Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am still shaken by the news of the passing of our colleague, the arbitrariness of it all, and almost the whimsical nature that someone so vibrant and so healthy could all of a sudden be gone. I think Walter had something very instructive for the rest of us. I remember first hearing about Walter from a friend of mine, a former legislator from the area, Gary Hart, who told me about his background. I thought, how does somebody with this background and this perspective win a tough election? One message of Walter's life is that one does not have to trim his sails, one does not have to compromise his fundamental principles to win a tough election, that he goes out there and says what he thinks and convinces people of the wisdom of his ideas and the principle and depth of his conviction, and he can be successful in the political process. Another thing Walter meant for me was sort of the serenity in the midst of all the frenetic behavior that exists in this business and in this Chamber, that this was somebody who could maintain his serenity and his perspective and his fundamental calmness in the midst of all of that and analyze and judge and make decisions sort of as if he were almost apart from all of that frenzy that goes on here. Lois, you and the children perhaps more than anybody have the ability to continue Walter's legacy in whatever you choose to do. I know you will miss him greatly. We all will. Our thoughts are with you.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct the attention of my colleagues to an important address delivered recently at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies by Mr. Bernard L. Schwartz. Bernard Schwartz is one of America's premier industrialists. For at least the past quarter of a century, he has been a trusted, confidential advisor to Presidents, Cabinet members and Members of Congress. He is currently Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Loral Space and Communications Ltd, a global high technology firm that primarily concentrates on satellite manufacturing and satellite-based services. During the first Clinton administration, Mr. Schwartz served on the Defense Science Board Task Force on Antitrust, which issued the guidelines that govern current mergers in the defense industry. Through his private sector efforts and his public sector service, Bernard Schwartz is a true expert on a range of issues affecting America's continuing technological prowess and economic well-being. In his address--``Defense Industry Consolidation: Where Do We Go From Here?''--Mr. Schwartz astutely describes the state of our Nation's defense industrial base. He provides some excellent suggestions for steps we can take to maintain healthy competition in the defense industry even as that industry undergoes unprecedented consolidation. As those of us on the House Judiciary Committee know, the importance of competition in this vital industry cannot be understated: it is absolutely essential to ensure that American taxpayers receive a fair return on their investment and that we don't send our men and women in uniform into harm's way with inferior equipment. Mr. Schwartz also touches on two other issues that are of great interest to me and many of my colleagues: trade with the People's Republic of China and fast track trade negotiating authority. As the ranking member on the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, I have spent countless hours debating our policy toward China. I believe that negotiating China's integration into the international community is one of the most critical foreign policy challenges we now face. No one can doubt China's emergence as a global power with nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Becoming a world, power, however, entails bearing the responsibility of acting like one, and abiding by international treaties and law. Prior to 1997, I consistently voted to continue MFN for China because I believed that ending that status would not bring about the change we week to encourage. This year I changed my position because China has continued to proliferate technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction to Iran and Pakistan. Such behavior runs counter to all international norms. But I, like Bernard Schwartz, remain very hopeful that we can improve our relations with China and build on our existing economic ties with the people of that country. I strongly agree with Mr. Schwartz that we should support President Clinton's request for fast track. This authority--held by every President since Gerald Ford--is necessary to ensure that our trade negotiators have the leverage they need to pry open overseas markets. It is clear that our economic prosperity at home is closely tied to our active participation--and indeed, leadership--in the global economy. Since 1992, almost 40 percent of our domestic economic growth is directly related to international trade. The United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world hammers out new trade pacts. Following is the text of Mr. Schwartz's address: Defense Industry Consolidation: Where Do We Go From Here? (By Bernard L. Schwartz) Thank you, Chairman Pitofsky, Dean Wolfowitz, and ladies and gentlemen for joining us for what I hope will be a provocative and useful discussion about defense industry consolidation. It is a pleasure for me to be back speaking at the Johns Hopkins School and Advanced International Studies. I have, in fact, been giving talks here on subjects associated with the U.S. Defense industrial base for roughly the past decade, and I applaud the continuing interest of the school, under the very able leadership of Paul Wolfowitz, in this subject. I have felt for a long time that the health of the defense industrial base is of critical importance to keeping the United States strong and secure. During the years of the cold war; it was critical for us to have a healthy industry to deter the kinds of threats that we faced in that era, and, in my view, it continues to be critical for us to maintain a vital defense capability to field the most advanced military systems and weaponry. Defense technology and its production base will save lives and provide the foundation of an effective foreign policy. In the late 1980s, when I first spoke here, I was concerned about the threat posed by foreign companies buying, without suitable constraints, American defense firms. I have always favored opening American markets to foreign participation. But I felt that, particularly in the defense arena, there should be some guidelines governing foreign participation. So I spoke here and subsequently authored a paper that Johns Hopkins published, entitled; ``Foreign Ownership of U.S. Defense Companies; Where Do We Draw The Line?'' Happily, in my view, in the intervening years the U.S. Government has helped to draw a useful balance in this area, demonstrating that good government policy can work with industry to produce constructive results. In the early 1990s, Johns Hopkins again provided me an opportunity to address defense issues. On this occasion, the subject was the impact of a planned, precipitous decline in defense procurement. I was particularly concerned about what this might mean for our industrial base and our security interests. I felt then, and feel now, that this country over- armed in the 1980s. The industry has excess personnel and excess capacity to meet the changed threat, so downsizing was appropriate and inevitable. However, I felt that this needed to be done purposefully, with a continuing eye on the changing threats that the United States would be called on to face in a post-cold war world. At that time, I stressed that the DOD and industry needed to form a new covenant to transform, sensibly, our defense industry into a smaller, leaner, but healthier producer of the world's finest weaponry for the world's finest peacekeeping force. At the time, this was in conflict with the apparent Laissez-Faire policy of the DOD. I was, therefore, delighted when I was asked in mid-1993 to serve as a member of the defense science board task force on antitrust. Its chairman was Bob Pitofsky, who proved to be both a masterful leader and consensus-builder. It was a difficult assignment, not only because the issues were complex, but because they cut across a wide spectrum of government, industrial, defense and social interests. One challenge facing the task force's members was keeping our civility while advocating strongly held convictions. The resulting report was constructive and balanced, and, I think, unanimous. Its recommendations formed a basic framework for the defense industry consolidation to the overall benefit of all interests. Bob Pitofsky's wisdom, tact and negotiating skills were essential to that successful result. In the roughly 3\1/2\ years since the issuance of this report, the restructuring of the U.S. defense industrial base has gone forward to an unprecedented degree. During this period, there have been more than a dozen major defense mergers, involving roughly $60 billion. The most recent, and one of the largest of these transactions, Lockheed Martin's acquisition of Northrop Grumman, is still pending before the antitrust authorities at the Department of Justice. In all, approximately $100 billion in mergers and acquisitions have already occurred since 1990. It is appropriate to measure how effective we were during the initial phase of industry consolidation. I think we did well. Recall the consternation that greeted the beginning stages of the downsizing. Stories about plant closings were prime time media events, emphasizing the economic impact on communities, and widespread concern for the one million employees whose jobs were terminated. These men and women, possessed of skills and training that were once regarded as national assets, were suddently rendered redundant. Southern California, Long Island, and many formerly prosperous areas were in serious recession. But then a miracle of economic recycling occurred. Aggressive entrepreneurialism recycled defense resources, transferring those specialized skills to commercial applications. Thus liberated, this human capital, coupled with huge investment capital, exploded into new businesses, new technologies, new plant investments, and new markets. The genius of American ingenuity, unhindered by the Government bootstrapping of the European economic model, invented, developed, invested and produced at higher levels of efficiency than could ever have been imagined, and brought forth a new paradigm of wealth and job creation, and an expanding economy without inflation. What a success story--the result of a successful collaboration between government and industry, not unique in the American experience, but nonetheless, fantastic. My personal experience, and Loral's, is totally consistent with this history. By the end of 1995, Loral Corporation grew to a $7.5 billion high-tech electronics systems company. Almost all of our activities were involved with defense. We were consistently profitable and we were the leading supplier of many of the significant technologies used in defense electronics. In fact, Loral was a principle beneficiary of defense consolidation. But the merger in 1995 of Lockheed Martin rang a bell. We read the merger between a leading platform company and a leading electronic system supplier into a mega-sized player as the beginning of a new phase in the industry rationalization. This was a vertical integration that left companies, even as strong as Loral, vulnerable. We determined that remaining independent as a defense contractor was not a good strategy for the future. We initiated discussions with Lockheed Martin in a fairly unique transaction, selling the defense operations for about $9.5 billion, keeping the satellite and most of the space operations, and paying a $8 billion plus cash dividend to our shareholders. Twenty years prior, Loral's aggregate shareholder value totalled $7.5 million. In 1996, including the value of Loral Space and Communications and Globalstar, shareholder value totalled about $11 billion. Today's equivalent value is about $14 billion. The reason we chose Lockheed Martin as a merger partner was that our companies provided the best business and operating fit. The synergies offered the best opportunities for growth and the best prospects for a good integration of Loral's employees. I am proud to say that these considerations were extremely important. It became a win-win transaction, and offered bountiful returns to our shareholders, as well. What is more relevant to this evening's discussion is management's decision to transfer our energies to commercial space and telecommunications after a long and successful defense experience. Although defense will remain a good business, we nevertheless felt vulnerable to the vertical integration that was coming. The point here is that a merger of mega-resources into a vertically integrated defense supplier present a threat to second tier companies, even if they are large primes. Now, Loral had an option--recycle into an emerging commercial market. But, if others similarly opted out also, a mass exodus of independent producers from the subtier level of the industry would not serve the country's vital interests. In my judgement, the threat of vertical integration will have a chilling effect on our national capability. It is commonly accepted that much of the most innovative technology developments are advanced by the creative environments of the smaller, independent companies. If we allow the mega-forces created by industrial consolidation to vertically consume these second and third tier independents, we risk losing a critically important segment of industry. However, this development is not inevitable, and I was delighted last year when the defense department decided to create a task force to look at vertical integration. The task force was specifically created to analyze the potential effects of vertical integration on defense products and to identify whether the defense department should take any new initiatives. I know that the task force worked hard, held a number of searching meeting and produced a useful final report, but I think it should have reflected a greater urgency by offering some concrete steps to help maintain a healthy and competitive subtier base. At least two well- established procurement procedures that would serve well the needs of the department and those of the industry are available. One is to separate prime weapon platform procurements from procurements of major subsystems, support services and training. From the RFP offering through the granting of contracts, if government acquisitions were to be so divided, the DOD customer would have access to all available technology and performance on the basis of merit. This practice is more difficult to administer than awarding everything to one contractor, but I believe the offsetting benefits are more than worth the inconvenience and cost. A successful example of this procedure, and there are many, is the F-15 program in which the platform was competed and then secured from McDonnell Douglas, but a major avionics system, the radar warning receiver, was separately supplied by an electronics company, in this case Loral. The point being, the platform manufacturer could not automatically choose an internally provided system when, in fact, a better solution was available because the DOD acquisitions divided the platform procurement from its major components. A second initiative that would help to ensure the integrity of our industrial base would be to issue the prime contract for complex weapon system procurement to system integrators. This would separate the hardware and software manufacturing functions from the design, engineering, and integration activities. In one procurement which can be successfully cited, the British Ministry of Defense awarded the procurement of the total helicopter system to an integrator as prime. The helicopter platform supplier, as well as all other subsystem suppliers, are sub-contractors to the integrator prime. It is a large procurement and, thus far, is quite successful. Parallel other examples could also be cited. The effective implementation of these initiatives would require a vigorous commitment from the DOD, including its most senior officials. I believe that such a commitment is called for at this time. In summary, then, it would appear to me that a pro-active defense policy that seeks to maintain a healthy defense industry is essential to our national interest. Further, although the industry consolidation has progressed rapidly, the process will continue. In this respect, our concern about the cannibalistic character of vertical integration requires caution as it relates to the industry sub-tier. Finally, there are well-established DOD procurement practices, in place, to provide the appropriate protection, but it will require aggressive leadership implementation to secure the best results. I am confident we can accomplish this. After all, in the adjustment from war to peace, America has led the way in beating swords into plowshares. We have realized an enormous peace dividend in the form of R&D and production resources released to general economic development, and in this regard, we must credit government initiatives that led the way to downsizing while balancing the interests of national defense and industry viability. Before I conclude, I should add one controversial issue that is relevant to an effective defense policy. Any dicussion of the future of defense should include the critical role of trade in preventing military confrontation. As I mentioned earlier, Loral is now totally focused on commercial satellite manufacturing and satellite-based services. As such, we are deeply immersed in foreign markets, notably in China, which is a customer for our large geostationary satellites and a partner in our globalstar satellite telephone system. In my travels to China, and in my involvement in the policy debates on global trade, as well as Loral's widespread engagement in international joint ventures, I have become increasingly convinced that expanding commerce is the best way to promote peaceful relations between our two countries and to avoid the type of isolation that can lead to military miscalculation. In that regard, I believe it is critical that President Clinton be given fast track authority to continue his highly successful trade policy. Over the past five years, 13 million new jobs have been created in the United States, close to two million of them in new, export-related jobs that pay on average 15 percent higher wages. Unemployment is at a 24-year low and we are now the most competitive economy in the world. Exports are up by more than $300 billion, notably in high-technology, and we have regained world leadership in automobiles and semi-conductors. This is not the time to hamstring the President and threaten our unprecedented prosperity. Our startling economic progress is due to the combined impact of defense recycling, new technologies, improved productivity, dynamic capital markets, and a global economy. I hope that our friends in the Congress will keep their eyes on the ball and will approve the fast track legislation to keep us on the fast track to even greater prosperity. Thank you. I will be delighted to answer questions.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to rise in support of the continuing resolution and to congratulate both the Chair and the ranking member of the committee for the extraordinary work they do on this whole process. If everything went as they wanted, I think we would be moving through this whole process quite quickly. But I took this time and came to the floor after listening to some really flagrant misrepresentations about one aspect of the continuing resolution and of the appropriations process, and that is the question of the extension of section 245(I). I have heard it discussed as an amnesty provision and stay of deportation provision. Section 245(I) has nothing to do with that. Section 245(I) of the law, in the immigration law, is only available to people who are already eligible to become permanent residents. It is not an amnesty, it only applies to people who, under our legal immigration system, are now eligible at the particular time to adjust status. The only issue it deals with is where they can adjust status, whether they can adjust status in this country or whether they have to go back to their home country, take the airline, pay the airline, go into our consular office at our embassy or one of the Consulates in the foreign country, go in that morning, show their papers, pick up their visa, and in many cases on the very next flight. What we did back 3 or 4 years ago is say this is crazy. We are pushing a great deal of resources into our beleaguered embassies abroad for work that is not particularly relevant to anything in our national interests. We are giving money to the airlines. Let us raise the fees for that adjustment. Let the agency that is most equipped to deal with it, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, deal with it, in-country, for those people who are eligible. It simply permits these people who are eligible, who are in line, whose time has come, to adjust to legal status in this country as a permanent resident, to do that in the United States. It does not give illegal immigrants the right to live in the United States. It is not a defense to an action for deportation. It is not a stay of deportation. It is not an American necessity. It does not declare as legal people who have come here illegally. It does not change the order in which a person's claim is adjudicated. There is one single worldwide line for everyone who is waiting for their immigrant visa. There are category limits, there are country limits, and only when that person's number comes up and that person's time in line, he gets to the front of the line, can he then adjust his status. Mr. Speaker, we produce now $200 million a year in revenue, essentially by processing the people in-country rather than giving even greater amounts of that money to the airlines and costing our State Department far more to process them overseas. This frees up our consular officials to do the key work of screening applicants for visas in those countries, looking for terrorists, looking for people with criminal backgrounds, ensuring they do not come into this country. It has them doing the work we should be wanting them to do, not simply processing the paperwork for people whose turn has come through the legal immigration system. It is for that reason that an incredible array of organizations, almost every major business organization in the country, wants to do this. This is the most expeditious and sensible fashion for processing legal immigrants. So, I just hope as the appropriators go to a decision on the Commerce-State-Justice bill, as we deal with this continuing resolution, that all of the scare tactics about amnesty and stays of deportation are seen for what they are. They are an effort to cloud the real issue in the 245(I) debate. Section 245(I) produces $200 million a year by allowing people whose time has come to adjust status through the legal immigration system to adjust in the United States. Eighty percent of that money goes for enforcement of our borders and to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States, and it makes a tremendous amount of sense from every point of view and from every type of analysis. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Robert George, a constituent of mine who for 30 years put on a long white beard and a red suit to play Santa at Christmas time. Many people have played Santa at shopping malls, private parties and amusement parks. What makes Mr. George unusual is that he was Santa at several White House Christmas functions. Though a staunch Democrat, Mr. George was very much a bipartisan Santa. He began playing St. Nick at the White House during the Eisenhower years, and continued through the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations. He has one of the more unusual political scrapbooks I have seen; pictures of Santa and the Carters, Santa and Gerald Ford, Santa and the Nixons, Santa and John Kennedy and Santa and the Eisenhowers. In addition to the photos, Mr. George has a collection of thank you letters from inhabitants of the White House. I especially enjoyed the note from Barbara Bush, written when her husband was Vice President, which included this closing line: ``The stuffed animals will be great successes with our grandchildren, and we both appreciate your generosity.'' Mr. George has been Santa in more places than the White House. He has participated in Christmas parades in Hollywood, Tulsa, Toledo and Phoenix, and has appeared on numerous television programs through the years. When he's not Santa, Mr. George is still infused with the spirit of giving. He has spent more than a decade aiding the LA Mission, and has been quite active with Easter Seals, the Starlight Foundation, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation. If you call Mr. George at home, he answers with the number of days until Christmas. He is obviously a man who loves his work. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Robert George, whose dedication to making this a better world inspires us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to my colleagues, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Dixon, and me that Carmen Warschaw has been named the Heart of Gold Honoree by the Medallion Group of Cedars Sinai Medical Center and will be given this prestigious award on October 25, 1997. Few people in America have contributed so much intellect, time, energy, and passion to improving our world, our country, and our greater Los Angeles community than has Carmen Warschaw. Each of us has known Carmen, and her husband Louis, personally and professionally for more than 30 years. She has had an immense impact on our lives and our careers. None of us would likely have reached our positions were it not for Carmen Warschaw. She is a close personal friend, trusted adviser, candid--sometimes acerbic, but always humorous--critic, and a model of what community service and good citizenship ought to be. Our admiration for her is indescribable. It would be impossible--and if possible, give the appearance of carrying coals to Newcastle--to try to list a fraction of Carmen's honors, areas of interest, awards, positions of responsibility, and titles. It would sound as if we were praising a dozen public spirited people--not just Carmen Warschaw. Nor could we discuss the myriad stories and legends--both factual and perhaps embellished by time--that surround this fascinating, witty, charming Whirling Dervish of national and local Democratic politics, civil rights, women's rights, health care, art, culture, and Jewish community involvement. One story will suffice. Several years ago, then, as now, a major leader in the Democratic Party, Carmen was double-crossed in a backroom deal. When Carmen confronted her nemesis, she was told that next time she should get it in writing. Ever since, Carmen has handed out pens with the inscription, Get it in writing, Love, Carmen, and ever since, successive generations of California Democratic leaders have repeated the admonition--and the story. While making an enormous mark on the larger society, Carmen is a wonderful wife, mother, and grandmother. We have had the pleasure of being close to the entire Warschaw family, her husband Lou, daughters Susan and Hope, sons-in-law Carl Robertson and John Law and grandchildren Cara, Chip, and Jack. Our comments today are occasioned by yet another Warschaw milestone. Carmen and Louis have--with their characteristic generosity--endowed the Carmen and Louis Warschaw Chair in Neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. We ask our colleagues to join us in honoring Carmen Warschaw, an extraordinary woman whose zest for living and profound sense of compassion are examples for us all. She has--and is continuing to-- truly enriched our lives.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to the Colour Me Freedom Foundation, started by my friend, the Reverend W. James Bellamy. From September 22 to October 4 a foundation exhibit entitled ``Amandla Awethu; African-Americans and African Solidarity--Political Change in Africa'' will be on display at the Cannon Rotunda. I am proud to be the sponsor of this exceptional exhibit. The Colour Me Freedom Foundation is dedicated to strengthening the ties between Africa and African-Americans. The foundation grew out of the Reverend Bellamy's travels to Africa. While in Senegal in 1980 he met his wife, Fama, and developed a new appreciation and understanding of African politics and culture. He returned to the United States determined to share his discovery with others. Reverend Bellamy earned a bachelor's degree in pan-African studies. At the same time he satisfied his growing interest in theology and spirituality by entering the ministry. Three years ago he founded the All People's AME Church, which is developing a sister relationship with Africa and African culture. The Colour Me Freedom Foundation exhibition documents the history of the South Africa from 1960 to 1994. It features 50 photos and documents showing South Africa's transition from apartheid to a multiracial democracy. The exhibit details the horror and absurdity of apartheid alongside the story of its demise. At the same time the visitor can relive the triumphant rise to power of Nelson Mandela. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting the Colour Me Freedom Foundation, which is educating all of us about the struggle for Africa and the African diaspora. Under the guidance of Reverend Bellamy the foundation is providing an invaluable service. I applaud his efforts and the work of the foundation.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would just say, while I very much appreciate the comments and intention behind them, I am not a great believer in the ``great man'' theory of history. The last committee had the most difficult issue I could ever contemplate to deal with. I do not know that it pays to spend a lot of time looking at it. All I want to say is that the gentleman is either terribly hurting the process with his amendment or he is doing very little in this automatic dismissal without prejudice. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to deal with the issue raised by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. Let us go through an orderly examination of the House rules and the committee rules, and then what I tell the gentleman is that his suggestion, the notion of the chair and ranking member coming forward to dismiss without prejudice, we can put that into our committee rules at our first meeting, if there is a first meeting of a full committee of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and incorporate the gentleman's suggestion into those committee rules, because, to me, the gentleman's suggestion makes sense. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] says, and I think he probably is right, but I want to look at it closely, that the current rules allow that result.

Mr. BERMAN. The one thing I know is that if we say in the rules at the beginning that this is what will happen after 180 days, we are raising the likelihood of the deadlock massively. And what I have told several people, and I repeat here on the floor, is that if I am in a committee meeting and we are in deadlock and people are acting in good faith, and it is a close question, because if it is a frivolous issue, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the committee, and I have dismissed it before it ever got to that full committee level, because under this task force report we have the ability to do that; but if it is a close question and we are deadlocked and we cannot work it out, long before those 180 days, this particular Member, if he is on the side of going forward with an investigation, changes his vote, because he does not want to see Members hanging out to dry week after week, month after month, understanding what this means to them, their political and personal futures, and their families. All I am saying is, 180 days or any time certain works against solving those kinds of problems. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], the ranking member or cochair of the task force, who has done a tremendous job on this whole issue.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes my point. The judge does not start off the jury deliberations by saying, guys, I want a verdict in x time, and if it is not, it is automatically dismissed, because if he would, he would guarantee that the initial positions, or particularly the positions on the side of acquittal, would never change, because they know that if they hold out until that time certain, that is the result that would happen. That is why the gentleman makes my point.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope to yield time both to the chairman and the ranking member of the task force on this issue, and then to close myself in perhaps some more detail. I just want to start off this discussion by saying that I view this amendment fundamentally differently than the other amendments that are coming before us, in that to me, I understand fully the intentions of the authors of this amendment, but in reality, when we come right down to it, if one is totally cynical and defeatist about the ability of this House to have peer review, if your commitment to the ideological and partisan battles that this House is engaged in and that this Nation is engaged in is so important that they obliterate any notions of guilt or innocence, and should it permeate and invade the entire ethics process, then you vote for this amendment. But if we still have some hope that people of goodwill can isolate themselves from the partisan pressures and the ideological battles, and can make judgments even about their peers based on the facts in front of them and the established rules of conduct, we never want to say that by a certain period of time, either guilt or innocence automatically comes by operation of law. This is an amendment that I think kills the ethics process in terms of what we want, because it promotes and incentivizes partisanship and deadlock throughout the whole process. So I really hope my colleagues will look at this amendment a little bit differently than we have looked at some of the other amendments that are coming before us. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the task force and a man who I think has established during his tenure here his concern for the institution and for the process. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman completely. That is why I pledge to the gentleman and to this House that, No. 1, if we are 180 days into this process and we are deadlocked, we have already failed.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. But I deeply appreciate the gentleman's comments. My point is when you create institutionally a reason for a deadlock, it does not matter what the motivations of the leadership or the Members are. We are human beings. We have a very difficult process. We are judging our peers, our friends, our colleagues, about matters that may be very serious, or may not seem so serious to us. None of us have the ability to overcome the institutional problems that this time certain creates. I do not know that I want to be part of a process which incentivizes the breakdown of it. The only reason I said yes to the request from my own leadership to take this position was because the challenge of seeing if this process could work on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis. This one amendment really eviscerates our ability to do that. That is why I feel so very strongly about this particular unit.

Mr. BERMAN. No, I was wondering whether I should disclose the fact that I gave you those inauguration tickets for President Reagan's second inauguration as the initiator for those kind remarks?

Mr. BERMAN. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ethics task force report that my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], have chaired, a panel on which I have served, an effort that took a great deal of time, that raised my esteem for both of these gentleman tremendously by the sincerity with which they approach the issue, by the difficulty and complexity of the questions that were raised. What they have come up with is a proposal that in every aspect of the process makes the process better. It does more to promote the due- process rights of people who are accused in this process; it does more to promote the confidentiality of the process; it does more to promote the discretionary ability of the chair and the ranking member and their flexibility to deal with the issues that come before this committee in a fair and sensible fashion; it does more to be honest with the American people. Getting rid of this three-refusal rule, that is a disingenuous measure by which people who want to see a complaint come before the committee are forced to write a letter refusing to file the complaint in order to allow outsiders to do it. That is scrapped, and a limited-outside-complaint provision is substituted for that decision. It does more to enhance the bifurcation of the process, so that the people who are investigating a complaint where a complaint should be investigated are different and separate from the people who will be deciding whether or not in fact there were violations of ethical standards of conduct and what the sanctions for those violations should be. In every aspect of the process, this task force made sensible, relatively modest, but important changes to enhance, I think, both what will ultimately be, I hope, the public regard for the process, the credibility of the process, and the protection of the Members who are brought into this process. There are three amendments that this rule allows that are being proposed that were rejected by the task force. I would urge my colleagues to oppose those three amendments, because in each case they weaken what the task force was trying to do. In one particular case, that is the effort that mandates a dismissal after 180 days of any complaint on which there is a tie vote, it works directly against everything that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chair of this committee, and I are trying to do. We want to restore nonpartisanship to this committee. We want to have judgments based on facts. We want to operate in collegial fashion, that allows sensible and correct decisions to be made. The 180-day automatic dismissal process, I think not because of the intent of the authors, their intent is a noble intent, but the mechanism they have chosen to achieve their intent is wrong, because it incentivizes partisanship. It tells people of the party, of the person who is accused to hang in there, stall, delay, because after a certain number of days a complaint will automatically be dismissed. Trust me. What the intent of the people who are offering this amendment is is to not let a Member hang on with great damage to his reputation, with great cost, with great personal suffering, while a committee sits around and dawdles and refuses to come to a decision. I deeply understand the desire to not have that happen. I feel that very strongly. It is my notion we should proceed expeditiously and be very sensitive to Members' protections and how much they can be damaged and unfairly damaged by this process. But the moment you try to institutionalize a result that has an automatic dismissal, you are incentivizing everything you do not want to happen. Let me just give you a hypothetical, if I may. You have a close question that is before the committee. A difficult complaint has been filed, the answer has been received, the chair and ranking member have investigated, and it is coming before the full committee now to decide whether to create the investigative subcommittee. There is debate, there is discussion, there is a motion, and it happens to break down to a tie vote. The clock starts ticking under this amendment. If 180 days pass, it is automatically dismissed. I am telling you, if the Members are operating in good faith, if they are not taking direction from their leadership on both sides, but seriously trying to deal with this issue, if the question is close and I am on the side of those who want to create an investigative subcommittee and proceed with this complaint, but I see that this deadlock is sincere, it has not promoted bipartisanship on either side, I personally would switch my vote for dismissal, rather than leave a Member hanging, forget 180 days, but for 60 or 90 days, if that is what it takes to get a clean result so that a Member does not have to live through the entire term of this Congress or future Congresses with this hanging over him because the deadlock cannot be broken. But leave it to the good faith of the members of the committee, and I believe it will be there. I know who is being talked about for this committee. I believe that this committee will approach this with that kind of an attitude. Leave it for the informal processes of the committee to protect that right, because, I guarantee you, the moment we institutionalize a time certain for a dismissal, we promote the likelihood of deadlocks, partisan bickering, and we lose the confidence of the Members and the public in this process. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge opposition to that amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Mark and Diane Kroeker, who this year are being saluted by Bridge Focus, a social service agency in the San Fernando Valley. The Kroekers are receiving an award for being exemplary parents and for a long tradition of helping their community. I cannot think of two people who better fit this description than Mark and Diane. I have had a warm personal and professional relationship with Mark for many years, particularly during the time he served as commander of the San Fernando Valley Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department. Like many others, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Mark's work. The LAPD could have not picked a more ideal representative in the valley. Mark was constantly looking for ways to improve relations between the Department and community. He spent hundreds of hours meeting with local leaders. It was a sad day for all of us when Mark was transferred to another bureau. Mark's reputation for compassion and concern extends beyond the workplace. He is widely known as the founder and chairman of the board of the World Children's Transplant Fund. He rarely misses an opportunity to tell people of the organization and its wonderful work. Mark and Diane are active supporters of the World Children's Transplant Fund, which in 1994 presented Mark with its Man of the Year Award. There are children around the world who literally owe their lives to Mark and Diane Kroeker. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Mark and Diane Kroeker, proud and loving parents of Kent, Kirk, and Katrina. Mark and Diane's dedication to their community and their love for the children of the world inspires us all.