Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, on October 1, 1997, the deadline for the child support enforcement system automation program comes upon us. The consequence of the States' failures to meet the automation and centralization of the computer systems obligation for enforcement of child support which were imposed by the 1988 Family Support Act will mean the automatic cutoff of all TANF, formerly AFDC funds, and child support funds. At least 11 States in this country, including California, clearly cannot meet that October 1 deadline. It is quite possible that seven, eight, or nine other States will also not meet that deadline. The consequence of the failure to meet the deadline is that the cutoff of the TANF funds and the child support funds will mean a loss of $4 billion to the State of California. States like the State of the great chairman of the subcommittee, Illinois, will lose close to $700 million in funds. Ohio, South Dakota, New Mexico, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, all of these States are not going to meet that deadline. I had originally intended to offer an amendment to delay the imposition of those deadlines and to provide for a moratorium for 6 months so that we could both look at the situation and have time to change the law. I have been persuaded by the fact that my amendment would not be in order, that was helpful in persuading me, but in addition to that, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the key subcommittee of the authorizing committee, has a strategy which I would like to yield to the gentleman to describe, which will deal with the possibility of my State and many other States in this country losing an incredible amount of money, totally destroying the whole structure of the Welfare Reform Act the gentleman worked hard on, meaning the inability to enforce interstate child support collection functions and a number of other key functions.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just to sort of pin down the issue perhaps a little bit more precisely, California becomes vulnerable on October 1. So do these other at least 11 States. The process, as I understand it, is that by December or January, HHS will assess and decertify the States, and there is an appeals process. So, as the gentleman pointed out, it is very unlikely any money will be withheld for the next 6 months. But the fear in California, Senator Feinstein has worked on this issue, spoken with the President, and is pursuing whatever mechanisms she can to try and deal with it, the fear is that ultimately something will happen, the legislation will not move, and California will now be found to have been in default, owing $4 billion. Next year's payment will be held back because of this, and the fact is the underlying law California will not be able to comply with in 6 months or 1 year anyway. So there are two issues, the need for California and the other States to know that the penalty structure will be fundamentally changed, it is nuts to withhold TANF or AFDC funds, $3.7 billion in the State of California because of the failure to meet the computer model, and there will be a new penalty structure dealing with child support enforcement proportional to the sins in the sense it will be structured. And then the underlying question also, which is how do we achieve the centralization and coordination we need without, as the gentleman indicated by implication, encouraging old technologies rather than new technologies and requiring the scrapping of very expensive computer systems. These are both difficult questions.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, people will want to go to the conference committee here and try to get this extension of the moratorium. I know the gentleman's feelings about it. Anything the gentleman can say to reassure people on this point would be very important.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of the concurrent resolution now before this House expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist bombing in Jerusalem on September 4, 1997. The choice in the Middle East is clear: PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat must do everything possible in his power to aid Israel in fighting the scourge of terrorism or the peace process begun so hopefully in Oslo will die at the hands of Hamas suicide bombers. That the peace process has been in trouble in recent months, there can be no doubt. That fault can be found with both parties in implementing their commitments under Oslo, there can be no doubt as well. But now is not the time to engage in verbal score keeping. Now is the time for a clear commitment by Chairman Arafat to keep his solemn pledge to combat terrorism. The blood spilled on Ben Yehuda Street demonstrates all too vividly that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have not implemented the promise made in the context of the Oslo peace process to: First, prevent incitement and hostile propaganda; second, combat terrorist organizations and their infrastructure systematically and effectively; third, apprehend and punish terrorists, and fourth, confiscate illegal firearms. Chairman Arafat's solemn promise to do everything possible to fight terrorism is at the heart of the peace process. It was his sacred oath to the Israeli people. He must keep that promise for the Israeli people to keep their faith in Oslo. I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution. Its message is clear: There can be no progress toward peace nor American support for the Palestinian Authority unless Chairman Arafat fulfills his obligation to fight terrorism. The hopes of both Israelis and the Palestinian people depend on Chairman Arafat fulfilling his promise of peace.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my friend and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs in opposing the Burton amendment which seeks to cut assistance to India. We have got the 50th anniversary of Indian democracy which we have been celebrating this past month. This is not the time to strain our relationship with the country of India; it is the time to deepen that relationship. India's policy of market reform has contributed significantly to our improving political and economic relations. Should India's growth rate of 7 percent continue over the next few years, India would be the world's fourth largest economy in 25 years. As the base of growth broadens to embrace more and more economic and social sectors in Indian society, relations with the United States should intensify. Now the United States is India's largest trading partner. We have a small but effective foreign aid program, projected in fiscal year 1998 at about $56 million, which focuses on economic growth, population and health, environment and humanitarian assistance. Now is not the time to cut that limited aid. Thirty percent of India's population remains below the poverty level, but this is a major improvement over 1974 when it was 55 percent. If we are going to reach the point at which India does not need foreign assistance, we should be doing all we can now to assist in India's reforms. The new Prime Minister of India promises to continue the economic reforms of his predecessors. He has moved to try and deal with the leadership of Pakistan to try to solve and work on their bilateral issues. In the state of Punjab, racked by violence years ago, we have now seen the takeover of democracy where it is thriving in that particular state. They have conducted elections. The elections were won by the opposition, a Sikh party; the Akali Dal now governs in the Punjab. We have had elections in Kashmir. The violence in Kashmir is down. The Indian Government is worth working with. The Indian country is important to us, and I would urge our colleagues not to take a backward step at this time and support an amendment which would seek to cut that aid.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment reinstating restrictions on American assistance to international family planning. The Smith amendment, if adopted, would have three effects: First, it would deny U.S. funds to overseas family planning agencies that perform legal abortions with their own funds; second, it would deny funding to the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] which is active in more than 140 countries should it spend any funds in China, and third, it would kill all chances for this legislation to be signed into law. We all deplore policies of forced abortion or coercive population control. There is no doubt that where these policies exist, such as in China, we should make every effort to reverse them. Mr. Smith and his cosponsor should support the Gilman-Pelosi amendment which has been carefully crafted to achieve a middle ground in this long-running congressional debate. This amendment prohibits the use of U.S. funds to lobby for or against abortion. It prohibits the use of American aid to perform abortions in any foreign country unless the life of the mother is endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in cases of rape or incest. It prohibits American aid from being distributed to UNFPA if it operates population planning programs in China. Many would argue that the Gilman-Pelosi alternative concedes too much ground in its effort to find a compromise. With a world population approaching 6 billion people of which 1.2 billion reside in China, many would argue that the best way to convince Chinese authorities to change their policies of coercive abortion and forced family planning is to support legitimate family planning programs by international agencies and nongovernment organizations in China. However, Mr. Gilman and Ms. Pelosi offer their compromise in a sincere, bi-partisan effort to reach the political middle ground in order to move forward with this important legislation. I support the Gilman-Pelosi alternative and urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Mr. Sherman and I are honored to pay tribute to my good friends Judith and Arthur Hirshberg, who are receiving the 1997 Annual Achievement Award from Action Democrats of the San Fernando Valley. We cannot think of any two people more deserving of an award that recognizes party loyalty and community involvement. Judith has spent much of her life involved in politics and civic causes. She began her career in Massachusetts, where she was president of the Swampscott Chapter of the League of Women Voters. After moving to California Judith became a member of the Wednesday Committee, a Los Angeles County organization of women's PAC's. She is also vice president of Penny Lane, a residential treatment facility for emotionally disturbed and abused adolescents, and vice president of Project Focus, a drug and alcohol abuse education center. Judith is probably best know for having spent the past 9 years as a deputy for Los Angeles city councilman Marvin Braude, who retired in 1997. Before that she worked for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley. Through the years Judith used her political positions to help many people and organizations. Arthur displays a similar devotion to his community. He was a board member of YEOP, the youth program administered by the EDD. In the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots, he served on President Bush's Commission on Los Angeles riot relief. Arthur is also a board member of the Valley Jewish Business Leaders Association, a support group for the Jewish Home for the Aging. We ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Arthur and Judith Hirshberg, whose dedication to politics and their community is a shining example to us all. These are two people who have truly made a difference.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1109 which Mr. McCollum of Florida and I introduced on March 18th, 1997. This bill is a technical correction of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-208). Let me explain the history behind this legislation. Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes the criteria for citizenship of children born to U.S. citizens living abroad. Prior to 1986, for a U.S. citizen parent to transmit U.S. citizenship to his or her foreign-born or adopted child (before eighteen years of age), the American parent or grandparent had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of which had to be after age fourteen. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) amended these requirements to five years of U.S. residency, two after the age of fourteen. Because the change in IRCA applied prospectively, some families had siblings subjected to different standards. Hence, section 102 of the Immigration and National Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-416) was introduced to amend Section 322 of the INA and apply these lower standards retroactively. IIRIRA amended Section 322 by placing a special restriction on children born before November 14, 1986. For those children to be eligible for U.S. citizenship, the American parent or grandparent was once again required to have been physically present in the U.S. for a total of ten years, at least five of which were after the age fourteen. IIRIRA has inadvertently created the same problem that the 1994 amendment to the INA was designed to cure, as siblings may once again find themselves subjected to different standards. The enactment of H.R. 1109 will simply repeal this error and restore Section 322 to its pre- IIRIRA status. The bill will also eliminate the extensive administrative confusion created by last year's immigration bill. There is no opposition to this legislation. I hope we can give favorable consideration to this technical correction of IIRIRA and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Sherman, and I rise today to honor the memory of our dear friend, Marjorie Morris, who passed away earlier this month. Marjorie was a warm, compassionate and caring woman who spent most of her life helping children and families. She was a wonderful mother to her three children, Blond, Clifford, and Paul, and the loving wife of our close friend, Hugo. Marjorie and Hugo were married for 48 years. Born in Kansas, Marjorie moved with her family to California when she was a young girl. She met her future husband at UCLA, where both were elected officers of the campus United Nations Association. They were married on September 1, 1949. Marjorie touched the lives of literally thousands of children. She was a kindergarten teacher in San Fernando, and then a teacher at the Lokrantz School for children with special needs. From 1981 to 1983, she was president of the 4,000-member Southern California Association for the Education of Young Children. From 1965 to her death Marjorie was a member of the board of directors of the Foundation for Early Childhood Education, an agency that operates 31 Head Start and other sites for 1,500 children. Marjorie also loved music; she sang in Roger Wagner's choral group at UCLA and conducted a weekly children's folk music program on Radio Station KPFK. Marjorie's family had the good fortune to hear her sing at holiday gatherings. She was blessed with a truly beautiful voice. We ask our colleagues to join us in honoring the memory of Marjorie Morris, a woman who brought joy and love into the lives of many. She will be missed.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of disapproval. For me it is a very difficult decision and a very close call. I regret having to oppose the administration on this issue. As a general proposition, I favor engagement over containment. While we have many contentious issues with the Chinese in the area of treatment of political dissidents and religious minorities and the curtailment of democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong and the treatment of Tibet and our growing trade deficit and the creation of artificial trade barriers, none of these cause me to reach the conclusion that I should oppose the continuation of MFN. My decision instead is really based on the Chinese failure to abide by their international commitments in the area of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a proliferation which threatens world peace and stability. I am voting against MFN because China has not lived up to its commitments not to promote the export of these weapons. I am voting against MFN because preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the most serious immediate challenge for the future for all of us. China has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention. They have announced stronger nuclear export controls and adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime. But commitments without compliance mean nothing. They have made many excuses for their failure to keep these international commitments. ``How can we monitor every businessman exporting millions of dollars of chemical weapon production materials to Iran?'' But they can find every dissident working secretly on a subversive pamphlet and imprison that person. ``We adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. We just don't recognize the Annexes'' which give that commitment any meaning whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, what I want is for this administration to scream as loudly about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as it has about the manufacturing of counterfeit CD's and stolen computer software and video games. I want this administration to threaten the import controls and higher tariffs on key products imported here from China as forcefully and effectively as it has waved and wielded that weapon to remedy violations of intellectual property agreements. What I want this administration to do is to hound and to badger our key allies like Japan and Germany and France and Britain to pursue meaningful multilateral export controls that tell China that their movement to a fully modern society depends on stopping the weapons of mass destruction and their export.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 342. This is an important and necessary piece of legislation introduced with bipartisan support at the behest of the administration to help preserve the special status now enjoyed by the representatives of Hong Kong in the United States after the reversion of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China on July 1. When the Congress passed the Hong Kong Policy Act in 1992, it was recognized that the reversion of Hong Kong to China under the concept of one country, two systems would require a special effort by the United States to assist in preserving Hong Kong's unique liberties and trading relations with the rest of the world. Most recently, the Congress passed the Hong Kong Reversion Act--H.R. 750--at the instigation of the chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, which I cosponsored. H.R. 750 contained a provision identical to that passed by the Senate in S.R. 342. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet acted on the other important provisions contained in H.R. 750 which extended the Congress and the administration's responsibilities to act as a ``watch dog'' over Hong Kong's liberties. There can be no doubt that this will be an increasing subject of debate after Hong Kong's reversion. I was disappointed by actions already taken by the Hong Kong provisional legislature selected by Chinese authorities to restrict basic freedoms after July 1. The decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China to repeal sections of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance because they allegedly are in contravention of the Basic Law was deeply disturbing. The National People's Congress not only repealed a key section of the Bill of Rights Ordinance but also critical ordinances referred to in the Consultation Document: the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance. Curtailing the rights of assembly, giving the police new powers to ban public demonstrations, and restricting the right of access of Hong Kong political organizations to ideas and resources from abroad places in a legal straitjacket the basic right of assembly and association which were enshrined in article 27 of the Basic Law. Actions to restrict the rights of assembly and protest are major steps toward denying Hong Kong's citizens basic human rights. The decision to place severe restraints on these freedoms because of exaggerated incidents of public abuse and by claims that Hong Kong ``is extremely vulnerable to external forces'' were not justified in my opinion by any internal event or foreign threat. Giving the power to appointed officials to ban any organization `'in the interest of national security'' is an open invitation to capricious decisions. Moreover, any limits on jurisdiction of the Court of Final Appeals in these matters could deny Hong Kong citizens the right of judicial review. I fear that the message being sent to the people of Hong Kong and to the international community is that the rule of law in Hong Kong will be bent and molded to suit the needs of Hong Kong's new sovereigns regardless of the international commitments to maintain human rights contained in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. What threatens Hong Kong's national security and stability are not threats from democracy and respect for individual freedom but threats from those who wish to constrain the free flow of ideas. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 342. This is an important first step in efforts to preserve Hong Kong's unique economic, cultural, and political status.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. The cuts in what the administration has requested in terms of State Department funding?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. This is probably a fairly easy amendment for the Members of this body to vote for. The political repercussions of a ``yes'' vote in the short-term future would not be great, and one could certainly find it very attractive to talk about cutting spending and trimming back government. But I would suggest that in terms of the long-term U.S. national interest, this could be one of the most devastating votes that we could make. We are at the point, in terms of our funding of our diplomatic agencies, that we are getting to the point where the inadequacy of the funding, the level of demoralization of the staff, the lack of ability to deal with the rising cost stemming from terrorism and proliferation and all of the other still existing threats to our national security are going to render our diplomatic agencies unable to meet the challenges that they face. Just a couple of facts in terms of background. We spend less in our international relations spending now than we spent in fiscal year 1985 in unadjusted dollars. In terms of just straight dollar amounts, we are spending less now than we spent in 1985. The budget for the State Department and other diplomatic agencies has already been cut in the past 2 years by 14 percent. This amendment violates the budget agreement, overrides the vast majority of the Committee on International Relations in terms of the appropriate level, removes the flexibility of the appropriators who are dealing with a very difficult situation where three important agencies, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department and the State Department, are all within their budget, and puts an artificial lid on one aspect of that, which makes their ability to make sensible priority decisions much weaker. It cuts the Embassy security. It limits our ability to build up Radio Free Asia. It cuts refugee protection. It very much impacts in our effort to develop a broader program for the Mexican-United States border which would allow us to ensure that the very necessary commercial relations, if it exists, are documented, that people have the appropriate credentials and at the same time are not able to come across the border illegally. There is no point to going any further with these cuts.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BERMAN. Could I show the gentleman the cuts?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 1985, using that as the base, we spent more money on the international relations budget in that year than is being proposed by the President to spend this coming fiscal year. This House has already cut the administration's budget in this area by several hundred million dollars. This amendment would cut it by an additional $200 to $300 million. I think that is a terrible mistake. I urge that the amendment be defeated.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we sit here and we decide, we want to build the following Embassies. We want to institute the following new program on the Mexican border. We want the diplomatic security bureau of the Department of State to undertake the following new security measures. We want more commercial attaches in the following Embassy. Then we put on top of that a resolution which freezes the budget. The result of that is a massive cut in other functions that was never anticipated, a reduction in the ability to process passports and all the other basic services that the State Department undertakes. You cannot engage in a whole series of new initiatives and then freeze the budget without expecting massive cuts in other areas.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to our dear friends, Roz and Barney Cooperman, who this year are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. On June 29, Roz and Barney will celebrate this special occasion in the company of children--they have five--and grandchildren--they have six. Roz and Barney are wonderful parents who have always placed family above all else. Roz and Barney met in 1946 while attending the University of California at Berkeley. The next year they got married in Brooklyn; the year after that the couple moved to Los Angeles, where they have lived ever since. Barney went into law practice in 1949, while Roz became a history instructor at Los Angeles City College. In 1952 she left teaching to raise a family. Almost as long as they have been married Roz and Barney have been involved in community and political affairs. Barney has served on the boards of a public radio station, a teacher-training nursery school and Temple Israel of Hollywood. He also started a leading Democratic club, organized local Democratic nominating conventions and served on the state Democratic Central Committee. In 1980 Barney was appointed to the bench as a superior court judge, in which position he served with great distinction until 1995. As a mother and teacher, Roz has been quite active in the area of education. She has served on the Los Angeles Unified School District's Gender Equity Commission, the LAUSD's Parents' Collaborative and on the Intergroup Relations/Multicultural Education Committee. She has otherwise worked with pro-choice groups and on issues such as welfare reform and affirmative action. She is truly a model of civic involvement. We ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Roz and Barney Cooperman, whose devotion to each other and their community is a model for us all. May they have many more years of happiness together.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment authorizes U.S. citizen employees to adjudicate nationality abroad and to adjudicate immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. The amendment requires that these U.S. citizen employees: First, successfully complete a program of training essentially equivalent to the training that a consular officer who is a member of the Foreign Service would receive; and second, be certified by an appropriate State Department official to be qualified to perform consular functions. I am concerned that the amendment may be interpreted to allow students, interns, part-time employees, or short-term contract employees to handle the important function of adjudicating nationality and immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Because of the steady increase in visa and document fraud, the security of these functions requires that they be performed by a specialized corps of professional, full-time, experienced U.S. citizen employees. Due to security and fraud issues, the amendment should not be interpreted to mean that students, interns, part-time employees, or short-term employees--with the exception of retired Foreign Service Officers returning to perform consular services or the spouses of Foreign Service Officers being hired to perform consular services--may adjudicate nationality, immigrant, and nonimmigrant visa, and other consular functions. It is my understanding that Mr. Smith of Texas agrees with this statement.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my good friend Cathy Maguire, who has just completed a 1-year term as president of the San Fernando Chamber of Commerce. Under Cathy's dynamic leadership, the chamber strengthened the ties between businesses and residents in the city of San Fernando. She will be a tough act to follow. Anyone who knows Cathy--and there are a lot of us--is not surprised by her successful tenure as chamber president. She is a very hard worker, as well as a regular presence at business and community events throughout the San Fernando Valley. I am amazed at her energy and impressed by her dedication. The San Fernando Chamber is only one of many organizations to have been the beneficiaries of Cathy's leadership skills over the years. For example, she is also on the board of directors of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association; a member of the Community Advisory Board of El Nido Family Services, San Fernando Valley; president of Soroptimist International, San Fernando Valley; and a member of the board of directors of New Directions for Youth. In addition to her outside activities, Cathy is district manager for the Southern California Gas Co., where she plays a key role in strategic planning and implementation, financial management and marketing and advocacy. Indeed, the gas company is fortunate to be represented by a person as devoted and personable as Cathy. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Cathy Maguire, whose selflessness and spirit are an inspiration to us all. I am proud to be her friend.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. And we are operating under a unanimous-consent request with respect to the Smith amendment, a substitute amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], and time limits for debate on both of those measures; is that correct?

Mr. BERMAN. But at this point, though, Mr. Chairman, the only amendment in front of us is the Smith amendment?

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.