Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California, but I will respond to the response, if the gentleman will make it short.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the time will not allow me to tell the story of Z Best Carpet. I would need 10 minutes, but I will do the best I can, because I understand the motivation for this bill. I understand the problems that the proponents of this bill raise, but I would be interested, and maybe the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], at some point, or one of the other proponents of the bill, could explain for me why they needed to go as far as they went. Why did the opponents of this want to immunize from liability a company that, with full knowledge, and with fraudulent intent, lies about their future prospects? Not makes a mistake, not makes a prediction which turns out to be wrong, not even is reckless in making a suggestion, but with full knowledge of the facts decides to lie about the future in order to attract investors, in order to drive up the stock, and in order to make ill-gotten gain. That provision goes too far in this bill, and that alone should force the Members of this body to reject this conference report. Z Best Carpet, a company started by a 20-year-old, just went bankrupt, after a guy who had a total con job, pretending to restore carpets, getting lawyers and accountants to certify what he was doing was real, having a public offering, putting out press releases with false statements, attracting tens of millions of dollars of investors, whose money was lost completely by virtue of this totally empty business. If this bill were in place with this provision that immunizes fraudulent statements about future predictions, where he would predict huge earnings based on the total phony statement of revenues that never existed, all the people who were involved in that future prediction would be immunized from liability. The safe-harbor provisions and the recitals of potential problems in the future do not do anything to take away from the fact that he decided to put something in writing which he knew to be false, and that is wrong. What happened here was a settlement was made. The investors recovered 55 cents on the dollar. If this bill were in place, they would have gotten nothing. I do not think that is right. I think in trying to deal with a serious problem, my colleagues have gone too far. I do hope that the body rejects this particular proposal.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to Aneta Corsaut, a dear friend, who died much too young from cancer this November. Aneta was a spirited, warm, and lovely woman who had a heartfelt compassion for others. Those who knew her well were touched by her selflessness and feelings of empathy. She was a special person, and we will miss her very much. Born in Hutchinson, KS, Aneta came to southern California in 1950's to pursue her dream of being an actress. She landed a part in ``The Blob,'' which has become a science fiction cult classic and, later, had a recurring role on the Andy Griffith Show as Helen Crump, Andy's girlfriend. Whether on the New York stage--where she started--or a Hollywood soundstage, Aneta found success in a profession that is notoriously difficult. All of her friends were so proud of her accomplishments. But there was another side to Aneta, a side that brought her into our world. Aneta had a passion for politics, especially Democratic Party politics--a rarity for a person from Kansas. We would like to think that her political affiliation was a direct result of her selfless, caring nature. Most important, she was an unapologetic liberal to the end. We both had the good fortune to work with Aneta. Her dedication to causes and issues was heartening. At a time of widespread cynicism and apathy Aneta was the perfect counter, a living, breathing example of how essential it is for people to get involved. We--all of us--need more Aneta Corsauts in this world. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Aneta Corsaut, whose life is an inspiration to all. We were lucky indeed to have known her.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Dev Anand, one of the giants of Indian cinema, who will be honored this fall by the National Federation of Indo-American Associations. Mr. Anand made his first film in 1945. Since then he has not only starred in countless films, but has produced, written, and directed numerous projects under the banner of Navketan Films. He is both a prolific and talented performer. The key to Mr. Anand's continued success lies in his willingness to change and mold himself according to the times, as well as in his never-say-die spirit. He is always involved in new projects which sustain his bubbling enthusiasm and dynamism. These range from being the first to use Himalayan backgrounds for love stories, to producing a smash hit based on the hippie phenomenon as seen from the point of view of the Indian popular establishment, to singing rap songs. The word ``impossible'' simply does not exist in Mr. Anand's dictionary. His impact on the Indian film industry is such that many producers ask their heroes to imitate Dev Anand. In 1963, Mr. Anand collaborated with Pearl S. Buck on an award- winning film entitled ``Guide,'' which was recorded in Hindi and English. In the film, he stars as the scurrilous guide who redeems himself by fasting to death for rain to save the lives of millions of drought-stricken villagers. Mr. Anand is celebrating his 50 years of work in the Indian film industry with the release of ``Gangster,'' which will premiere in eight U.S. cities. This will give American audiences the rare treat of being able to see Mr. Anand's skills for themselves. Prior to his U.S. appearances, he will be exhibiting his film at the Shanghai Film Festival, and is invited to address the union at Oxford University. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Dev Anand, a legend in Indian cinema, and a true artist. All Americans who care about film and culture are honored by his presence on our shores.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are honored to pay tribute to Nettie Becker, who this year is being given an award [[Page E 2238]] from AIPAC for her long history of efforts on its behalf. Nettie has proven countless times over the years that she is, indeed, a great friend of Israel. AIPAC is lucky to have her talents and energy. So are many other organizations, associations, committees, and commissions. Nettie is one of those special people who makes a point of being active and involved with the community. She is a member of the executive committee of the Anti-Defamation League; a member of the California Women's Political Summit; a board member of the Odyssey Theatre in Los Angeles; a board member of the Jewish National Fund and a Governor Wilson appointee to the Seismic Safety Commission. Nettie's accomplishments have not gone unnoticed. The Los Angeles County Commission for Women honored her in 1993 for dedicated service to the community, while in 1990 she was given the first Women of Achievement Award from State of Israel Bonds. Through it all Nettie has managed to run a business, Nettie Becker Escrow, Inc., of Beverly Hills. Since its founding in 1979, it has become one of the most successful escrow companies in California. The Los Angeles Business Journal named Nettie Becker Escrow as 1 of its top 100 woman owned businesses since 1989. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Nettie Becker, whose selflessness, dedication, and work ethic is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are honored to pay tribute to Howard Welinsky, a close friend of ours, a great friend of Israel's, and one of the most active, passionate Democrats we have ever known. This year Howard is being given an award by AIPAC for his many activities on its behalf. It is a richly deserved honor. Indeed, Howard is legendary for his active support of candidates and causes in which he believes. The world could do with a few more people like Howard Welinsky. His energy is astounding. As senior vice president of administration at Warner Brothers, Howard oversees all the branch personnel operations in the United States and Canada for Warner Brothers distribution. He regularly arrives at the office before dawn and works well into the evening. [[Page E 2236]] Yet somehow Howard manages to appear at more than his share of after- hours events, and to assume a leadership role in numerous organizations. For example, he is the current Chair of the Israel Commission of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Relations Committee; the current Chair of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee; a member of the board of trustees at UCLA; the current Chair of Democrats of Israel and a member of the regional board of the Los Angeles Hillel Council. This list represents only about half of all the organizations and associations lucky enough to benefit from Howard's participation. He is truly devoted to his community, and redefines the phrase ``civic- minded.'' Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Howard Welinsky, whose life's work consists of helping others. He is an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me respond to that. This bill will never see the light of day. You are right. Therefore, it is designed, I say, to scuttle what is happening at Dayton because of the timing, rather than to look at the final agreement, make a decision at that time, weigh and answer all the good questions that are being raised against the plan.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I hate to do this, but I have to wonder about the motivations of the timing of this resolution. There are some things we know for sure: For 2 years, at least a year and a half, the President has been saying he intends to deploy 20,000 to 25,000 peacekeepers if there is a peace agreement in Bosnia. He has said in a letter to the Speaker that he will submit a request for a congressional expression of support for U.S. participation, a vote of the Congress on this issue, before the peace agreement is signed and before he deploys these forces. No one offered this amendment on the fiscal year 1995 defense appropriation. No one offered this amendment on H.R. 7, which sought in every other way to constrain the Commander in Chief from exercising his authorities in the peacekeeping operation as approved by the Security Council. No one put this on the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriation when it came through the House, or when it came back from conference. All of a sudden, when the peace agreement looks possible, when the negotiations have gone a long way, when the ceasefire has held in place for a while, when it looks like the most dangerous cause of expansion of the war; that is, the question of whether the Serb military would resist a Croatian invasion of Eastern Slavonia looks like it might have been settled, when the siege of Sarajevo has been lifted, when the brutal killing has been stopped, all of a sudden we get this issue, even though the President has said ``You will have a chance to vote on this before I deploy the troops.'' It is as if you want to scuttle the peace agreement and a chance of the killing stopping for good because you do not want to have to deal with killing it after it has already happened, and I think that is grossly irresponsible. There are so many good questions about whether or not we should do this. I have heard the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], and the gentlemen from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], raise legitimate questions. But either do it when the President first announces it and do not raise these expectations and cause all the achievements to be scuttled, as they will be if you do this now, or do it when you see the full agreement and you can talk about exit strategies and can look at what is achieved in separation of forces and what the risks to our troops are, and you can weight the possibility that NATO will be emasculated or the war will spread, and balance them. We will have a chance to debate that. This is the time, before we got to Dayton. In the middle of Dayton is not the time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 264.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the shock that has a paralyzing effect on all of us and the sadness that envelopes us on learning of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin makes it difficult to express as eloquently as we would like our feelings at this particular time. This man, who was such an integral part of the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland after 2,000 years and fighting for its survival and security and whose commitment, as the gentleman from Indiana mentioned earlier, to a democratic society in this Jewish homeland was so strong, he was the personification of the State of Israel. I think it is interesting, if my colleagues would remember when he and King Hussein came here to speak to a joint session of Congress, his words at that time. I have come from Jerusalem in the name of our children who began their lives with great hope and are now names on graves and memorial stones, old pictures in albums, fading clothes in closets. Each year as I stand before the parents whose lips are chanting [[Page H 11840]] ``Kaddish,'' the Jewish memorial prayer, ringing in my ears are the words of Archibald MacLeish who echoes the plea of the young dead soldiers: ``They say we leave you our deaths, give them their meaning.'' Let us give them meaning. Let us make an end to bloodshed. Let us make true peace. Let us today be victorious in ending war. We all join in saluting the great life of Prime Minister Rabin and mourn his passage.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. There are a number of points I would like to make. I rise in strong support of the bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. If you oppose the Smith amendment, like I do, understand the Smith amendment is not part of this conference report. The Smith amendment will be debated after the adoption of the conference report. I have strong feelings in opposition to that amendment, and I will express them at the time that the Smith amendment is up. My colleagues can vote for this report. If they vote for this report, they will not be voting for the Smith amendment. The second point with respect to the administration and the veto, should the Smith amendment be adopted, it is not quite that simple. The Senate has taken a contrary position. The reason the Smith amendment is not in the conference report is because the Senate thought it was wrong to stop all funding of UNFPA and to stop funding for any voluntary family planning organizations. They realized that that action will contribute to a greater number of abortions rather than reduce the number of abortions. If the Senate does not agree with the Smith amendment, this bill will not even get to the President. Third, this is a funny bill in a way. I am strongly in support of it because it does not cut foreign assistance as much as some would have wanted it to. The fact is, thanks to the work of certain Members on the other side, the efforts of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to reduce this function by $5 billion were thwarted. While I believe this bill is not commensurate in terms of its funding with what should be America's role in the world and, while I am concerned that this bill will leave the United States as the least foreign assistance contributor of any other industrialized country in the world as a percentage of gross national product, the fact is this bill, given the context of the year we are in, given what others wanted to do, provides enough assistance, I think, to continue the merits of the program. I support it. The bill is significantly above what the bill was when it left the House. The bill provides more for the very important international financial institutions account and particularly IDA, to help the lowest income people than it did when it left the House. The bill provides special programs for children and earmarks. One of the few earmarks in the bill is $484 million of bilateral economic assistance for programs aimed at child survival and disease. The bill fully funds Israel and Egypt. It would be a tragedy at this time in the peace process for us to do anything that would diminish America's historic support for Israel's security as it enters into this peace process. I am very happy to say that the bill fully funds that aid. One feature of the peace process, which this bill recognizes, I am no fan of the PLO. I am no fan of the way they have handled a variety of things. I have no doubt that there are aspects of the governance of the Palestinian authority that violate the human rights and liberties of the people living in the areas it now controls. The one thing I know is this peace process cannot succeed if the life of the individual who resides in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank is not improved. The $75 million in this bill will help to make that happen. It supports the peace process. I think it should be supported. The bill has some features I do not like. As I indicated, I would rather see a higher level of overall funding. We are significantly below the administration's request. We are significantly below last year's level of funding. While I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], my friend, and a great deal of respect for his perspectives on these issues, and I like him quite a bit, I do disagree with his conclusions on two areas of the bill, Armenia and Pakistan. I think the effort to economically strangulate the small country, when we allow assistance to go to Azerbaijan, one of the participants in that strangulation, I am afraid we remove a leverage point to stop that from happening. I also think the consequence of some of these arms shipments to Pakistan that will be allowed by this bill, my fear is, will reignite and accelerate an arms race in the South Asian Peninsula. Believe me, the Government of India will be here looking for compensatory treatment with additional arms. Pakistanis will be back. There will be economic pressures from our defense contractors to provide those arms. My fear is that an already dangerous situation in the South Asian Peninsula will be accelerated. Notwithstanding those disagreements, there is very little question in my mind that this bill deserves our support, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. I agree this bill has $75 million.

Mr. BERMAN. I think it should depend on what happens and how he performs.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, but this bill is $75 million.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill provides $75 million; not $500 million.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to David Fleming, my good friend who this year has been chosen by the Anti- Defamation League to receive the distinguished community service award. The ADL could not have made a better choice. David has taken a leadership role in many important areas important to the San Fernando Valley. He truly cares for his community. It is hard to imagine how David, a senior partner with the prestigious law firm of Latham & Watkins, finds time to take on his many added responsibilities. For example, David is the current president of the board of fire commissioners for the city of Los Angeles as well as the vice chair of the Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council. He has also served on three different county commissions. David's tireless work for his community reflects his many interests. He has been a member of the board of the Automobile Club of Southern California, Valley Presbyterian Hospital, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association [VICA], the National Council of Christians and Jews and Big Brothers of Greater Los Angeles. Not surprisingly, David has been the recipient of awards from many sources. He has received the Fernando award, the tree of life award from the Jewish National Fund and, in 1967, he was named ``One of California's Five Outstanding Young Men'' by the California Jaycees. Many people and organizations have benefited from David's efforts and generosity. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting David Fleming, a man of intellect, compassion, and dedication to his community.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I assume golden not having any reference to age?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and my colleagues, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens, and the gentleman from Missouri, Bill Clay, for all of their help in bringing us to this point. I want to make a few comments. This bill is a very different bill than the bill that was originally introduced or the bill that came out of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity, or whatever that committee is now called. There are a couple of points to make. First of all, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia kept talking about the Adams Fruit decision as if it was wrong, because State law somehow would, because State law somehow would preempt Federal law; that is the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The court decision was the recognition, everyone knows, that Federal law preempts State law. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there were many weaknesses in that Federal law and some of which we have addressed. This is no longer a bill that allows a grower in a State which has no coverage for farm workers or only partial coverage for farm workers or only voluntary coverage for farm workers to avoid workers compensation and also to immunize himself from any lawsuit. That particular issue has been affected and dealt with through the amendments. It is also no longer a bill which leaves the inadequate penalty structures of the existing Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, because, in the context of this particular Congress, and in this situation, this seemed to me like, and others, like the best possible arrangement that we could get in terms of the two different needs. Mr. Speaker, I support this compromise and urge its adoption.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his correction of my earlier remarks and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. I know longer about this bill, I do not know more about this bill. I am happy to voice my strong support of H.R. 1506, the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, and I want to congratulate my colleague from California, Carlos Moorhead, because it is on his watch that this long overdue legislation is finally coming to fruition. The proliferation of new technologies capable of transmitting the fruits of American musical genius directly to consumers with compact disc quality, and what is more, transmitting to Americans what they want to hear when they want to hear it--commands a congressional response. It is not the technology itself which I lament; rather it is the fact that if we fail to act, then American intellectual property is highly likely to lose all meaningful protection. The constitutional imperative that the Congress protect copyright compels us from time to time to adjust our laws to fit new circumstances. While I have long felt that a performance right in sound recordings is the unfinished business of the omnibus overhaul of our copyright code in 1976, it is the proliferation of new technologies which makes the legislation before us today more important than ever. Some have criticized the bill for falling short of the ideal, but I have always been loathe to view the best as the enemy of the good. As a member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property who proudly represents many of the segments of the music industry with a deep interest in H.R. 1506, I am delighted that this legislation has finally come to fruition, and that it does justice to legitimate concerns which have been raised with us. This legislation is long overdue, and I commend it to my colleagues for their approval.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are honored to pay tribute to Presiding Justice Arleigh Woods, a close friend who is retiring after 18 years of distinguished service with the California judiciary. Justice Woods' illustrious career includes numerous honors that attest to her compassion, sense of duty and commitment to justice. She has been a credit to the legal profession. A graduate of Southwestern University School of Law, Justice Woods was a labor and workman's compensation lawyer for 19 years prior to becoming a member of the Bench in 1976. Since 1982 she has been presiding justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Los Angeles. A year after becoming presiding justice she was named Appellate Justice of the Year by the California Trial Lawyers Association. For Justice Woods, the 1980's were a time of high-level appointments and numerous honors. Among others, she was appointed to the State Gender Bias Committee, 1986-87, and served as chairperson of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, 1988-93, which investigates and evaluates all charges brought against California judges. Since 1991 she has served as vice chair of the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Judicial Performance Procedures. It is impossible to mention all of the prestigious awards that Justice Woods has received. However, a few examples convey the breadth of her accomplishments: Bernard Jefferson Award for Judicial Excellence, California Association of Black Lawyers--1985; Hall of Fame Award, the John M. Langston Bar Association--1992; and the Life Commitment Award from the Equal Opportunity League--1985. She is also a member of the board of directors of the American Cancer Research Foundation and chair of the board of trustees of Southwestern University School of Law. We remember with particular fondness the 5 years that Howard Berman practiced law with Justice Woods when she was a partner in the firm of Levy and Van Borg. We recall with admiration that she was one of the most skilled practitioners in her field. We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Justice Arleigh Woods, whose tireless efforts on behalf of good causes and sense of dedication are an inspiration to us all--and in wishing her and her husband Bill the greatest joy in their new life in the secluded environs of rural Washington State. We have always been proud and honored to be counted among her friends.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with decidedly mixed feelings that I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Norm Mineta. I am delighted with his pleasure at beginning a new and rewarding career, but I am also among those who will miss his acumen, his dedication and his great contribution to matters of importance to California. The story of Norm Mineta, who was sent to an internment camp in Wyoming during World War II--and then became the instrument by which the injustice suffered by Americans of Japanese ancestry was redressed--is one of enormous interest and appeal. The young boy wearing a Cub Scout uniform became friends with another youth who would grow up to be a U.S. Senator. Alan Simpson and Norm Mineta, decades later, worked together until the Japanese-American redress bill, apologizing for the internment and providing compensation for those detained, became the law of the land. A distinguished military veteran of tours in Japan and Korea who then became a successful business executive, Norm was a natural for public service. His outstanding record as mayor of San Jose led him to run for Congress, where he was the president of the Watergate class of 1974. He helped push through many of the House reforms associated with that large group of House freshmen. It was a great boon to the California delegation to see Norm take the helm of the House Public Works Committee, where he worked with all his might to protect the environment and to maintain and improve the infrastructure of the United States. He also earned the gratitude of America's working men and women by his work in protecting labor rights. Norm also is much admired for his help in enacting the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires increased accessibility to handicapped individuals. Norman is a gentleman, a fine individual, and an outstanding legislator. We will greatly miss him here in Congress.