Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support continuation of most-favored-nation treatment for the People's Republic of China. We cannot afford to ignore China's emergence as a global power, even though clearly it has not yet learned how to act like one. I am appalled by the human rights conditions in China, Chinese willingness to export weapons of mass destruction and their flouting of international trade agreements. But somewhere, someone in this debate has to explain for me the link between achieving those goals and the revocation of MFN. That is not a policy; engagement is not a policy. Containment is not the alternative. We need a strategy that targets specific objectives, sets priorities, imposes sanctions when those objections are not complied with and those agreements are not met and promotes human rights. I urge continuation of MFN for China not because I believe in what China is now doing, not what they are doing is right or because China is changing in the right way but because I believe we cannot end MFN and then expect to change China. I urge a no vote on this resolution.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Finally, I note that the definition of ``investment'' set forth in section 14(9) states, ``The term `investment' does not include the entry into, performance, or financing of a contract to sell or purchase goods, services, or technology.'' What is the purpose of this exception?

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman. Second, it is suggested that the President may have flexibility under sections 5 and 6 to impose sanctions on a person that, because of the nature of that person's business, are meaningless to that person as a practical matter. Would such action by the President be consistent with the intent of sections 5 and 6?

Mr. BERMAN. First, I note in section 6 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute there are six possible sanctions that could be imposed pursuant to section 5. Is it the case that the President must, under section 5(a) for example, select two of the sanctions listed in section 6 to apply to a sanctioned person, but after selecting them the President may decide not to actually apply them to the sanctioned person?

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I seek to have a colloquy with the chairman. I have several technical questions about provisions in the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3107.

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus my comments in addressing the remarks just made by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin. First of all, given his comments, I am quite pleased that he was willing to support this bill when it moved through the Committee on International Relations, and I appreciate that support. Second, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not affect exports to Iran. The bill affects and imposes sanctions on companies which invest in Iran, which meet the threshold of investment in Iran, and just in Iran's energy sector. It is a targeted bill focused on trying to squeeze the source of financing for a totally accepted, universally acknowledged practice that the Iranians have of exporting terrorism and financing terrorism throughout the Middle East and in other areas, as well to meet their own purposes. It seeks to squeeze the financing by blocking the investments in Iran's energy sector so they are hampered in what everybody acknowledges is their concerted effort to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iran is seeking a nuclear reactor. They claim they are for peaceful purposes. This is the most oil-rich country in the world. The notion that they need a peaceful nuclear energy program for energy sources is absurd on its face. No one but the most innocent and unsophisticated observer can assume there is any other purpose in their particular program. I want to comment on the European reaction, particularly the German and Japanese reaction. They say our way is better, our way is constructive dialog. They have been engaged in this constructive dialog for years and years and years, with nothing to show for it. The Iranian and Libyan effort to develop weapons of mass destruction continues. The support for terrorism continues. I suggest that these arguments about finding moderate, geopolitical considerations, are all smokescreens for commercial interests which are governing that particular policy. What happened to a western alliance of free would countries that was committed in the course of the cold war to dealing with totalitarian actions, imperialism, aggressive conduct, and seeking to reduce and avoid the threat of nuclear war? Has it been so blown apart that countries that share our values and claim to share our values turn their back, pursue policies that are just smokescreens for commercial interests, and watch this happen? This bill that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] are sponsoring, and I am a cosponsor of, and has been supported in our committee, is one crucial step to make our sanctions meaningful. They are a message to countries that we are allied with normally, that they have to think twice about what has come from constructive dialog.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Marianne Barrios, the energetic photojournalist-general manager of the San Fernando Sun. This year Marianne is being given special recognition by the Mission Hills Chamber of Commerce for many years of service to the chamber and the northeast San Fernando Valley. Those of us lucky enough to know Marianne know that this honor is richly deserved. Marianna is best known for her work with the San Fernando Sun. Readers of the paper know that she does an exceptional job keeping people informed. She makes a point of coming to grand openings, rallies, chamber events--I have enjoyed seeing Marianne at many of these over the years--and covering the various communities in San Fernando and the northeast valley. All of us who care about the area owe a huge debt of gratitude to Marianne for her work. As busy as she is with the San Fernando Sun, Marianne somehow finds time for other activities. For example, she is a member of the Foothill Area Boosters Association, the San Fernando Valley Police Advisory Council and the northeast valley chapter of the America Heart Association. In addition, she is a present or past board member of New Directions for Youth, the San Fernando and Mission Hills Chambers of Commerce and the Holy Cross Medical Center Century Club. The devoted mother of a 15-year-old son, Marianne spends much of her time working with organizations dedicated to improving the lives of children. It is another way in which she has made an invaluable contribution to the community. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Marianne Barrios, whose selflessness and dedication is a shining example to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my close friend, Helen Bernstein, who is this year retiring as president of United Teachers--Los Angeles. By an accident of geography, I have known Helen since she was 9 years old; her family happened to live a block from my family. Through the years I have been lucky to work with Helen on many issues, and to see our friendship grow stronger. Anyone who knows Helen even casually knows how much education, teaching, and children mean to her. She has taught history at Sun Valley Junior High School, Olive Vista Junior High School, and Marshall High School. In addition, she was a counselor at Olive Vista and Marshall. Helen's extracurricular interests offer further proof of her passion for children and education. She has been a board member of the Los Angeles Educational Partnership; a founding member of the Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now [LEARN] working group, and a member of the National Council for K-12. Of course, Helen is best known as the three-term president of United Teachers--Los Angeles. Her forceful advocacy on behalf of public school teachers at the bargaining table has gained Helen the undying admiration of her colleagues. At the same time, Helen has never been shy about countering the criticism of teachers and public schools expressed with greater frequency over the past few years. She has willingly put herself on the line. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Helen Bernstein, a champion of teachers' rights, public school education, and children. Her dedication and selflessness are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my comments were directed to what happened in the State of Punjab, which is the area of India which the gentleman addressed his initial comments to when he spoke. There is no doubt the Indian Elections Commission has affirmed that there was coercion and intimidation in the vote in Kashmir. We can spend the next 2 hours talking about the miserable problems in Kashmir, the terrorism, the state militias that are wreaking havoc there, but let me tell the gentleman one interesting thing about the election in Kashmir.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, there was a 90-percent turnout in Jammu in the Hindu areas, and a 40-percent turnout in the rural areas of Kashmir. In Srinigar, which is the center of much of the strife, there was only 10 percent voting. As I said, the gentleman is correct, there was intimidation and force. But what was interesting is, when they went to the ballots, where there were secret ballots, no doubt about that, only 7 percent of the people who voted cast blank ballots or scribbled on them. The rest participated. Some of those people wanted to be able to go to the polls and were afraid what would happen if they went voluntarily.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend him on his statement. I want to focus on two aspects of it. One, the world's largest democracy just had an election. In the Punjab, the source of tremendous strife, the source of terrorism, the source of massive state reaction to that terrorism, they have an election, a free election, where the Congress Party, the government in power during much of the strife, was thrown out of power, where a Sikh Coalition Alliance won almost all the seats in that province and it will now represent the State of Punjab in the Federal Parliament. It is the best example of the process of moving away from this kind of terror toward democratic participation. To come in now and cut the aid, not that goes to the Indian Government, but that goes to private voluntary organizations that are helping the poorest of the poor, and we are talking about 600 million poor people, malnourished, a terrible situation where they still manage to participate in a democratic process, to now take this niche out of the aid going to these people to me makes no sense, does not accomplish America's purposes, does not serve the people we try to help with foreign assistance, and I want to commend the gentleman for his statement.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to our good friend Bruce Corwin, whose company, Metropolitan Theaters Corp., is this year being given the H.E.L.P. Group's Corporate Philanthropy Award for ongoing dedication to children with special needs everywhere. Anyone who knows Bruce and his work knows that he is an ideal choice for this award. We can think of few others who have done so much for children and the larger community. This is the second time Bruce has been honored by the H.E.L.P. Group; in 1988, he received its humanitarian award. Indeed, the list of those organizations and associations that bestowed awards on Bruce through the years is extraordinary. Among the more notable: in 1986 Los Angeles Children's Museum named Bruce its Man of the Year, 3 years later he was named Man of the Year by the Temple Sinai Jewish Community Center of the Desert. Not to be outdone, in 1993 the Channel Islands Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society named Bruce its Man of the Year. Bruce's wide range of philanthropic and volunteer interests is truly remarkable. It is hard to imagine how he finds both the time and energy to do so much. For example, Mayor Bradley appointed Bruce to the Los Angeles Fire Commission, where he served as president for 2 years. He is also on the advisory board of Bet Tzedek, a member of the advisory committee of the Los Angeles conservancy, and a member of the executive board of the Will Rogers Hospital. Finally, Bruce is general partner of the San Diego Padres baseball team, which this year is the surprising leader of the National League's West Division. It would not surprise us if somehow, in some way, he has played a part in the Padres' success. We ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Bruce Corwin, as well as his wife, Toni, and sons, Daniel and David. His selflessness in a shining example for us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to my good friend Ruth Nussbaum, who was a fervent supporter of Israel even before the founding of the country in 1948. She has worked tirelessly and dedicated much of her life to Israel and the Jewish people. Ruth is a dear friend of my uncle, Jack Shapiro and I have often heard him speak of her with great affection and respect. Jack and his late wife, my aunt Dora had tremendous admiration for the work done by Ruth and her late husband, Rabbi Max Nussbaum. Born in Berlin, Ruth and her family emigrated to the United States from Germany in 1940, as Hitler's plans for the Jews became clear. They settled first in Oklahoma, where Max was rabbi at Temple Beth Ahava, and then moved to Los Angeles in September 1942. Soon after arriving in Los Angeles Max became rabbi at Temple Israel of Hollywood, and Ruth settled into a lifetime of activism. From her first year in America, she enlisted in efforts to save European Jews from the Nazis. Her goal was getting the Jews to Palestine. After World War II, she became involved in the movement to lift immigration limitations in Palestine, and the establishment of Israel as an independent nation. Following the death of Rabbi Nussbaum in 1974, Ruth increased her activities on behalf of Israel. She served for many years as Zionist affairs and program chair for the Los Angeles Chapter of Hadassah, and was chair of Israel Bonds' Women's Division and Advisory Council. In 1977 she was a founding member of the Association of Reform Zionists of America [ARZA], the Zionist affiliate of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Ruth has visited Israel at least 20 times, attending missions, serving as a delegate to the World Zionist Congress and visiting her nieces and nephews. In this way she combines love for her family with love for her people. I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Ruth Nussbaum, a woman whose selflessness and dedication is a shining example for us all. I am proud to be her friend.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Meeting Each Need With Dignity [MEND], which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary of service to the northeast San Fernando valley. With its efforts to provide comprehensive health, educational and employment services, MEND has played an invaluable role in the community. Today it serves as many as 13,000 people per month. That total is indicative of MEND's growth and success in a quarter- century of operation. As recently as 1987. MEND had a client base of 2,000 people per month. With the increase in population in the area over the past decade, plus cuts in government funding, MEND has been forced to respond to a situation that approached crisis proportions. In addition to providing general services, the agency offers food, clothing and English-language classes. I cannot imagine what life would be like for the poor, sick, elderly, and aspiring citizens in the northeast valley without the presence of MEND. Last year MEND expanded its facilities, adding a waiting room, classroom, computer lab, separate medical and dental treatment rooms, a pharmacy, food warehouse and sorting room for clothes. I was particularly impressed that this $1 million expansion was funded entirely by private sources. MEND has come a long way since its opening in 1971, when Catholic and Protestant church members worked out of their own garages distributing donated food and clothing to poor people in the northeast San Fernando valley. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting MEND, an organization that has done so much for so many over the past 25 years. Its dedication to the community and desire to help is a shining example for us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are honored to pay tribute to our good friends Judge Joseph and Mickey Wapner, who this year are being recognized by the Brandeis-Bardin Institute for their significant contribution to Jewish life. We can think of few couples who together have been so involved for so long in Democratic Party politics and Jewish community activities as have the Wapners. Allow us to share a few examples. Beginning in the 1960's, Mickey established a pattern of total devotion to the causes and people in whom she believed. In 1960 she was speakers bureau coordinator for the John Kennedy for President campaign; from 1967 to 1970 she was west coast director of public relations for the American Jewish Committee; from 1966 to 1968 she was a member of the California Commission on the Status of Women. In 1970 Mickey was named assistant to the dean and director of alumni and development at the UCLA Graduate School of Architecture, a position she held until her retirement in 1983. Despite her busy professional life, she continued to tend to Jewish and political affairs throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. Her husband has proved that being a visible television personality is no excuse for neglecting one's community. From 1981 to 1993 he was judge on the nationally syndicated program ``The People's Court,'' which made him a bona fide celebrity. Still, during this time Judge Wapner continued his extensive involvement in civic and community affairs, including membership on the board of trustees of Alternative Living for the Aging and honorary chairman of the National Jewish Hospice. He is the recipient of numerous honors, such as the Golden Glow Award from Senior Health and Peer Counseling and the Maimonides Award from the legal services division of the Jewish Welfare Fund. Both Judge and Mickey Wapner have been staunch supporters of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute, which this year is honoring the couple at its annual dinner. The Moelle Library and tennis and basketball courts at the institute are a result of the generosity and leadership of the Wapners. We ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Joseph and Mickey Wapner, dear friends who have done so much for so many. Their selflessness is a shining example to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New York claims this is not political. Forty-five minutes ago he, under the direction of his leadership, with the passionate support of his Republican members of the Committee on International Relations egging him on, pushed through that committee a subpoena of two of our Ambassadors, not to the select committee that we are creating for $1 million now, but to the committee on International Relations, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State this very morning had called him and told him he would make these people available at any mutually agreeable time and wanted to do anything he could to cooperate with the committee's efforts. This is purely political. We talk about Iran and we hear these comments. I do remember a time when we gave lend-lease to the Stalinist thugs who had committed the purges and killed millions of people because we thought a national interest required us to do that. The country of Bosnia was about to go down. I remember my friend from Illinois speaking in the committee about article 51, the compelling moral and legal right to help somebody defend themselves from extinction. That was what was at stake in this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard one word of any question of either the legality or the morality of this particular decision. Our options were not good, we had to make a decision based on the circumstances at the time. The administration made that decision. A country was saved. To now, for what I believe are truly political motivations as I watched what happened this morning in the Committee on International Relations, go back to the people who most passionately spoke in favor of helping this country get arms to defend itself, now wanting to make political hay out of it, I think is quite a tragedy for this House.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in urging my colleagues to vote to sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1561. This is the third vote we have had on this bill. Last June, 192 Democrats voted against H.R. 1561. More recently in March, only nine Democrats supported the conference report. Only six Republicans voted against the conference report. There is no bipartisan support for this bill. As I said at the time the conference report was adopted, this was the first time in 13 years that I had the honor of serving in this body that a State Department authorization bill has been taken up in committee, on the floor, or out of a conference committee without bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield. Let me just finish my statement, and then, if I have time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. Why is this bill for the first time breaking with the tradition that this House and this Congress has had to pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis? It is because this bill is not about a bipartisan foreign policy. It is not about protecting America's national interests while rationally reforming Government. This is about tying another scalp to the Republicans' Contract With America belt. It is about nailing another agency so that the Republicans could pretend to claim to have reduced the size of the Federal Government without regard as to whether or not their plan made sense and protected our national interests, just like the cockamamie idea to abolish the Commerce Department when it took every single purpose of that Department and put it in some other part of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, their plan would have eliminated the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at a time in which clearly one of the most serious threats we face are weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological, and chemical. It is about usurping the rights of a Democratic Commander in Chief, trying to paint the President into a corner so he would appear ineffective. Well, President Clinton stood strong, said ``No.'' As he stated in his veto message, the inflexible, detailed mandates and artificial deadlines included in this bill should not be imposed on any President. I urge my colleagues to support the President, to sustain his veto, and, if I have any additional times, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond simply by pointing out two things. One, I think in retrospect that that was a mistake. Second, the gentleman knows full well, because he has told me on many occasions, he does not agree with the decision to abolish these agencies. He thinks the U.S. Information Agency has a purpose independent from the State Department in communicating a message to the captive countries of this world that agency from the government to government relationships of that State Department. He knows there is no underlying sense in the abolition of these agencies; that is why we are supporting the President's veto. That is why it is the right thing.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the Armenian genocide. The genocide committed against the Armenian people in the late 19th century and the early years of our own ranks among the worst such occurrences in human history. That it took place during the supposedly civilized ``modern'' era makes the crime all the more abysmal--and the need to commemorate it that much more important. The essential features of the story can be summarized briefly. As the 19th century drew to a close, authorities in the crumbling Ottoman Empire decided to crack down against a growing movement for Armenian autonomy. After enduring brutal persecution, the Armenians refused to pay the taxes levied by their oppressors. As a result, thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives and thousands more witnessed the destruction of their homes--all because the Ottoman Government wanted to teach them a lesson. When the Armenians sought to publicize their plight by seizing a government building in Constantinople, government forces instigated a vicious pogrom during which over 50,000 perished. Several years later during the First World War, Armenian service in the Allied cause prompted the Turkish authorities to order the deportation of almost the entire Armenian population from their homeland to two distant provinces of the Turkish Empire, Syria and Palestine. Well over 1 million died during this long forced march, many thousands at the hands of government soldiers and many more from disease and malnutrition. Sadly, we have not managed to escape the consequences of these atrocities. The legacy of bitterness is readily observable in central Asia, where memories of past injustice have complicated the search for peace and stability in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Humanitarian Corridor Act is another echo of the tragedy that occurred so many years ago. We would have had less reason to prepare such legislation if we did not also have to deal with ethnic conflict in the Caucasus. One bright element did emerge from what befell the Armenians. As the horror continued, thousands of Armenians came to this country; many of their heirs now live in my own State of California, where they have established an enviable record of prosperity and service to the United States and to the broader world community. To them, we all owe a considerable debt of gratitude. The achievements of Armenian-Americans demonstrate once more that it is possible to pay homage to one's ancestors while rising above the traumas of the past and embracing the opportunities of the here and now. This spirit is one element--no doubt, an essential one--of the American genius. Let us pray that it begins to animate all the people of the Caucasus region. Without a willingness among all parties to put aside ancient feuds while working jointly to resolve the problems of the present day, it will be impossible for the region to achieve even half of what Armenian-Americans have managed to do in less than a century. Mr. Speaker, please permit me to close by altering slightly what I said at the outset. Even though this is indeed a day of commemoration for the thousands who perished in the Armenian genocide, we must not forget the great duty of those now living to prepare a better world for generations to come.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the antiterrorism bill. Because the issues addressed in this legislation have been a major focus for me throughout the entirety of my career in Congress, I want to lay out very clearly the reasons why I will vote against the conference report, despite my strong support for many of its provisions. I emphatically do think the case has been made that Federal law enforcement agencies must be granted expanded means to attack the scourge of terrorism, both international and domestic. I believe that our freedoms, as well as those enjoyed by the citizens of other democratic nations, cannot survive if we do not create new tools to apprehend and punish those who engage in domestic and international terrorism. Our ultimate objective must be, of course, to prevent such crimes from being committed in the first place. I want to acknowledge the fact that certain antiterrorism measures which I strongly support but which were ignominiously stripped from the House bill by the Barr amendment have now been restored in the conference report. It bears noting that valiant efforts were required to restore these provisions, for which I salute my colleagues on the conference committee. In particular, I strongly support the prohibition on fundraising for terrorist organizations, and the expedited removal of alien terrorists, though as to the latter, I prefer the version in the substitute offered earlier by my colleagues Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, which more clearly protected the right to counsel and the ability to confront evidence. I also strongly support the provision in the conference report which deletes impediments in current law to the ability of Federal law enforcement organizations to initiate investigations of suspected material support to terrorists, because I believe that the scourge of terrorism requires a careful recalibration from time to time of the balance between civil liberties concerns and law enforcement authority. But despite my strong support for many provisions in this bill, I am compelled to vote against it because of my strenuous objection to title I, the habeas corpus provisions. A decision was made by the Republican majority to jam into this bill, in the name of fighting terrorism, their long-sought objective of--for all intents and purposes--abolishing the ancient writ of habeas corpus. As former Attorneys General Levi, Katzenbach, Richardson, and Civiletti have written to us, ``Nothing is more deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience.'' The writ of habeas corpus is the guarantor of our constitutional rights, the bedrock of our Federal system, which has always provided an independent Federal court review of the constitutionality of State court prosecutions. Indeed, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 was the first civil rights law enacted after the Civil War, intended to flesh out the habeas clause of the Constitution and thereby protect the rights of the newly freed slaves by giving Federal judges the power to hear ``all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution.'' Until very recently, only once did the Supreme Court undercut this authority, in the tragic case of Leo Frank, a Jewish man wrongly convicted and sentenced to die for the rape and murder of a Christian woman in Georgia. As too often happens when a brutal crime occurs, the cry went up in the community to find the perpetrator--or should I say, a perpetrator--and Leo Frank, a member of a despised minority, became a second victim in this case. Leo Frank was unable to present a defense, because an anti-Semitic mob chased him from the courtroom. But when he filed a writ of habeas corpus to the Federal courts, the Supreme Court held that even though his trial was dominated by a mob, it would not order a new trial because the Georgia Supreme Court had held that the mob-dominated trial did not deprive Frank of due process, and the State supreme court's review was not corrupted by a mob. The standard in the Frank case was overturned by the Supreme Court only a few years later, and has been deplored by Americans of conscience in the years since Leo Frank's execution and the subsequent emergence of an eyewitness to the crime who established Leo Frank's innocence, but who had been afraid to come forward in light of the hysteria that surrounded the crime and the trial. Let me point out that according to reliable data, since 1978, 40 percent of the habeas petitions heard by Federal judges in capital cases resulted in the reversal of the conviction or death sentence because of constitutional violations. One can be dismayed by the number of State court trials impaired by constitutional error, as reflected in this statistic, but heretofore, we could be heartened that life-tenured Federal judges, shielded by constitutional design from local political pressures, could restore constitutional rights. In this bill, in an action ill-befitting Members of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution, we are about to obliterate the only effective means of vindicating those rights. It is not the bill's accelerated deadlines or limits on second or successive applications with which I differ. I believe that meritorious objections have been raised to protracted appeals which deprive families and communities of closure in heinous criminal cases. But to require deference by the Federal courts to State court determinations of Federal constitutional law, I cannot countenance. Shame on those who invoke the names of innocents slaughtered in Oklahoma City and over the skies of Lockerbie in their quest to effectively abolish the writ of habeas corpus. We know that those charged with terrorism will invariably be tried in Federal court. Extinguishing the right to a writ of habeas corpus will have no bearing whatsoever on these cases. A letter from the father of an Oklahoma City victim was recently shared with me. Mr. Bud Welch states, The habeas reform provisions . . . are not known or understood by the families who have been used to lobby on behalf of this bill. . . . Our family knows that meaningful, independent habeas court review of unconstitutional convictions is an essential fail-safe device in our all too human system of justice. And we have learned that this package of ``reforms'' you are being asked to vote for would raise hurdles so high to such essential review as to effectively ensure injustices of wrongful conviction will go unremedied. . . . We consider this a direct threat to us and our loved ones still living who may well find themselves the victim of abusive or mistaken law enforcement and prosecutor conduct and unconstitutional lower court decisions. Two wrongs have never made a right. There is another provision in the bill to which I strongly object, and several which have not been restored to the bill which I support. The summary or expedited exclusion provision of the bill applies to all asylum-seekers entering the United States with false or no documents, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our efforts to combat terrorism. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is ``deeply concerned,'' as am I, that this provision ``would almost certainly result in the United States returning refugees to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened.'' Missing from the bill are several provisions which the Justice Department views as essential law enforcement tools if our fight against terrorism is to be successful, including adding terrorism- related crimes to the list of crimes which can be the basis for seeking a Federal wiretap order, and authorizing multipoint wiretaps. I deplore the absence of these provisions from the bill. Mr. Speaker, the American Constitution is a living document which has thrived for two centuries because in its strength and vibrancy it has accommodated the realities of American life. And one of those realities, tragically, is terrorism--not a mere threat, but a reality. Because I believe that strong new measures are essential to combating terrorism, I support many of the provisions of this conference report. But I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill which guts the historic means by which Americans enforce the Bill of Rights. That is why I will vote against the conference report.