Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I rise in support of H. Res. 404 regarding American- Philippines relations, regarding Taiwan's positive role in the Asian financial crisis and affirming American support for peace and stability on the Taiwan Strait and security for Taiwan's democracy. There is no more apt time than the centennial of American-Philippine relations to salute the enduring friendship between our two countries. It is a friendship which has flourished despite its tragic beginnings in a conflict first with the Spanish and subsequently with Filipino independince fighters. But we learned from that struggle and subsequently worked diligently to grant independence as quickly as possible. American teachers spread throughout the archipelago bringing the benefits of modern education to the majority of the country. In World War II, Filipino troops fought bravely side-by-side with American forces and Filipino guerrilla fighters were indispensable in the liberation of the Philippines from Japanese occupation. The Philippines continued, even after independence, to be America's most important ally in Asia, again contributing troops to the Korean Conflict and to the Vietnam War. We owe a debt of gratitude, if not more, to our Philippine friends. We all rejoiced when the Filipino ``people power revolution'' overthrew the Marcos dictatorship. The Mulitlateral Aid Initiative for the Philippines that the Amercian Congress launched following the fall of Marcos was an effort not only to demonstrate our support for Filipino democracy but also to show our lasting commitment to an enduring close relationship with the Philippines. This continues to be the basis for our policy and it is instructive that during the current Asian financial crisis it is the democratic country of the Philipines which has so far escaped the worst effects of the crisis I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of which I am an original cosponsor.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 270, the resolution on Taiwan. The Congress has always been a strong supporter of Taiwan. Taiwan's transition to a democratic state with a vibrant free market economy has solidified Congressional support. The emergence of a democratic Taiwan is indeed one of the most encouraging developments in Asia over the last decade. A democratic Taiwan is a shining example to all the countries in Asia which linger under the control of one man or one party. This resolution sends a clear signal of our continued interest in preserving Taiwan's achievement. This resolution calls on the President to seek at his upcoming summit in Beijing a commitment by the Chinese to renounce the use of force against Taiwan. I think this is in China's interest. Sowing the seeds of fear in the Taiwan Strait benefits neither side given the growing trade, travel, and investment between both countries. Let me also make clear that this resolution, while noting the United States' acknowledgement that China believes that Taiwan is part of China--the so-called ``One China'' policy, is not an endorsement by the Congress of the Chinese perspective. Taiwan no longer claims that it controls China. Only when China makes a similar declaration will both sides be able to move beyond their present conflict to its resolution. There is one China, but it does not include Taiwan. I would also take this opportunity to urge the Administration to fulfill the commitment it made in its Taiwan policy review to seek membership for Taiwan in appropriate international organizations. Taiwan's singular political and economic achievement give it the potential to play a tremendous constructive role in the international community. As this resolution suggests, Taiwan has proposed to assist its neighbors in the recent Asian financial crisis. It could play more of a role if given the chance. I would urge special consideration be given to finding a role for Taiwan in the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Health Organization. Just as it made no sense for the United States to pretend that China did not exist during the Cold War, it is equal nonsense to pretend that Taiwan does not exist in the post Cold War period. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of which I am a cosponsor.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) on the question of timing. I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, on the merits of the bill. Mr. Speaker, one cannot make the case that U.S. national interests are served by bringing up this bill this evening rather than 3 weeks from now when the security advisor of the Russian President is coming here next week, when the Senate majority leader held up a vote on this bill in the Senate for over 5 months in an effort to encourage the diplomatic pressure, and then say today is the day that U.S. national interests compel a vote on this bill. I would suggest it is political interests, not national interests. But the fact is that the leadership decides when a bill is brought up. This bill is now before us. We are going to go to a vote on this bill and this bill is worthy of this body's support, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, this legislation sends an important signal to anyone considering assistance to Iran's medium- and long-range missile program. Iran is designing missiles with a range of 930 to 1,250 miles and may even be working on a multistage intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 3,500 miles. How long will it take Iran to attain this capability? Some estimate as soon as 1999 for the shorter- range missiles. They may have a new President. They might want to get rid of all the baggage between our two countries. They may want to promote cultural exchanges. They may want to increase dialogue with the United States, with its academics and with its people. The Government of Iran persists in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about the election in Iran has changed that practice. Nothing about the statements of its new leadership has indicated any effort to move in a different direction. The more sophisticated assistance Iran receives from abroad, the quicker it will realize its goal. We must stop this now. More than 2 years ago Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Robert Pelletreau testified that only by imposing a real and heavy price can we and other countries convince the Iranian leadership that changing its threatening behavior is in Iran's own interest. The administration claims that this legislation would weaken our ability to persuade other countries to halt assistance. But this legislation, as amended by the Senate to change its effective date from August 1995 to January 1998, comports with the administration's claims of success in convincing Russia to prevent dangerous exports. January 22nd is the day the Russian Government issued a decree tightening export controls on goods and services that could advance missile and weapons of mass destruction programs. The Clinton administration officials say they have raised 13 cases of concern with Moscow and are pleased with Russian progress in about half of them. More needs to be done. The administration views this legislation as reinforcing its effort to persuade countries to cut off all aid to the Iranian missile program and to enforce export controls. Language has improved this bill; language we suggested in committee was included. There remains some concerns regarding the definition of credible information. It is my expectation that the administration would employ its rigorous standards in determining what constitutes credible information. The administration is also concerned that the bill's standard of sanctionable activity is not tied to any definition of knowing and that companies could be sanctioned for unintentional transfers. Given the types of equipment and technology involved, it strikes me as unlikely that many companies will be unaware of the potential end users of the exports. And while some companies may be unaware of the end users of the exports, ignorance should not be an excuse. The companies that sell this technology, these items, must know who the end users are, and if they do not, they should be sanctioned. We should not be required to prove some difficult intent standard when we thereby will promote recklessness, head-in-the-sand behavior, a lack of thorough efforts to check who the end users are. We need to do everything we can to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the development of delivery systems. Sometimes this is a lonely fight in which few of our allies wish to join us. For them short-term economic gain outweighs long-term peace. We should not sacrifice our honorable objectives to their selfish ends, for in the end we will all pay too high a price for failing to be vigilant. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I do not think supporting this resolution is standing up for human rights. I think well-intentioned people can disagree about this, but for me this is the essence of meaningless symbolism over real substance. If Members do not think the President should go to China, bring forth a resolution saying that the President should not go to China. If Members do not believe in the policy of constructive engagement, then come out and speak against that particular policy. If Members want to do something that will hurt the Chinese and bear the consequences of it, then come out for MFN. If Members want to withhold imports and trade benefits because of the constant and continuous policy of proliferation of nuclear and missile technology, deal with that. But do not say, all this is fine, constructive engagement is good, going to China makes sense, renew MFN, but, Mr. Speaker, do not go to the place that for all of us symbolizes the most horrible, indescribable terror imaginable and the example of brute government force, do not go there, as your statement of protest. Mr. President, go there, speak against that horror, speak against what we do not want, push an agenda which is meaningful and real in terms of helping America's interest in stability and the interests of nonproliferation and the cause of human rights, but do not take the cheap symbolism of this kind of resolution as a substitute for a policy. I have watched, too much, people who write letters urging the President to allow American satellites and Chinese launchers and then pass one House bill to stop it, and people who stand up and decry China and then go vote for MFN because American corporations want it. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) about his point, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce with Mr. Porter, Ms. Maloney, Mr. Payne, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Cox, Mr. Smith, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Kennedy (MA), and Ms. Pelosi, a House Concurrent Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress concerning the December 1997 report on Tibet of the International Commission of Jurists and on United States policy on Tibet. 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. I understand that Tibet, and more specifically the dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese leadership, is to be an important issue during the upcoming visit of President Clinton to Beijing. I hope that progress on Tibet will be made at the summit and this resolution is an effort to encourage that progress. Secretary Albright presented a strong case for progress on the dialogue in the summit preparatory meetings she held in Beijing earlier this month. This resolution is a sign of support by the Congress for the Administration's efforts to encourage a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and Chinese leaders and a signal to Beijing that a positive response from President Jiang to the Administration's proposal would be welcomed by the Congress. It is appropriate that the Congress which has been in the forefront of support for the Tibetan people should go on the record in support of the Administration's summit agenda in regard to Tibet. Positive action by the Chinese would go far to demonstrate to the Congress that a policy of engagement with China is productive and important. Finally, I would like to draw the House's attention to the continuing detention of Gendun Choekyi Nyima. Three years ago this month, 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 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.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Mr. Waxman and I rise today to pay tribute to Henry and Janet Rosmarin, who are actively involved with Temple Ner Maarav and the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Project. Their interest in the latter is more than historical; Henry and Janet are survivors themselves. Henry, born Henryk Rosmarin, and Janet, born Jadzia Jakubowicz, met in her father's apartment in the shtetl of Czeladz in Poland. Henry came to High Holiday services, illegal under the rules of the conquering Nazi powers. Two years later the Gestapo rounded up all the Jews in the village. As the Nazis closed in, Henry, displaying remarkable bravado and optimism, turned to Janet and said, ``When this is all over we should find each other and we should get married and make a life together.'' She promised to meet him back in the same town when they were free. A few weeks later they were deported to the death camps. During the war Janet was an inmate at Auschwitz and Birkenau; Henry at Gross- Rosen, Buchenwald and a few others. One of the ways Henry survived was with his harmonica. He entertained his captors in return for his life. Most of Henry's family and most of Janet's family were murdered in the camps. Despite his grief, Henry kept his promise. He returned to Czeladz and waited for Janet. After several months a young woman came to town and happened to ask a cousin of Henry's what had become of Henryk Rosmarin. ``You must be Jadzia Jakubowicz,'' was the startled reply. Fifty years ago, Henry and Janet were married. They raised a family and settled in Southern California. The Rosmarins have somehow retained the values of the shtetl--family and community--while living in an entirely different and more complex world. We ask our colleagues to join us in honoring Janet and Henry Rosmarin, whose story is testimony to the power of the human spirit. Their will to live is a stirring example for us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my deep pleasure to rise in support of H. Res. 350, which I cosponsored with Mr. Bereuter, in honor of the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of their nation's independence. We have a long and deep friendship with Sri Lanka, dating back at least to 1789 when the first American traders visited Colombo, and followed in the early part of the 19th century by American missionaries and educators, who established the first boarding school for girls in Asia in 1824. We established a consulate as early as 1874. We are most proud of the role played by Colonel Henry Steel Olcott in promoting the study of Buddhism. The enlightened altruism demonstrated by Colonel Olcott continues to motivate our relations with Sri Lanka. Today, our relations are being further solidified by our growing economic and political relationship. We are now Sri Lanka's largest trading partner. Most recently, the First Lady visited--the first, I hope, of many such visits, including perhaps that of the President later this year. As we salute the past, it is also my hope that we will take all possible steps to assist in the resolution of the problems which afflict Sri Lanka today. The conflict which continues to disturb the rich Sri Lankese political culture is deeply disturbing. The recent terrorist bombing at the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy and the American decision to withdraw Peace Corps Volunteers testifies to the intensity of that internal conflict. I hope that efforts will be taken by all sides to the conflict to seek a peaceful resolution of the civil strife for only by ending this dispute will Sri Lanka realize the very bright future its people deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution's adoption.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1252. There are many in this chamber who from time to time have disagreed with decisions rendered by federal judges. Count me among them. But I have always felt that our independent life-tenured federal judiciary is one of the glories of the American system of government, and that efforts by the Congress to retaliate against particular decisions are inimical to our larger stake in the preservation of the American constitutional system. That is why I am so strongly opposed to H.R. 1252. It is simply wrong to manipulate court jurisdiction and procedure as this bill would do to try to make it more or less likely that the federal courts will reach particular results. I am particularly concerned that H.R. 1252 seeks to strip the remedial power of the federal courts, to the detriment of all Americans. By prohibiting a federal district court from entering any order or approving any settlement that could require a state or local government to raise taxes--and applying this provision to pending cases, to boot--the bill deprives all Americans of effective recourse for the vindication of their rights under federal law. As critics have noted, Brown v. Board of Education required expenditures to desegregate the public schools. Would the proponents of this bill suggest that the authority of the federal courts should have been limited to declaring segregation unconstitutional, and the courts barred from ordering desegregation? And on the very week that we celebrate Earth Day, please do not tell me that we are going to deprive the federal judiciary of the ability to effectively enforce the nation's environmental laws. For all these reasons, I urge support for the amendment to be offered by our colleagues Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Boehlert to strike Section 5 of the bill. I also note with great concern that Section 6 of the bill would grant parties in federal court the right to remove the judge randomly assigned to their case. Because due process guarantees an impartial judge, under current law a party can seek to remove a judge for bias or prejudice. But to go further and allow peremptory strikes is to ``replace the traditional process with a dangerous alternative. * * * We would be wrong to buy into a proposed reform whose basic effect is to influence judges through considerations extrinsic to the merits of a case.'' That is the analysis of the eminent Chief Judge of the 4th Circuit, J. Harvie Wilkinson, widely viewed as a conservative Republican jurist. Why would we seek to introduce strategic judge- shopping based on a judge's race, gender, or experience before taking the bench, into what is now the impeccably random assignment of judges to cases, and in so doing risk chilling decisionmaking in difficult cases? I am heartened that my neighbor and colleague form California, Mr. Rogan, will join in seeking to strike Section 6 later today. In light of his experience as a judge, I hope my colleagues will carefully consider the concerns which prompt him to offer his amendment. I also want to make note of Section 2 of the bill, which would bring back into federal judicial practice a mechanism largely discarded by Congress in 1976 as inefficient and unwieldy, namely three judge panels in the district court. Section 2 would require a three judge court in all cases involving constitutional challenges to state referenda and initiatives. The authority of the federal judiciary to hear and decide constitutional questions, including challenges to state laws, should not turn on whether the challenged law was enacted by a state legislature or by a state's voters. Indeed, Section 2 would create the anomalous result that identical laws adopted by two different states would be treated completely differently by the federal courts. Because appeals of decisions of three judge courts are heard on an expedited basis by the Supreme Court without the benefit of circuit court review, the laws of those states where the referendum and initiative processes do not exist could be placed at a disadvantage. Why would we do that? In all of these instances, I believe the legislation before us threatens the independence of the federal judiciary and imposes increased delays and costs for our constituents who seek recourse in the federal courts. This legislation endangers the balance among the branches of government so carefully wrought by the Founding Fathers and threatens the vindication of our constitutional rights. I urge its defeat.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 83rd anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide, a period of tragic oppression and terrible suffering. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being formally charged with crimes. The following month the government deported most Armenians from Turkish Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never reached that destination. From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation or disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining Armenians from Turkey. We mark this anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide in part because this tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all people. Genocide is not an ancient act, it is a horror which we must daily renew our commitment to prevent. If we do not remember, we will be condemned to witness such atrocities again and again. We should not be alone in remembering these events. We will know that humanity has progressed when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and honor as well the memory of genocide's victims. Sadly, we cannot say that such atrocities are history. The death last week of Pol Pot reminds us of Cambodia's ``killing fields'' in the 1970s, and we have only to recall this decade's mass ethnic killings in Bosnia and Rwanda to see that the threat of genocide persists. As President Clinton noted during his visit to Rwanda in March, the world community needs to do more to prevent genocide. We have not done so. We have not yet learned the lessons of this day. We also remember this day because it is a moment for us to celebrate the contribution of the Armenian community in America to the richness of our character and culture. The strength they have displayed in overcoming tragedy to flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Their powerful example is moving testimony to the truth that tyranny cannot extinguish the vitality of the human spirit. To all who wish to remember and to praise Armenian Americans I recommend the recently published memoir by one of America's most important contemporary poets, Peter Balakian, whose book Black Dog of Fate is a powerful reminded of Armenian history. Surrounded by countries hostile to them, to this day the Armenian struggle continues. But now with an independent Armenian state, the United States has the opportunity to contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's emerging democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system. I urge all my colleagues to ponder on the history of this moment and honor the memory and the accomplishments of the Armenian people and join with me in efforts to aid Armenia today.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)--let me indicate initially that I rise in strong support of the McCollum substitute and very strong opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment--and it has been an issue that has been around the Committee on the Judiciary for a very, very long time. And it came to us initially as stories of a series of abuses, real or perceived, reported by owners particularly of restaurants and bars about things they were required to do. One, they could not get access to repertoire. The McCollum amendment provides that, which I think in practice is now already being provided. It makes it very clear in its provisions that every performing rights organization will have to list every piece of music with every writer on the Internet, with access to the general public, to the owners and proprietors of the store.

Mr. BERMAN. Does the gentleman want to take this one at a time?

Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BERMAN. But this was central to the complaints that has initiated the whole fight that has been going on for, I think, 8, 10 years in the Committee on the Judiciary. Secondly, it was always put in the context of the small restaurant or the small bar. I never thought that I would see the day when I would be coming forward to support an amendment that would exempt establishments of 3,500 square feet or under from paying any single fee to a performing rights organization for the use of their music. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) made an eloquent statement. But when you examine some of his points, he said I do not want a free lunch for anyone. But this is a free lunch. He said the music has already been paid for, not by the people who are using it, by the stations that have decided to broadcast it. He is now creating a new public performance of that music. If it is just incidental, which is the way the gentleman from Missouri put it, if it is just incidental to the main purpose of their business, then if they do not want to pay the small amount annually they paid in order to use that music, they turn the radio off. It is very, very simple. It is incidental by its own terms. If it is incidental, it is essential. I would suggest the music is used as part of creating an atmosphere which encourages customers to come and patronize that restaurant, and I would suggest it is appropriate to ask them to pay for that just as much as they would pay for any other aspect of it.

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill H.R. 2589, Copyright Term Extension. As I believe my colleagues know, Congress is obliged under the Constitution to protect intellectual property or, to be precise, to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their respective writings. My colleagues may be less familiar, however, with the fact that the U.S. also has international obligations to protect copyright. In 1989, the United States, in a long-overdue move, became a member of the Berne Convention, the century-old international treaty mandating copyright rules for member countries. Under the ``rule of the shorter term,'' member countries are only obliged to protect the work of foreign authors to the same extent that they would be protected in their country of origin. Herein lies the problem. Under current U.S. law, copyright term for most works is life of the author plus 50 years. For works made for hire, such as motion pictures, the term is 75 years. However, in 1995, the European Union extended copyright term by 20 years. If we fail to extend our copyright term as well, our intellectual property industry would lose millions of dollars in export revenues, and the U.S. balance of trade would suffer commensurately. European Union countries would not have to extend to American works the additional 20-year protection that they have already extended to European works. This is an outcome we can and must prevent by passing H.R. 2589. Later in the debate we will be addressing an amendment that I strenuously oppose, to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). That amendment would do great harm to the integrity of copyright law, and I will speak to it at the appropriate time. But I do not want us to lose sight of the significance of H.R. 2589 to America's intellectual property interests, both at home and abroad.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us follow that a little further. If a company in Russia proliferates missile technology in Iran, we are not going to make the Russian Government responsible. They did not make the decision, it was just some company in Russia. It undermines every aspect of enforcement here when we eliminate the major inducement to do something to ensure the law is not violated.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I guess if the gentleman from Wisconsin had offered an amendment saying that everyone who owns a restaurant gets to deduct 50 percent of their lease price, the gentleman from Indiana would say, in a Republican-controlled Congress, we have to support that amendment; otherwise, we will have an unnecessary tax increase on the patrons of that restaurant.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing, there was one point, though, that I have not heard discussed so far. The Sensenbrenner amendment simply is not an amendment that exempts some restaurants and bars. It exempts all retail establishments. But it does a number of other things. It fundamentally changes the whole concept of vicarious and contributory infringement of copyright. It contains a provision which, if applied, would affect the situation like this. I own a number of theaters. I lease those theaters to people who are showing unauthorized pirated works. And I am exempt from any liability and charging money for patronizing those particular works. They exempt from any liability the owner of the property that is leased, thereby eliminating any incentive that that landlord has when he leases his studios or facilities to put in provisions to ensure that the lessee does not engage in infringing conduct, does not go out and do public performances without paying the people who wrote the music. That is a huge and gaping loophole which will lead to a great deal of improper activity that could easily be deterred if you just simply retain existing concepts of contributory and vicarious liability. I think that is another huge weakness in the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin. The McCollum amendment undoes the effect of that amendment, and, therefore, it should be supported.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Florida mean the bill or the Sensenbrenner amendment?

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the people of Greece on this, the 177th anniversary of the start of the revolution that led to Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire. That conflict restored Greece's ancient and proud democratic tradition--a tradition that greatly influenced our own Founding Fathers. Today, Greece stands tall in the world community, with memberships in the EU, NATO, and dozens of other multilateral organizations. Its commitment to democracy is an example for all nations. I salute the Greek people on their achievement and proudly celebrate our joint democratic heritage.