substitute resolution to House Joint Resolution 126, which Mr. Brown had introduced earlier and which I was a cosponsor. This resolution calls attention to what I think we would all consider a basic human right, that is the right of every citizen to good health and access to the highest standards of health information and services. Denying a country of 21 million people to such international institutions as the World Health Organization should embarrass the member states of the United Nations who insist on keeping those doors shut to the Taiwanese people. But I think this resolution points up an even more egregious mistake by the international community. The fundamental issue is not whether or not Taiwan should be a member of the World Health Organization. The issue is whether or not the international community should exclude a country like Taiwan from membership in any international organizations. We have a situation today in which pariah nations such as North Korea, Iraq, and Burma are members of the United Nations and actively participate--mostly in a negative fashion in terms of American interests--in all the activities of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Whereas Taiwan which is democratic, with a free market economy, and with the third largest foreign exchange reserves in the world is unable to participate in almost every international organization. There is something out of balance here that needs to be rectified. The Clinton administration in 1994 Taiwan Policy Review vowed to seek Taiwanese membership in ``appropriate'' international organizations. So far, no ``appropriate'' organizations have been found. I would urge the administration to intensify its search. I think there are such organizations readily at hand in this city: the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We are in the midst of a world economic crisis. Some respected economists even paint the dismal picture of an imminent world depression. The devastating effects of economic collapse are already apparent in the developing country and they are spreading to other states. The world's economy is sick. With foreign exchange reserves totaling $88 billion, Taiwan has some of the medicine which can help the rest of the world recover. We should be seeking for ways to help Taiwan contribute to the well-being of the international community, not finding ways to exclude Taiwan. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the original resolution and, as ranking member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, I urge my colleagues to support the one before us today.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I speak in strong support of H. Con. Res. 309, which condemns the forced abduction of children by the rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Uganda. I thank my esteemed colleague Mr. Payne for introducing this resolution. I also thank my fellow cosponsors: International Relations Committee Chairman Gilman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Hastings, Ms. McKinney, Ms. Brown and Ms. Norton. It is time for the U.S. Congress to add its voice to those demanding an end to the atrocities suffered by children in northern Uganda. The LRA, a bizarre Christian group supported by the fundamentalist Islamic government of Sudan, has kidnapped some 10,000 Ugandan children and forced them to fight as insurgents. Some of these children are as young as eight years old. Captive children raid and loot villages and serve in the front lines against the Ugandan army. They are also forced to help kill other abducted children who try to escape. Young teenage girls suffer the additional horror of serving as ``wives'' to ranking rebel soldiers. If they resist, they are beaten, sometimes severely. Girls may be given to several men in the course of a year. In July, the International Relations Committee heard moving firsthand testimony about the abductions from Sister Mary Rose Atuu, from the Little Sisters of Mary Immaculate of Gulu. Sister Atuu told of the harrowing 1992 abduction of 44 girls by LRA rebels from the school where she was a teacher. With great dignity, she begged the United States to stop the ``war'' being waged against innocent children in Uganda. We must not let her plea go unanswered. The children's plight is finally getting more international attention, which I believe is vital to ending their nightmare. Earlier this year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemned ``in the strongest terms'' the abduction of children in northern Uganda, and First Lady Hillary Clinton addressed the issue in a speech while visiting the country in March. We must do much more, however, to increase international pressure on Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA, and the Al-Bashir government in Sudan that supports him. This resolution condemns the abduction of children by the LRA in northern Uganda and calls for the immediate release of all LRA child captives. It urges the recently-appointed U.N. Special Representative on Children and Armed Conflict to aggressively address the situation, and encourages the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child to investigate. The resolution also calls on the Al-Bashir Government in Sudan to stop supporting the LRA and asks President Clinton to provide more support to U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations working to rehabilitate and reintegrate former child soldiers into society. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most persistent and dangerous foreign policy dangers that America faces today is in Iraq where Saddam Hussein persists in frustrating efforts by the United Nations to eliminate his program to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deploy them. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial, entitled ``A Dangerous Poker Game With Iraq,'' which appeared in the October 4, 1998, issue of the New York Times be printed in the Record. The editorial applauds the efforts of Major Scott Ritter to warn the world about Saddam's weapons program. The editorial rightly calls on the United States to intensify efforts to force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. As the editorial states, ``only the credible threat of force can keep Iraq from resuming its weapons programs.'' This is a stark but true statement with dire consequences. Neither this Congress nor this Administration is as focused today as they should be on the foreign policy crises in the Middle East, Asia, or Russia, which are at our gates. We should be paying more attention before these problems move within our walls. I urge all my colleagues to read this editorial. A Dangerous Poker Game With Iraq In altering its approach to Iraq, the Clinton Administration is blundering into a policy that allows Saddam Hussein to rebuild a deadly arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. That makes it all the more repugnant that the Administration is trying to discredit and intimidate Scott Ritter, a former top United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq who is rightly sounding an alarm about the developments in Baghdad. Seven years of economic sanctions and contested arms inspections in Iraq since the end of the Persian Gulf war have fatigued the Security Council. Mr. Hussein has several times manipulated the simmering confrontation to force Washington to reinforce its military presence in the region, at considerable expense. But for all the frustration, the clear lesson from these encounters is that only the credible threat of force can keep Iraq from resuming its weapons programs. Washington has now muted that threat even as Mr. Hussein has blocked the most critical avenues of inspection. Though cameras and censors continue to operate at suspected weapons sites, nearly all spot inspections have been banned by the Iraqis. Baghdad's scientists and engineers are essentially free to concoct biological and chemical toxins at unmonitored sites and install them in bombs and missiles. The Clinton Administration, in effect, has suspended its effort to keep Iraq from rearming. The Clinton Administration maintains that its restraint has allowed the Security Council to deal directly with Iraq, giving members a better appreciation of Mr. Hussein's defiance. The Council, in turn, has rebuffed Iraqi appeals to lift the embargo on most oil sales. That is fine, but the embargo is just one piece of the puzzle and the Security Council shows little desire to deal with the rest. Even without oil revenues, Mr. Hussein has more than enough money to finance new weapons. Absent aggressive inspection, he will do just that. Mr. Ritter, an American who directed and conducted inspections in Iraq, has correctly warned that the world has largely lost its ability to hunt down Iraqi weapons projects. He resigned in protest, disclosing that the United States blocked several inspections to avoid a new confrontation with Baghdad. Mr. Ritter also reported that many of the best intelligence tips about Iraqi activities came from Israel, an understandable source given Israel's vulnerability to Iraqi attack. Mr. Ritter has been rewarded for this truth telling with a stern warning from the United Nations, a Federal criminal investigation into his association with Israel and the ludicrous assertion of American officials that he does not know what he is talking about. This treatment is an embarrassment to the country. Every day that passes without spot inspections gives Iraq more time to rearm. While Washington is toasting its success in uniting the Security Council behind the embargo, Mr. Hussein is busy building weapons that can threaten the entire Middle East.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service to the United States of America by Mr. Lee H. Hamilton. In my 16 years in the House of Representatives I have come to know and admire Lee for the wisdom and seriousness which he brings to consideration of the people's business. The Hoosiers of the Ninth District lose a great congressman with Lee's retirement. In 34 years few can challenge his record for thoughtful integrity in the face of strong political pressure. While confronting some of the nation's most serious foreign policy challenges, he always approached every issue with intellectual depth. He led the Congress in defending the President when under partisan attack, but he worked hard to ensure that the administration did not make foreign policy decisions without full consideration of every option and insisted that action be taken only after the administration had developed a rationale for its policy which would have the support of the American people. His reputation for probity and judicious reflection have made him the leader of choice when the Congress faced difficult foreign policy issues, whether as chairman of the Select Committee on Iran-Contra or more recently of the Select Subcommittee on Iran Arms Transfers to Bosnia. I have had the honor of serving with Mr. Hamilton on one of those select committees and seen first hand how the nation has been well assisted by his probing intellect. I have also been proud to serve with Mr. Hamilton when he was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. In his years as chairman, he demonstrated again and again the ability to forge the type of bipartisan political coalition essential to making government work for the people. Lee had a instinctive understanding that democracy was more important than politics and that he was elected to serve all the people, rather than a narrow agenda agreeable to the few. The Ninth District has lost a great Representative in the retirement of Mr. Hamilton. We honor more than Mr. Hamilton today, we honor the principles which he has stood for against so many pressures for so long. I wish I could say that in losing Mr. Hamilton, some are gaining more but I am afraid that his retirement is the country's loss. I thank you for your service to the Congress and the American people. I salute you. I will miss you on the committee but I know you will not have gone far and we will continue to benefit from your expertise on foreign policy at the Wilson Center.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Waxman rise today to pay tribute to our close friend, Georgia Mercer, who is receiving the 1998 Annual Achievement Award from Action Democrats. We can think of no one who consistently over the years has done more for her community than Georgia. She has been devoted to an extraordinary number of organizations and important causes. Her dedication and compassion serve as an inspiration to us all. It would be impossible in this short space to list all of Georgia's accomplishments. She is one of those special people who make every day count. Her zest for life is contagious. She is filled with ideas, suggestions and plans for improving the world. Georgia's career has taken her from teaching fourth grade in the Los Angeles Unified School District to serving as a member of the Board of Directors of Valley Presbyterian Hospital. However, there are two causes that have consumed the bulk of her attention: women's rights and the Jewish community. She served for 16 years with Women For, a non-partisan organization supporting issues and candidates; was a founding member of the Board of Directors of the Women's Campaign Fund; and spent many years on the staff of Planned Parenthood. Her involvement with the Jewish community includes membership on several committees of the Jewish Federation Council of Los Angeles and Founding President of the Board of Trustees of the New Reform Congregation. In the past few months, Georgia received a prestigious appointment to the Board of the Los Angeles Community Colleges. The Board could not have made a better choice. For more than three decades Georgia has demonstrated her unshakable commitment to quality public education. We have no doubt that she will be an exceptional Trustee. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Georgia Mercer, who has built a remarkable career around the idea of helping others. We are proud and honored to be her friends.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to fast track. Last year I strongly supported a similar fast track proposal, and I continue to believe that the fast track mechanism is necessary to ensure that new trade agreements don't become loaded up with special interest provisions in the normal legislative process. But I simply cannot support legislation that is being brought to the House floor for blatantly political purposes, to divide Democrats less than two months before an election. And I do not think it is appropriate to tie the President's hands at the negotiating table--to a much greater extent than Democratic Congresses tied the hands of President's Reagan and Bush--when the Administration is not involved in the process. It's clear that the Republican majority is not serious about passing this bill. Last year, members from both parties worked together to generate for fast track. This year, the majority made no effort to collaborate with the minority. This unwillingness to approach Democratic supporters of fast track exposes the Republican majority's true motivations--to score political points, not to pass the legislation. It is irresponsible to bring up fast track knowing that it's going to fail. This will make it even more difficult to pass next year, and send an unfortunate signal to the international community that the United States does not want to remain engaged in the global economy. Such a signal couldn't come at a worse time, given the financial turmoil in Russia and parts of Asia. International trade is clearly good for the American economy. Since 1992, almost 40 percent of our nation's total economic growth has been the direct result in international trade. Companies involved in exporting have expanded employment nearly 20 percent faster than firms serving only domestic markets, and jobs related to exports pay about 15 percent above the national average. New trade agreements--completed with fast track authority--would extend the benefits of trade to even more workers, consumers and companies. But our trade policy--like foreign policy in general--must be based on bipartisan cooperation and consensus, not partisan politics. For that reason--and that reason alone--I intend to oppose this fast track legislation.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute sponsored by the ranking member of our subcommittee and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as well as myself. Here is where I come from: I buy into a lot of the arguments of the proponents of the bill. One, in a global economy, we want our companies to be competitive. That includes making sure they are able to hire workers with the skills necessary for them to be as competitive as they can be, because it is our competitive edge which will help us in the future. I come from a very strong background of believing in immigration, believing immigration is good for this country, believing immigration based on family relationships and employer sponsorships are both important and that those immigrants contribute a great deal to our economy and to our social fabric and to our culture. I also accept the premise that probably at this particular time we need substantial additional visas for H-1B, for temporary nonimmigrant workers who have specific skills. I just think that to say that huge numbers of the employers who will utilize these H-1B workers do not have to go through a basic meaningful process of recruitment and do not have any meaningful constraints on their ability to displace a U.S. worker in order to bring in a temporary nonimmigrant visa is wrong fundamentally, and, moreover, will in the long term undermine America's willingness to accept immigration under these grounds. So I think the substitute, which provides a meaningful attestation requirement, is a compelling help to this particular legislation. The way this is written, a company that employs 5,000 people but has only 600 H-1B workers would not be obligated to provide any of the attestation requirements, because it would not meet the definition of an H-1B-dependent company. That makes no sense to me. This is not an amendment that simply excludes small employers, not that they should not have the same obligations, anyway, but we can talk about the Department of Labor, paperwork burdens, and things like this. We could be talking about some enormous employers with substantial numbers of H-1B employees who will not be required to have enforceable obligations to recruit domestically first, or to agree not to displace U.S. workers with people filling these nonimmigrant visas, these H-1B visas. I urge support for the substitute. I congratulate our ranking member for his preparing of this amendment, and I urge its adoption.