Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we take time in this particular appropriations bill to pay a small tribute to our retiring colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Vic Fazio). Because while Vic's imprint is in so many areas of public policy in this institution, his work for this particular institution and this particular subcommittee has made all of our lives better and I believe has made the institution much stronger. With all of the exhilarations of public office and the trials and tribulations, the reasons one thinks about leaving this place, whether it is the other party ending our entitlement program to control of the institution, whether it is even the kind of situation we are in now, the news that Vic Fazio had decided to leave this institution, to no longer make the House his home, was perhaps, for me, the most unsettling of all. I have known the gentleman from California for 25 years. He is a consummate political pro. He is a man of tremendous intelligence, incredible patience, great warmth and, as much as anything else, a man of total dependability. When Vic Fazio tells you he will take care of something, he takes care of it. I think the Almanac of American Politics put it well when they said about Vic, ``Fazio is a consummate political insider. Always personable and articulate. Entirely presentable outside the back rooms and private hallways. Knowledgeable without being cynical. A sharp operator who keeps score and remembers friends. A politician who is anything but an innocent, but who retains an idealism and a willingness to take serious risks for what he believes.'' He is truly one of the great Members of this institution. We are going to miss him very much. I am going to miss him very much; and I wish him well in his pursuits, which I think will be many, as he leaves this institution.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is not an issue about the role of missile defenses. In the wake of the end of the Cold War and in the context of a very dangerous world where rogue states and accidental launches loom larger than ever in terms of the problems, I think it is appropriate to think about and reconsider questions of missile defenses. The fact is every single active program that we are involved in the area of theater missile defenses PAC-3, THAAD, U.S. Navy Area Wide, all under development, researched, every one of them as currently configured and designed are fully compliant with the ABM Treaty. This is a question about the breakup of the Soviet Union, when we signed, just like we did with START II, when we signed those obligations to the successor states, Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belorus, whether those obligations are going to apply. The administration has made it absolutely clear, as soon as the Duma ratifies START II, the President is going to Russia to advance that cause in the next few weeks, he will submit to the Senate for ratification not only the memorandum of understanding but the two agreements related to it that are cause of concern. The Senate will have every opportunity to exercise its constitutional rights with respect to these particular issues. Stopping the funding for the Standing Consultative Committee and for our ability to participate in it does not advance the cause. Let us get down to the basic questions. What kinds of missile defenses are feasible? To what extent do we need to break out of ABM? To what extent do we have a strategy to do this in cooperation with Russia and the other parties down to the ABM agreement in a way that both is in our interests and something that we can convince is in their interest as well so we can protect against the concerns that the proponents of this amendment want? I urge a no vote on the amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding this time to me. I listened with great interest to the comments of the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of our Committee on the Judiciary, and I would say every argument he gave against the Conyers amendment applies just as forcefully in support of the Hutchinson amendment and for striking the underlying provision, and that is going through the regular order either in the context of an independent counsel law or in the context of a Justice Department reauthorization we could look at this proposal, look at the question of improper prosecutorial tactics and fashion an appropriate remedy. But if there is going to be the McDade-Murtha language in this bill, then I cannot think of a reason in the world why those same restrictions should not apply to staff and to an independent counsel or to the independent counsel himself. Independent counsel working in a State, if the Justice Department lawyer should be complying with the local bar rules, then the independent counsel lawyer should be complying with the local bar rules. If improper overzealous prosecution tactics, the kinds of stories that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) told us about, are going on, then an independent review board should be reviewing those tactics as well as the tactics of Justice Department lawyers. I have some concerns about the base proposal, and I will speak to that when the Hutchinson amendment comes up, but we should support the Conyers amendment and then treat everybody in the similar situation the same way. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on the Conyers amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for yielding time to me. To my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), I would recommend he go see a movie called The Producers, a Mel Brooks film, where two guys are putting together a play they were sure would be a flop. It was called Springtime for Hitler. They sold 1,000 percent of the play, knowing it would fail, but it turned out the play was a big hit, and now they have to deal with all the people they had promised this. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, a deal was made between the authorizers of both Houses in the majority party and the appropriators to deduct $109 million because of the offsets of the money that we have paid. We can get into a great debate about whether we should have done that, but it was done. The authorization plan lays out in tranches, contingent on certain reforms, this payment schedule. Last year the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) appropriated $100 million as the first tranche. Now we are having the second tranche. Next year will be the third tranche. The total figure comes to somewhere around $800 and something million. I do not remember the exact dollar amount. It already deducts the $109 million. To do this now is to sell the same deal once again, double the amount of the offset, over what it legitimately should be. So even on the mathematics, even if we accept every premise of everything the gentleman has said, and even if we ignore the fact that all this money is contingent on, one, the passage of an authorization bill, if I am correct, and secondly, the implementation of reforms, which the authorization is geared to, even if we accept all of that, this amendment should still be voted down because we have already deducted the $109 million from the total amount that we are authorizing and appropriating, according to this 3-year schedule. This amendment should really be withdrawn. If it is not going to be, I would urge my colleagues to reject it, because the whole logic of it is faulty. The money has been taken. The money will be contingent on the reforms the gentleman seeks, and the whole appropriation is contingent on the passage of an already-agreed upon authorization amount which has been left hanging only because of a dispute about the family planning monies and the Mexico City policy. So I urge a no vote.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Rabbi Mervin B. Tomsky, and his wife, Helen, who are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary on August 22, 1998. Though they are longtime residents of California, the story of the Tomsky's marriage actually begins in Minnesota. Mervin and Helen knew each other in Minnesota as children, attended the University of Minnesota together, and got married in Minnesota. A few years later the couple moved to New York, where Mervin attended the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He was ordained as a rabbi in 1956. Fifteen years later the Tomskys moved to Southern California, where they have lived ever since. I met Rabbi Tomsky after he became rabbi at Temple Emanu El in Burbank, California, and had the pleasure of speaking to his congregation on a couple of occasions. Today he holds the title of Rabbi Emeritus at Temple Emanu El, and he is the recipient of an honorary Doctor of Divinity Law from Jewish Theological Seminary. Both Rabbi Tomsky and Helen are extremely active people, which may well be one of the reasons for their successful marriage. Helen was a public school teacher for many years and has been heavily involved in literacy programs. Rabbi Tomsky is on the Board of Directors for the University of Judaism, where his duties include interviewing candidates who wish to convert to Judaism. For 22 years, the Tomskys have been active in Jewish Marriage Encounter, which stresses ways to enhance the marital bonds. It hardly needs to be said that the Tomskys are an ideal role model for younger couples who participate in the program. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Rabbi Mervin and Helen Tomsky on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. I join their children, David, Sharon and Judith, and grandchildren, Andrew and Daria, in wishing them all the best in the years to come.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, this day has been a long time coming. Going back nine years as the technological capacity to make unauthorized copies of copyrights works was rapidly expanding, some of us anticipated the need to enact legislation to protect technological measures used by copyright holders to protect their works. Last Congress, our former colleagues, Carlos Moorehead and Pat Schroeder, laid further groundwork for today's WIPO bill with their efforts to enact national information infrastructure legislation. Then in December 1996, the U.S. victory that produced two new international treaties, made the enactment of implementing legislation an urgent task. Today, under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our efforts have come top fruition. Passage of this bill is essential to implementation of the treaties around the world. Our leadership is necessary in order to gain passage of the treaties in other countries where the standards for intellectual property is much lower than our own. Make no mistake, American intellectual property and the almost unsurpassed contribution it makes to our balance of trade is at risk around the world. Piracy costs American creators $15 billion in sales. In a digital era which brings the capacity to make perfect copies of copyrighted works, we must enact this legislation to fight overseas piracy and the toll it takes in export revenues and American jobs. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) had it right. In the context of trying to protect this property, we needed to come to reasonable balances with providers of these services, with people who have legitimate interests in the fair use. This is, at least at this particular point, the best effort we can make to try to come to those kinds of balances and still provide the essential protection that this bill provides. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Louise Marquez, who on her own has transformed the community of Panorama City. Louise is proof that one person can make a difference--a huge difference. She is not only Marketing Director of the Panorama Mall, the commercial hub of the area, but she is also involved in outside activities involving literacy, gangs, youth sports, law enforcement and health care. It's no wonder that Louise is loved and admired by many. Louise has turned the Panorama Mall into a valuable resource for the community. For several years she has sponsored a free tax assistance program for senior citizens and low-income families. I know the service is a huge success; at tax time people are constantly calling my District Office and asking for the number to the Panorama Mall. Louise also co-sponsors Government Day, an annual event at the Mall that brings together representatives from municipal, county, state and federal governments to provide much-needed information to the community. Louise works tirelessly to improve the economy of Panorama City. The Mall is the site of numerous job fairs, as well as the Latin Business Expo, which brings together employers with prospective employees. I also know that the Mall's merchants hire many young people from the immediate area. The recent upsurge in the economic fortunes of Panorama City, and a corresponding drop in crime, can in part be credited to the efforts of Louise Marquez. With all the work she does for the Mall, it amazes me that Louise is a member of nine Boards and sponsor of too many events and fund-raisers to mention here. She doesn't know the meaning of the word ``stop.'' If there is another cause to champion, or group to support, you can be sure that Louise will get involved, especially when the focus is on youth. After all, Louise is herself the mother of three teen-agers. In recent years, Louise has been battling cancer. Her grit and determination to keep working--and smiling--despite her condition is remarkable. I am inspired by her strength and her courage. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Louise Marquez, whose love of community and life-affirming spirit are shining examples for us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to an outstanding leader and Head of State, Carlos Alberto Wahnon de Carvalho Veiga, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Cape Verde. This provocative and exciting leader has--with grace and integrity--steered his country through its transition from a one-party to a multi-party system. He is visiting the United States this week and is being honored by the California Legislature for his distinguished service to Cape Verdeans. The accomplishments of Carlos Alberto Wahnon de Carvalho Veiga are due in no small part to his willingness to accept change and meet the challenges before him. His unwavering commitment to civil rights, civil liberties and freedom is testimony to his humanity and basic goodness. Veiga exemplifies the selflessness, patience and empathy characteristic of the best leaders of the world. Carlos Alberto Wahnon de Carvalho Veiga's career spans a period of immense change for the Republic of Cape Verde. He earned his law degree at the ``Universidade Classica de Lisboa'' in 1971. From 1972 until 1974 he worked in Angola as the Registrar in the City of Bie. He then returned to Cape Verde in 1975 as the Public Prosecutor in Praia and was the Director General of Internal Administration until 1978. In 1980, Mr. Veiga was appointed Attorney General. In 1982, as a result of his opposition to state policies, he left government for private practice and was elected president of the Cape Verdean Bar Association. Veiga's vision for Cape Verde's democratic development at a time of political instability and upheaval became evident in 1985 when he joined Parliament and soon after set in motion vigorous efforts to democratize the Government and set the foundation for the creation of the Movement for Democracy (MPD), the present ruling party. His positions in defense of democratic reforms are well known and respected by the majority of Capeverdeans. During his second term in the Parliament he became President of the MPD and soon led his party to a strong victory over the ruling party in the National Assembly. In 1991, he was elected Prime Minister. Carlos Alberto Wahnon de Carvalho Veiga represents the ``spirit'' of the Capeverdean people both on the ten island archipelago and across the world. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Prime Minister Carlos Alberto Wahnon de Carvalho Veiga, whose dedication to the causes in which he deeply believes is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Rohrabacher motion. I do so with great reluctance, because I have tremendous respect for many of the people leading the fight against this waiver. But Jackson-Vanick is about immigration. Anyone who has studied the statistics, because I know there are many anecdotal stories and there are many problems remaining, but anyone who has studied the statistics knows that in the last year there has been a dramatic reversal and a massive improvement in the Vietnamese Government's cooperation with us on processing refugees, people who were shipped back from the camps in Thailand, in Hong Kong, in Indonesia, to Vietnam against their will. Mr. Speaker, 15,000 interviews have been granted already; 82 percent of the people we are interviewing have been cleared for coming to the United States or other countries that they intend to go to. The criteria for interviews is far more liberal than the traditional refugee definition. We cannot turn down and thereby risk the retrenchment of this program, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote against H.J. Res. 120. Vietnam is cooperating on the key issue behind granting this waiver: Jackson-Vanik. Mr. Smith and I fought long and hard with the administration to get them to implement a Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR) program. This involved Vietnamese boat people who were forced back to Vietnam after ending the program of keeping them in camps abroad. After we got the administration to go along with it, we pressed them hard to get the Vietnamese to ensure their cooperation. And they have been successful. So successful is the program that there are now 343 cases, involving 601 people, who have not left because, after receiving clearance from the Vietnamese Government and after having been interviewed by the INS, they have decided suddenly to get married and bring their spouses and other relatives over. We have submitted over 19,000 names to the Vietnamese. They have cleared for interview 15,572. 991 have not been cleared, mainly because we gave the Vietnamese the wrong address. Of these, 36 have not been cleared because of criminal charges. We have put 713 on medical hold and excluded 23 for medical reasons. This is a great achievement. Over 5,000 people have already left for the United States. More are coming and the administration is optimistic that it will have completed the program by the year's end. This is what the Jackson-Vanik requirement is all about and Vietnam has met that requirement. Sure there has been some pushing and pulling but Vietnam has made major and significant steps to ensure the program works even though we allowed more liberal definitions of eligibility than we had applied for other immigrant applicants. We want to encourage more openness by Vietnam generally. The success of this program and the joint accounting for POW/MIA demonstrates that we can work with Vietnam to our mutual interest. Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 120.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which I am showing both to the chair and ranking members of this subcommittee, would simply ensure that certain FEMA disaster funds related to the 1994 Northridge earthquake are used in a fair and appropriate manner. After the quake and at the behest of a great deal of effort by the gentleman from California, the chairman of the subcommittee, FEMA created the Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program for hospitals, a program which was intended to rebuild and improve seismic performance of damaged hospitals. FEMA allocated 68 million under this program to the Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Panorama City which provides emergency room services and inpatient care for thousands of families.

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

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen, and, reclaiming my time, I am ready to accept their acceptance and to stop my talking.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 872, the Biomaterial Acccess Assurance Act. I believe a persuasive case has been made that many medical device manufacturers face a shortage of raw materials and component parts as a result of their suppliers' exposure to tort claims. It troubles me that consumers could be denied access to life-saving and life-enhancing products, and it is for this reason that I have long engaged in efforts to seek a legislative solution to the problem. The manufacturers who have made the most compelling case to me are people I have known for years in my own state of California. Many of them are small companies who depend for critical supplies on corporate giants. Because of their deep pockets, these suppliers are almost invariably brought in as co-defendants in lawsuits brought against device manufacturers. Because the device manufacturers are often an inconsequential segment of the market for their raw materials and components, the suppliers have increasingly refused to sell to them. This is the problem we need to solve. But as strongly as I feel about our responsibility to act, I did not embrace this bill as originally introduced. I felt that it was wrong to completely shield the supplier who may have a degree of culpability for a faulty device. That is why I was heartened that further efforts were made to improve the bill in committee, by spelling out means by which the supplier, though initially dismissed, can be brought back into the lawsuit. I believe the appropriate balance has now been struck between consumer protection from faulty devices and consumer access to life- saving and life-enhancing devices. For that reason, I enthusiastically support the bill we have before us today. I am compelled to make one further statement. I emphatically believe the case has been made for H.R. 872 in the form in which it is presented to us today. I do not believe the case has been made for an expansion of the bill beyond its present countours. To be more precise, I am well aware that efforts have been made to expand the scope of the bill to include devices that do not fit the term ``implant'' as defined in the bill, thereby sweeping in devices and materials used outside of the body. I want to be very clear that I will withdraw my support for this bill if along the way it is expanded beyond its present terms either by broadening its scope or enrolling it into a broader product liability bill. Today's floor consideration has long been sought by myself and other supporters of this bill. But it would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than for anyone to alter the careful balance achieved by this bill. I profoundly hope that we can pass this bill today and have it quickly taken up by the other body, so that the millions of Americans who depend on life-saving and life-enhancing medical devices can be assured that they can continue to rely on the products of America's peerless medical technology industry.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I join my colleague Mr. Payne in submitting this resolution condemning the forced abduction of children by the rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda. The LRA, a bizarre Christian group supported by the fundamentalist Islamic government in 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. I am heartened that the children's plight is getting more international attention. In March, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemned ``in the strongest terms'' the abduction of children in Northern Uganda, and the First Lady addressed the issue in a speech while visiting the country. Much more needs to be done, however. 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. Let us help end the nightmare for children in Northern Uganda.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of another year's extension of normal trade relations, formerly known as ``Most Favored Nations trade,'' for China. This is a tough issue, and I have great respect for people who come down on either side of the question. But in the end, I have concluded that I should base my vote not on what I hope may be in terms of China's future, but on what I think China's leaders can do. Last year, I voted against MFN for China because of my concern that China's leaders were not living up to their international agreements in regard to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I was concerned that the administration had failed to make this enough of a focus in its discussions with the Chinese and had not produced the results which I thought were necessary. The administration's efforts to engage China to make new commitments and to live up to old ones have intensified over the past year. They have produced some encouraging results. The U.S. and China agreed to not target strategic nuclear weapons on each other. I know this is a small step. Retargeting nuclear missiles can be accomplished in a matter of hours, if not minutes, but it is a sign that the Chinese are willing to take active steps to reduce the risk of accidental launch, and the challenge we now face is to extend this small, positive step in the direction of a more serious effort at eliminating the threat of nuclear war. China indicated during the President's trip that it is actively considering membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime. I am quite cognizant of the fact that we have been inhaling the vapors of Chinese commitments in this area for many, many years. But I am willing at this point, based on all the things that have been happening, to accept the administration's analysis that the latest commitment by the Chinese to consider joining the MTCR is a sign they will soon join the MTCR regime. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for another year's extension of normal trade relations--formerly known as most-favored nation trade--for China. I have supported MFN in the past although last year I voted against. it. As Ranking Member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, I have spent many hours in hearings and meetings on China. I have traveled to China and Hong Kong, meeting with senior leaders, including the new Chief Executive for Hong Kong, C.H. Tung. Much of China's behavior since the last time we voted on this issue has been deeply disturbing. Our trade deficit with China continues to expand at an alarming rate while our trade negotiators appear to be no closer to reaching a firm agreement with China on entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO)-- an agreement that would guarantee more opportunities for American exports. Our companies continue to invest in China and China continues to export to the United States but access for American goods remains restricted. I am struck by a brochure distributed to Members by General Motors, extolling the value of its investment in China even as GM's operation in the United States are being struck by American workers. GM claims that it needs to shrink its American operations while at the same time it trumpets its 18 automotive projects in eleven provinces of China employing over 10,000 people. Maybe the Chinese gave GM no choice: either produce in China or don't sell to China. Maybe China keeps its tariff levels so high that American cars won't sell in China unless they are produced there. Either choice is the wrong one. A trade policy which results in larger and larger deficits and comes at the cost of jobs for American workers will not long have the support of the American people. Corporate America, the Administration, and the Chinese Government should be aware that if these trade problems are not resolved the Administration's policy of engagement with China will collapse from the weight alone of this failure. The human rights situation continues to be troubling. As the State Department Human Rights Report this year noted, ``the Government continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms stemming from the authorities' very limited tolerance of public dissent, fear of unrest, and the limited scope or inadequate implementation of laws protecting basic freedoms.'' In other words, not much has changed in a year. I am concerned that in some areas the situation may be worsening. I recently introduced H. Con. Res. 283, expressing the sense of the Congress about the situation in Tibet. Repression in Tibet has increased steadily since 1994 and, despite the joint pronouncements on Tibet during the President's recent visit to China there is no sign that the Chinese are willing to take the initiative of meeting with the Dalai Lama. I continue to believe that change in China's human rights behavior will only come through internal pressure--pressure that can be nurtured to some extent by outside support but which will ultimately depend upon the will of the Chinese people. Those leaders who risk their lives to speak out today are the vanguard of the future. But my vote has not depended upon setting a standard of what China's leaders should do but cannot now accomplish. I recognize the type of reform which I would want to see in China would require a revolution in the Chinese political system. However much I may wish that, I recognize that it is unrealistic. I believe that we need to continue to press the Chinese to release individual prisoners and to reform their system to permit greater freedom but I believe that the final revolution in China must be one by the people. That day is inevitable. There is no doubt that there has been tremendous progress in China in terms of economic development and opportunity for the Chinese people, accelerating the forces of change in China in a direction that can only lead to greater personal liberty for the Chinese people. What impresses me most is not the shallow monuments of contemporary office buildings but the changes being wrought in the Chinese people as a result of greater access to modern ideas. China is being changed by its exposure to us in ways more profound than any glass edifice. However, I do not base my vote on what I hope may be but on what I think China's leaders can do. Last year I voted against MFN for China because of my concern that China's leaders were not living up to their international agreements in regard to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I was concerned that the Administration had not made this enough of a focus in its discussions with the Chinese and had not produced the results which I thought were necessary. The Administration's efforts to engage China to make new commitments and to live up to old ones have intensified over the past year and have produced some encouraging results: The United States and China agreed to not target strategic nuclear weapons at each other. I know this is a small step. Retargetting nuclear missiles can be accomplished in a matter of hours if not minutes. But it is a sign that the Chinese are willing to take active steps to reduce the risk of accidental launch, and the challenge we now face is to extend this small, positive step in the direction of more serious efforts at eliminating the threat of nuclear war. China indicated during the President's trip that it is actively considering membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Chinese membership in the MTCR would be an important step * * * if it comes before the Chinese have exported all the missile equipment they want to rogue regimes. I know that our policy makers have been breathing the vapors of Chinese commitments on the MTCR for years from private letters to President Bush's Secretary of State to pledges to the Clinton Administration to abide by MTCR guidelines. I am willing to accept the Administration's analysis that the latest commitment by the Chinese to ``consider'' joining the MTCR is a sign that they will soon join the MTCR. China has put a place for the first time comprehensive controls on nuclear exports and joined the Zangger Committee which coordinates nuclear export policies among Non-Proliferation Treaty members. In joining the Zangger Committee I look forward to seeing the Chinese play a constructive role in promoting the work of the Committee, not use their position to weaken international controls. The Chinese also promised to halt their nuclear cooperation with Iran. Stopping aid to Iran is an important step. We have yet to obtain a similar commitment from Russia to cease support for safeguarded nuclear facilities. The Chinese also committed to cut-off all cruise missile aid to Iran. Cruise missile technology is important. With short-range cruise missiles, the Iranian Navy could endanger American warships in the Persian Gulf if not threaten directly American control of that vital waterway. If we were to revoke normal trade relations with China, we would jeopardize the progress we have achieved in these areas. The Administration's efforts to engage in a dialogue with the Chinese on critical issues would definitely become a dialogue with the deaf. We would lose much and gain little. Continuing our trade relations with China offers the prospect of further progress. But in voting to maintain China's current trade status with the United States, I do so because of the assurances which I have received that these achievements will be matched in the coming year by real progress in gaining, first, Chinese membership and participation in international agreements to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and, second, that the Chinese will take unilateral action to control the export of technology and material which is used in the production of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. In voting to maintain China's current trade status with the United States, I do so with the expectation that there will be substantial progress in the coming year to eliminate barriers for American exports to China and to improve protection of American intellectual property. In voting to maintain China's current trade status with the United States, I do so with the expectation that China will follow through with the commitments it made this year to sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Prior to the Clinton-Jiang summit in Washington, the Chinese signed the ICESCR but have not yet ratified it. They have since indicated that they would sign the ICCPR. As with the MTCR, these are commitments which China needs to follow through on now that they have been made. I will vote no on the resolution of disapproval this year not because I am satisfied with the progress that has been made but because I believe that what has been achieved promises to be the basis for more progress during the coming year.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for H. Res. 392, relating to the importance of Japanese-American relations and the urgent need for Japan to more effectively address its economic and financial problems. I am an original cosponsor of this resolution as Ranking Member on the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee. One reason for this resolution was our appreciation of the vital contribution Japan makes as the world's second largest economy, to global economic growth, especially to the Asian Pacific region. The importance of maintaining the vitality of our security relationship with Japan in all its dimensions--economic, political, and military--is critical to American policy in the region. When Japan suffers, we suffer. When Asia is sick, Japan becomes ill too. Curing one means helping both. We need that cure for our economic benefit. As one witness before the Subcommittee, Robert Grondine of the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, pointed out, the Chamber represents over one thousand American companies doing business in Japan. It is in our economic self-interest to see a growing Japanese economy. For many years, Japanese prosperity has permitted it to evade the need for the profound economic reforms which have been so obvious to both Japanese and foreign observers. While there has been much discussion about the need for economic stimulus which will accelerate consumer demand, I am more interested in seeing the type of structural reform which will result in lasting economic change in Japan. Reform of the financial sector and greater market access for foreign competitors are particularly important. I am confident that Japan will surmount its difficulties. The resilience and capability of the Japanese people have been proven through many times of trial. In introducing H. Res. 391, Mr. Bereuter and I hope that we will further the constructive economic dialog between our two countries in a way that deepens our ties.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend Father Tom Rush, pastor at Mary Immaculate Catholic Church in Pacoima. Father Rush is leaving Pacoima for a leadership position in the international order of Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Father Rush will be sorely missed in the Northeast Valley. He is a figure beloved by people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. I have had the good fortune of being with Father Rush on many occasions. One of the most memorable was earlier this year when I attended dedication ceremonies for the rebuilt Mary Immaculate Church, which was destroyed in the Northridge Earthquake of 1994. The sanctuary was overflowing with church members and others who wanted to share the special day with Father Rush. That day I realized as never before how much Father Rush means to our community. He has touched countless lives through his spiritual guidance, commitment to social justice and dedication to helping at-risk youth. Father Rush came to the Northeast Valley in 1973, when he became priest at Santa Rosa Church in San Fernando. In between other assignments he spent 13 years at Santa Rosa, before moving over to Mary Immaculate in neighboring Pacoima in 1992. At both Santa Rosa and Mary Immaculate, Father Rush, who is of Irish descent, established an extraordinary rapport with his overwhelmingly Latino congregants. It is entirely accurate to call Father Rush a leader in the burgeoning Latino community of the Northeast Valley. In recent years, Father Rush has been a courageous and outspoken supporter of immigrant rights. Four years ago he carried an American flag in a demonstration against Proposition 187. In 1995 he was part of a group that met with Richard Rogers, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to demand a speedier citizenship process. Rogers promised he would try. Father Rush's pending departure has cast a pall over our community. Though we wish him the best, we also know that he is irreplaceable. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Father Tom Rush, a man of warmth, compassion and remarkable energy who has brought joy and hope to many.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution introduced by Mr. DeLay affirming the United States commitment to Taiwan. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the legislation and I would like to thank Mr. DeLay for his willingness to consider my suggestions for improving the legislation. Mr. DeLay and his staff person, Tim Berry, worked in a cooperative and bipartisan manner to fashion a resolution which I urge all my colleagues to support. This resolution expresses the United States continued commitment to the people of Taiwan and our interest in ensuring that the future status of Taiwan be resolved by peaceful means. It also affirms our strong support for membership for Taiwan in international financial institutions where appropriate. In 1994 in response to the profound economic and political changes that had taken place both in China and in Taiwan, the Clinton Administration approved adjustments in our relationship with Taiwan. Among the changes approved were permission for high-level visitors, including cabinet officers; provision for Taiwan's president and premier to transit American territory, and active support for Taiwan's membership in international organizations accepting non-states as members. These were important changes in our policy which were responsive to Taiwan's emergence as a democratic country. Nor were they out of character with past behavior toward Taiwan. As a recent article in the Washington Post by Ambassador Harvey Feldman points out, even after being expelled from the United Nations in 1971, Taiwan remained a member of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund until 1980. It is important to note that our policy towards Taiwan has not been immutable. It has changed in response to developments in Taiwan as long as those changes remain consistent with our overall objective of promoting peace in the region. Our relations with Taiwan and our policy has been governed by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-8), further articulated in three U.S.-China communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982, and clarified at the request of Taiwan in the so-called ``Six Assurances'' in 1982. In 1982 the Reagan Administration was asked by Taiwanese officials to accept as guidelines concerning our policy towards Taiwan six points: (1) the United States would not set a date for termination of arms sales to Taiwan; (2) the United States would not alter the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act; (3) the United States would not engage in advance consultations with Beijing before deciding on U.S. weapons transfers to Taiwan; (4) the United States would not serve as mediator between Taiwan and the mainland; (5) the United States would not alter its position regarding sovereignty of Taiwan and we would not pressure Taiwan to engage in negotiations with the mainland, and (6) the United States would not formally recognize China's sovereignty over Taiwan. We accepted those points and they have conditioned our role between Taiwan and China ever since. This resolution, by reaffirming our interests in resolving the status of Taiwan through peaceful means, reinforces our continued adherence to the six assurances of 1982. It is important that, as we attempt to build a more constructive relationship with China, we not do so at the cost of the people of Taiwan. This resolution makes clear our desire to maintain strong, productive and peaceful relations with both China and Taiwan. In his recent trip to China, President Clinton emphasized this point when he said ``a key to Asia's stability is a peaceful and prosperous relationship with the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.'' As the President noted, peace and prosperity ``has allowed democracy to flourish in Taiwan.'' I hope that the peace and prosperity which China now enjoys will lead as well to democracy in that great land.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce, which is celebrating its 73rd year by gathering materials for a time capsule. I have been proud to represent Sun Valley for many years, and I am honored that the Chamber has asked me to contribute this Congressional Insert to the capsule. It is only fitting that the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce, one of the most historic organizations in the San Fernando Valley, is assembling a time capsule. The Chamber was formed in 1925 as the Roscoe Chamber of Commerce. One of the charter members was A. Louis Forsch, whose grandson, Gary, is still active in the Chamber today. The Chamber shut down during the Depression and World War II, reopening in 1946. Within just a few years the Chamber was sponsoring parades, picnics and campaigns to beautify the community. In 1949, the Chamber spearheaded a successful drive to change the name of the area from Roscoe to Sun Valley. Three years later, Mrs. Florence Shea became the President of the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce. According to the Chamber, Mrs. Shea was the first female president of any chamber in the United States. Today the Chamber is a dynamic force in the San Fernando Valley. Along with providing essential help to local businesses and working closely with service agencies and government, the Chamber in recent years has been the driving force behind the huge and successful July 4 celebration at Hansen Dam. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce, which is doing its part to ensure that the history of the San Fernando Valley will be available to future generations. I only wish I could be around to witness the unveiling of the time capsule.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am taking out this special order here today in conjunction with my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost) to discuss H.R. 2709, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. The President must decide tomorrow whether or not to veto H.R. 2709, which was sent to him on June 10. This is legislation which Congress and the administration have discussed and debated again and again. It was first introduced in October 1997, followed by hearings and briefings with the administration, including at least two lengthy meetings between Vice President Gore and congressional sponsors of the legislation. In June it was sent to the President after a 392 to 22 vote. The Senate passed this legislation 90 TO 4. It has such great support in the Congress because it is aimed at halting one of the major threats to international stability, Iran's program of developing missile delivery systems for its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. There is no doubt about the Iranian program. Iran's Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles are being designed with external help, reportedly primarily but not exclusively Russian, to a range of 930 to 1,250 miles. There have been additional reports that the Iranian objective is to develop a multistage, intercontinental missile with a range of 3,500 miles. I agree with the Secretary of State that we should engage Iran. We should not let the memory of the taking of American hostages in our Embassy in Tehran almost 20 years ago forever determine our relationships with Iran. We should seek to expand our person-to-person contacts and work to resolve differences that separate us. However, it is important to note that while President Khatami is pursuing more moderate domestic policies, it is not clear how much control he exercises or what his real intentions are with respect to foreign and defense policy. We cannot ignore the threat Iran's weapons programs and support for terrorism pose to regional peace and American interests in people. We should not change our policy toward Iran without seeing significant changes in Iran's behavior. Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs continue to be of grave concern. U.S. officials have said publicly that Iran has a large and increasingly self-sufficient chemical weapons program and probably has produced biological warfare agents as well. Administration officials have publicly confirmed that Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. And while Iranian President Khatami has categorically rejected terrorist attacks against civilians, he has yet to back his words with action. According to State Department's most recent report on terrorism, Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Last fall Iran hosted representatives of numerous terrorist groups at a conference of liberation movements where they discussed greater coordination and support for some of the groups. When the administration waived the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, sanctions on European companies and Malaysia, it said that it did so because it wanted to focus on preventing proliferation rather than preventing investments in the Iranian oil industry. While I do not endorse the administration's rationale for the ILSA sanctions waiver, I cannot help but note that the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act does what the administration says it wants. It focuses on proliferation. It would be incongruous for the administration to veto this bill, because we can already see the consequence of the administration's waivers of the ILSA sanctions. The President should welcome this legislation, not decry it. On too many occasions in the past 3\1/2\ years, the leadership in this House has tried to tie the President's hand in foreign policy and overrule his prerogative to lead on national security matters. This is not such an effort. Although the President must make a classified report to Congress of ``credible information on foreign entities which have transferred missile technology to Iran,'' it is the President who determines what is credible. Thirty days later he must impose sanctions on those entities. These sanctions are not targeted against any country or government, but are narrowly targeted against the companies themselves, and the President may waive the imposition of sanctions, either because he is persuaded that the information contained in the report to Congress is incorrect or if he determines that the waiver is essential to the national security. And what are the sanctions that we are talking about? Simply that the entity or company that has proliferated this missile technology to Iran faces the loss of exports. The bill has been significantly improved since it was first introduced. First, it is no longer retroactive beyond January 1998. Second, it allows for a classified report to be submitted to the Congress and permits the President to suspend sanctions. Third, it is limited to the transfer of items already contained on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) list--goods which are widely considered as benefiting a missile system--or additional items which the President determines to be of concern. When this bill was debated last November in the House, the Administration suggested that the standard of evidence was so low that the US would be forced to impose ``erroneously'' sanctions on foreigners. I find this to be a difficult argument to accept. The concept of this or any Administration ``rushing to an erroneous judgment'' on any issue subject to the availability and evaluation of intelligence data is hard to imagine. Is ``credible information'' so weak a standard that it would result in the erroneous imposition of sanctions when the President has the discretion to determine whether or not the information is credible? If the President has evidence that seemingly credible information is not accurate, then by definition the information is no longer credible. With a great deal of evidence accumulated since 1994, the Administration still has not determined whether or not to sanction China for transferring entire M-11 missiles to Pakistan. Yes, there are existing sanctions laws which attempt to restrict weapons proliferation. This bill is different from some existing laws because, unlike the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992, and unlike existing law, the President must report to the Congress credible information about a violation and then he has thirty days to impose a sanction unless he uses the waiver procedure. There is no doubt that this legislation makes it more difficult for the President to evade responsibility for imposing sanctions. Some may think it best to make it easier for the President to evade the intent of the Congress. That is not my view. This bill should not be construed as anti-Russian--it applies to companies anywhere that aid Iran. Administration officials say that this legislation will damage our relationship with Russia at a time when Moscow is tightening controls over sensitive exports. If, indeed, the Russians are taking steps that comply with the Act's provisions, they will not be sanctioned. Even if Russian companies are sanctioned, U.S.-Russian relations will survive because our two countries have many shared interests and concerns. We cannot afford to stop working with each other. And the United States remains committed to strengthening Russia's democratic transition. The bill now comports with Russian law and should be construed as a cooperative tool in our joint struggle to stop the dangerous flow of illegal technology to Iran. The Russian Government has taken many positive steps to restrict sensitive exports. On May 5th the Deputy Head of Administration of the Russian President stated that ``Military and dual purpose technologies constitute the national treasure of Russia, which has been created by successive generations of our people. Therefore the export control shall completely exclude any possibility of squandering unique domestic technologies, materials, parts, intellectual property, and prevent leaks of classified state and military data.'' This is a very helpful statement and the additional measures that the Russians have taken to control exports are also praiseworthy. They are a tribute to the seriousness with which the Russians take this issue and a tribute to the Administration, especially Vice President Gore, who has worked extraordinarily hard with the Russians to come to a common understanding of the seriousness of the Iranian threat and to a common approach to confronting that threat. Vetoing this bill would be a mistake, sending instead a signal that the Administration is not as committed as it claims to be in preventing Iran from threatening its neighbors and the world. The strong support that this legislation has received indicates that should the President veto this bill, his veto will be over-ridden. This legislation makes a substantial contribution to the fight against proliferation and has the overwhelming support of the U.S. Congress.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Susan Westerberg Prager, who is stepping down after 16 years as Dean of the UCLA School of Law. Dean Prager has compiled an extraordinary record. Under her leadership, the UCLA School of Law enhanced its reputation for excellence in scholarship, achieved diversity among the student body and added exceptional faculty members. By any measure UCLA is now among the elite law schools in the United States. As an alumnus of the UCLA School of Law, I take great pride in Dean Prager's many noteworthy accomplishments. Dean Prager started her career in politics and then made the transition to law. Her political work included stints with Sen. Thomas Kuchel and Rep. Paul McCloskey. Her distinguished academic life includes both a B.A. and M.A. in history from Stanford University and, in 1971, a law degree from UCLA. Two years later she joined the faculty at the UCLA School of Law. Dean Prager's areas of expertise include family law, real property, community property and historic preservation law. The last is especially appropriate as she is the co-owner of two Los Angeles Cultural-Historic Monuments. She has also lectured and written extensively on such subjects as women's rights, legal education, marital property law and affirmative action. Her frequent public appearances in Southern California have helped boost the profile of the law school. Dean Pager has an impressive resume of honors, awards and commendations. to name but a few: she received the Legal Services Award from the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund; was presented the BayKeeper Circle Award by the Santa Monica BayKeeper and was given a ``Women of Action'' Award by the Israel Cancer Research Fund. This year the UCLA Law Alumni Association is presenting Susan with the Lifetime Achievement Award. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Susan Westerberg Prager, who leaves behind an unparalled record of achievement as Dean of the UCLA School of Law. Her contributions to the field of law and legal education will never be forgotten.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Paul Hefner, who has just completed a remarkably successful tenure as President of the Greater San Fernando Chamber of Commerce. In 1997, Paul began his one-year term as Chairman of the San Fernando Chamber of Commerce. Under Paul's able leadership, the Chamber has grown and engaged in a series of successful outreach efforts, which led to changing the name to the ``Greater'' San Fernando Chamber. Paul's affable personality and business experience proved to be of tremendous value in this effort. For 25 years, Paul worked with First Interstate Bank of California. He began as a branch operations officer, and rose through the ranks to hold a number of senior positions, including Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff, Los Angeles Metro Division. He played a major role in creating the first multi-state First Interstate image and several automation projects, including Cirrus, the national automated teller machine network. In 1989, Paul left First Interstate and formed his own business, Words in Motion, which he established in his hometown of San Fernando. Words in Motion is a unique business, one that reflects the strong spirituality of its founder. Paul's company specializes in the resolution of Christian church disputes, offering assistance to those seeking to resolve disputes in a biblically faithful manner. I don't know whether Paul put this training to work as President of the San Fernando Chamber. What I do know is that by common consensus 1997-98 was one of the most productive years in Chamber history. In August, a few weeks after Paul assumed the chairmanship, The Chamber entered into a consulting services agreement with the City of San Fernando to conduct four key economic development programs for the business community. And under Paul's leadership the Chamber has changed from a primarily volunteer-based organization to one with a full-time, professional staff. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Paul Hefner, a great Chamber Chairman, an exceptional businessman and an extremely nice guy. I salute him for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of the business community of San Fernando and the Northeast San Fernando Valley.