Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 38 on March 10, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 34 on March 10, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 35 on March 10, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent and a truly outstanding member of this Administration, Raymond C. Fisher. Mr. Fisher was selected as the 1999 Distinguished Alumnus at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Public service has been a hallmark of Ray Fisher's distinguished career that was recognized by UCSB. During his 30-year legal career, he has also served as president of the Los Angeles City Civil Service Commission, Deputy General Counsel to the Christopher Commission, and chair of the Los Angeles Police Commission. Mr. Fisher's dedication to practicing law in the public's interest is especially reflected in his service as a special assistant to the Governor of California, and as past president of the Constitutional Rights Foundation. His lifetime of public service was recognized in a ceremony on February 20th, yet his work continues. Ray Fisher is now serving as an Associate Attorney General, and his office oversees a broad range of divisions, including antitrust, civil rights, legal counsel, and taxation. The Justice Department is well served by both his character and his concern for the public interest. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me and the University of California at Santa Barbara in celebrating Raymond Fisher's distinguished legal and public service career. We look forward to his continued leadership role at Justice for many years to come.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dale Jacobs in celebration of his dedication to community service and volunteering. As Dale is being honored this week by the Tarzana Chamber of Commerce, it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge his distinguished career and extraordinary contributions to the development of our community and our country. Since becoming a resident of the Valley, over 20 years ago, Dale has continually strived to make his home and community a better place to live. He sacrifices his personal time, energy, and money so that others may benefit. At one point he was involved with 22 local organizations simultaneously. His children Joel and Angela have been a tremendous inspiration to him giving him the desire to ensure that their lives, and the lives of other children, can be as fulfilling as possible. He is an active member of A.Y.S.O. as a Division Manager, Treasurer, coach, and even referee. In addition, he has also taken an active role in their education, having served as past President of the Portola Middle School Booster Club, Vice-President of the Wilbur Avenue Elementary School Booster Club, President of the Reseda High School PTSA, and Treasurer of Parents for Public Schools. Dale has also played an active role in the business community. A certified public accountant, Dale has been a partner with Sandler, Powell, Jacobs & Berlin since 1988. A member of the Tarzana Chamber for many years Dale has been serving as their President since 1997 where he has focused on expanding membership, encouraging activism, and serving the community. We are fortunate that he is being reinstalled as President of the Tarzana chamber for yet another year. When he does have free time Dale enjoys Civil War Reenacting with his wife Bobbe, of 27 years, and the rest of his family. He is Treasurer of the Fort Tejon Historical Association and spent last summer participating in a reenactment of the Battle of Gettysburg at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Mohandas Gandhi once said that ``You find yourself by losing yourself in service to your fellow man, your God and country.'' I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to Dale. Thanks to his leadership, courage, and dedication, our community is an ideal place to raise a family, start a business, or become involved in community activities. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Dale Jacobs for all of his contributions to our community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the St. Francis de Sales School in celebration of its 50th anniversary. In recognition of this occasion, the students, staff, teachers, parents, alumni, administration and clergy members are deserving of the heartiest congratulations and highest commendations. Since its founding in 1948 by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, St. Francis de Sales has established a proud tradition of encouraging students to study and live the Catholic tradition of proclaiming gospel values, community involvement, and of giving service to those in need. The students of St. Francis de Sales should be commended for their contributions to the poor and less fortunate, by organizing regular food and donation drives benefitting needy organizations in the area. It is because of the awareness and dedication of responsible citizens in our country, exemplified by the students of St. Francis de Sales School, that today's true role models can become more well known. I take great pleasure in recognizing St. Frances de Sales School upon the occasion of its 50th anniversary, and I commend the students, staff, teachers, parents, administrators, and clergy members for the outstanding contribution they have made to the community over the years. Please join me, on this monumental day, in saluting the very important contribution to excellence made by St. Frances de Sales School.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic coalition, several of my colleagues along with myself, have come to the floor to speak in favor of fiscal responsibility. We are faced with a philosophical and fiscal choice this year, and it is a wonderful choice to make. It is a choice on how we deal with a surplus. I was a member of the Committee on the Budget, and in 1997 we came up with a plan to make sure that we eliminated the Federal deficit by the year 2002. Many scoffed that that plan, although it was adopted by this House, could not possibly achieve the objective by 2002. It is with some pride and some great hope that we are now, not in 2002 but 1999, wondering what to do with the Federal surplus. I believe we should continue the same fiscal policies that got us the surplus. The choice before us is major across-the-board tax cuts that we cannot afford, or major Federal spending programs of tens of billions of dollars that we cannot afford, or alternatively, modest tax cuts and saving the lion's share of the surplus. It is that latter course, the course of fiscal responsibility, that is better not only for social security and Medicare but also for the business community, for middle- class families, and for the poor. As a Democrat, many of my years were spent, and I got active in politics relatively early, focused on programs like the Great Society, programs designed to help the poor and the dispossessed, and make sure that we are brought together as one Nation. But when I got to Congress we all focused on fiscal responsibility, not new government programs, as a way of achieving a great society. We were right to do so, because the greatest possible program for the poor is a national economy that is creating new jobs. What more proof do we need than just 2 days ago the announcement that Hispanic unemployment and African American unemployment reached the lowest levels in the history of those statistics being kept in America? Lyndon Johnson would be proud, perhaps, that we achieved a goal that was always out of sight for the Great Society, but now is in sight for a fiscally responsible society. The best thing we can do for the poor is not necessarily a new Federal program, but it is keeping this Federal expansion going. Likewise, it is the best thing we can do for the business community and for middle-class families. Yes, the business community likes and deserves and wants a tax cut. But today's market of, or nearly, a thousand on the Dow was not achieved in the 1980s when we had huge tax cuts, most of them focused on the rich and the business community and the corporate sector. We have achieved near record levels and record levels on Wall Street not because of the lowest possible taxes, but because of the most responsible Federal government we have seen in modern history. While Europe, each country in Europe, tends to run a deficit of two or three percent of its GDP, we in the United States have shown that democracy can go hand-in-hand with fiscal responsibility. As for middle-class families, middle-class families deserve and need a tax cut. We voted for one in 1997, and I hope to provide targeted tax cuts for middle-class families and be part of providing that today. As this chart illustrates, middle-class families will benefit just as much or more from a reduction in interest rates as they will from the tax cuts that are being proposed. This chart demonstrates that even with an average-priced home, and they are twice as expensive in my district, the savings is $1,860 from a fiscally responsible budget.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, it is my intention to speak for the full 60 minutes if my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) does not arrive, but if he does, I would hope that could be brought to my attention so I could yield the second half of the hour to him. Madam Speaker, this is my first speech of the 106th Congress. I would like to welcome back my old colleagues and welcome our new colleagues. My new colleagues, I have not had a chance to introduce myself to all of them. Let me take this opportunity to do so. I am Brad Sherman. I hail from America's best-named city, Sherman Oaks, California. Periodically I seek an opportunity to give a rather long speech detailing a number of different topics. This saves the House from having to listen to a number of short speeches, each on a separate topic. Madam Speaker, I often give these speeches at the beginning or the end of a session. I have a number of topics I would like to address today. The first of these is the current unpleasantness occurring in the Senate, the problems involving Monica Lewinsky, the President, et cetera. First, I would like to point out that it is unprecedented in our lifetimes that an impeachment would be sent by this House over to the other body on a 99 percent partisan vote, with 99 percent of the one party voting against the impeachment resolution. I think it is a shame, a shame on this House, that we would send an impeachment resolution to the Senate under those circumstances. I came to the floor last month, actually in December, to voice my opinion that in not allowing Members to vote on censure and then sending over articles of impeachment on a partisan basis, that this House had gone astray. I said at that time that I would call this House a kangaroo court, but that would be an insult to marsupials everywhere. That shame has hung in this Chamber until yesterday, because I think we owe a debt of gratitude to prosecutor Ken Starr for doing something so outrageous that it has distracted America from the mistake we made here in December. Ken Starr knows, we all know, that the President is not going to be removed from office. Yet a leak emerges from Ken Starr's office that he thinks that he will criminally indict and perhaps prosecute a sitting president. This is not only a constitutional outrage, it represents perhaps the worst prosecutorial judgment ever displayed. Ken Starr has, in the words of George Stephanopolous, pursued the President with the hateful tenacity of Captain Ahab, and it is time for this misjudgment to stop. It is bizarre that Ken Starr, seeing that the President will not be removed from office, has begun to fantasize that he will barge into the Oval Office and place handcuffs on the President of the United States, perhaps during some meeting with a foreign head of State. We must take actions to show that this pipsqueak cannot barge into the oval office, and cannot seek to undermine the executive branch of government. I recognize, and we all recognize, that President Clinton remains subject to the rule of law. While he is president he can be impeached, and has been by this House, and could be removed by the Senate. As soon as he leaves the White House he is subject to all manner of criminal action, and of course, is subject to civil action as well. We need to look long-term at what this means for the presidency. I ask those on the Republican side of the aisle to remember that some day it may be one of theirs who is sitting as president. Imagine some future president, and imagine his enemies, or should I say, her enemies, begin immediately upon inauguration day to conspire, and they gather a few million dollars to carry it out. I used the word ``conspire.'' ``Conspiracy'' is not the right word, they simply gather together to begin a plan to undermine some new president. They gather a few million dollars together, and the first thing they do is announce that they will pay a $1 million book advance to any Secret Service agent willing to write a book titled ``Embarrassing Things I Learned While Guarding the President.'' Imagine that they place an ad in the Star tabloid, or should I call it the Ken Starr tabloid. The ad goes something like this: ``Have you been abducted by a UFO? Was the President working with the aliens? If so, contact us. We will give you $1 million, and we will help you sue the President for everything that went on on the spaceship. And by the way, if that UFO abduction happened, if the spacecraft happened to land in any one of these three or four counties where we have, in some obscure county somewhere in America, a friendly prosecutor, then we will also be able to urge that obscure prosecutor to bring criminal action against the President.'' I am not sure that a lawsuit or criminal prosecution for participation in an UFO abduction against a president of the United States would last all that long. It might be thrown out of court. But I give this as an illustration of the road we are going down. That road is that the enemies of every president, those who are most blinded by their hatred of that president, will begin to try to destroy a president by finding out secrets and embarrassing tidbits from the Secret Service, by convincing people to begin civil suits that will distract the President and embarrass him or her, and by trying to convince local prosecutors around the country, even in the most obscure counties, to bring criminal actions against the President. For these reasons I think it is important that this House adopt, and I look forward to beginning to draft, a Presidential Protection Act. The basic tenets of this act would be three in number. The first is that those who work for the Secret Service would be required to keep what they learn confidential. Even if they want to write a book, they should not be allowed to do so, based on secrets they learned on the job. Second, of course, they should enjoy a privilege from being compelled to testify about those secrets. There might be a few exceptions, but imagine a situation where a Secret Service agent could testify about how long this meeting took place, or how many times the President contacted this or that adviser. Imagine the chilling effect it would have if a president felt he could not reach out or she could not reach out to advisers around the country because the names of those advisers or even the nature of what they discuss could be a matter of public discovery. Second, a Presidential Protection Act, or rather, a Presidency Protection Act, should provide that as to all criminal actions, or attempts at criminal prosecution, that we toll the statute of limitations. So if there is a 5-year statute of limitations on a particular crime, that any day that occurs while an individual is serving in the White House as president would not count toward that 5- year period. Then we provide that there will be no criminal indictments or trials of anyone while they are president of the United States. We could provide that under certain circumstances testimony could be taken, in case some witness might die or become unavailable in the years that someone served in the White House. But clearly, no president of the United States should have to worry for a minute about the criminal law system being visited upon him or her by a politically-motivated prosecutor. Finally, we need to have a very similar proceedings dealing with civil suits, that the statute of limitations is tolled; that is to say, in nonlegal jargon, the suit is put in the freezer, and it can be tried after a presidency is completed. I know that the Supreme Court ruled, in the Jones vs. Clinton case, that you could sue a sitting president. The Supreme Court noted that the Congress could change that result. The Supreme Court argued that a civil suit against the President would not be an undue distraction. Clearly, later events have proven otherwise. I am, frankly, surprised, given the number and the power of certain individuals who hate this president, that there have not been a dozen or a hundred other civil lawsuits, trumped-up, real, or imagined, for this or that reason brought against the President. I make these comments not to invite such highly destructive behavior, but rather, to illustrate why the House and the Senate must act to make it clear that any civil lawsuit against the President is put in the freezer, that the statute is tolled until the presidency is over. As I pointed out, such a statute would be just as protective of a Republican president as a Democratic president, and given the heightened level of partisanship that has occurred as a result of those who are scheming to try to destroy President Clinton, given the fact that that higher level of partisanship, unfortunately, is beginning to afflict both parties, I think it is critical that we act now to make sure that small groups of well-financed individuals cannot destroy a presidency. I will be circulating a letter to my colleagues urging that they sign onto a bill, but even before that, urging that they give me their comments or meet with me in the drafting of a bill so that I can have bipartisan input into how it is drafted. I am considering and would like my colleagues to comment on whether, on an emergency basis, we need to adopt a bill just dealing with criminal prosecutions, and making it very clear to Ken Starr that he is not empowered, and no prosecutor is empowered, to go barging into the Oval Office with a pair of handcuffs. The very possibility, the very argument that that could legally occur, undermines our system of government and makes us a laughingstock around the world. I would now like to shift to international relations. As many of my colleagues know, I served on the Committee on International Relations. I do want to comment about our friendship with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. We all know that the very essence of democracy and so many of the values that are at the core of Americanism developed in Greece. Greece and Cyprus want nothing more at this point than to defend themselves from the possibility of air attack and have sought air defense missiles. I regret very much that the administration pressured the government of Cyprus not to deploy air defense missiles that had been acquired. I agree with the administration. Cyprus should not have acquired missiles from Russia. Cyprus should have acquired missiles built in the 24th Congressional District in California. When the United States is willing to sell Greece and Cyprus the air defense mechanisms that it needs, there will be no need for Greece and Cyprus to try to buy these from other places and potentially have Russian technicians on Greek or Cyprian soil. These are defensive weapons. They add to the stability of the Aegean. We ought to change our policy and make it very clear to Cyprus and Greece that we are willing to sell defensive weapons to those two countries on the one proviso that the manufacturers be located in the 24th Congressional District. I had the honor to accompany the President of the United States on his trip to the Middle East in December. I want to applaud the President for making that visit. I also want to point out that the President was warmly welcomed by all the various legislators and officials of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian National Council. But after the President left, Yasser Arafat made statements in support of Iraq and calling for an Arab meeting to condemn American policy with regard to Iraq. Just a few days after the President departed and we all departed, he was once again talking about a unilateral declaration of statehood. There is nothing worse for the peace process than a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority. Here, this year in Congress, we need to make it clear that immediately, without further action, upon any declaration of statehood made on a unilateral basis by the Palestinian Authority, all American aid to that Authority stops. And all American representatives at all international organizations, especially the World Bank and similar organizations must vote against any aid to the Palestinian Authority after such a destabilizing effort. I want to applaud the administration for remaining involved and dedicated to peace in the Middle East but point out that pressuring Israel is not the way to achieve that peace. Israel has been pro America whether we had a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, a Republican House or a Democratic House. We should remain dedicated allies of Israel whether the government in Jerusalem is Likud or Labour, the new party being organized and headed by Isaac Mordecai and others. In looking at the situation in the Middle East, we need to focus on both the short-term and long-term needs for security. All too much of the focus has quite naturally been on the short-term needs as if land for peace meant a peace consisting nothing more than a month without a terrorist incident or a year without a bomb. Any such shallow definition of peace will not generate the kind of treaty that is eventually necessary for a final agreement with the Palestinians. Can we ask the Israelis to make the kinds of concessions, even in part, that the Palestinians are asking for if peace means only peace with the Palestinians? Instead, as part of any peace agreement, Yasser Arafat personally and the entire Palestinian Authority must be willing to become apostles for peace, must be willing to go to every Arab capital, every Islamic capital, and urge the recognition of Israel, trade relations with Israel, and most important of all, a general recognition that Israel is a permanent, inherent part of the Middle East. There are those in the Arab world who describe Israel as just the second of the crusader states, non-Islamic states created in the holy land that lasted less than two centuries. That cannot continue. We cannot have Arab children educated for war or taught that Israel is eventually to be driven in the ocean. For that reason, we need to change Arab education just as much as we need to make any changes in any of the borders between zone A, zone B and zone C of the West Bank; A, B, and C being different levels of Palestinian Authority and Israeli military control. Land for peace must involve sowing the seeds of peace, knowing that it will take a generation or two or three for them to bear fruit, but sowing the seeds of peace in an organized and systemic matter throughout the Middle East. This is critical to Israel's long-term security. Because any student of history will tell us, and any student of current military affairs will tell us that, if Israel ever faces the possibility of losing another war or some war in the future, it will not be to an Army based in Ramallah. If Israel must fear for its security in the sense of potentially losing a war, it must fear armies based in Baghdad, Teheran, Cairo or Damascus. Not only is this a reflection of current military realities or potential future military realities. And when I say current military realities, clearly Israel will not lose a war in the next decade or two. No combination of its enemies or potential enemies could beat it. But we must look, not one or two decades, but one or two centuries in the future and recognize that, at various times in the past, Egypt, Syria, Babylon now Iraq, and Persia now Iran, have all conquered the Holy Land. We must create a situation where it is as unthinkable in Cairo to erase Israel from the map as it would be unthinkable in Paris to think of erasing the Netherlands or Belgium from the map. I should also focus on the importance in the peace process to improving the Palestinian economy. A recent report by the Israeli government shows Israel's dedication on this subject. But the fact remains that there are close to 200,000 guest workers in Israel, workers occupying jobs that could be held by Palestinians without displacing a single Israeli. These guest workers hail from such countries as the Philippines and Thailand. Of course we in this body are interested in the future success of the Thai economy and the Philippine economy. Yet, when it comes to policy in the Middle East, Israel's contribution to the economic recovery of Thailand is not as important for the Middle East as is economic development of the Palestinian Authority and of Palestinians in general. I had a chance to talk to Palestinian legislators. I feared that, as a matter of being politically correct or proud, that they would reject or pooh-pooh or minimize the concept of Palestinians working almost exclusively in nonprestigious jobs in the Israeli economy. What I found among Palestinian leaders to the very highest levels was practicality and an understanding of how important it is that especially young Palestinian men have a future for themselves and their families and not bitterness and the time on their hands to plot to join Hamas and other terrorist groups. With that in mind, I would suggest that, as part of an overall peace process and only in return for Palestinian concessions, that Israel endeavor to provide to the Palestinians rather than to guest workers those jobs within its economy for which Israelis will not be hired. This could be done through a flat prohibition on guest workers other than those arriving from the Palestinian Authority or some sort of tax on employers who employ guest workers from outside the Palestinian areas. But whatever steps are taken, the need for Palestinian jobs is as important as it may seem as just a practical aspect, not on the same level as issues of war and peace. Yet it is, I believe, critical toward forming the kind of peaceful relationship that will last into the future. A second part of this came up when I visited the industrial estate at Gaza. This is the proudest economic achievement of the Palestinian Authority and is a site where American aid has been successful in creating a desalinization plant to provide industrial quality water and some drinking quality water for industry at a site which, if everything works out well, should employ 20,000 Palestinians. There is, however, one thing that keeps this site from being as effective as it could be, attracting the kind of investment that it would want, and of course I hope this site goes further, but there should be a second avenue toward Palestinian employment in the industrial sectors; and that would be an industrial site on the Israeli side of the border designed to provide investors with Israeli levels of security, Israeli government, Israeli levels of assurance that there will never be an expropriation, Israeli levels of assurance that the currency will always be convertible, all of the reasons that investors prefer to invest in developed countries and at the same time be accessible by Palestinian workers who would come to work there without necessarily having access to the rest of Israel. Imagine the opportunity to invest in an area where you have a developed country's government, and of course corruption exists in all governments, but much less in developed countries than in most developing countries, Israeli level security, Israeli level absence of corruption and the risk of corruption or the belief that there might be corruption. Even if the Palestinian Authority is able to create a corruption-free government, it will always suffer from the general belief of investors that a Third World country is more difficult to do business in than a developed country. Imagine all of the benefits of investing in a developed country and at the same time having access to the American markets through the U.S. Israel Free Trade Agreement and at the same time having access to Israeli technology and engineers and business acumen and at the same time having access to low cost industrial labor provided by the Palestinians. I should point out that we will see future developments; that the Palestinians may be eager to have industrial jobs today with Israel providing some of the more technological expertise. I am confident that if we are able to achieve peace in the Middle East, the Palestinians will develop their own industrial and engineering expertise. It is written nowhere in any sacred text that the Palestinians will always live in a Third World country or Third World economy. We now want to shift our attention to our relationships with China. In focusing on China, we see three abominations. The first is Chinese policy toward proliferation. Wherever we see the risk of proliferation, whether it be in Iran or Pakistan or North Korea, there is evidence that China has provided either nuclear weapons or the technology to build them, or missiles or the technology to build missiles. Certainly, China cannot enjoy the friendly relations with the United States which it seeks if it is going to be the source of such dangerous proliferation. The second abomination is China's work on human rights, where human rights activists were arrested so very recently in another step backward for China. Finally, but I think most importantly, is China's adverse impact on human rights in the United States through its decision to avoid importing from America. China sends us $66 billion of exports. One cannot go into any store and not find goods made in China. Yet, China accepts only $11 billion of American exports. $66 billion to $11 billion is arguably the most lopsided trading relationship in the history of mankind and womankind; 66-to-11. Sometimes that means U.S. workers lose their jobs because Chinese imports come in and take those jobs away. Sometimes, though, the goods being imported from China could not be profitably manufactured here in the United States, but I would argue that if we bought our tennis shoes from India, if we bought our garments from Bangladesh, that if 100 toy companies could be formed in the Caribbean, that these Caribbean countries, that Bangladesh, that India, would be recycling those dollars into the United States; that they would be buying billions of dollars of our goods if we would be buying additional billions of dollars of their goods; not even necessarily on a barter or quid pro quo basis, but any economic development in a free country means that the citizens and businesses are free to buy American. The trade deficit we have with China is not the product of free economic decisions. It is not necessarily the product of any law that the Chinese Government has published. It is a result of oral instructions, unprovable, to major Chinese enterprises to buy American last. Those who would say the solution is to admit China into the World Trade Organization must ask themselves: What Chinese enterprise would buy American goods if a local communist party commissar said orally in a telephone conversation, we know we have changed the law, we know that it is legal to buy these American goods without tariffs, we had to change the law, but Mr. Chinese businessman, the commissar could easily say, if you decide to buy American goods you will be sent to the reeducation camp. What could we do? Bring a charge before the WTO? This would be a situation, and it happens now and would happen in the future until the Chinese government agrees that a country that they sell $66 billion of goods to must be a country they are willing to buy $66 billion of goods from. The problem we have in this House is what lever do we use to try to force a strong bargaining position? I would point out that we are in an amazingly strong bargaining position. If we could just go without tennis shoes for a month, if we could just satisfy our need for toys elsewhere for a month, the Chinese economy would be brought to its knees and we would have the kind of negotiations that we need. Instead, we cannot even threaten China with the possibility that we would play fairly and expose them to anything like the trade barriers that our products are subject to. The administration, unfortunately, will not bargain hard, and the only device available to us here is to deny Most Favored Nation status to China and that is too Draconian a penalty. What we need to do is make it clear that if we deny Most Favored Nation status to China, that at least the first year or two or three of that denial that we will not adopt all and to the full extent the taxes and tariffs on Chinese goods that such an action would call for. Clearly we do not need to treat Chinese goods the way we treat goods from Cuba or North Korea or Libya or other countries that do not enjoy Most Favored Nation status. We will never have the votes on this floor to impose that level of tariff on Chinese goods. So what we must do, and I had an opportunity to talk to our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) about this, and it will be an unusual combination if I and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) ever do anything together, is provide by statute, and even if it is vetoed its meaning would be clear, that if and when we deny Most Favored Nation status to China that we would expose its goods to only 20 percent of the tariffs otherwise applicable by that decision. So, for example, if China can import into the United States a pair of tennis shoes with only a one dollar tariff, given the fact that China enjoys MFN status and in the absence of MFN status the tax would be $11, which would cripple China's ability to send those tennis shoes to the United States, that we would provide that in the first year of MFN denial, the tariff would be only the tariff applicable to MFN countries plus ten percent of the additional tariff imposed on nonMFN countries. In this example, we would add one dollar of tariff to the dollar we place now on Chinese tennis shoes and then a year later we would add another dollar, and after that perhaps another dollar so that the immediate effect on U.S. Chinese trade is substantial but not so enormous that members of this Congress are unwilling to vote for it. I look forward to working with as many of my colleagues as are interested to craft some mechanism to deprive China of some of the benefits that it enjoys under MFN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) had an interesting bill to at least deny MFN to those products made in enterprises owned by the People's Liberation Army and while that is, I think, a good thing for us to do I would point out that we cannot count on China to properly identify for us which enterprises are so owned and which enterprise manufactured which goods. I would now turn our attention to the budget and comment on the current debate as to who deserves credit for our booming economy today. Is it the Federal Reserve Board and its chairman Alan Greenspan, or the political system, chiefly President Clinton? I would argue that it is the latter. Mr. Greenspan has done an outstanding job and shown tremendous capacity, but what he has done is pretty much the same as his predecessors would have done, the same as most, I would say all, mainstream economists would have called upon him to do. There is no particular genius in knowing that interest rates can be low and inflation rates will be kept low if we run a declining Federal deficit or, better yet, a surplus at the Federal level. For many years, those of us concerned with the U.S. economy, for many years mainstream economists have said, that it would not take a genius to give us low interest rates and low inflation rates if we had fiscally responsible management of the Federal Government, and then they would go on to say but, of course, that is politically impossible. Under President Clinton's leadership, we have done the impossible. We have shown that democracy can be fiscally responsible. Keep in mind the new Euro that was adopted in Europe, in order to join this new currency, the rule was that European countries, and they all had a very hard time meeting this standard, would have to have a national deficit of only 3 percent of their gross national product. Not a single European country even thought of running a surplus in its national government. For any democracy to not cut taxes, all the way to running a huge deficit, to not increase spending at least until the outer limits of a possible deficit are reached, for any democracy to say no to those who want to spend money and no or not very much to those who want to cut taxes, requires a level of political genius seen in only one place in the world in recent decades, and that is here in Washington. Now I would point out that at the beginning of 1998, our Republican colleagues suggested an $800 billion, let me stress this, an $800 billion tax cut over, I believe, a 5-year period; a tax cut of almost a trillion dollars. Had we adopted that provision we might have been popular for a day or a week or a month, but in fact we would have crippled this outstanding economic recovery. Now, I am for tax cuts. When we were able to say no to a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts and instead what was before this House was $80 billion, less than one-tenth of what had been proposed before, I voted for it, and I hope that we have some genuine tax cuts that we can actually afford. Keep in mind, a decision to vote for $80 billion in tax cuts instead of $800 billion in tax cuts is $720 billion of saying no to our own constituents, and that is something we need to have the courage to do. I hope in a minute to talk about the nature of the kind of tax cut that we would adopt, but I want to point out that there has been agreement that we should save 62 percent of the upcoming surplus for Social Security. Reaching agreement on that is not enough. We need our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to agree that we reserve 15 percent of the surplus for Medicare because it does our seniors little good to tell them that Social Security is safe until the year 2055 and, of course, we should reach a way to say 2075, but even saying that Social Security is safe until 2055 rings hollow unless we can make sure that Medicare is there, too. Another element of the budget that I think is very important, and for which I praise the President, is dealing with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We have a number of special funds that are part of the Federal Government. We have a transportation fund. It is funded with tax dollars paid by motorists when they buy gasoline. We assured those taxpayers we would spend the money for road improvements and repair and for many years, until last year, we cheated them out of that promise by spending less out of the transportation fund and using that to hide the deficit we were running in the general fund. We finally are treating the transportation fund as a separate, sacrosanct fund. We have a Social Security fund. It is funded by employer and employee contributions that are to be used exclusively for Social Security. That fund needs to be sacrosanct and used for those purposes. And least known of the three special funds I will mention is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is funded out of Federal royalties from offshore oil drilling and takes in roughly $900 million a year. For many years we spent only a tiny fraction of the Land and Water Conservation Fund on its intended purpose. Keep in mind when that fund was created in 1965 it was a grand compromise and an outstanding deal. It said that if our environment is going to be impaired by offshore oil drilling as it is in various places, and should not be but it is, then the funds that result from that should be used to preserve our environment in other places and should be set aside to buy land to conserve our heritage. Well, when I first got to Congress, only 14 percent of the funds being taken in by the Land and Water Conservation Fund were used to buy our precious lands to protect them from development and to give something to our children. I am very proud of the fact that in 1998 this House spent virtually all of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire critically needed lands. And now as we look to the first budget of the new millennium, we must keep faith with the law that established the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we should applaud the President for presenting us with a budget that provides for enormous surpluses, that safeguards Social Security and Medicare and at the same time allows us to spend nearly a billion dollars in preserving our land for posterity. I especially want to complement the President for including within that $5 million to preserve the Santa Monica Mountains by buying critically necessary tracts within those mountains. For my colleagues' edification, I will point out that one out of every 17 Americans, not one out of every 17 southern Californians, not one out of 17 Californians, one-seventeenth of all Americans live within an hour's drive of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. There is no better investment in not just recreational opportunities but the chance to get out into nature and unwind for one-seventeenth of the country than to preserve the Santa Monica Mountains. We need to do that one parcel at a time, one fiscal year at a time, until the land acquisition plan is fully implemented. To do less would be to turn to southern Californians and say, if you want to unwind, fine, drive to Yellowstone, and after a thousand miles of hectic travel you can unwind in America's most premier national park. We need to have national parks close to where people live. We have one in the Santa Monica Mountains. While I am focusing on local issues, I should also point out the most important transportation need of the southern California area, and that is dealing with the intersection of the San Diego Freeway and the Ventura Freeway, the 405 and the 101. I want to applaud our State government for beginning a $10 to $15 million plan to provide some immediate quick fixes and one additional lane in order to deal with the huge snarl of traffic at that interchange. But these quick fixes and moderate amounts of expenditures will not be enough to solve the problem. I want to thank Secretary Rodney Slater for providing for a half-million-dollar study of what can be done to deal with this intersection and the transition roads that have to accommodate almost half a million cars every day. Madam Speaker, I would like to use the last 10 minutes of my presentation, and I thank the House for giving me this much time, to focus on one particular type of tax cut that I hope will have bipartisan support, and that is the need to reform our estate tax laws to dramatically reduce the amount of estate planning, the length of documents and the literal legal torture that we put our elderly and our near-elderly through as a result of an estate planning process that yields virtually no revenue from the middle-class and upper middle- class individuals who need to go through the process. Let me describe that process briefly. We have an estate tax that reaps, I believe, $17 billion in revenue for this country. It is designed to get revenue from the wealthy as great wealth passes from one generation to another. We designed the law so that a married couple could leave $1.2 million to their children with no tax at all. That is the tax policy that we have established, $1.2 million tax-free. But we adopted that tax policy in a bizarre way. And when I say, by the way, $1.2 million, that number is going to be ratcheted up over the next decade to a total of $2 million, depending upon, of course, when people die and that estate tax becomes applicable. In my presentation here I will use the old figures, the $600,000 figures and the $1.2 million figures. That is to say, how is it that current law provides for that $1.2 million exemption? It provides a $600,000 exclusion to each of the two spouses. So what do they have to do to take advantage of this $1.2 million exemption? They have to write a long, complicated estate planning document and bypass trust so that when the first spouse dies, that first spouse does not just leave all the family assets to the surviving spouse. Oh, no. That would trigger an estate tax of major proportion when the second spouse dies. Instead, the first spouse to die must leave $600,000 in a trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse. The effect is virtually the same, but the legal complexities are enormous. First, just drawing the instrument is a $1,000 to $3,000 legal fee tax imposed on any couple that believes that when the second of them to dies it is possible that their assets will exceed $600,000. And given the possibility that homes in southern California would go up in value with the same rapidity next decade as they did last decade, every middle-class married couple sees that as at least a possibility. Keep in mind, those who fail to go through this excruciating estate planning process, and I will describe why I think it is excruciating because I have lived it, are told, well, if the second spouse dies, there will be a quarter of a million dollars of extra Federal tax that you could have avoided, a quarter-million-dollar penalty on the family for failing to go through this complicated estate planning process. But the estate planning process is not over. It seems to be over but it is not over when the trust is documented and the couple leaves the lawyer's office with a 50-page document. Because there will come a time when the first spouse dies, and at that point complicated legal steps need to be taken so that assets are put into the trust and other assets are assigned to the widow or widower, and then every year thereafter that trust has got to fill out a separate income tax return. Assets have to be kept separate. Imagine trying to explain for the 20th time to a 95-year-old widow or widower how some assets they have control over and are in trust, which they are only allowed to touch under certain circumstances but get the income under other circumstances, and other assets are in a different trust. Why do we afflict America's elderly, especially our widows and widowers, with the need to be in these bypass trusts? Now, I am not talking here, by the way, of the living trusts that are established to avoid probate in many of our States. Those are genuinely simple. But built within so many of them are these bypass trusts, created not to avoid probate but created to deal with very complicated tax laws. What we should do instead is provide that when the first spouse dies, they can leave all the assets, or some portion of them, to the surviving spouse, and any unused portion of the unified credit, the in effect $600,000 exemption, goes to the surviving spouse. In the simplest plan this would mean when the first spouse died, all of the assets could go to the widow or widower. When the widow or widower passes on later, $1.2 million would be exempt from tax and the rest would be subject to tax. This is the same tax effect that most couples will be faced with. I just think they should be able to reach it without living with these trusts throughout the widowhood or widowerhood of the surviving spouse. Now, the Joint Tax Committee has informed me that they believe that this kind of change would deprive the Federal Government of a billion dollars a year in revenue. For those who want to see a significant estate tax reduction, that is a strong reason to join me in this proposed estate tax change. But I would argue that that billion-dollar reduction in revenue is almost entirely illusory, because the bill as I would propose it would provide tax benefits no greater than any married couple could get simply by visiting a lawyer and paying a $1,500 legal fee. The vast majority of couples with assets of over $600,000 will do just that, and as a result they will obtain through complication the tax savings that I would like to provide through simplicity. I look forward to working with the staff of the Joint Tax Committee to get a more reasonable revenue estimate of this estate tax simplification, and I look forward to working with as many of my colleagues who are interested in crafting legislation to try to simplify the life of every middle-class and upper middle-class widow and widower in this country. I want to thank the Chair for extending so much time. I want to thank my colleagues for their patience in allowing me to get so many matters off my chest.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to LA.com and its founders, David Ezra and Martin Mizrahi. As more and more Americans turn to the web as a source of information, LA.com provides comprehensive information on entertainment, business and consumer information affecting the LA area. In addition, it provides travel and tourism information, as well as traffic assistance. More importantly, it also provides free exposure for organizations to advertise their philanthropic and cultural events. In offering a venue for various public service organizations, it provides these groups with an opportunity to share their services and information with a large audience they might not otherwise reach. LA.com offers something for everyone looking for everything from critical information in or around Los Angeles, to entertainment and social happenings. In establishing this site, David Ezra and Marty Mizrahi have provided to a valuable resource the people who visit and live in Los Angeles by which they can be informed of important occurrences throughout the city. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in commending these gentlemen. These innovative entrepreneurs are paving the way for other cities to follow in disseminating important information among the community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the American Honda Motor Corporation and Mr. Eric Conn, Senior Vice President, for establishing the ``Honda Player of the Year Award.'' This is the eighth year that American Honda has recognized the most understanding professional soccer player in the United States to defend the colors of our country as chosen by 200 members of the press from the United States and abroad. In addition, American Honda, recognizing the importance of our youth, designated the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), as a beneficiary of their fine program. Past recipients of this most prestigious award include: Eddie Pope (1997), Eric Wynalda (1996 and 1992), Alexi Lalas (1995), Marcelo Balboa (1994), Thomas Dooley (1993), and Hugo Perez (1991). The 1998 awards finalists included Kasey Keller, Eddie Pope, and Cobi Jones. The winner received a New Honda Accord EX and $5,000, the latter donated to AYSO on his behalf. It is because of the awareness and dedication of responsible corporate entities in our country, exemplied by the American Honda Motor Corporation, that today's true role models can become more well known. Please join me in saluting the very important contribution to excellence made by American Honda.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, the House Committee on the Judiciary concluded that it could not impeach Richard Nixon for tax perjury, even though Nixon fraudulently signed this 1969 tax return under penalty of perjury. It then established a precedent, with then Congressman Trent Lott concurring, that impeachment of the President is not warranted except for misconduct dangerous to the constitutional system. Some have erroneously claimed that the committee lacked sufficient factual evidence. I have distributed to all Members an exhaustive analysis of the 1974 hearings. The reason the Committee on the Judiciary rejected the tax article of impeachment against Nixon was set forth in 1975 by the very member of the House Committee on the Judiciary who authored the tax article. And he said, most opponents of the tax article felt that the willful tax evasion did not rise to a level of an impeachable offense requiring the removal of the President. Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court but that would be an insult to marsupials everywhere. Mr. Speaker, let me address the two issues that are on the minds of Americans today. As to our action in Iraq, the President is doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons. That is why taking action at this time is supported by the Republican Secretary of Defense, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the British Prime Minister--none of whom would risk the lives of American and British troops for the President's political purposes. Yesterday some extremists, blinded by partisanship, made statements impugning the President's motives--statements which unintentionally gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I am pleased that some have apologized for, or have withdrawn, their unfounded insinuations. As to these Articles of Impeachment, the partisan House majority is doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. This House is doing the wrong thing because the Majority is ignoring the precedent established in the Nixon Impeachment Hearings. In 1974 the House Judiciary Committee concluded that while there were other reasons to impeach Richard Nixon, it could not impeach him for tax perjury--even though he fraudulently signed this 1969 tax return under penalty of perjury. It reached this conclusion based on the correct legal principle, which it established as precedent. That principle is: The impeachment of the President is not warranted except for misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution. Some have claimed that in 1974 the Judiciary Committee lacked sufficient factual evidence of Richard Nixon's tax perjury--but this is not the case. I have reviewed the record of the 1974 hearings, and statements made in 1975, and described these in a five page letter distributed to all Members this morning--and I will make that letter part of these remarks. The reason the Judiciary Committee rejected the Tax Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon was set forth in 1975 in the Georgetown Law Journal where Edward Mezvinsky, the very member of the Judiciary Committee who authored the Tax Article of Impeachment against Nixon wrote: ``Most opponents of the tax article felt that willful tax evasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring the removal of the President.'' The House Majority has required us to address impeachment at the wrong time. The next week is critical for American diplomacy to secure international support for our efforts against Iraq, so that we can get the landing rights our troops need. The Republican Majority insists that we deal with this matter now because they want to use raw political power to insure what they call a matter of conscience is determined by lame duck consciences. Now I understand their partisan desire to achieve a political result before the new Congress takes over on January 3. But what I don't understand is this: Why didn't we adjourn today and convene on December 29th--and thereby give our diplomacy the time it needs to line-up allies? And the House Majority is doing all this for the wrong reasons. The majority promised this matter would be decided on the merits, according to conscience. But we all know Colleagues who have had one arm twisted to affect their vote on impeachment, and the other arm twisted to ensure their silence about the twisting of the first arm. And while we are told this is a matter of conscience, many of us are denied the opportunity to express our conscience, because we are not being allowed to vote on a resolution of censure. It is argued that we cannot constitutionally censure the President. But in 1834 a U.S. Senate censured President Jackson. That Senate was comprised of individuals who had been actively involved in the process of ratifying our constitution. The men and women who lived through the adoption of our Constitution never doubted for a moment that it was constitutional for either House to censure a President. This Majority ignores the standards of impeachable offenses developed in the 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings. This Majority, through its timing of these hearings, places partisanship over the need to use diplomacy to secure landing rights necessary to minimize American casualties. And this Majority denies Members the right to vote for censure, as their consciences dictate. Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court, but that would be an insult to marsupials everywhere. December 17, 1998. News Flash 1974: Judiciary Determined Lying Under Oath In Private Matter is Not Impeachable--a Review of Nixon Tax Perjury Article Dear Colleague: Summary In 1974 the Judicary Committee established a precedent that a crime committed in private life (i.e., Richard Nixon's tax fraud) does not warrant the impeachment of the President. 1969 tax fraud, the Committee was swayed principally by the legal principles defining an impeachable offense, not by the lack of factual evidence against Richard Nixon. The crimes which the Judicary Committee found did not warrant the impeachment of President Nixon are virtually identifical to the two perjury charges against President Clinton. Detailed Analysis President Nixon knowingly filed a 1969 tax return which fradulently claimed that he had donated pre-presidential papers before the date Congress eliminated the charitable tax deduction for such donations. President Nixon, knowing his return was false as to this $576,000 deduction, signed his name under the words: ``Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.'' In July 1974 Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced an Article of Impeachment alleging that President Nixon had signed ``Under penalty of perjury'' a tax return which Nixon knew was false. While Mezvinsky argued that filing the tax return was an abuse of public power because Nixon knew his red-flag $576,000 deduction would not trigger an audit because he was President. However, most Committee members believed that Nixon's false tax return was a ``personal,'' non-governmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President. The Judiciary Committee voted 26 to 12 against impeaching Nixon for his false tax return. Technically, Nixon committed ``tax fraud'' not ``perjury'' and was subject to prosecution under the Internal Revenue Code. Yet Nixon's crime (covered by his pardon) was almost identical to the perjury of which Clinton is accused (and is referred to here as ``tax perjury'') 1. Nixon signed a document under the words ``Under penalty of perjury, I declare * * *.'' 2. He presented false information to a federal agency. 3. Nixon lied when he had a legal obligation, enforceable by federal felony statutes, to tell the truth. 4. Nixon's false statements related to a private matter-- his personal liability for federal taxes. (Clinton testified regarding his personal liability to Paula Jones.) 5. Nixon ignored the ``rule of law'' and his legal obligation to tell the truth. Some have argued that the Judiciary Committee did not pass a Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Nixon only because the facts were unclear. A review of the Committee Report shows that some members thought the factual evidence against Nixon was weak, while other Members thought that a criminal act in the conduct of personal affairs did not warrant the impeachment of the President. (See attached excerpt.) Most of the Members of the Judiciary Committee did not speak on the record on the Tax Perjury Article. So how are we to know the reason for their vote and the precedent the 26 to 12 vote established The person most aware of the reasoning of the Committee Members regarding the Article is its author Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), who lobbied his colleagues on both side of the aisle to get his Article adopted. I called Mr. Mezvinsky yesterday and talked with him at length about his efforts in 1974 to convince his colleagues to vote for his Article. He told me that the clear majority of those who voted against his Article did so because they concluded that a crime committed in private life, which did not relate to an abuse of Presidential power and was not as heinous as murder or rape, did not warrant the impeachment of a President. Mr. Mezvinsky is a Democrat. Is he remembering or interpreting the vote on his 1974 Article of Impeachment to establish a precedent favorable to our current Democratic President? Has his memory faded with time over the last 24 years? Fortunately, in 1975 Mezvinsky wrote an article for the Georgetown Law Journal describing the thought process of his colleagues and providing a contemporaneous statement of the legal conclusions reached in 1974 by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mezvinsky first explains the staff guidance the Committee received, and then the conclusion of the Members of the Committee, which followed that guidance. ``The staff nevertheless injected a requirement of substantiality into the impeachment formula: to constitute an impeachable offense, presidential conduct must be `seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.' [Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 26-27 (Comm. Print 1974).]'' * * * * * ``Most opponents of the Tax Article felt that willful tax evasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring removal of the President.''--Edward Mezvinsky, Georgetown Law Journal, 1975, Volume 63: 1071 at pages 1078- 1079. The record on the Nixon impeachment process further supports the conclusion that impeachment of a President is warranted only for an offense against our very system, an offense subversive of the government itself. A memorandum setting forth the views of certain Republican Members (including current Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 similarly emphasized the necessarily serious and public character of any alleged offense: ``It is not a fair summary . . . to say that the Framers were principally concerned with reaching a course of conduct, whether or not criminal, generally inconsistent with the proper and effective exercise of the office of the presidency. They were concerned with preserving the government from being overthrown by the treachery or corruption of one man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended that the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution.'' [Nixon Report at 364-365 (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta) (final emphasis added).] Conclusion A 1975 law journal article tells the story. In 1974 a Judiciary Committee, dominated by Democrats, was confronted with a President who had lied on a tax return signed ``under penalty of perjury.'' That crime dishonored President Nixon, undermined respect for law, and called into doubt Mr. Nixon's credibility on public matters. However the Committee applied the following formula: seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. That same standard should be applied to President Clinton. The first two articles allege that President Clinton lied ``under penalty of perjury'' and through that action undermined respect for law, and his own credibility and honor. Yet President Clinton's actions do not warrant the impeachment of a President under the standards formulated by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and applied by most Committee Members in rejecting the Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. I urge you to follow the standard enunciated and followed by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reject the first two Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. I hope you will also join me in voting against the third and fourth Articles as well. Very truly yours, Brad Sherman. Excerpts From Hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, July 1974, on an Article of Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, Dealing With Tax Fraud/ Tax Perjury Mr. Railsback (R-IL)--I suggest that there is a serious question as to whether something involving his personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office of the President. (Pg. 524). Mr. Hogan (R-MD)--The staff report on grounds for impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: ``As a technical term high crimes signified a crime against the system of government, not merely a serious crime. This element of injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and the Constitution, was historically the criteria for distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one.'' (Pg. 541) Mr. Mayne (R-IA)--. . . even if criminal fraud had been proved, then we would still have the question whether its a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past six years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. (Pg. 545) Mr. Waldie (D-CA)--I speak against this article because of my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been enormous abuse of those powers . . . And though I find the conduct of the President in these instances to have been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been disgraceful even, I do not find a presidential power that has been so grossly abused that . . . [it is] . . . sufficient to warrant impeachment. (Pg. 548) Mr. Thornton (D-AR)--I think it is apparent that in this area there has been a breach of faith with the American people with regard to incorrect income tax returns . . . But it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course in the regular process of the law. This committee is not a tax fraud court, nor a criminal court, nor should it endeavor to be one. Our charge is full and serious enough, in determining whether high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of government must be brought to the attention of the full House . . . (Pg. 549)

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the President is doing the right thing at the right time, for the right reasons. I hope that we give him the support necessary so that this campaign continues until we achieve our objectives. The President's action have the support of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Republican Secretary of Defense, and the British Prime Minister, none of whom would risk the lives of American and British troops for the President's political purposes. We needed to act now, while the reports of the inspectors still provide limited but fresh intelligence; now, before Saddam can complete hiding his weapons; now, before the commencement of the holy month of Ramadan; now, before the reason for the bombing--Tuesday's U.N. report--becomes old news rather than the final straw justifying immediate action; now, before the world concludes that America has lost its nerve. Some critics say that the President should have bombed Iraq on November 14th. Mr. Speaker, if the President had done so, those same partisan critics would have savaged him, claiming that he was merely trying to distract us from the November Judiciary Committee Hearings. And if the President had not commenced the bombing yesterday, those same critics would be attacking him today for inaction. Mr. Speaker--Never underestimate a desperate partisan whose lust for the President's blood causes him to make statements which unintentionally give aid and comfort to the enemy. Those that have made such statements should apologize to our troops, to the President, and to the nation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Ronald L. Scheinman, Esq. for his service as Chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging for the past two years. President Kennedy said, ``Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.'' During his tenure, Ron has worked diligently with the Board of Directors and senior managers to reshape the Jewish Home to prepare it to meet the many challenges facing the health care industry. Under Ron's leadership, they conducted and completed a Capital Campaign Planning and Feasibility Study and implemented a strategic planning process to determine the future development of the Jewish Home. He recruited a new development director to enhance the organization's fundraising abilities. He has organizationally streamlined the Jewish Home by restructuring the Board of Directors, reducing their size, reducing the size of the executive committee and revising their bylaws. These important implementations have improved the Jewish Home's overall efficiency and effectiveness. Ronald Scheinman's vision for the future of the Jewish Home for the Aging has transformed the Home into a present-day reality that is providing a very important service to many of Los Angeles' Jewish senior citizens. Ron has helped to ensure that the Home will continue to provide quality care to a growing and often neglected portion of our population. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Mr. Ronald L. Scheinman, Esq. for his service to the Jewish Community as Chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to pay tribute to the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) and its chairman of the board, Burton K. Haimes. AYSO was founded in Torrance, CA in 1964, ``everyone plays'' and ``balanced team'' philosophies have generated a youth soccer program which has literally swept the country. Today, AYSO has 900 regional programs and 46,000 teams. The division into geographic regions has resulted in a grassroots program with local leadership. AYSO soccer is a family affair with more than 600,000 players ranging from 4\1/2\ through 18 years old. An average of one parent per family actively participates in AYSO acting as coach, referee, team parent, administrator or sponsors. AYSO is currently supported by more than 250,000 volunteers. Through AYSO, youngsters of diverse backgrounds, ethnicity, and athletic abilities are given the opportunity to participate in soccer. AYSO and its sponsors are proud to provide quality programs for its youngsters and volunteers. Today's AYSO program is different in many respects from its origin. The emphasis is now placed on the training and development of adult volunteers. That way they can be sure the quality as well as the quantity of their programs increases. AYSO, with the help of noted experts, is working to improve the education of volunteers in the areas of child development, human behavior, sports psychology, ethics and sportsmanship. AYSO programs work because their volunteers work. They work because they believe in the programs. Their phenomenal growth reflects AYSO's commitment to a healthy competitive atmosphere for youth soccer players and a concern for the development of caring and responsible individuals. Recognizing the special needs within our communities, AYSO has carefully created unique programs including: TEAM-UP to provide assistance where there are ongoing economic challenges, be it rural area, small town, Native American reservation or the inner city; VIP (Very Important Player) program created to provide a quality soccer experience for children whose physical or mental challenges make it difficult to successfully participate on regular AYSO teams; CAP (College Athlete Program) designed to prepare soccer players to attend college and play soccer while in college; Girls Initiative to promote girls' participation in soccer along with fostering the development of women as coaches, referees and administrators; and Safe Haven designed to address the growing need for child and volunteer protection through an educational program that includes accreditation, volunteer certification, and protection policies. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO); the role model for sportsmanship and citizenship in our country today.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Ivor L. Geft, one of the most dynamic and dedicated physicians in Los Angeles. Dr. Geft is the recipient of The Jewish Healthcare Foundation--Avraham Moshe Bikur Cholim's Ahavas Chesed Award. He is being recognized for his excellence in caring for the health and welfare of all citizens of Los Angeles, regardless of age, sex, creed, or color. The Talmud states, ``He who does Charity and Justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' In the spirit of these words, Dr. Geft continuously performs acts of charity and justice that brings an incredible sense of loving kindness and hope to the greater community of Los Angeles. His dedication to increasing the well being of the ailing is unique. Known for visiting patients young and old alike, he can be spotted in a variety of hospitals and homes throughout Los Angeles around the clock. Amidst the busy schedule of a cardiologist, Dr. Geft does not hesitate to make time for any of his patients. His commitment to helping others has significantly improved the quality of life in our community. Dr. Geft's compassion is coupled with his reputation as one of the most well respected cardiologists in the city of Los Angeles. Dr. Geft serves as a physician specializing in cardiology, primarily at Cedars- Sinai Medical Center. He also travels throughout the city and has privileges to UCLAHospital, Midway Hospital, and Century City Hospital. He is an associate clinical professor at the UCLA School of Medicine. However, his well earned reputation began prior to his practice in Los Angeles. Dr. Geft was senior cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Hospital and worked as a fellow in cardiology at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel. He attended school at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Dr. Geft's list of accomplishments is tireless. He is a member of the world renowned Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom. He is also a member of the Israel Board of Cardiologists. He belongs to the California Medical Association, is a fellow at the American College of Cardiology, and is a member of the Israel Medicine Society. His leadership abilities have been recognized by many, including the American Heart Association, who awarded him the Young Investigators Award. Today, his talents are being recognized once again. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Dr. Geft for his love, dedication, and passionate service to his patients and the community of Los Angeles.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a new technology called the medical optical signal processor. Today, in the world of ever-advancing medical technology, key words like telemedicine, laser surgery, and computer second opinion are used to address the new frontiers that are being discovered through the leveraging and exploitation of existing technologies. But, now is the time for these new frontiers in medicine to be even further challenged. It is time that we expand our horizons and to stock our arsenals with new and innovative technologies. It is ironic that one of the most potent and promising weapons in our technological arsenal may be as elementary or as fundamental as simple light. The use of light to process data is not new or particularly difficult. In fact, the use of light is not very different from the way the human eye and brain work in processing visual data. This new technology is called the medical optical signal processor (MOSP). The domestic medical landscape is pursuing unprecedented change to combat the spiraling costs of health care. Cost containment and resources consolidation are forcing commercial and military healthcare providers to turn to sources outside the traditional medical community to improve the quality of care. The concept of transitioning optical signal processing (OSP) technology to enhance present and future medical imaging systems detecting and identifying key pathologic features within two-dimensional medical imagery may prove not only cost effective but may validate the leveraging of dual use technologies between the military and commercial sectors. MOSP has not only great promise in civilian and military medical applications has shown great promise and it leverages upon the advances already being made in its use for automatic target recognition (ATR) in both civilian and military applications. Many of my colleagues on the House Science Committee, as well as those on the traditional defense oversight committees, are dedicated to finding and funding the best technologies that will allow the U.S. to make quantum leaps ahead in improving our security and our way of life. In an era when the American people expect their elected officials to be prudent and careful stewards of their federal budget dollars, it is important that we carefully choose those areas of research that will bring a greater return on our investment. I believe medical optical signal processing may be a technology that does just that. MOSP is best utilized in developing an advanced imaging system for the management of breast and prostate cancer. MOSP has a compelling and potential benefit in all areas of radiology in enhancing and analyzing imagery. It enjoys an advantage as a two-dimensional processor with the power of multiple Cray computer imagery processing in a small package. It can leverage the sensitivity of X-rays and specificity of high definition ultrasound in a multi-sensor correlation. It exploits recent OSP technology to create self-adapting imaging systems, which places minimal demands on operator skills while improving soft tissue contrast. All this facilitates a broad spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic options. But most importantly, if reduces the trauma to the patient. Congress has been a major supporter of the OSP industry, and lately has recognized the need for optical processing to resolve next- generation pattern recognition in military applications. Congressional assistance is needed in supporting further military and commercial application opportunities for optical correlators. In the FY97 National Defense Authorization Act the House National Security Committee wrote: The committee is aware of the potential of optical correlators for signal processing and anomaly detection in military systems. The committee believes optical correlators also have similar potential in medical research such as for the detection of tumors. ***P***The Secretary of the Army's ``Report to the House Committee on National Security on the Potential Use of Optical Correlators in Medical Research,'' addressed the use of optical correlators for signal processing and anomaly detection in military systems. It points out one of the early advantages of OSP technology as:* * * a key component is the high speed correlator which does the actual comparison and reports out numerical scores on the degree of similarity between objects in the image and targets of interest, be they enemy tanks or cancerous cells. ***P***The report focuses on the military application of OSP technology in the need to significantly speed up the computation process of features found in imagery. It does not address the many other changes in this technology over the last three years. But, the report does specifically address cancer in one statement:* * * In cancer screening applications, this means a higher probability of detecting a cancerous mass while simultaneously reducing the probability of falsely reporting benign tissue as cancerous. ***P***In 1997, the Congress continued to address the use of optical correlators in missile technology, both for the navy and Air Force. For the first time, funding was added to the Standard Missile program of the US Navy, and for a continuation of a US Air Force Air-to-Ground missile (AGM) effort called, optical processor enhanced LADAR (OPEL). But unfortunately due to defense budget constraints, additional funds were not found and the medical application was not appropriated.***P***In 1998 the House further attempted to deal with the potential medical application of OSP, by providing authorization to the US Army. The House National Security Committee wrote that:* * * The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62787A for applied research in the use of low cost optical correlator technology in medical diagnosis . . . ***P***It was hoped that this seed money would provide the spark to improve the quality of care of the men and women protecting out country and open new medical imagery analysis technology in medical areas outside of radiology such as ophthalmology, dermatology, trauma or triage treatments, and many others. Unfortunately, due to the constraints in this year defense budget, the Congress was unable to support adding funds to this year's appropriations for the Army to proceed with this program. To this member, this was extremely shortsighted.***P***In 1993 the NCI reported that one-in- eight women would contract breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. One in four men may face the same fate at the hands of prostate cancer.***P***When an abnormal breast or prostate mass is detected by mammography or by a physician's clinical examination, a biopsy is almost always recommended. A pathologist examines the tissue to determine if the lump is cancerous. The psychological trauma this creates in anyone is beyond measure and is normally endured over many weeks of tests and waiting. Healthcare should be effective and as timely as possible to prevent any emotional and traumatic episodes to one's life. Optical processing is the technology that can drive the current process from weeks to one day: examine--biopsy--results. Improving the quality of care to the patient and their families. As we fight cancer, we can also reduce the trauma it brings.***P***Photonics Spectra, a leading publication for the Optical industry, quoted the report of the Committee on Optical Science and Engineering, a group created by the national Research Council, as saying:* * * that light-based technologies have a vast and growing range of critical applications in virtually every scientific discipline and a large number of industrial fields * * * In healthcare, it urges that the National Institute of Standards modify its disease oriented structure to provide more funding for optical technologies. Optical signal processing technology that is properly adapted for embedded use in medical ultrasound imaging systems, will create a paradigm shift within the radiology industry leading to a new generation of higher performance systems with outstanding soft tissue visualization capabilities. It will also leverage the correlation and benefits of multiple radiological systems. In as much as all of us, as Members of Congress, the stewards of our nation's health and well being. It is essential that we remain: informed of the advances in science and technology, vigilant to providing the leadership and insight needed to move forward when an opportunity avails itself, and the wisdom to seize and leverage that opportunity. Through leveraging the investment and advances already made in optical processing technology, we can continue to exploit this technology not only for its military and commercial target recognition applications but for its potential to bring better quality of care to civilian and military medical systems. We owe it to our nation to move forward with this good ideal. We owe to the nation to move forward with this good technology. I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me next year in supporting this type of research and technology throughout the entire federal science and technology budget because the advances and victories of science and technology are non partisan. They are victories in which all Americans will share. While the revages of cancer and other diseases will not pick sides or discriminate, it will strike us all regardless of our political beliefs or our stature in life. We owe nothing less to our friends and colleagues in the Congress who have suffered the anguish of breast and prostate cancer for themselves and for their loved ones, but more importantly, we owe it to the millions of our constituents, who hope everyday that we, as their stewards of the budget, will make the right decisions for them that allows this nation to remain healthy and safe.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the Allstate Insurance Company for its leadership and dedication to enhance the lives of the members of the communities it serves and for its strategic commitment to the diverse Hispanic community. Today Allstate is the leading national company among Hispanics for auto, property, and life insurance. The Allstate Insurance Company and its agent network have a long heritage of caring and commitment. For over sixty years Allstate has actively supported the community by establishing ``Helping Hands'' activities, the philanthropic efforts of the Allstate Foundation, programs such as the Allstate Giving Campaign and All-American City Awards, and by their participation in the President's Summit for America's Future and important working relationships with the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). HAPCOA (Hispanic American Police Commanders Association) and SER (Service, Employment and Redevelopment). Add to this the more than one million hours Allstate employees and their families volunteer annually to shelters, hospitals, soup kitchens, schools, and places of worship and we see how Allstate keeps the tradition of giving alive. Throughout its history the company has been tirelessly involved in providing time and financial resources to civic, charitable, humanitarian, government, and educational causes as well as safety and prevention programs that target teen drivers, fire prevention, theft, and child, property, and home safety. Becoming a major sponsors of the 1998 Latino Book and Family Festival and supporting Edward James Olmos' efforts to link culture through literacy and education, further demonstrates the Allstate commitment to support programs that are of importance to their customers and to each of us. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to the Allstate Insurance Company, a role model of good corporate citizenship for Corporate America.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to seven law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty over the past twenty-two months. Police officers undertake a solemn oath to protect and serve their fellow citizens and, if necessary, sacrifice their lives to fulfill this duty. The following seven brave individuals--Officer Charles Andrew Lazzaretto, Officer Van Derrick Johnson, Deputy Sheriff Shayne Daniel York, Deputy Sheriff Michael Lee Hoenig, Police Officer Steven Gerald Gajda, Officer Filbert Cuesta, and Ventura County Senior Deputy Lisa D. Whitney--have paid the ultimate price for the preservation of public safety and civility in the cities of my district. Selflessly, they dedicated their lives to protecting others and serving our communities. Like their colleagues across the country, they carried out their duties each day with courage and honor. Without trepidation, they confronted the dangers inherent in their line of work and ultimately gave their lives in the service of our community. To these brave souls we extend our gratitude. To their families, we extend our most heartfelt sympathies and appreciation. Their memories will linger in our hearts. Their sacrifices have not been in vain. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in remembering these seven members of the law enforcement community who, like so many others before them, have given their lives to protect others, doing so with unrivaled courage, valor, and honor.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to pay tribute to the Allstate Hispanic Marketing Team and Advertising and Brand Development Group for their vision and commitment to better serve the needs of Latino community. President Kennedy once said, ``For those to whom much is given, much is required.'' This recognition is to honor the individuals who have exemplified such leadership, volunteerism, and dedication. Committed to their industry leadership stance, these Allstate leaders have activity engaged in building relationships with organizations in meaningful ways to develop solutions that make a positive difference for individuals and communities. Pioneering programs that range from the development of the ``En Buenas Manos'' (Good Hands) Award which commemorates individuals who volunteer their time and energy to improve the quality of life in the Latino community, to the sponsorship of national events such as the National Council of La Raza Conference (NCLR), and the Olmos Latino Book and Family Festival is what sets Allstate apart. The list of cultural and civic Hispanic events in which Allstate and its vast network of agents participate as individuals and as a company is long, and includes festivals, parades, conferences, and other national and local events of special interest. In addition to its commitment to providing its customers with the highest levels of service, Allstate, through its Hispanic Marketing Team and Advertising and Brand Development Group, has forged relationships and spearheaded programs that deal with issues such as housing and community development, education, employment and job training, immigration, health and safety, and leadership. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to the Allstate Hispanic Marketing Team and the Advertising and Brand Developing Group. They have shown unwavering commitment to the community and deserve our recognition and praise. ``Con Allstate . . . Usted Esta En Buenas Manos.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, especially for overstating my qualifications. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about the part of this bill that repeals Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This is a critically important part of the appropriations bill. It has been addressed by half of the speakers that have come to speak about the bill in general. The Armenian National Committee and the Armenian Assembly, the 2 largest Armenian organizations, the predominant Armenian organizations, have put out a statement saying that for Armenian Americans, this is the most important vote of this Congress. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I feel more than a little concerned that such a substantive provision has been stuck in an appropriations bill. A provision that deals with an area that our committee had hearings on, our committee decided not to try to change this year, and then the Committee on Appropriations tries to change it. If one believes that substantive changes should be made by authorizing committees, if one believes that American foreign policy should reflect American values, then I hope my colleagues will vote for the Radanovich-Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment to this bill and delete those provisions that try to play havoc with American foreign policy in the Caucasus.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I had prepared remarks, but I would like to use much of my time to respond to particular statements that have been made by opponents to the amendment. The first is that it is the President, charged under the Constitution, with making United States foreign policy. This is indeed a misnomer, a statement found in many eighth grade civics books but never found in any Supreme Court opinion or found in the Constitution itself. I commend those who oppose the amendment to the Barclays Bank case, decided by the Supreme Court a few years ago, in which the court recounts the very clear constitutional principle that foreign policy is to be made in the Congress and effectuated by the administration. The second issue is that we are not talking here about money or aid going to Azerbaijan. That is all we are talking about. Section 907 restricts the transfer of U.S. tax dollars to the dictatorial regime in Azerbaijan. Those who want to talk about fiscal conservatism should draw the line here and say that the butchers in Baku should not get a single dollar of American tax money, at least while they blockade Armenia. We are told that Armenia should be blamed for the refugees that exist in Azerbaijan, and our hearts go out to those refugees. But why are they refugees? Because of the policy of the dictatorial government in Baku. We are told that where two countries are battling that we should be evenhanded. I have been very interested in the Middle East, and now and then we are told to be evenhanded between Israel and her enemies. We should not be evenhanded between the blockaded and the blockader. We should not be evenhanded between the perpetrator and the victim. We should not be evenhanded between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We should remember, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, that the government in Azerbaijan, that some would say we should send money to, is the government that butchered people on the streets of Baku just a few years ago. We are told that American policy tilts toward Armenia because of the activities of Armenian Americans. I would point out that American oil companies are at least as influential as Armenian Americans. The reason why our policy tilts toward Armenia is because Armenia is right and because their position reflects American values. We are told that many in this House do not understand the oil, do not understand the strategic importance, the economic importance of the Newly Independent States and of Central Asia. I would say that that expertise resides in the Committee on International Relations. But this authorizing provision never went to the Committee on International Relations, and there is no better reason to adopt this amendment than to say that this issue should come from the committee of jurisdiction. We are told that there are too many unilateral sanctions. Section 907 imposes no sanctions. Azerbaijan enjoys Most Favored Nation status with the United States. Those who care about fiscal conservatism should not embrace the language, the terminology, that says that it is sanctions against a country for us not to give them U.S. tax dollars. Finally, I would like to point to the role of Joseph Stalin in this. Fifty years ago Joseph Stalin tried to strangle Berlin, and we responded with the airlift. Two generations earlier Joseph Stalin drew the borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia for the purpose of disenfranchising and leading to the oppression of Armenians in Nagorno Karabagh. We did not let Joseph Stalin strangle Berlin and we should not allow those who walk in his footsteps, those who served in his KGB, we should not let them strangle Armenia. Today there is an airlift to Armenia that should be unnecessary, because we should continue to tell Azerbaijan to stop blockading Armenia. We are told that the Armenians are intransigent and are unwilling to give up territory. Nothing is further from the truth. The government of Armenia is willing to trade land for peace, recognition and an end of this blockade. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again today with the gentleman from Florida and my other colleagues to mark a somber anniversary--the 24th Anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974. Time and time again over the last 24 years the United States Congress has reaffirmed its commitment to a just and peaceful resolution to the Cyprus conflict. Last year this Congress passed the ``Peace in Cyprus'' Resolution, by overwhelming majorities, calling for the full withdrawal of Turkish occupation troops and an early substantive resolution of the conflict. Last year at this time we expressed hope in the U.S. brokered talks on Cyprus. No matter how firm our commitment, no matter how deep our resolve, however, the breakdown of the most recent talks and indeed the repeated failures of the last 24 years, demonstrate that negotiations cannot go forward, progress cannot be made, if one of the parties is unwilling to negotiate. U.S. Presidential Envoy Richard Holbrooke acknowledged as much, blaming the breakdown of negotiations on Turkish intransigence. Rather than negotiate in good faith, the Turkish side set ridiculous preconditions, demanding recognition as a state and withdrawal of the Cypriot application to the EU. Recognition of the puppet regime in occupied Cyprus would violate international law and legitimize Turkish aggression. The EU's historic decision to admit Cyprus could have opened a window of opportunity for negotiation, but Turkey has used this instead as a pretext for blocking the talks. Now Turkey threatens to attack Cyprus if the S-300 missiles are deployed. With regard to the missiles, one cannot deny a Nation's right to self-defense: Cyprus is a nation with small National Guard and no air force to speak of facing an occupation force of more than 35,000 troops and Turkish fighters within striking distance. To his credit, President Clerides has offered repeatedly to cancel the missile order in exchange for demilitarization and genuine talks. While there has been some resolution with regard to the Americans missing in Cyprus, who we now know were killed in the Turkish invasion, key issues remain unresolved on this 24th Anniversary: the fate of the 1600 missing Greek Cypriots, the status of Farmagusta, the situation of the enclaved, the desecration of Christian sites in occupied Cyprus and the list goes on. We can look to one victory tonight, however, as we mark this somber anniversary. In a historic decision last week, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ordered the government of Turkey to pay $640,000 in damages to a Greek Cypriot refugee, having found that Turkey violated the Convention on Human Rights. This acknowledgment, if belated, provides hope to the more than 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees who lost so much in the invasion. This year Turkey marked the 24th Anniversary of the occupation of Cyprus in quite a different fashion, with a militaristic display of force presided over by none other than Turkish Prime Minister Yilmaz. This celebration and the presense of Prime Minister Yilmaz should not only offend the world community, it should also signal to the U.S. an essential truth: Unless we bring our influence to bear on the real center of power in all this--the Turkish General Staff in Ankara--there is little hope for a resolution on Cyprus. Turkey is ultimately responsible for the division and occupation of Cyprus. We must demand that Ankara withdraw its occupation forces, tear down the Green Line and reunite the divided city of Nicosia. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stand here next year on the 25th Anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Let us not reach the quarter-century mark.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding collection of individuals for their unwavering commitment to the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 1997-1998 Jewish Federation Officers Herbert M. Gelfand, Irwin Field, Todd Morgan, Lionel Bell, Carol Katzman, Elaine Caplow, Chuck Boxenbaum, Stuart Buchalter, Jonathan Cookler, Rabbi Harvey J. Fields, Howard I. Friedman, Dr. Beryl Gerber, Meyer Hersch, Harriet Hochman, Evy Lutin, Annette Shapiro, Terri Smooke, Carmen Warschaw, David Wilstein, Mark Lainer, Edna Weiss, David Fox, and Newton Becker for their innovative leadership over the past two years. The Talmud states ``He who does charity and justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' In the spirit of these words, these leaders have infused our community with great kindness, purpose, and pride. Their work strongly represents the Judaic tradition of generosity and concern for others. Their exceptional leadership has been instrumental in laying the foundation for a strong and cohesive Jewish community in the City of Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me today in congratulating these leaders for their tremendous dedication to the Jewish Federation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and to urge the President to sign legislation that would impose sanctions on those entities that are helping Iran develop ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles in the hands of the government in Teheran would be destabilizing to the entire Middle East. We do not need to provide assistance to those companies that are assisting this ballistic missile program. We should seek a rapprochement with the people of Iran. We should look at the recent elections in which a relative moderate, and I emphasize the word relative moderate, was elected President and exercises some authority within the government of Iran. The people of Iran, though, do not benefit from ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are not an essential element of the economic development of Iran. Ballistic missiles would simply give the Iranian Government an opportunity to create mischief and death in the entire Middle East area. The President should welcome the most recent legislation, not as an interference, but rather as a bolstering of his own policies, to control ballistic missile technology. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to sign the legislation, and I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Toby Keeler, for his leadership and efforts to improve the quality of life in our community. Toby is a determined, hard working individual who has dedicated countless hours to the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation and has enhanced the area in the process. During his term as President of the Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation from 1995 to 1997, Toby repeatedly lobbied on behalf of those he represented. First, Toby played an instrumental role in orchestrating the Las Virgenes opposition to a massive commercial development that threatened to destroy most of the natural area adjacent to the 101 Freeway. After this successful effort, Toby redesigned a controversial park center project, a move which ultimately guaranteed its construction. Later in his term as President, Toby rallied support for a proposition that raised necessary funding to keep open several fire stations, and campaigned to increase land acquisition funding for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. In another display of his support for the environment, Toby organized opposition to the SOKA University project in the Santa Monica Mountains which would have allowed construction on protected lands. Toby is also a former member of the Planning Commission for the City of Calabasas, and is the current President of the Old Topanga Homeowners Association, where he has continued in his role as a community leader. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to Toby Keeler. He has shown an unwavering commitment to the community and deserves our recognition and praise.