Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment would reduce from the committee-passed bill an additional $478 million in fiscal year 1997 authorizations. So on top of the $2 billion reduction in the 150 account that the budget resolution and this bill impose on our diplomatic and foreign relations account, the amendment further squeezes the whole series of accounts in the foreign affairs budget.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just like to follow up. The comments of the gentleman from Oregon state the issue very well. If you think in the post-cold-war world that Government-financed broadcasting is a waste of money, then this is a good bill for you because this starts us down the road toward ending that program. I think that repeating the mistakes of the end of World War I, that we won a particular battle, and now everything will be OK, there are still countries closed to all the media and the information that the gentleman from Oregon spoke about. I want a Farsi language Voice of America broadcast into Iran talking about pluralism and democracy and what is going on in that country because the people there cannot get it. I want to listen to the countries of Eastern Europe who have come through the most horrible period imaginable and who say the need to continue these exchange programs and these radio things are very important to plant the roots of democracy strong. I do not think these are irrelevant agencies anymore, and that is the debate. That is the discussion. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne]. (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. I am interested in why the gentleman thinks the USIA is an outdated agency, the programs for radio and exchange programs around the world, are outdated.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would see the day when I would be rising to oppose a foreign assistance bill, and it pains me deeply to have to be in that particular situation. But this bill, it is called the American Overseas Interests Act, I think if Members look carefully at its provisions, they should call it the American Leadership Reduction Act. It slashes resources for diplomatic efforts and in foreign assistance around the world. It dismantles without any consultations with the executive branch, without any consultation with the Democrats, it dismantles American's foreign policy structure. It hobbles the American Presidency. That may be politically attractive for some at this particular time, but Presidents come and go, and I remind my colleagues, while we have had very few years where a foreign assistance bill has become law, almost every Congress since I have come here we have passed a foreign assistance act in the House with bipartisan support from both parties. Many provisions that I disagreed with would be in the bill, many provisions that the Republicans disagreed with, but there was a committed, bipartisan support for an internationalist approach to the world with a recognition of the critical role that diplomacy and assistance and engagement plays in protecting and promoting American interests. I came on the Committee on International Relations more than any other reason because of my deep, abiding, personal, from my youth, commitment to the importance of the American-Israeli relationship in my scheme of things and in the belief that not only in Israel's interest but in America's interests that relationship was important. There is nothing more important to me in the Congress than continuing that relationship. This bill, in the short term, on the superficial glance, does that. It continues the assistance, it has important language in the bill. The chairman of the committee should be commended for that. But, in the long term, for those of us who care about that relationship, who care about this support, I tell them, putting that money into a bill that constitutes a frontal assault on the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy, that slashes other foreign assistance programs and signifies a retrenchment and move towards a neoisolationist position in the post-cold-war world, this is not an Israel-friendly bill. This is not a bill that over the long term solidifies that relationship, because you cannot sustain and justify foreign assistance for Israel in the context where you are slashing and ultimately terminating foreign assistance for every other country in the world. So it is because of my interest in that relationship and notwithstanding the specific provisions of this bill, but in the recognition of what this bill does to our whole foreign assistance program, to our ability to conduct diplomacy that I oppose this bill. I remind my colleagues again and again if I can and will throughout the total debate, every year that the Committee on Foreign Affairs came to the House floor with a bill, it was a bill which in the committee, maybe we would start out with the Democratic version during those years, but every year, first Chairman Fascell, and then Chairman Hamilton, looked at the strongest concerns that the Republicans had. We met those concerns. We came to the floor. We had the substantial majority of both Democrats and Republicans supporting the bill. There was no effort to do that here. I do not know if it was a calculated effort to try and pass a partisan bill, or a lack of time caused by the schedule, but the shocking lack of ability to engage our committee leadership or our House leadership in finding out some of the concerns that could be addressed in the context of deficit reduction, in the context of reform, in the context of addressing important foreign policy needs that this Congress considers, that agreement could have been worked out. It is a shame we are at this point where this bill is coming up as a partisan Clinton-bashing, anti-executive-branch feast instead of a sensible continuation of a bipartisan internationalist tradition. I just want to read from one paragraph of Secretary Christopher's letter. This is Secretary Christopher saying why he will recommend a veto if this bill passes. If enacted, they would compromise our ability to follow through on the North Korea Framework Agreement. They would undermine or effective participation and weaken our leverage in international organization. It would compel changes on refugees policy that compose a serious threat to their borders, limiting the President's ability to respond to boat migration and possibly exacerbating the illegal smuggling of aliens into the United States. The bill would seriously impair the President's responsibility to manage our delicate relations with China at this time of transition in its leadership. Its provisions on the New Independent States. Perhaps there will be further time to get into this later on, but I frankly would hope this bill could be withdrawn from the floor and I urge a no vote at this time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. That is true, and we gave salary across-the-board pay increases. We did not select out State Department and say, ``You won't get the salaries.'' So the cuts were felt in those departments, and this just adds to what I think is the dramatic slashes of the bill as compounded by the even more dramatic slashes of the Brownback amendment. Now on top of that we have----

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, next week the International Relations Committee will mark up legislation that threatens major changes in America's foreign policy institutions. This legislation--that appears to be largely driven by pledges from Senator Helms to consolidate America's foreign policy instruments--was just received this morning by Congressman Hamilton and has not yet been reviewed by most Democrats, nor, I venture to say, by many Republicans. Yet, the committee appears to be determined to move its legislation forward. Through press statements, we have learned that Senator Helms' agenda is to eliminate the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA], the Agency for International Development [AID], and the U.S. Information Agency [USIA]. The functions of these agencies are to be combined into a mega-bureaucracy in the Department of State. Senator Helms claims major savings in this reform although he acknowledges that few actual savings will be realized in the first 2 years of his proposed consolidation. I believe that there is even a greater cost to this proposal. It is in the cost to our national security. In this day of increasing threats from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, now is not the time to dismantle the first line of America's defense: our foreign policy institutions which served this country so well in the cold war. We all believe that in this post-cold-war era, when threats to American citizens and our nation can come equally from the actions of a lone terrorist or another country, when threats can be economic as well as military, we do need to reexamine our Nation's foreign policy bureaucracy in order to make it more efficient. But this effort is already underway through Vice President Gore's National Policy Review and Secretary of State Christopher's internal strategic management initiative. We need a reasoned, rational approach to reform that matches objective with means in a manner that protects and advances American national security. Legislation designed by political impulse and railroaded through the political process without time for full regard to cost or benefit is dangerous tinkering with America's security. I am not alone in my desire for hesitation or in my concern for the result. A bipartisan group from Freedom House recently released a statement opposing the elimination of USIA. This group, which includes among others former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Edward Fuelner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, former Senator Malcolm Wallop, and Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., editor of the American Spectator, cogently and persuasively argues that ``this proposed consolidation and centralization would weaken American public diplomacy.'' The arguments that they make on behalf of preserving one agency, USIA, I believe can be made, and will be made next week, on behalf of the other agencies now threatened by the proposed legislation. Weakening the independent voices and undermining the effectiveness of ACDA and USAID will not strengthen American foreign policy. I encourage my colleagues to read closely the statement issued by Freedom House and review carefully the legislation once it is introduced by the Republicans. I ask that the Freedom House report be printed in the Record at this point. The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy New proposals have been advanced to place the United States Information Agency (USIA)--long the chief instrument of American public diplomacy--under the centralized control of the State Department. We believe this proposed consolidation and centralization would weaken American public diplomacy. Why should the USIA remain independent? Through its broadcasting, numerous exchange programs and links with people throughout the world, it already is highly successful in promoting American interests and articulating who we are and how our policies and values are shaped. The State Department has a different though related role. It explains U.S. foreign policy to Americans and presents our government's official positions to foreign governments. The State Department values quiet negotiations, government-to- government contacts, protracted discussion, compromise and sometimes secrecy. A credible public diplomacy, by contrast, requires openness, the ability to respond quickly to rapidly changing world events, and independence in reporting, analysis and comment. In short, the culture of the State Department differs substantially from the culture of the

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I just want to make 3 points: one to my colleagues, one to the Chinese Government, and one to the administration. I simply would remind my colleagues that this administration has actually done more than any of the previous administrations with respect to elevating its relationship with Taiwan. This is the first administration which has allowed high-level members of its Government to visit Taiwan. This is the administration that signed legislation last year passed by this Congress to allow Taiwanese-Americans to list Taiwan as their place of birth on passports, and in a whole variety of levels it has enhanced that cooperation. To the Chinese Government, I simply remind that Government, we have many differences. Both the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from California have spoken to those differences. However, in and of itself the passage of this resolution does not speak to the question of whether our policy should be a one-China policy or a two-China policy or one China and one Taiwan policy. It deals very specifically with the question of President Lee making an informal visit, and it should not be construed in any other fashion. The third point is to the administration. I think you will see, by virtue of the unanimity of feeling on this subject in the Congress, that this issue will not simply go away, that it will not end with a passage of a sense of Congress resolution, and that legislation will be coming that will seek to mandate this visit if the administration's policy does not change. I urge them to reconsider this aspect of their policy.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Sara and Simha Lainer, close friends of mine for more than 40 years and people passionately dedicated to the welfare of the Jewish community of Los Angeles. Natives of Eastern Europe, the Lainers came to southern California via Mexico, where they lived and worked for several years. We are lucky to have them. Sara Lainer, a distinguished author of scholarly articles, has been an active volunteer on behalf of Hadassah, Pioneer Women, General Israel Orphans Home, the Yiddish Culture Club, and many other organizations. She continues to lecture in Hebrew and Yiddish to groups in Los Angeles, and she holds an honorary doctorate from the Hebrew Theological College, Jewish University of America. Her commitment to the intellectual and spiritual components of Judaism is extraordinary. Simha Lainer, who ran a successful real estate business in the San Fernando Valley, is a strong supporter of, and a dedicated volunteer with, the University of Judaism, the Jewish Community Foundation, the ADL, and West Coast Friends of the Hebrew University. Anyone who cares about the Jewish community of Los Angeles owes a huge thanks to Simha Lainer. In 1989, the Lainers established the Simha and Sara Lainer Fund for Jewish Education, which has thus far awarded $290,000 in scholarships to 400 children around the city. I can think of nothing more important than ensuring Judaism remains vibrant and alive in Los Angeles. Simha and Sara also raised three sons, Mark, Nahum, and Luis, who have followed in the tradition of their parents in working hard on behalf of their community. I am indeed lucky to be good friends with all three, as well as their wives, Ellie, Alice, and Lee. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Sara and Simha Lainer, whose tireless efforts to make this a better world inspire us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Edward Feldman, who is completing a 2-year term as chair of the UCLA Governmental Relations Steering Committee. I had the pleasure of working with Ed on nursing home issues when I served in the California Legislature in the 1970's, and can attest to his zeal and dedication in fighting for those causes in which he believes. A fellow UCLA alumnus, Ed has spent 21 of the past 27 years specializing in the investigation and prosecution of white collar crimes for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. His areas of responsibility included the major fraud Nursing Home Abuse Section and the Special Investigations Division. In August 1993, Ed was appointed acting head deputy of the newly formed Workers' Compensation Fraud Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Ed recently supplanted his busy professional life with his role as chair of the Governmental Relations Steering Committee, which assists UCLA by providing alumni support for issues coming before Federal, State, and local elected officials. UCLA was lucky to have him. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Ed Feldman, a public servant who works tirelessly to promote social justice. He is a shining example to us all.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Ray Ojeda, a good friend and the outgoing mayor of San Fernando. Under Ray's intelligent and firm leadership, San Fernando has strengthened its ties to the local business community, paving the way for better economic times in the city. Ray also took charge in the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake, which destroyed or damaged many buildings in San Fernando. The mayor provided a steady hand, and worked hard to get San Fernando its fair share of State and Federal assistance. A resident of San Fernando for 18 years, Ray epitomizes the definition of public servant. Prior to his election to the City Council in 1992, Ray served as a planning commissioner and as a member of the Kiwanis Club. In his public role he has always emphasized the importance of community pride, a message that has particular application in San Fernando, where a few years ago gangs and graffiti were all too common. The recent turnaround is a testimony to Ray's efforts. With two children and several grandchildren, along with a passion for golf and hunting, Ray leads an active life outside politics. In addition, Ray is the owner of Ray's Window Coverings in San Fernando. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Ray Ojeda, businessman/politician/father/grandfather, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of San Fernando. The residents are indeed lucky to have had him as mayor, and to continue to have him on the city council.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923. Today, we are marking the anniversary of a terrible time for the Armenian people, a time of tragic oppression and horrific suffering. April 24, 1915, marks the date when many Armenians were uprooted and deported from Turkish Armenia, dying of starvation, disease, and massacres. An estimated one and a half million people died during the period 1915-1923, the victims of the last years of the Ottoman Empire. In recalling those awful days, we are also commemorating the strength of the Armenian people whose fortitude of character and culture gave them the will to triumph over their tragedy. In our own country, Armenian-Americans have flourished. Their individual accomplishments have contributed greatly to the wealth of our Nation. Their achievements are a moving testimony to the truth that tyranny cannot extinguish the human spirit. In remembering this tragedy, we are remembering as well other acts of savagery and genocide in human history. Murder and destruction have not been eliminated from this Earth. In Bosnia today evil men and women still seek to exterminate a people and eliminate their culture. We end this century as we began it: with the death of innocents on the altar of tyranny. By marking this day the Armenian genocide, we, the American people, are renewing our commitment to oppose the persecution of any people. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in remembering the tragedy of the Armenian people and in renewing our commitment to human rights.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from San Francisco, CA [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], the sponsor of the legislation and the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 53, which expresses the sense of Congress regarding a private visit by President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the United States, passed out of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee on April 5 on an 8- to-0 vote and was voted out of the full committee on the same day on a 32-to-0 vote. I was an original cosponsor of the resolution, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], chairman of the subcommittee, having written the Secretary of State urging a change in our policy. President Lee, as the first native-born President of Taiwan, represents more than anything else a beacon of hope to Taiwanese eager to gain recognition for their accomplishments. Taiwan has emerged as a major world economic power, becoming the United States sixth largest export market and our second largest market in Asia after Japan. We sell about twice as much to Taiwan as we do to the People's Republic of China. Taiwan, under the leadership of President Lee, has made dramatic political progress. Democratic elections have been held. In 1996, for the first time there will be direct elections for the President. Despite these positive developments, we treat Taiwan as a second- class, not a world-class citizen. This resolution attempts to rectify that imbalance by demonstrating congressional support for a change in administration policy. I think the administration is beginning to understand the need for a policy change. Last September the administration announced a welcome change in our policy toward Taiwan which included permitting high level official visits. During a meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister this April, April 17, Secretary of State Christopher, according to the State Department, ``made clear that the American public and particularly the American Congress do not understand the Chinese position opposing a Lee visit.'' He noted that ``many people in Congress, including good friends of Beijing, do not understand why a visit to the alma mater to pick up an honorary degree would have to be seen as official in nature.'' Allowing President Lee to visit the United States and officially to receive an honorary degree at his alma mater, Cornell University, should not be interpreted by the Chinese as a slap at them but rather a recognition of our continuing friendship with Taiwan. Nor should this be seen as an effort to undermine or alter the administration's One China policy. A change in our policy concerning a visit by the Taiwanese President does not and should not be seen by China as constituting a change in our policy toward China. Nothing in the Taiwan Relations Act or the joint communiques address the issue of high level visits. Mr. Speaker, if the administration does not change its policy to permit President Lee to make an unofficial visit, I believe Congress will attempt to mandate a change in policy. House Concurrent Resolution 53 sends a strong signal of bipartisan sentiment on this issue that I hope the administration will heed. I join with the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] in urging this body to pass this resolution unanimously. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrence Resolution 53, ``Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding a private visit by President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the United States,'' passed out of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee on April 5 on an 8-to-0 vote and was voted out of the full committee on the same day on a 32-to-0 vote. I was an original cosponsor of the resolution. I have also written the Secretary of State urging a change in our policy. Allowing President Lee to visit the United States unofficially to receive an honorary degree at his alma mater, Cornell University, should not be interpreted by the Chinese as a slap at them but a recognition of our continuing friendship with Taiwan. Nor should this be seen as an effort to undermine or alter the administration's One China policy. A change in our policy concerning a visit by the Taiwanese President does not and should not be seen by China as constituting a change in our policy toward China. Nothing in the Taiwan Relations Act or the joint communiques addresses the issue of high level visits. President Lee, as the first native-born President of Taiwan, represents more than anything else a beacon of hope to Taiwanese eager to gain recognition for their accomplishments. Taiwan has emerged as a major world economic power, becoming the United States sixth largest export market and our second largest market in Asia, after Japan. We sell about twice as much to Taiwan as we do the People's Republic of China. Taiwan, under the leadership of President Lee, has made dramatic political progress. Democratic elections have been held. In 1996 for the first there will be direct elections for the president. Despite these positive developments, we treat Taiwan as a second- class, not a world-class, citizen. This resolution attempts to rectify that imbalance by demonstrating congressional support for a change in administration policy: Let Lee come. I think the administration is beginning to understand the need for a policy change. Last September, the administration announced a welcome change in our policy toward Taiwan which included permitting high level official visits. During a meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister on April 17, Secretary Christopher, according to the State Department, ``made clear that the American public and particularly the American Congress do not understand the Chinese position opposing a Lee visit.'' He noted that ``many people in Congress, including good friends, of Beijing, do not understand why a visit to the alma mater to pick up an honorary degree would have to be seen as official in nature.'' If the administration does not change its policy to permit President Lee to make an unofficial visit, I believe Congress may attempt to mandate a change in policy. House Concurrence Resolution 53 sends a strong signal of bipartisan sentiment on this issue that I hope the administration will heed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, 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. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin, a good friend and one of the most respected and influential leaders in the Jewish community of Los Angeles, on the occasion of his 50th year in the rabbinate and his 75th birthday. In 1964 Rabbi Zeldin founded Stephen S. Wise Temple, which has since become the largest Jewish congregation in the West and the second- largest in the world. This alone justifies his exalted status. But Rabbi Zeldin is not one to rest on his laurels. Through its programs, lectures and full-time day and high school, Stephen S. Wise Temple has made an immeasurable contribution to Jewish life in southern California. Hardly a day goes by when there is not a stimulating event of some kind taking place at the temple. Rabbi Zeldin would not have it any other way. In 1953, New York's loss became California's gain; Rabbi Zeldin left his native New York City, where he was assistant dean of Hebrew Union College, and headed west; 1 year later he became founding dean of the Los Angeles branch Hebrew Union College. From 1958-63 Rabbi Zeldin was spiritual leader of Temple Emanuel in Beverly Hills. Despite his rabbinical duties, Rabbi Zeldin somehow finds the time to get actively involved with other cases and organizations. For example, he is past president of the American Zionist Council and the San Fernando Valley Synagogue Council and sits on the board of the UCLA Medical Ethics Committee. In addition, Rabbi Zeldin writes frequently for newspapers and magazines. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us today in saluting Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin, a man whose friendship, guidance, and intellect has touched the lives of so many. We wish him well on his birthday.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Steve Greenberg, who is retiring from a successful tenure as president of the Mid-Valley Chamber of Commerce. Under Steve's energetic leadership the Mid-Valley Chamber built strong ties to schools, local businesses, and the community. It is because of the efforts of people such as Steve Greenberg that the economy of the San Fernando Valley has begun to turn around. Steve has an extensive and colorful background in business. During the 1960's and 1970's he worked as a carpenter, mason, and photographer while living in northern California. After that he worked in the film industry, where his specialty was documentaries, educational, and training films. But all this could be considered preparation for his next job: president of Sam's U-Drive, a company started in 1935 by his father, Sam, and grandfather, Louie. President since 1986, Steve recently changed the name of the company to Sam's U-Rent, reflecting the diverse range of services and rental equipment the company now makes available. He is responsible for upgrading the facilities at four sites: Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Bakersfield, and Los Angeles. Outside of his business activities, Steve has compiled an extraordinary record of helping his community. To cite a few of many examples: He is a member of the Mid-Valley Police Council, a supporter of the San Fernando Valley Association for the Retarded, and the Patron's Association of Los Angeles Valley College, and a former board member of the Los Angeles chapter of Mother's Against Drunk Driving. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Steve Greenberg, who through his selfless commitment to his community and his keen business sense has done so much to improve the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. The problem is I only have 3\1/2\ minutes. But I will yield as long as I have a little time to respond to your response.

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. BERMAN. I heard the response.

Mr. BERMAN. I am talking about foreign guest workers, farm workers, are the only group of immigrants left eligible for these benefits.