Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Marie Whipp, a close associate, good friend, and a leader in the California Federation of Teachers for more than 30 years. I worked extensively with Marie during the 1960's and early 1970's, when I was a lawyer for the CFT. I found her to be hard working, diligent, and an excellent advocate for teachers and public education. [[Page E 1814]] Marie's rise throught the ranks of the union began only a few years after she graduated from UCLA in 1957. While she was chair of the girl's physical education department at Palmdale High School, she became a member of Foothills, American Federation of Teachers Local 1424. From there she moved up the ladder; chapter chair, local secretary, local vice president and, in 1967, she was elected president of local 1424. At the time local 1424 had 15 chapters with over 900 members. In 1970, Marie was elected secretary-treasurer of the CFT. The union could not have had a better person to help steer it through turbulent times. Marie served as secretary-treasurer during the collective bargaining fight for survival of the AFT in California and stabilized CFT finances by establishing good relations with all of the local treasurers, officers and staff of the CFT, the CFT credit union and the financial officers and staff of the AFT. Along with Marie's skill at debt management, these steps enabled the CFT to finance all collective bargaining elections. During her record 24-year tenure as CFT secretary-treasurer, Marie also created and coordinated the CFT legal defense fund. This is just one more way in which she has made her mark on the CFT. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Marie Whipp, a person who has worked so hard to make a better life for California's schoolteachers. She deserves the respect and admiration of all of us who care about the fate of our public schools.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to Elizabeth Kaufman, who has just completed her 1-year term as president of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association. Elizabeth, who immigrated to the United States from Poland in 1964, is the classic example of a person who became a success through hard work and perseverance. Elizabeth began her rise as a law clerk in the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, where she worked while simultaneously attending San Fernando Valley College of Law. She graduated from law school in 1975. After admittance to the California Bar, Elizabeth began her private law practice, emphasizing family law and personal injury. She also quickly became immersed in a wide variety of activities associated with the law. For example, Elizabeth served as a free arbitrator for the State Bar of California and the Los Angeles County Bar Association; family law court mediator; Superior Court arbitrator; and trustee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. In 1988, Elizabeth was elected as a trustee of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association. Six years later she became president. Elizabeth's tenure was marked by the launching of Lawyer's World magazine, and a significant increase in membership. Elizabeth, married to Dr. Hershell L. Kaufman and the mother of three teen-age daughters, has considerable duties outside of her home and the law. She is director of the San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center; director of the Northridge Chamber of Commerce; and director of the Heschel Day School. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Elizabeth Kaufman, whose devotion to her community, profession and family is exemplary. She is an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. The gentleman from Indiana sought to try and make a point, I think, by implication, that this is only done for NATO countries, not for other purchasers of arms. But that is not correct. The law allows a case-by-case waiver anytime we want to give an advantage to our exporter over a competitive exporter from another country that perhaps is being subsidized by that country. The Department of Defense has the authority right now to waive this. The strangest thing in the world, we are coming in the context of trying to balance the budget, our majority would say in 7 years, with massive cuts in all kinds of discretionary programs, with an effort to because they think it is important to expand what we are spending on defense, with major slashes in Medicare and other entitlement programs, and reinstating for the first time since the 1960's in commercial arms sales a subsidy to defense contractors, not just to win the particular sale but whether there is competition or not for that sale. It is not just for NATO countries. It allows that waiver any other time. There is no reason in the world to go with this blanket repeal which will require an offset to make up for the loss of revenue.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am told the answer is yes, that the recoupment provision has been waived in the case of arms sales, commercial arms sales to Israel. And the key thing is not what has happened in the past. The law allows case-by-case waivers. If the French notorious subsidizers of their defense industries decide in a product which they are competitive to compete with an American exporter and are subsidizing that sale, the law right now allows the Department of Defense to waive it so that the American company can make that sale. It is in there. Why would we want to repeal the law which allows us to grab back the subsidies that otherwise the foreign country that wants to buy the goods is willing to pay when there is no meaningful competition? We are either the sole supplier or our particular weapons system is so much better than any other ones. This is really ridiculous. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to respond to the point of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The only plausible argument that I have heard to justify providing this subsidy for arms exports is to make our products competitive with other nations. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has pointed out very effectively that there are a number of items where we are essentially the best in the world, we are either the sole supplier or have such a qualitative advantage in the product, there is no other serious competitor, and, therefore, there is no need to remove this recoupment of the subsidy that that exporter has.

Mr. BERMAN

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

Mr. BERMAN. Blessed? I appreciate the very nice comments from my friend. I just wanted to emphasize this point. I included it in my original statement, but I did not read it at this particular point. It is wrong to use, for instance, this new provision to protect sources and methods as a way of getting around the imposition of sanctions. If the feeling is the particular sanctions law in an area, whether it is chemical, biological weapons, missile proliferation, or nuclear, is too inflexible, then the administration should come to the Congress and suggest those changes. Let us take, for example, let us talk for one moment about China. It is, without getting into any specifics, everyone understands the importance of the political, or bilateral relationship with China, and what that country is about and what we need to be doing there. The key question, though, in terms of proliferation issues is whether or not the law, as passed by Congress, as signed by the President, is going to be followed. If that law is too inflexible, the answer is not to avoid a conclusion with respect to proliferation The answer is to come back to Congress and seek the flexibility that is desired. So I appreciate the gentlewoman for bringing this up. Our only point in this whole discussion is that we do not want this to become a new way by which the executive branch, as a pretext, avoids imposing sanctions because they do not want to alter some commercial deal, because they do not want to have any disruption in the bilateral relationship. The question of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is too important to be used as a pawn in that process. We are ready to make those provisions more flexible if that is what is needed. But that should not be the basis for not making a decision to impose sanctions.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me initially address the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and thank the gentleman very much for both his remarks and his work on this amendment, as well as thanks to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] the ranking member, and to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and a special note of appreciation to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], who pointed out to me this issue that was raised by the authorization bill. Mr. Chairman, section 303 amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add a new section, 901, authorizing the President to stay the imposition of certain sanctions, should the President determine that to proceed without delay would seriously risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. Mr. Chairman, I was originally quite troubled by that provision, because it appeared to me to provide an open-ended opportunity for any President to bypass the intent sanctions law. I had raised similar concerns during House debate in 1991, on the provisions of H.R. 1415 that amended the Export Administration Act. I thought, as I pointed out in a colloquy then with the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. McCurdy, that the President, in rare circumstances, could delay such a determination in those situations, but the administration has raised new concerns that existing law was not sufficient to provide them with legal flexibility. In this case, the bipartisan cooperation of the staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and its leadership, has allowed us to have a briefing from both the intelligence community and the Department of State. Mr. Chairman, it is now my understanding that with this amendment, the original provision as amended, will mean that a decision to stay temporarily consideration of the imposition of a sanction will only be to protect sources and methods in an ongoing criminal investigation. Such a presidential determination will not be used as the pretext for any decision not to impose sanctions, for example, for economic or commercial reasons, fearing that such action could jeopardize a commercial decision, or for geopolitical reasons, fearing that such a decision could damage our bilateral relationships with a particular country. I have been informed by the administration that such determinations will only be made in exceptional circumstances. We are discussing here a delay decision, not a decision to refuse to impose such sanctions which are mandated under law. Should such a decision to delay determination be made by the President, a report will be made in a prompt and expeditious manner to the concerned committees of jurisdiction, including the Committee on International Relations. It is my understanding that such reports will indicate clearly the nature of the sanctionable action, the applicable law to the sanctionable activity, the country or countries in which the activity took place, and, where appropriate, the party to the violation. The intent of my amendment, which sunsets this provision 3 years from the date of enactment, is to ensure an opportunity to evaluate the use of this change to the National Security Act to ensure that is used for the purpose intended and has not had a deleterious effect on the sanctions law.

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will put my statement in the Record. I thank the distinguished Member from Texas and chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Combest, for his kind remarks and those of the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dicks. I appreciate the effort that they have taken to accommodate my concern and those of the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman. The amendment I have offered to the bill which has been incorporated in the chairman's amendment, I believe, will take care of my concerns, and those of the gentlelady from California [Ms. Pelosi], that section 303 should not unduly loosen current sanctions law. As Mr. Combest has noted, section 303 amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add a new section 901 authorizing the President to stay the imposition of certain sanctions should the President determine that to proceed without delay would seriously risk the compromise of an ongoing criminal investigation or an intelligence source or method. I was troubled by that provision when initially proposed by the administration because it appeared to me to provide an open-ended opportunity for any President to by-pass the intent of sanctions law. I had raised similar concerns during House debate in 1991 on provisions in H.R. 1415 that amended the Export Administration Act and the Arms Export Control Act. At that time I responded to an inquiry from Mr. McCurdy, then chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, that it was my understanding that the President, in rare circumstances, could delay a determination on sanctions if such a delay is necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods with the proviso that such a delay should not be indefinite. Since then, the administration has raised anew concerns that existing law was not sufficient to provide them with legal flexibility. In this case, with the bipartisan cooperation of the staff of the Select Committee on Intelligence, whose excellent assistance I much appreciate, I took the opportunity to be briefed by representatives from both the intelligence community and the Department of State on their rationale for requesting this amendment. It is now my understanding that a decision to stay temporarily consideration of the imposition of a sanction will only be to protect sources and methods and ongoing criminal investigations. Such a Presidential determination will not be used as the pretext for any decision not to impose sanctions, for example for economic reasons, fearing such action would jeopardize a commercial decision, or for geopolitical reasons, fearing that such a decision would damage our relations with a particular country. I have been informed by the administration that such determinations will only be made in exceptional circumstances. I should note that we are discussing a delay in a decision, not a decision not to impose such sanctions mandated under law. Should such a decision to delay determination be made by the [[Page H 8825]] President, a report will be made in a prompt and expeditious manner to the concerned committees or jurisdiction, including the International Relations Committee. It is my understanding that such reports will indicate clearly the nature of the sanctionable action, the applicable law to the sanctionable activity, the country or countries in which the activity took place, and, where appropriate, the party to the violation. The intent of my amendment which sunsets this provision 3 years from the date of enactment is to ensure an opportunity to evaluate the use of this change to the National Security Act of 1947 to ensure that it is used for the purpose intended and that it has not had a detrimental effect on the intent of our sanctions law. I am pleased with the accommodation worked out with both sides and wish to thank Ms. Pelosi for her energetic work on this issue. Finally, I would like to thank the Democratic and Republican staffs of both the International Relations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence for the professional and bipartisan manner in which they resolved this issue. I would also like to take this opportunity to raise a related issue. As one of the authors of current sanctions law, I have become concerned that the standards for imposing sanctions have been raised to such an impossible level that the ability of sanctions to call attention to grievous violations of international standards which threaten world security and also to punish violators has been undermined. The time may have come for us to evaluate whether or not we need a more flexible set of policy tools to respond to such violations and violators. As we all know, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a serious problem. In the coming months, I hope this concern can be engaged. The international community needs desperately to slow, if not end, the spread of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to rogue states. Mr. Chairman, I do want to finish by asking the gentleman if he would entertain a unanimous consent request that on line 10, page 2, following the words ``submitted in a'', the gentleman would add the word ``prompt'' so the report would be made in a prompt and timely fashion, and I have that amendment in writing here, if the gentleman is willing, offer it as a unanimous consent amendment to his amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I just want to thank the gentleman for agreeing to that amendment as well as to incorporating the sunset amendment, to thank the gentlewoman from California for all of her help in this as well as being able to raise this issue initially, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. It is not the notion of requiring TVs to be equipped with a particular device which concerns me. After all, I strongly supported the Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, which requires circuitry for closed captioning for the hearing impaired. What troubles me is how this device works. I cannot support mandating technology which hinges on the Government assessing the content of communications protected by the first amendment. Yet that is what the V-chip does. Consider the task of rating ``Schindler's List.'' Is there violence in ``Schindler's List?'' You bet. But surely no government bureaucrat is going to say ``Schindler's List'' should be blocked by the V-chip, because that [[Page H 8490]] great film has socially redeeming value in its depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust. But stop and think about this: Do we really want, and does the first amendment countenance, the Government deciding what constitutes socially redeeming value which takes programming out of the ``V'' category? I certainly do not. I am concerned about what our children watch on television. But I want to empower parents, not a government commission, to decide what is and is not appropriate for our children to view. I am aware that technology is emerging, hopefully hastened by the Viewer Discretion Technology Fund announced this week by the broadcasting industry, which will give parents the opportunity to choose from among many rating alternatives, from the National Education Association, to the Christian Coalition, to the parents' own individually developed assessment, and to block programming accordingly. I would not hesitate to mandate this type of technology, although the indications are good that the industry is moving toward it voluntarily. Parents, and not a government commission, should be responsible for what their children watch. And I want to give parents the ability to exercise that responsibility. The Markey amendment fails to do so. I urge its defeat.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Everything that my friend from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] said about the question of competition can be assumed to be true, and none of it would cause Members to vote against the Conyers amendment. Because I do not think we should put artificial restrictions on the ability of the Bell companies to go into long distance, I supported the manager's amendment because it got rid of a test that made it virtually impossible for them to ever enter that competition. Now the only question is whether the Justice Department, that had the foresight starting under Gerald Ford, finishing under Ronald Reagan, to break [[Page H 8464]] up the Bell monopolies, should be allowed to have a meaningful role, a role defined by a test which is so restrictive that it says, unless, unless the burden supports, the assumption is with the Bell companies. It says unless the Attorney General finds that there is a dangerous probability that such company or its affiliates would successfully use market power to substantially impede competition in the market such company seeks to enter, it is an extremely rigorous test that must be met to stop them from entering the market. But it gives the division that has been historically empowered to decide whether there is anticompetitive practices a role in deciding whether or not that entry will impede competition. This place voted last year by an overwhelming vote for a test that was far more rigorous, a test that said that they could not enter unless we found there was no substantial possibility that they could use monopoly power to impede competition. Do not overreach, the proponents of Bell entry into long distance, do not over reach. Do not shut the Justice Department out from an historic role that they have had, that they should have, to look at whether or not there is a high probability that they will cause, they will exercise monopoly power. Support the Conyers amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, last week the Congress met in joint session to welcome South Korean President Kim Yong-sam. Four decades after the Korean war, South Korea enjoys a thriving economy and an open political system. Our security interests in Korea have been complemented by a growing American economic interest. The moving dedication of the Korean War Memorial was testimony to the blood shed by Americans to ensure Korea's future and to our continued interest in Korean prosperity. Mr. Hamilton, ranking member of the International Relations Committee, recently spoke on the state of American-Korean relations at an Asia society meeting. I commend Mr. Hamilton's remarks to my colleagues. His speech, ``The U.S. and South Korea: A Successful Partnership,'' provides an insightful review of our mutual interests: The United States and South Korea: A Successful Partnership (By Lee H. Hamilton) i. introduction South Korea has been much on our minds of late. We watched with sorrow at the climbing casualty list from last month's tragedy in Seoul. We also celebrated with the South Korean people as survivors were miraculously pulled from the rubble of the collapsed department store. South Korea captures our attention for other reasons, of course. The Korean peninsula presents some of the most challenging issues facing U.S. foreign policy. We are concerned about North Korea's nuclear program, the uncertainties of its leadership succession, and relations between South and North Korea. Next week, we will welcome Korean President Kim Yong-sam to Washington. We will bestow upon him the honor of addressing a joint session of Congress. That is a true measure of the importance of our friendship with South Korea. Our countries have excellent bilateral relations, marked by a strong security alliance and broad economic ties. ii. south korea's success South Korea is a great success story. Consider Korea in 1945. It had been the victim of harsh colonialism for 50 years. The defeat of Japan brought not liberation, but division of the Korean nation along the 38th parallel. Families were torn apart. Customary patterns of trade, communication, and exchange were broken. Soviet occupiers ravaged the northern half of the country. Five years later saw the resumption of warfare--all the more bitter because it was Korean against Korean. Armies surged up and down the peninsula, bringing death and devastation. Millions lost their lives. Tens of millions more were displaced. The 1953 armistice brought no real peace. The peninsula remained divided. South Korea, the less prosperous half, was saddled with huge defense burdens to guard against future attack. What a difference a few decades have made! South Korea is a thriving democracy. It is one of the world's most prosperous countries. Per capita income, which did not reach even $100 until the 1960s, is now nearly $10,000. South Korea is no longer a foreign aid recipient; it is a foreign aid donor. The World Bank points to South Korea to show how a country with few natural resources--other than its people--can transform itself in a generation from one of the poorest countries in Asia to one of the richest. II. The U.S.-Korean partnership The Korean-American alliance is robust. It is a treaty commitment, but also a mature friendship built on shared commitments to democracy and free markets. In fact, South Korea is a major success story for American foreign policy. A free and prosperous South Korea has contributed to peace and stability in a strategic corner of the world--where China, Russia and Japan intersect. Korea also is a close partner and friend. We share a keen interest in regional stability, economic prosperity, and the control of weapons of mass destruction. Together, we seek to spread democracy and human rights to those Asian countries through which the winds of freedom have yet to sweep. Nearly a quarter million Americans gave their lives in three Asian wars in the past half century for those objectives, but many times more Koreans died during that same bloody period. We are linked by bonds of common sacrifice. One startling change in our relations has been the decline in anti-Americanism in Korea. It was not long ago that Korea saw widespread student demonstrations against the United States and frequent demands that U.S. troops be withdrawn. Today there is little of this discord. The presence of 37,000 American troops in Korea is, as you might expect, an irritant from time to time. Crimes are sometimes committed against the civilian population, and South Korean critics complain that their court have only limited jurisdiction over U.S. servicemen and their dependents. But by and large, the South Korean people and their government have grown accustomed to Americans: They are no longer controversial or distasteful. The alliance is viewed as mutually beneficial, a normal part of everyday existence. South Koreans, for example, were relieved earlier this year when the Clinton administration announced it would maintain a 100,000 troop level in East Asia. III. The U.S.-South Korean Security Alliance I need not dwell on the reasons for the Korean-American security alliance. On the U.S. side, the stability of Asia is critical to our overall security and prosperity, and our security relationships with Korea and Japan are the linchpins of our presence in Asia. For South Korea, the benefits are also clear. A hostile North Korea still stations two-thirds of its 1.2 million man army near the Demilitarized Zone. The North has enough artillery targeted on Seoul to reduce it to rubble. It has SCUD missiles and is developing longer-range ballistic missiles. Its dictators have committed terrorist acts. It has had, until recently, a secret nuclear weapons program flaunting the will of the international community. This does not suggest the North could defeat the South in a war. But it does point out the dangers. The Korean peninsula remains the most dangerous flashpoint in Asia because of its location, North Korea's militarization, and the nature of its government. General Luck, the U.S. commander in Korea, estimates a war on the peninsula could claim a million lives and cost a trillion dollars. Thus, the money we invest in peace and stability on the Korean peninsula is prudent. iv. issues in the relationship Let me turn to several key issues in the U.S.-South Korean relationship. A. North Korea's Nuclear Program North Korea's secret efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are a major threat to U.S. national security. A nuclear-armed North Korea would also jeopardize the stability of the entire region. Last October, the United States signed an agreement with North Korea to freeze, and eventually eliminate, its nuclear weapons program. This complex accord will be implemented in stages over a decade or more. In essence, it is a trade. North Korea has halted and will eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program, accepting extensive international inspections to verify compliance. In exchange, the international community will provide North Korea with alternative energy sources, initially in the form of heavy fuel oil, and later with light-water reactors that cannot easily be used to make nuclear bombs. The agreement also envisions that we will move toward normalization of political and economic ties between the United States and North Korea, and a resumption of dialogue between the two Koreas. This agreement does not address every concern we have about North Korea. But it does provide us with an opening--one that did not exist before--to lift the specter of a nuclear arms race from the Korean peninsula, begin a process of meaningful dialogue between the two Koreas, and come to grips with other North Korean activities that concern us. This time last year, we were on the verge of a confrontation with North Korea--a confrontation no one wanted, and that held little hope of solving the problem of North Korea's nuclear program. Voices in this city, and pundits across the country, called for sanctions and even military strikes. Today, because of the Geneva agreement, the North has frozen its nuclear program and agreed to a step-by-step process that will eventually eliminate that program. Some say the Agreed Framework is ``frontloaded'' in favor of the North. I cannot agree. North Korea has already taken a number of significant steps under the agreement. It has shut down its only operating reactor. It has halted construction on two new reactors. It has sealed its reprocessing facility and stopped construction on a new reprocessing line. It has refrained from reprocessing its spent fuel rods, which would have given the North enough plutonium for four or five nuclear weapons. And it has admitted International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and U.S. technicians into its nuclear facilities. In return, we have provided North Korea with $5 million of heavy oil. We have also spent $10 million to ensure the safe storage of the North's sent fuel rods--but this was preferable to having Pyongyang reprocess those rods and obtain enough plutonium for 4-5 nuclear weapons. North Korea will not get what it really wants--the light water reactors--until well down the line--after all our questions about its past nuclear activities has been resolved. The agreement is frontloaded--but in our favor. Moreover, North Korea has agreed not only to resume IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, but to exceed its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). It has agreed to refrain from reprocessing the spent fuel it possesses, and to shut down its reprocessing facility--even though the NPT permits reprocessing. This means the North cannot obtain plutonium to manufacture nuclear weapons. This agreement is not based on trust, but on North Korea's performance. The United States will have the means to verify that the North is living up to its commitments. We will pursue our interests by other means if North Korea does not fulfill its obligations. We will not only cancel the deal--we will respond firmly in other venues. Some critics maintain that we gave away too much, that we could have gotten more from the North Koreans if only we had been better negotiators. I have not seen any evidence to support such claims. One question often asked is whether North wants this agreement to succeed. Frankly, I don't know. We should expect the North to reopen issues we thought were resolved, and to issue threats designed to gain new concessions. Implementation will be slow, and sometimes painful. Still, I am persuaded that this agreement is far preferable to any other alternative--as sanctions, or military escalation--at this time. This agreement does not guarantee that future relations with the North will be without tensions and difficulties. But it will serve U.S. national interests, if it is fully implemented. It has the potential to defuse North Korea's nuclear threat, promote stability on the Korean peninsula, and lead to a more peaceful life for the people of Korea, South and North. B. South-North Dialog A dialogue between South and North Korea is also necessary if we are to bridge our differences with North Korea. Recent events give us some grounds for optimism. Last month officials from North and South Korea spent five days in secret talks in Beijing. The result was an agreement by the South to provide 150,000 tons of rice to help North Korea meet its acute food shortage. A second round of talks between the two Koreas began a few days ago. South Korea was careful during and after the talks not to humiliate the North. This shows a level of political maturity that bodes well for future South-North contacts. And it's not unrealistic to expect further contacts. Just as ping-pong opened the door for substantive discussions between the United States and the People's Republic of China, so might rice set the stage for further progress on family reunification, cultural and athletic exchanges, trade and investment, and even a South-North summit. One of the most pressing topics for South-North dialogue is the security situation along the Demilitarized Zone. The lessons we learned in central Europe during the Cold War can be applied in Korea. Redeploying conventional forces, and great transparency, can reduce the danger of war along the DMZ. Confidence-building measures, such as assigning liaison officers to the headquarters of field commands, requiring observers at military exercises, and limiting the size of such exercises, would help reduce tensions. C. Reunification and the Armistice On an issue of fundamental importance to the people of Korea, there should be no doubt: The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea. The division of the Korean peninsula, and of the Korean people, is artificial and unnatural. Reunification is clearly in U.S. interests: It will eliminate the danger of a new Korean war. Reunification should be carried out by the Korean people themselves, on terms acceptable to them. In recent years the North has insisted that the United States and North Korea should negotiate a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice agreement that ended the Korean War. Some of our friends in the South have voiced concern lest the United States, tired of its peacekeeping burdens, take up North Korea on its suggestion. The United States has insisted, does insist, and will continue to insist that any peace treaty to replace the armistice agreement be negotiated between the two Koreas themselves. I cannot emphasize this enough: The United States will not permit North Korea to drive a wedge between itself and its ally South Korea. As Ambassador Laney said earlier this year, ``The United States will never play the role of an `honest broker' between the two Koreas--because we are not neutral.'' The United States will not deal with North Korea behind its ally's back. D. The Economic Dimension I have dealt with the security side of the U.S.-South Korean partnership because it is so important. I can also report that our economic ties are closer than ever. South Korea is our eighth largest trading partner. South Korean exports to the United States will probably rise by 7 percent this year, to a level of $22 billion dollars. South Korea is the sixth largest market for U.S. exports, and the fourth largest market for U.S. agricultural goods. American exports to South Korea may surpass $30 billion this year. Let me put that in perspective: That is ten times the amount of foreign assistance we provided to South Korea over thirty-three years. Investment is also robust; the United States, with more than $300 million in direct investment, is the largest foreign investor in Korea. Nagging problems are a part of these close economic ties. Unfair trade practices continue to restrict access by U.S. firms to Korean markets. Korea still does not provide sufficient protection for U.S. intellectual property. Indeed, the United States recently kept Korea on the Special 301 ``priority watch list.'' We also want Korea to open financial services markets, on par with the access we provide to the U.S. market. South Korea has given foreigners greater access to the bond market, raised investment limits for stock holdings in Korean companies, and allowed international organizations to issue local currency bonds--but more needs to be done. E. Democracy and Human Rights in Korea Had I been with you to address U.S.-South Korean relations a few short years ago, I would have highlighted grave American concerns about political freedom and human rights in South Korea. Not so today. We have all been impressed in the last decade as South Korea moved from military to civilian rule, from authoritarianism to democracy, from closed to open politics. We applauded when President Roh Tae Woo broke with Korea's lengthy military tradition and opened the door to civilian rule. We were thrilled two and a half years ago upon the inauguration of President Kim Young-Sam--the longtime dissident, political prisoner, and champion of Korean democracy. In recent years we have seen considerable progress in human rights as well, although even South Koreans would concede that there is still room for improvement. The rule of law is not yet assured for every citizen. Preventive detention remains a problem. The labor movement is still handicapped by restrictions. Still, most observers agree that movement on human rights, if not always as swift as we might wish, is in the right direction. As South Korea evolves into a prosperous democracy, the bilateral relationship between Washington and Seoul deepens and matures. Our diplomats work closely together on issues far removed from the Korean peninsula. We collaborate in the United Nations and welcome Seoul's bid for membership on the Security Council. We work together on issues involving APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Our partnership extends to global environmental and population issues. Most important, perhaps, are the personal ties that link our two nations together. The Korean-American community is well represented in every state in the Union. A Korean- American, Jay Kim, now sits in the U.S. House of Representatives. The South Korean ambassador tells me that several hundred Korean children come here each year for adoption--a particularly poignant manifestation of the ties we share. My next door neighbors have two adopted Korean girls. And a growing stream of students and tourists are turning the Pacific Ocean into a land bridge. v. conclusion Periodically, the press in both the United States and South Korea report dangerous rifts between Seoul and Washington. A week or two later, those ominous differences miraculously disappear. Our relationship is durable, strong, and close. We will disagree from time to time. Our perspectives on even key issues will not always coincide. But on the fundamentals, our two peoples and our two governments are united. We share a huge stake in maintaining peace on the Korean peninsula and throughout East Asia. We share an interest in restraining North Korea's nuclear ambitions and its conventional capabilities. We benefit from economic cooperation and increased trade and investment. We are committed to the political freedoms that underlie democracy. And we both are committed to the defense of the freedoms we enjoy and cherish. In short, we have a sound basis for a lasting friendship.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we should be clear about one thing. The Western response, our response, to the war in Bosnia represents the greatest failure of the West since the 1930's. It has tarnished NATO; it has tarnished all of us. In the past I have voted for the resolution to lift the embargo unilaterally because of my disgust for the Western response and, I am sorry to say, because of my disgust for our own response to what has been happening there, and I have listened during this debate to the passionate speeches on behalf of lifting the arms embargo. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and others have reminded us about American responsibilities to support freedom and oppose the forces of tyranny, and nowhere is that tyranny more apparent than in former Yugoslavia today. There is rape, murder, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, disappearances, the slaughter of innocents. These have all become Serbian trademarks in this battle, and we have long gone beyond the time for decisive action. We should have acted years ago to end these atrocities. So why do I change my position at this particular time? It is because, as we all search for the moral and appropriate thing to do, I think we have to look at the consequences of our actions and what is happening, and for the first time in 3 years, since all of this started unraveling, since all of this horror came upon the scene, I finally see a glimmer of hope, perhaps the first demonstration of a reality that the West finally realizes it needs to act. NATO is now taking a forceful role in Bosnia. The dual key system that gave United Nations bureaucrats control over the use of force has now ended. Military commanders now have the ability to order tactical and strategic attacks when necessary to defend the remaining safe areas. NATO is now discussing the use of heavy air attacks to end the Serb assault on the Bihac safe area. A Rapid Reaction Force, heavily armed, has been deployed. Artillery units are dug in on Mount Igman. Relief convoys are being escorted into Sarajevo. Artillery, tanks, and armored personnel carriers are in position. The French have already fired back, suppressing Serb artillery. Secretary Perry says that ``airplanes are ready to go on a moment's notice'' and the White House assures us that ``substantial air actions will be mounted.'' With these new commitments and change in the command and control structure, NATO has pledged its resolve. Now it must demonstrate it. The alternative of lift; we should be clear what it does and what it does not do. It lifts the arms embargo, but it does not provide arms to Bosnia. It does not authorize the use of American troops for any purpose in Bosnia, whether it is to help with the withdrawal of the UNPROFOR forces that surely must follow that lift or the training, support, or delivery of military equipment. It does not give the Bosnian forces a chance. It does not provide them with the heavy military equipment or the training that all experts--including the Bosnians--agree is needed. Is this a vote for symbolism over substance? I fear that it may very well be. In the end I cannot help remembering that whether it was Czechoslovakia, or Poland, or Hungary, or the other countries that were subject to Nazi aggression and genocide, there was no arms embargo on those countries. Those countries without a forceful Western response were unable to resist the aggression. It was not until that response came all too late for so many millions that that aggression was resisted, and in the hope and the belief that finally the West and the United States are prepared to do something meaningful, I say for this time now let us give them that chance. If we are disappointed once again, then we have to go back to the old strategy.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, first, let us give credit where it is due. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that he is now the ranking member of, was the first person to put in money to reimburse costs for incarcerated illegal aliens last year. Second, although my friend from West Virginia is looking at early disbursement of this year's funding to determine the percentages, the fact is if his amendment passes, increasing a good program, the Byrne program, we take away not only from California but from Texas, Florida, and New York City, not just State governments, but local governments, county jails that are dealing with this problem. We take away that which we are obligated to finance. You cannot vote to compensate State and local governments for Federal mandates and then back away from the obligation to reimburse them for the costs of the failure of Federal policy. It is that simple. If you are not from New York or Illinois or California or Florida or Texas, I can understand why you might think you would do better. It is not right. I urge you to vote against this amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the base bill is a reduction in local law enforcement. The Mollohan amendment restores that reduction. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] had it right. If we want to help your city councilmen, and we want to help your county commissioners, and we want to help your mayors, go with the block grant. If we want this money to go into local law enforcement, matched by local dollars to get the biggest bang for the buck, if Members are sick and tired of the threats to public safety, the depressant on people's psychology, the hindrance it poses to economic recovery in any major urban area, and they want to get more cops on the street, the Cops on the Beat Program is the best way to do it. Every councilman has had a different idea of what is good for public safety. This is not money that goes to local law enforcement, it goes to local government. The Cops on the Beat Program is a local law enforcement program. It expands Cops on the Beat. This has a thousand different diversions without any local match with a reduced local effort. This works against the President's goal, the administration's goal, of more Cops on the Beat. It works against the interests of Los Angeles. It works against the interests, I suggest, of almost every major urban area in the country, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment. I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment to restore $1.8 billion for the highly effective COPS program. At a time when violent crime and its consequences for our quality of life is of great concern to us all, it defies logic that we would decimate our most effective means of addressing this scourge. The COPS Program works. It has already resulted in the assignment of 20,000 additional police officers in neighborhoods around the country in the first 12 months of the program. By way of contrast, the block grant funding provided in the bill can be used for any purpose that would enhance public safety. I can envision some mighty creative uses to which such unrestricted funding can be put--uses that do not guarantee a single additional officer on our streets. I am appalled by the rising rate of violent crime. Our parks have become off-limits, increasing numbers of the elderly are afraid to venture out of their homes, women find their freedom restricted, and children--and their parents--can no longer enjoy peace of mind about the safety of our schools. I am convinced that the single most effective step we have taken to confront this problem is to put more cops on the beat in our communities through the COPS Program What is more, I can personally vouch for the flexibility and efficiency of that program. I have met with Director Brann and his staff, and have the greatest admiration for the lengths to which they have gone to accommodate local needs and circumstances, but at all times making certain that the acid test is met: will the funds sought by the locality result in putting more cops on the beat? With the funding appropriated thus far, we have made a splendid start on our commitment to put 100,000 additional cops to work in our neighborhoods and streets. Let's not renege on that commitment. The first obligation of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. By returning tax dollars to our communities not in the form of an ill-defined block grant but for the explicit purpose of hiring an additional 100,000 police officers, we are making a major stride toward ending the scourge of crime in America. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Enforcement Improvements Act of 1995 on behalf of the Clinton administration. This bill builds upon the strong effort this administration has been making to control illegal immigration. This administration has done more to close the door on illegal immigration than any previous administration. With expected increases this year and next, border control staffing will have increased by 51 percent since President Clinton took office--including border patrols and inspectors at border crossing points and airports. Deportation of illegal immigrants has tripled and the removal of criminal aliens has been targeted. The budget of the INS has increased by over 70 percent from $1.5 billion in 1993 to $2.6 billion requested for 1996. The President, the Attorney General, and INS Commissioner Doris Meissner should be credited for their effective leadership and commitment to rising to the challenge of illegal immigration. The legislation introduced today gives the administration a number of tools to control our borders more effectively, to combat illegal hiring and to remove those who are here in violation of our laws. The bill would make realistic increases in border enforcement personnel without jeopardizing the quality and safety of Border Patrol officers and inspectors. Border control officers know best what resources they need to do their job effectively, and this bill responds directly to their needs. The bill imposes stiff penalties for smuggling of immigrants, document fraud and other offenses. The bill authorizes pilot programs to test ways to verify that job applicants are eligible to work in the United States. The goal is to find simple and effective ways of denying jobs to illegal immigrants to help eliminate the reason why immigrants enter this country illegally. The bill promotes coordination on workplace enforcement between the INS and the Department of Labor, since employers who hire undocumented workers often also violate other labor standards. Finally, the bill expedites the removal of criminal aliens by eliminating some procedures and redtape. I commend the administration for their initiative and I look forward to working with my colleagues to produce legislation that deals thoughtfully with the serious challenges we face.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Jack Driscoll, who is recipient of the 1995 Distinguished Public Service Award given by the Anti-Defamation League, Southwest Division. The award reflects Jack's many outstanding contributions to the city of Los Angeles. Jack is best known as the executive director of the Los Angeles Department of Airports, a position he has held since December 1992. In this role Jack oversees the operations of Los Angeles and Ontario International Airports, Palmdale Regional Airport, and Van Nuys Airport. This position has given Jack tremendous influence in local and regional affairs, and made him one of the key players in the economic revitalization of southern California. It is also the culmination of a successful 28-year career in municipal government. Prior to assuming his duties with the Department of Airports, Jack was general manager of the city of Los Angeles Personnel Department. He arrived in Los Angeles in 1978, after serving in various capacities in the mayor's office in Seattle. Jack has a bachelor's degree in psychology, a master's in business administration from the University of Seattle, and is a graduate of the UCLA Graduate School of Management, Executive Program. In addition, he is a member of the American Association of Airport Executives and the government affairs committee of Airports Council International-North America. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Jack Driscoll, a public servant who works tirelessly for the betterment of his community. He is a shining example to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to George Lutza and Carol Silver Lutza, corecipients of the Bernardi Senior Center's ninth Community Service Award. For the past 7 years George and Carol's company, Dynamic Home Care, has provided home chore and bathing services to homebound seniors referred by the Bernardi Center. Their goal is to ensure that seniors have affordable and excellent health care. In that, Carol and George have succeeded admirably. Carol and George serve on the professional advisory council and the member advisory council of the Bernardi Center, which is located in Van Nuys. They bring their own brand of dedication and energy to the center, in addition to providing a valuable service to the elderly of the northeast San Fernando Valley. Both are busy in other organizations involved with the lives of senior citizens. For example, George is a member of the Elderabuse Task Force, a member of Elders at Risk, a supporter of the Alzheimer's Association and the past chairperson of the Living at Home Community Council. Carol has since 1987 been chairperson of the Home Care Consortium through Senior Care Network, which is affiliated with Huntington Memorial Hospital. She is also cochairperson of the steering committee of the Greater Los Angeles Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting George Lutza and Carol Silver Lutza, public servants who work tirelessly for the betterment of senior citizens. They are a shining example to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge the body to reject the amendment. The fact is the appropriations bill that is before us is below the 602(b) allocation for the 150 account. The total of the bill does not exceed the authorization level. it is $400 million below the authorization level. As was mentioned by Chairman Livingston and Chairman Callahan, the $24 million increase in the development assistance was a major part, a very small amount of money, but it was a major part of deciding whether this body is going to go back to a bipartisan approach trying to deal with the very important question of foreign assistance. I ask my colleagues to remember, the appropriations bill is below the 602(b) allocation, that is in the budget resolution that passed the House. The appropriations bill in total is $400 million below the authorization level. And we are talking about $24 million for development assistance to support the most critical programs in the foreign assistance program; the kinds of aid that goes directly to people, that is not government-to-government, that is not going to be squandered. And what is the benefit of this? We go back to a bipartisan approach to the foreign assistance program. That is worth something. I am sorry the amendment is being offered. I hope it is rejected. I think it is critical to the future of how we handle foreign assistance programs in this body.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us installs at the end of the cold war, in the context of having watched what happened when countries around the world sold arms into the Middle East, what happened with Desert Shield and Desert Storm where frequently American troops had to face western weaponry and western technology that was used against them, this bill creates, I think, quite unbelievingly an entire new loan guarantee program for arms exports uncapped in a fashion that allows the U.S. Government, and the taxpayers of this country, should that government fail to pay the obligations it has for the arms that it is purchasing, to pick up the costs and pay off the defense contractor, the arms exporter who is making the sale. I think it is a terrible mistake. The administration thinks it is wrong. A coalition yesterday of both conservative and progressive organizations ranging from the Cato Institute to the Progressive Policy Institute specifically called for the eliminating of military export sales subsidies and indirect subsidies to foreign purchases of U.S. defense firm products. This is the perfect and classic example of a corporate subsidy, of a form of corporate welfare, but in a very dangerous and reckless arena. It is seeking to promote, and I understand the pressures on the defense budget, and I understand the desires of the defense contractors to look for new markets for their weapons systems, but to put the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and the American taxpayer behind the question of whether or not a particular government will make the payments on those sales is a terrible, terrible mistake. How many of my colleagues remember when we passed through this House a bill forgiving $7 billion or $8 billion in Egyptian loan payments which were already very delinquent and which CBO thought we would only collect $200 million on if we never forgave a penny? We are right now dealing with a question of Jordan debt relief this bills makes, not simply to NATO members, which by the way includes countries that are credit risky like Greece and Turkey but APEC members in the Far East including China, including Thailand, a whole series of other countries, as eligible to receive these export loan guarantees. I suggest this is an unnecessary program to try and subsidize a particular industry which already dominates the world market. Seventy percent of arms exports in 1993 were sold by U.S. defense contractorings. Well over 50 percent of arms exports this past year were by U.S. arms exporters. We make the best weapons. We can sell those weapons on the merits. We do not need to be subsidizing these corporations in their effort to find markets which in many cases can lead to problems of regional instability and flows of technology and reexports that we are not able to control. I would urge the Members to vote for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)