Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, if I may further clarify my intent, this is establishing a precedent.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the very real six tax increases that are contained in this bill be put into the Record at this point.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from New York, Mr. Solomon, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, if he understands that I was only attempting to put information into the Record.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, when the Republican Contract With America tax act came to the floor a few months ago, I raised the point that that was in violation of the law that was passed at the very beginning of this session, that any tax increase required a three-fifths vote of this Congress. At the time, the Parliamentarian accepted what was certainly a specious judgment on the part of the Joint Tax Committee, that it did not in fact increase taxes. Subsequently, the Parliamentarian has conceded that it did, and in fact should have been required to have a three-fifths vote of this Congress in order to pass the House. What has occurred subsequently, Mr. Speaker, is a recognition that much of our tax legislation does in fact violate that law that we chose to apply to ourselves, at least the Republican side of the aisle chose to apply it, but I think the vast majority of us agree, and what is most troubling is that in the biggest bills, for example, in the Medicare bill that we just took up, a $270 billion bill, the rule waived this three-fifths requirement. There are some taxpayers who will in fact pay a 50 percent tax increase on the part B Medicare insurance premium. They are not aware of that. Most Members in the Congress are not. Certainly, it is in gross violation of the three-fifths requirement. That is why it was waived. Again today, this rule waives that three-fifths requirement. I understand the argument that was raised, although I certainly cannot agree with it. Essentially what we are saying is it is inconvenient to apply it. There are several ways in which we violate the law that we earlier enacted. We passed a law that said that we ought to abide by the laws we apply to the private sector. Certainly, we ought to comply with the laws that we pass for ourselves. We ought not waive it when in fact it is inconvenient. That is what we are doing today. I could cite several instances where there is, in fact, an income tax increase in this bill that in fact does require that there ought to be a three-fifths rule in order to pass it. I grant you, we will lose the vote on this rule, but the American public needs to know that a rule that they thought was going to protect them is being waived as part of this rule. The biggest one is an income tax increase that will apply to low- income citizens. I have a long list of every one of the leadership of the Republican side of the aisle here saying that this three-fifths vote was going to protect all Americans. It did not say ``all Americans of higher income,'' it did not say ``all Americans except those of low- income.'' It said all Americans, but today low-income Americans will pay much more in taxes that they cannot afford if we were to pass this bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we should not be jeopardizing the prospects for peace for the sake of political posturing. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Presidential candidate that is pushing this legislation used to be opposed to this move. What compelling reason is there to depart from our policy on Jerusalem that has served both Republican and Democratic administrations for over 45 years? Mr. Speaker, since President Truman, this Nation has stuck firmly to the policy that Jerusalem's final status could only be determined by negotiation. Now, we have a chance for lasting peace through United States-sponsored negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In these peace talks sometime next year the permanent status negotiations on Jerusalem will occur. Mr. Speaker, both the Palestinians and the Israelis recognize that this issue must be deferred to the end of the peace process in order to make the progress that has been made to date. This is not the time, unilaterally, for the United States, contrary to the desire of Israel and the Palestinians, to begin the process of moving the capital to Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, do not do this to Prime Minister Rabin and do not do it to the peace process.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. It indicates the fact that we have by art partisan support to eradicate domestic violence and come up with such programs, and we support from menace well as the women in the Congress and throughout the Nation. You mentioned two other bills that I think are critically important. The one is to make sure that no insurance policy is going to prevent those people who are victims of domestic violence from getting the insurance. In some instances, and this is becoming rarer, but I think we do need to get the legislation in effect to fully prevent it, in some instances they have considered it a preexisting condition. This is a situation where the victim is victimized also by not being able to have that very thing that she needs so vitally, and that is the health insurance. The other bill that the gentleman mentioned is one that would require that medical schools include within their medical training information abut domestic violence, how to recognize it, and protocols for treating it. We did pass in the last Congress a measure that required the Centers for Disease Control to come up with a demonstration program to be used in some hospitals where protocols would be established for domestic violence to be able to treat it. So, again, I thank the gentleman very much from one Montgomery County to another for participating in this special order.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and for that clarification, as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the former chairman, as well. I thank them very much for clarifying that, and the substance of this legislation is very important.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Massachusetts and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. This is a very good bill. Certainly all of us are aware of the fact that we have so many seniors who are asset rich and cash poor, and so this home equity conversion mortgage extension works out very well for them and is going to relieve a lot of anxiety for them. I am particularly excited about the provision that relates to the screening and eviction of drug and alcohol abusers in public and publicly assisted housing. I did not come to the conclusion in any easy way. In fact, when I got involved in public service, back many years ago, it was really over subsidized housing. By the time I was mayor of Alexandria across the river, one out of every seven homes in Alexandria were subsidized. But increasingly they become characterized by drug dealing and crime and violence. It was not working. Elderly residents were scared for their lives to live in publicly assisted housing. Single mothers had to come to the conclusion really that their children were going to get involved in drug dealing before they became adults. It was almost inevitable. It came to a climax when I lost a very good friend who was a police officer in a highly publicized shootout over a drug transaction. I will not go into the specifics of that, but it became clear that we had to do something. I went to Secretary Kemp and got a waiver to do exactly what this bill does today. In fact, this bill builds on the provisions that were in last year's Housing and Community Development Act that expanded the grounds for eviction for criminal activity to any activity that threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by the other residents and by public housing employees. This measure includes language that I offered last year to remove the geographic limitation that current law places to the expedited eviction procedure by striking the on-or-near-such-premises language. What happens is that drug dealers know very well where the boundary is, they just step over to do their drug dealing. This bill also clarifies that ignorance of illegal drug activity should not by itself be grounds for exempting a tenant from the expedited eviction procedure. That actual-knowledge standard is a real easy way our for the tenant of record. It encourages the leasehold, which is oftentimes the parent, to avoid knowing what the members of their family, who should be under their control, are actually doing on the premises. Mr. Speaker, one outstanding concern is that the eviction and screening provisions should be extended to all government assisted privately owned housing. There are approximately 1.4 million public housing units, while there are more than 2.1 million section 8 publicly assisted housing units. What is effective for public housing should be applied to the privately owned publicly assisted housing as well. In reviewing the legislation, it is not exactly clear if tenants in project-based section 8 programs and tenants in FHA-insured subsidized housing are covered. I am not aware of any legislation standards for eviction from section 8 project-based on FHA-subsidized housing, although I believe HUD has issued rules and a handbook for this housing. So I think it would be helpful if we could clarify with respect to the project-based section 8 housing and the FHA-subsidized housing whether this applies to them. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], clarify that?

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in recognition of the First Annual Part-Time Professionals' Day. This day was brought to my attention by the Association of Part-Time Professionals, a national nonprofit organization that is a leading authority on flexible work options. The First Annual Part-Time Professionals' Day recognizes the nearly 4.6 million men and women who currently work in part-time professional jobs. Part-time workers comprise a diverse segment of the work force which includes men and women in search of nontraditional employment schedules to accommodate changing high-tech work environments and family priorities. These individuals include parents seeking better balance between work and family needs, retirees interested in continuing employment, students, and others pursuing outside interests such as volunteer opportunities in our communities. More than 80 percent of the Association of Part-Time Professionals members live in the Washington metropolitan area. These members and others represent a growing segment of the work force which I am honored and delighted to recognize as valuable professionals in the American workplace.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the speakers who will be following me are African Americans, and some Members are going to come to the conclusion that the issue we will be discussing today is a race issue. It really is not. It is a fairness issue, and to vote to support the Sentencing Commission is not a matter of whether you are tough on crime or whether you support law and order issues. It is really a matter of whether you are willing to do the right thing, the fair thing. It goes to the heart of what is on America's mind today, the different perceptions between the black and white communities within America as to the integrity of our judicial system. Why should a person with a high income who might get caught with $200 of powdered cocaine in their fancy automobile and more likely in an affluent neighborhood, why should they have, in the first place, less chance of being caught and, in the second place, much less chance of getting a severe penalty than a young child really holding a $20 piece of crack cocaine in a drug-infested neighborhood? But the reality is that we created this system of disparity. All I want is what the Sentencing Commission wants, which is equal justice under the law, and the fact is we do not have that today, because at the time there was a rage about crack cocaine. So we imposed mandatory penalties on crack cocaine that do not apply to powder cocaine. But it is the affluent who buy the powder cocaine, who have much more choice within their lives, and it is the young, poor children and youth of low-income neighborhoods, whether they be black or white or Hispanic, who are much more likely to have crack cocaine in their possession, and they are the ones that the criminal justice slams and puts them away for much of their productive lives. If you are going to do that, do that to the affluent people as well, the people who have much more choice in their lives, who are paying much more for their cocaine habit and have less excuse. I urge my colleagues to support the Sentencing Commission to do what is fair and right and to start the healing process within our great country.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple, straightforward, noncontroversial bill. It simply allows the film that the U.S. Information Agency sponsored, the ``Fragile Ring of Fire,'' to be distributed within the United States. If it were not for this legislation, this film could not be shown for another 12 years, because, as the gentleman from [[Page H 10109]] New Jersey [Mr. Smith] said, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, and I gather that was no relation to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], it was another Mr. Smith, but in 1948 to prevent the executive branch from using the U.S. Information Agency as a political tool, and it said that the film has to be around for 12 years before it can be shown initially in the United States. We have passed any number of other pieces of legislation because of this restrictive law. The Thomas Jefferson papers show, which commemorated the 250th anniversary of Thomas Jefferson's birth; we had a documentary about crimes against humanity regarding the conflict in Yugoslavia; we had a film called ``The Long Way Home,'' about the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan; a tribute to Mickey Leland; photographs of military operations-related activities in the Republic of Vietnam for the purpose of developing and publishing military histories. All of these films served an important purpose, but they all had to get this kind of specific legislative authority before they could be shown in the United States. The ``Fragile Ring of Fire'' is important because it will contribute to scholarly efforts and public awareness of these undersea issues. There are a number of private sector efforts going on to protect the world's coral reefs by revealing the incredible beauty and productivity of coral reefs in generating food, income, and employment to communities around the world. This film shows some stark examples of the environmental degradation that has occurred and highlights the most successful reef conservation programs. The filmmakers went all the way around the Florida keys, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and shot some stunning underwater scenes in all of these locations. It is just so ironic that it cannot be shown in the United States. Coral reefs are one of the most diverse and important of all natural ecosystems. They are considered the rain forests of the ocean. They are located within eight States, U.S. States and territories, and the third largest reef in the world is located next to the Florida keys. It spans 150 miles from the south of Miami to the Gulf of Mexico, and over 6 million tourists every year visit the keys to boat, fish, and snorkel and scuba dive and see more than 6,000 species of plants, fish, and invertebrates. Because the keys are so important, not only commercially but because of protein they provide, any number of environmental contributions that coral reefs make, it is disturbing that 10 percent of the reefs have been lost already, and scientists estimate another 20 to 30 percent could be lost over the next 15 years. That is why this is important to be shown. The State Department has a coral reef initiative that brings seven countries together to more effectively manage coral reef ecosystems. The Department of State already has a long list of organizations that want to participate in this within the United States, schools, museums, environmental groups, and they need to be able to show this film. I cannot imagine any reason why all of the Members would not want them to be able to show this film, and, in fact, many of the Members may want to make it available to their school systems. I do want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking Democrat on the full committee, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, in moving this through the committee, and lastly, I want to put in a plug in recognition to the superb staff of the Committee on International Relations, Beth Ford and Kristen Gilley. They have done a terrific job, as well as Kris King, on my staff, who has followed this for months and made sure it got legislated, as well as putting all of these thoughts together. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Blood in the patient. The patient is going to die unless you close up the wound. Ninety billion dollars will only get you past the next election. It will not save Medicare from bankruptcy and protect it for the next generation. Our goal is to protect Medicare, not pass the next election, but for the next generation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a wonderful opportunity for my colleagues and their staff to do something good for both themselves and for America: to participate in the Healthy Choice American Health Walk on September 28, at noon. America's National campaign to fight heart disease will start in the Nation's Capitol with a walk on the National Mall involving thousands of our fellow government and congressional leaders, celebrities, Federal workers and others. It is fitting to begin this event in our Nation's Capitol, because heart disease is a national problem. It is our Nations No. 1 killer and disabler, and it exacts a devastating emotional and financial toll each year. Of the 10 leading causes of death in our country, heart disease leads the list--and kills more of us each year than the next 9 causes combined. And the financial impact of heart disease and stroke accounts for about one-seventh of our Nation's entire health care bill. Local American Heart Association chapters have organized more than 800 walks involving thousands of people in cities and towns from coast- to-coast in late September and early October. The steps that will be taken on The Mall today begin a national round of heart walks in which over 400,000 Americans will participate. In the next few weeks, this army of walkers will cover more than 1.2 million miles, and will raise more than $13 million for the American Heart Association. With the heart walk, we can all--quite literally--take meaningful steps toward conquering this killer. And by participating in the heart walk we can advance our cause in two critical ways. We can help ourselves by taking steps toward a heart-smart lifestyle; and we can help others by raising funds to support the ongoing education and research efforts of the American Heart Association. I urge my colleagues in the House to fit this into their schedules and to encourage their staff to participate as well.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are some things that I want to emphasize in this, because some of my very good friends have spoken on this, and perhaps there may be some misunderstanding. In the first place, this does not affect any of the teams that currently exist that enable employers to deal with employees. This only affects groups that are set up to discuss the wages and working conditions. Those specific, most profound issues that are restricted by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the Labor Relations Act says that if you are going to discuss the wages and conditions of employment, then you really need legitimate elected representatives. Mr. Chairman, that is all this amendment does. This amendment simply says that if you are going to have people making those determinations, the most important determinations in terms of the workforce, then those representatives of the employees ought to be democratically elected by the employees. It does not go into a lot of rigamarole on how it might occur. I am sure there might be many ways of doing it, but it has to be a secret ballot and that is all that we ask. We do not tie it to any Federal bureaucracy. But I know that this is an aspect of fairness that not only legitimizes this bill, if it were to pass, but legitimizes the labor-management relationship within the work force. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I would inform the gentleman there is no mention of a Federal bureaucracy in the amendment. The amendment simply says that they would be representatives of employees elected by a majority of employees by secret ballot. A very simple amendment.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, since he has emphasized the point that most of these teams are in fact democratically elected, what is wrong with ensuring that they all be democratically elected? Apparently, it would not change most of the structure of these team units.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk read the entire amendment because it is so short. It is very simple: It says that if you are going to have employee representatives, those people ought to in fact be representative of the employees. The only way that you can get fair representation is through a democratic process. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to have legitimate representatives of employee groups, then they ought to be elected. I cannot think of any other legitimate way to decide who ought to represent a group of individuals than through the democratic process. All this amendment does is to say that for employee representatives, they will be chosen through a democratic process by the employees themselves. That is all it does. I agree that we ought to have more creativity and flexibility in the workplace to deal with the advances in technology and the globalization of our economy. The problem is that this legislation's bottom line, if it is not corrected by this amendment, will give carte blanche authority to management to create, to mold, and to in fact terminate employee organizations dealings with issues such as wages and benefits, the guts of employee-management relationships. [[Page H 9548]] The amendment I offer does not affect the tens of thousands of currently existing employee involvement groups. It does not affect them at all. It does require that when groups are formed to discuss the terms and conditions of employment, that they be democratically elected, and that is the whole purpose for this bill, because currently the National Labor Relations Act precludes employee groups from being able to determine the wages and conditions of employment. If you are going to get into that area, then the people that you negotiate with ought to be truly representative of the work force. Employee involvement groups have been successful at developing a number of creative solutions in a flexible environment, but they have not to date dealt with wages and benefits. That issue deserves a higher level of scrutiny. This will provide that higher level of scrutiny. It will make sure that the only people who are representing the employees are not the teacher's pet types of individuals who in fact are not representative. Some of them may be; some of them, we are sure, will not be. The only way to determine if they are representative is to let the employee choose them, and that is what this amendment does. The TEAM Act abolishes the restriction in the National Labor Relations Act that restricts these employee involvement groups to discussing the terms and conditions of employment. We are told that this is not an obstruction to anything that currently exists within the workplace on the one hand by management. We are told by labor unions that all this is is an attempt to create sham unions. You cannot have it both ways. It will in fact be a confirmation that they are sham unions if the employee representatives are not democratically selected. Mr. Chairman, this part of the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 specifically to abolish sham unions. They flourished in the 1920's and 1930's. They are not entirely a thing of the past now. The courts in this country see dozens of sham union cases each year. The statute we are replacing today is the only mechanism that prevents the deliberate formation of sham unions. The National Labor Relations Board former chairman, Edward Miller, now an attorney representing management interests, recognized this. He said, ``If this section were repealed, I have no doubt in not too many months or years sham company unions would again occur. As the Congress proceeds to change labor law in such a profound fashion, we should not deprive workers of the basic right of choosing their own representatives.'' My amendment allows employee involvement groups to discuss these conditions. It guarantees fairness by requiring democratic elections. It is a simple amendment. It makes common sense. I think it is the only way that Members in good conscience should support the kind of bill we are considering today.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need to give businesses the flexibility to creatively address the problems that occur in today's workplace. Unfortunately, this legislation's bottom line is that management will have carte blanche authority to create, mold, and terminate employee organizations dealing with issues such as wages and benefits. The amendment that I offer does not affect the tens of thousands of currently existing employee involvement groups. It does require that groups formed to discuss terms and conditions of employment be democratically elected. Employee involvement groups have been successful at developing creative solutions in a flexible environment. Such issues as wages and benefits, however, deserve a higher level of scrutiny. My amendment provides that higher level of scrutiny. If management wants to create a group to discuss such issues, it can not pick the employees' representatives. The National Labor Relations Act does not allow these groups to discuss terms and conditions of employment. The TEAM Act would abolish this restriction and allow employee involvement groups to address any topic. The Sponsors of this bill will tell you that this change is necessary to remove an obstruction to greater productivity, and that without it's removal American businesses will fall far behind their foreign competitors. This portion of the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 to abolish sham unions. Sham unions flourished in the 1920's and 1930's, but they are not a thing of the past. The courts in this country see dozens of sham union cases each year. The statute we are replacing today is the only mechanism preventing the formation of sham unions. Former NLRB Chairman Miller, now an attorney representing management interests, recognized this. He said ``If [this section] were repealed I have no doubt that in not too many months or years sham company unions would again recur.'' As the Congress proceeds to change labor law, we must not deprive workers of the basic right of choosing their own representatives. My amendment allows employee involvement groups to discuss these issues, and it guarantees fairness by requiring elections.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to H.R. 927. I think it is important to bear in mind that we have the toughest sanction ever on Iraq, which I think we would all support, but the United States and the United Nations support full and open commerce in food and medicine with Iraq. So this is not a radical suggestion that we have full and open commerce in food and medicine. But the problem with this bill that this amendment attempts to correct is that the bill is far too inflexible and really unworkable. It is unlikely to lead to democratization or to political or social reforms, and as was said in lengthy debate on this bill last night, it will create serious legal problems. It could potentially tie up our courts in land settlements, land claims for property outside the United States. That sets a very dangerous precedent in terms of other immigrant communities who may want to seize that precedent as well. I do not think we have the capacity within our judicial system to settle these legal problems, and this is not where they should be settled, in the United States. It will create substantial business problems. It completely undermines NAFTA, which we just passed. It is going to make it extremely difficult for our corporations, who would in fact hold the key to a free enterprise system being established in Cuba from being able to trade with Cuba, and it creates unbelievable foreign policy problems. Just at the time when the [[Page H 9389]] United States President should be able to exercise his or her ability in the future, and I suspect we are talking about the near-term future, to help Cuba achieve a transitional democratic government, even if such a democratic government is not actually in place at the time, we can precipitate that occurring. But now, with this bill, if this bill were to pass, the President's hands will be completely tied behind his back. So it does not advance the interests of the United States. This amendment will see to it that the United States would be able to act, instead of sitting on the sidelines, when change, inevitable change, does come to Cuba. This bill is based upon a policy that dates back to when Cuba was clearly a Soviet surrogate. They were challenging our interests for Africa to Central America. But that time has passed. Russia is not playing that role, whether Castro would like Russia to or not. So it is time for a comprehensive review of United States policy toward Cuba. So this debate is constructive, but a transition from dictatorship to democracy is not going to occur overnight. We know that from history. We ought to learn from history and try to do what we can to ensure that it be a peaceful transition to democracy, that it not be a violent revolution. We owe that to the Cuban people. Fidel Castro is in his 35th year of absolute power, longest in Latin America history. It is not going to continue. What we need to do is to do the same thing we did with Eastern Europe, consolidate change in democracy by promoting free enterprise through a democratic system, not in this way, but by enabling the President to act flexibly, constructively, with the best interests of the Cuban people in mind.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is not likely to lead to democratization or political or social reform in Cuba. What it will do is create tremendous legal, business, and foreign policy problems. In terms of legal problems, the idea of settling foreign land settlements, claims, in our courts sets an unbelievably bad example. Not only will it clog up our courts, but the precedent it sets for other immigrant Americans who have had their property seized I think is a wrong one and one that we will live to regret. Of course, most of those settlements will result in default judgments, but it is precisely the kind of thing that will strengthen Castro's hand. The threat of all these land claims being settled in favor of the claimant is just what Castro needs to stay in power. It will create business problems. Those American corporations that hold the key to advancing the free enterprise system in Cuba will be prevented from being able to deal with Cuba when a transitional government begins, as it inevitably will, in Cuba. It will create tremendous foreign policy problems. In fact, just at the point when the President will need to be able to help a transitional government in Cuba, it ties his hands with unbelievably rigid requirements. It also completely undermines NAFTA that we just passed on the floor of this House. Our relationship with Mexico, with Canada, with our European allies, will all be undermined. This bill does not advance the national interest of the United States. We ought to work on an approach to pressure Cuba on human rights and provide support to post-Castro Cuba. But this bill does just the opposite. It would be better to support democratization in Cuba by encouraging the free flow of information and dialogue between the United States and Cuba and working with our allies and nongovernmental organizations to pressure Cuba for human rights and Democratic reforms. That is how we have shown success in our dealings with other countries, the Soviet Union in particular. We know what works and we know what does not work. Those who support the increased isolationism of Cuba should explain how and why they think this policy can work, after it did not with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. And, in fact it was that beginning of openness, that Perestroika, that enabled communism to go down to defeat, just as Castro's communism will go down to defeat one day if we play it smart. Mr. Chairman, I should also say that it is the attitude on the part of some people promoting this bill that is precisely the same attitude that contributed to the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The classism, the racism, the elitism, the greed. That is why we have Castro 90 miles from our shore. This is not a bill that is in the interests of the United States. It is in contradiction to our foreign policy. It is in contradiction to our attempts to open trade with both our allies and with countries who have the potential to develop a free enterprise system. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not in the interests of our U.S. judicial system to create a precedent that will clog up our court inappropriately. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to take the kind of constructive steps we have taken in the past to remove Castro and to establish a Democratic free enterprise system of government in Cuba.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give much deserved recognition to the Alexandria Harmonizers Barbershop Chorus, a 130- voice barbershop chorus from Alexandria, VA. Led by Scott Werner, the Harmonizers have been entertaining audiences since 1948. This year the Harmonizers have been recognized for the seventh time since 1979, as the International Barbershop Chorus Champions, distinguishing them as No. 1 among over 825 men's barbershop choruses internationally. I admire their efforts to preserve this piece of American culture where synthesizers and electronic instruments would have taken over. I submit for the Record an article from the Washington Post which further expands on the history, and essence of the Harmonizers. [From the Washington Post, Aug. 3, 1995] Harmonious Hotshots--Barbershoppers Hit Prize-Winning Pitch (By Lan Ngyen) Strike another high note for the Alexandria Harmonizers. The all-male singing group just won its third international barbershop chorus championship in nine years, beating out 21 groups from the United States, Canada and England. With its performance of ``I'll Be Seeing You,'' a song above love, familiarity and remembrances that was written for soldiers in World War II, the 130-member chorus again wowed the judges at the annual contest sponsored by the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America. The Harmonizers also staged a dazzling rendition of ``Sweet Georgia Brown,'' which was widely popularized as the Harlem Globetrotters' theme song and is about a woman who comes to town and stirs a commotion among the men. Along with their booming four-part harmony, the singers sway side to side, snap their fingers, dance in a chorus line and synchronize the flashing of their purple-sequined vests. ``We want to be the best we can to bring to people not only an excellent singing group but an entertaining group at the same time,'' said Scott Werner, the group's director of more than 20 years. ``It's not a professional group, but the level of our singing is comparable to a lot of professional groups. We've worked very hard at perfecting our hobby.'' The Harmonizers is one of more than 800 groups in the Wisconsin-based barbershop singing society, whose motto is ``Keep the World Singing.'' Their form of music is based on the four-part harmony of a bass, a baritone, a tenor and a lead, who sings the melody. The songs have simple versus and are sung a capella because the blend and the richness of the four tones require no instruments to embellish the sound. This type of singing dates to the late 1800s, according to Brian Lynch, the society's public relations director. People on street corners and in churches would sing four-part harmony to pass the time. Yet barbershop singing began to fade with the demise of vaudeville in the 1930s, around the time the national organization was formed by two barbershop singing aficionados. Part of the Harmonizers' mission is to keep barbershop music alive in an era of MTV, synthesizers and other electronic equipment that can play the sound of many instruments at once. For their part, the Harmonizers try to attract a wide range of audiences by singing more than traditional barbershop tunes, such as ``Sweet Adeline.'' At a free concert last week at Fort Ward Park in Alexandria, for example, they crooned their version of ``Music of the Night,'' a popular song from the play ``Phantom of the Opera.'' And unlike other barbershop chorus groups whose performances more resemble something you'd expect from a staid Sunday church choir, the Harmonizers emphasize pizazz in their pieces, with the help of Geri Geis, an actress and choreographer. In a remake of the 1950s rock-and-roll tune ``Little Darlin''' by the Diamonds, all the singers sport sunglasses. In a medley of selections from ``Guys and Dolls,'' they don 1930s costumes and act out scenes. The Harmonizers range in age from 15 to 93, and they come from all walks of life--doctors, lawyers, students, architects and military colonels. Many grew up singing in church groups or performing in school musicals. ``Choruses like ours are made up of a bunch of Joes who like to sing,'' said Bob Sutton, a 10-year member. ``There's a tremendous reward for those who join. It's a part of my life. As long as I can continue to get the thrill that you get singing four-part chords, I'm going to continue to do that.'' The Harmonizers practice three hours a week, give two performances a month and stage two full-blown shows in the fall and spring to finance their trips and costumes. They've taken their act on the road for Supreme Court justices and for performances at Wolf Trap, Carnegie Hall and the Kennedy Center, where they've sung with the likes of Perry Como. Members of the Harmonizers, founded 47 years ago by a dozen or so members, attribute their success and longevity to the fraternal bonds the men have forged practicing and singing together. They say they make lifelong friendships and keep in touch through a monthly newsletter that notes births, weddings and funerals. ``A lot of [the organizations' success] has to do with camaraderie and friendships that you build in an organization like this,'' said Tyce Light, 29, a D.C. computer analyst who joined the group three years ago. ``When members of the chorus are sick or wives have babies, the Harmonizers do pull together with strong family spirit.''