[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6696-H6701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    A LOOK BACKWARD, A LOOK FORWARD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hutchinson). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Sherman] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as probably the last Speaker of this 
session, at least that portion of the session before we go back to our 
districts for the summer, I am grateful to have this opportunity to 
speak tonight.
  I know we are all anxious to go back to our districts, and yet we 
ought to reflect a little bit on some of the things that have gone on 
in this House over the last 6 months. I am especially grateful for a 
sufficient amount of time to review these events, because during more 
hectic parts of our legislative business we are recognized for 1 minute 
or for 2 minutes, which is often not enough time to go even into one 
topic, and I have several topics I would like to address.
  I know that very few of my colleagues are here in the Chamber. I 
expect that many are back in their offices finishing things up, perhaps 
watching these remarks on C-SPAN or cable, and I really have not had a 
chance to introduce myself to all of my colleagues, only most of them, 
so I would like to take a minute to do that.
  I represent proudly the 24th Congressional District in California, 
which

[[Page H6697]]

goes from Northridge on the north to Malibu on the south. That is why 
FEMA is my favorite Government agency. From the Northridge earthquakes 
to the other problems that we have had, certainly we have had more than 
our share of disasters, we have experienced superb help from that 
agency.
  In addition, my district goes on the west from the city of Thousand 
Oaks in the Conejo Valley into the east to the city of Los Angeles, as 
far east as America's best named town, Sherman Oaks, CA.
  I never expected to be in this House, and for those of my colleagues 
I have yet to meet and explain my story, I will take a minute to do 
that.
  I began my career over 20 years ago as a CPA. And after a while, my 
friends got together and said, ``Brad, you need to find an occupation 
held in lower public esteem,'' so I went to law school. After 3 years 
of Harvard Law School and 10 years of practicing business law, these 
same friends got together and they said, ``Brad, for anyone else we 
know, law would be low enough, but you must find an occupation held in 
even lower public esteem.''
  They spent some time trying to think of what it might be, and they 
decided that I had to find some unique combination of occupations held 
in low esteem. In my State we have an elected tax commission called the 
State Board of Equalization. With their help, I ran for that board, and 
for 6 years I was simultaneously a politician and a tax collector.
  Those of my friends in California who are already lawyers and aspire 
to be held in even lower esteem might examine the opportunity of 
running for the Board of Equalization next year.
  These same friends gathered together last year, when our Congressman 
was retiring, and perhaps they thought that coming to this House would 
be an occupation held in even lower public esteem than being 
simultaneously a politician and a tax collector. This year we have 
proved them wrong.
  This year my occupational self-esteem is on the rebound, because 
while last Congress was noted for deadlock and division, so far in this 
Congress we are noted for working together, sometimes with some 
acrimony, sometimes with some division, but eventually coming together 
in a bipartisan spirit, in a spirit that gives America the government 
that America voted for last year, a government of the vital center; 
government not catering to a right wing or to a left wing, but rather 
balancing those wings with policies that make sense.
  It is in that spirit that I would like to review our last 6 months 
and take a look at the next several months of Congress that will be 
reconvened this September. I would like to look first at one bill that 
I have introduced, that I hope people around the country will bring to 
the attention of their Members of Congress and their Senators, because 
when people come back in September I would like to have hearings on 
this bill and I would like to see it pass.
  After I review that bill, I would like to review my own efforts on 
the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on International 
Relations. But first I would like to address that one piece of 
legislation, and that is the Child Protection Act of 1997.
  There were 425,000 children sexually abused last year. It is time for 
the Federal Government to do everything possible to protect our 
children from sexual predators. A good idea came out of California that 
I would like to see adopted on a national basis, and that is the idea 
of providing parents with the information they need about adults who 
may be coming in contact with their children because of their proximity 
or occupation.

  In California there is a 900 number that parents can call, and if 
they have very specific information about an individual, can ask 
whether this individual has been convicted, not merely arrested but 
convicted of a sexual predatory offense. Making use of the data base 
required by Megan's law, officials of the California attorney general 
will advise parents whether that person has been convicted.
  In fact, there have been 11,000 inquiries to this line and on over 
1,000 occasions parents, those who administer day care programs and 
others with a legitimate interest have been advised, told on over 1,000 
occasions that the individual that they were concerned about had, in 
fact, been convicted of a sexual predatory offense.
  For example, there was an amusement park that noticed that an 
individual would show up by himself every day, would often be talking 
to children and striking up what appeared to be friendships, and that 
this individual had purchased a year-long pass, but never came with a 
child to this amusement park that catered to children.
  They checked on this individual and found that the person who had 
purchased a year-long pass to the amusement park had, in fact, been 
convicted of a sexual offense involving a child under 14 years of age.
  In another circumstance, a parent was concerned about someone who 
wanted to serve as the new Little League coach, and discovered that 
that person had been convicted in 1990 and again in 1992 of child 
molestation.
  This system in California works well, but it suffers from two 
limitations: The data base is statewide and only parents in the State 
can use it. This line and database should be nationwide. Parents in 
California who call should be able to get information about convictions 
that occurred anywhere in the United States. And, likewise, this 
service ought to be available to parents from Maine to Arizona, not 
just to those in California.
  So I ask my colleagues who may be listening to consider cosponsoring 
the Child Protection Act of 1997. Already 28 of my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle and from all parts of the country, have cosponsored 
this legislation.
  And to those who are watching at home, the next month will be an 
outstanding opportunity to interact with your own Senators and your own 
Representatives and, I hope, urge them to support the Child Protection 
Act of 1997.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the work of the 
various committees that I have been privileged to serve on. The first 
of these is the Committee on the Budget.
  First, I would like to review how it is that well before the deadline 
and surprising all the skeptics, first the Committee on the Budget and 
then the House overwhelmingly adopted a bipartisan budget plan for this 
Nation which balances the budget by the year 2002 and makes sure it 
remains balanced for at least 5 years thereafter.
  Credit must go to prior Congresses because they adopted a fiscal 
policy for this country and supported the Federal Reserve Board in a 
monetary policy that has given us unparalleled economic growth, an 
economic recovery that is the longest in the post-World War II era.

                              {time}  2015

  They did their job. As a result, just a few months ago, in predicting 
the future economic developments of this country, the Congressional 
Budget Office was able to tell us that they expected $45 billion of 
additional unexpected tax revenue not only in this year, but in each of 
the next 5 years.
  Our reaction to that news was calm. And we deserve credit, both 
Democrats and Republicans, and I am particularly impressed by my 
colleagues, in the mature reaction that we had to that wonderful 
discovery. Because all around the world, developed countries are 
running huge deficits because they are slashing taxes on the one hand 
and coming up with very expensive government programs on the other.
  The European Union is trying to create its own European currency, but 
they decided to do that only when the countries involved are able to 
reduce their deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product. We in the 
United States, even before this budget deal, reduced our deficit to 
well less than 1 percent of our gross domestic product.
  In fact, looking around the world at the developed countries, the 
only countries that meet the European Union's standards for a new 
currency are Luxembourg and the United States and arguably Cyprus. 
Perhaps the United States and Luxembourg should create our own 
currency, because the rest of the developed world has not mastered the 
fiscal discipline displayed in this House. The most important thing we 
did this week is that we did not foul it up. Prior Congresses, when 
confronted with good news, would have responded with $100 million 
spending programs,

[[Page H6698]]

$200 million tax cuts, attempts to buy votes from this constituency or 
that, paying a price that the country could not afford. Instead, we 
acted with restraint.
  Yes, we adopted some additional spending programs, more than offset 
by the spending reductions that we achieved. And yes, we provided tax 
reductions. But tax reductions that were moderate tax reductions this 
country could afford, tax reductions that were far less than had been 
proposed just 2 years ago.
  Another area where we did not foul things up is that of the Social 
Security. Earlier this year we were urged by many to artificially 
adjust the Consumer Price Index, to tell those who are dependent on 
Social Security that if the Consumer Price Index said prices had gone 
up by 3 percent, we were only going to count 1\1/2\ percent. That would 
have been a breach of faith with America's seniors, and this Congress 
said no. Yes, we are going to balance the budget, but no we are not 
going to do so by artificially tinkering with the promise that we have 
made to our seniors to maintain their purchasing power.
  Instead, we adopted a spending bill that will extend the Medicare 
trust fund and its solvency to the year 2007, and that will allow us to 
provide insurance to children who do not currently have medical 
insurance. Five million children who now must worry and whose parents 
must worry about whether they can afford to see a doctor, or if they 
can get medical care, will be told yes, you can, the door of the clinic 
is open.
  We also adopted very important tax reductions. The most important one 
for my district is a virtual elimination of the tax on the gain on the 
sale of a home. We in Los Angeles are blessed with high property values 
or high housing costs, however you choose to view it. And so many 
southern Californians are faced with a situation where they are 
thinking of selling their home now that their children have moved. They 
have a 3-bedroom, a 4-bedroom, a 6-bedroom home and are still living in 
it, not because they need the space and not because they want to invite 
their 20-something children to move back into their old bedrooms, but 
because they are concerned about the huge tax that they would pay if 
they sold their home and moved into a smaller one. Today we said yes, 
people can sell their homes and do not have to pay taxes on the first 
$500,000 of gain.
  And for those in other parts of the country where the gains are 
smaller, please reflect on the fact that your interest payments are 
lower, your mortgage payments are lower. We in California spend far 
more for housing than people in most of the rest of the country.
  Just as important, we adopted a $500 tax credit per child so that 
parents would have some help with the high cost of raising their own 
children. And we provided tax relief for college students and their 
parents, a HOPE scholarship that provides a $1,500 tax credit for those 
who spend $2,000 on tuition during the first 2 years of college. Dollar 
for dollar, this is not a mere deduction but a credit dollar for dollar 
on the first $1,000 and a 50-percent credit on the next $1,000 spent 
during the first 2 years of college. And for those who have gone beyond 
their first 2 years of college, we have provided a tax credit of 20 
percent on the first $5,000 that they spend on college tuition.
  America needs to invest in education. Our colleges and universities 
are still the envy of the world. And if we are to maintain the high 
living standards that we enjoy compared to the rest of the world, we 
must encourage people to pursue a college education in their post high 
school years.
  The country benefits. The revenue people benefit. We in the Federal 
Government are all too happy to benefit when someone gets a college 
education, earns more, and therefore pays higher taxes. We should be 
there on the front end providing tax breaks and incentives to encourage 
people to get that college education. If we are partners in the profits 
of education, we should be partners in the expense.
  Another element that is very important to me in the budget resolution 
revolves around the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Most people at 
home and, frankly, some of my colleagues have not focused on the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. This is a special fund in the U.S. 
Treasury, is funded with money received by the Federal Government from 
royalties on offshore oil drilling. I have always opposed offshore 
drilling, especially off the coast of California. But wherever there is 
already oil being produced off our coast and royalties being paid to 
the Federal Government, those funds should be used to mitigate 
environmental degradation by providing us with the funding we need to 
acquire new Federal lands for our national parks and forests.
  This year, for the first time in nearly a decade, we are going to 
live more or less in conformity with the law that established the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. I am particularly proud of the work I did 
in the Committee on the Budget, because in that committee we reviewed a 
White House-negotiated deal which provided that there should be $700 
million of new funds to acquire lands around the country, 
environmentally sensitive lands, but that that $700 million of new 
funds should be spread out over the next 5 years. I could see it 
happen, could see the problem. The problem is that we traditionally 
spend about $150 million every year, which is not nearly enough, on 
acquiring environmentally sensitive lands. If we provided for $700 
million spread out over 5 years, the new money could simply displace 
the old money. The $700 million spread out over 5 years could then be 
the excuse to discontinue the $150 million that we have spent year 
after year for the last several years.

  Instead, in the Committee on the Budget, I proposed an amendment, the 
only substantive amendment that we were able to get adopted in the 
Committee on the Budget of this House, which provided first 
documentation and inescapable documentation, no wiggle room 
documentation, that $700 million of additional funds should be spent in 
the next 5 years on acquiring environmentally sensitive land.
  Beyond that, the amendment provided that all of those funds should be 
spent in 1998. That is important for several reasons. The first is that 
the $700 million will have the greatest purchasing power if spent now 
before land prices go up. But second, spending the money in 1998 
assures that what was supposed to be extra money is in fact extra, that 
we spend the $700 million extra in 1998, and come 1999, with the 
support of my colleagues, we should go back to spending at least $150 
million year in and year out. And I would urge this House to spend far 
more.
  So we have a budget resolution that is very clear, that has been 
passed by both Houses of Congress, and that is supposed to be binding 
on both Houses, providing that an additional $700 million be spent 
during 1998 on acquiring environmentally sensitive lands.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives did not follow that instruction and adopted an Interior 
Committee appropriations bill which did not include the expenditure of 
that $700 million.
  The other body, the Senate, did follow the budget resolution, did 
follow the amendment that I had offered for that resolution, and 
provided for the $700 million to be spent. I am confident that we will 
spend that money and that we will acquire environmentally sensitive 
lands before they are doomed to development and degradation.
  I acquire this confidence for one reason. My colleagues are going 
home. The ladies and gentlemen watching us in this House will have a 
chance to talk to them about the priorities of this country. We are 
very close to the end of this millenia. What greater gift could we make 
to the next millenia than to preserve forever the Headwaters Forest, to 
preserve forever the Yellow Stone area, and to preserve forever the 
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area?
  I am confident that as the people of America interface with their 
Representatives, they will say, you have a balanced budget resolution. 
It provides for $700 million of additional funds to acquire these 
lands, you have told us that that resolution will give us a balanced 
budget and fiscal responsibility. If we can protect the lands and be 
fiscally responsible, we should do it and do it now. And I am confident 
that when my colleagues return and go into that conference committee 
that they

[[Page H6699]]

will be strong advocates for the environment and strong advocates for 
protecting lands and adding to our national parks.
  I would especially hope that there is attention to the Santa Monica 
Mountains National Recreation Area. This is the last great chance to 
have a national park and a great national park just on the fringes of 
one of America's great metropolitan areas. We are close to being able 
to acquire the last parcels we need to acquire to complete the backbone 
trail and provide a 65-mile hike that starts in Santa Monica and 
continues through unabated wilderness and through nationally-owned and 
State-owned lands.

                              {time}  2030

  We have a chance to preserve for posterity a park that already 
generates 30 million visitors a year. There are far more visitors to 
the mountains and beaches of the Santa Monica National Recreation Area 
than to Yellowstone or Yosemite or any of the other units of the 
National Park System. We have a chance to complete the construction and 
acquisition of a park that is already, even in its current form, the 
most popular element of our National Park System.
  And so, if you happen to see my colleagues back in your districts, 
please tell them now is the time to protect our national treasures.
  This completes what I would like to say about the Committee on the 
Budget. I would like to turn my attention now to my work on and the 
work in general of the Committee on International Relations. I 
especially want to turn my attention to the tragic events in Jerusalem 
of just a few days ago, for these events remind us that the Middle East 
has not yet achieved peace, that Israel remains surrounded by those who 
would destroy her and that Israel is not yet secure, and it reminds us 
of the importance of the eternal city of Jerusalem.
  It was not covered much by the press, but a few months ago there was 
a resolution in the Committee on International Relations to cut aid to 
Israel. The proponent pointed out that the living standards in Israel 
are somewhat higher, considerably higher than many of the other 
countries that receive our aid, and wondered why Israel needed economic 
aid from the United States.
  The answer of the committee was overwhelming. The answer of the 
committee was clear. As long as Israel must confront hostile neighbors 
in so many directions, as long as Iran and Iraq swear every day that 
they will push Israel into the sea, Israel needs both the military aid 
that it gets from the United States and the economic aid that is 
necessary so that Israel can afford to spend its own money on dealing 
with the greatest security threat of any country in the world.
  There is only one country in the world where there are millions of 
people, or at least governments governing millions of people, who 
question its right to exist and plot its extermination. No other 
country faces that kind of security threat, and no country has a closer 
relationship with the United States than the State of Israel which has 
supported us. Israel has supported us again and again and again when we 
needed a friend in a very dangerous and very important region of the 
country.
  Particularly I want to point to the fact that this latest terrorist 
act occurred in Jerusalem, and it was probably committed by those who 
were trying to destroy the peace process. But it was allowed to occur, 
or at least not prevented, by a Palestinian Authority that is still 
trying to negotiate about the status of Jerusalem and has again and 
again signaled that terrorism, or at least turning a blind eye to 
terrorism, is a negotiating tactic that it is willing to employ.
  We must tell the Palestinian Authority that terror is not an 
appropriate or tolerable method for negotiation, and we must tell the 
entire world that the United States recognizes Jerusalem, an undivided 
and indivisible Jerusalem, as the capital of the land of Israel.
  Up until now there has been some question as to American policy. 
Congress has always been clear. Congress has directed the United States 
to move our embassy to Jerusalem to signal for the entire world that 
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and always will be. So far that 
embassy has not been moved, but congressional enactment after 
congressional enactment has instructed the State Department to do just 
that, and when it comes to the American Embassy, we must say, ``Next 
year in Jerusalem.''
  I do want to talk about several other points that arose involving 
international relations and the Committee on International Relations. 
One of those was an idea, a rather bad idea, to transfer free, three 
Perry class frigates to the Navy of the Republic of Turkey.
  Now Turkey does face significant security threats facing Iran and 
Iraq on its eastern borders, but my question for the Defense Department 
is: In efforts against Iran and Iraq, how do you deploy the frigates? 
Obviously, these frigates would be deployed in the Aegean where they 
would threaten Cyprus and Greece. They should not be transferred, and 
it is certainly an insult to American taxpayers to think of 
transferring them to Turkey for free. When you think of the idea of 
frigates being used to combat the threat of Iran and Iraq, we should 
reflect that the last oceangoing ships seen in eastern Anatolia, the 
last such ship was Noah's ark.
  The idea of strengthening the Turkish Navy, a Navy whose work in 
Cyprus and the Aegean we are not overly happy with, is an incredibly 
bad idea. I am very gratified that Richard Holbrooke, arguably our most 
accomplished ambassador has been appointed to try to deal with the 
problem of Cyprus. We look forward to the unification of Nicosia, not 
the division of Jerusalem. We look forward to peace in Cyprus and a 
united federal Cyprus joining the European Union.
  I also would like to address the unfortunate visit to the United 
States of the President of Azerbaijan Mr. Aliyev. We met with this 
individual yesterday. He tried to convince us that Nogorno-karabagh was 
a natural part of Azerbaijan. He was wrong. The only individual who had 
a hand in transferring that territory to Azeri sovereignty even for a 
while was Joseph Stalin. The idea that Azerbaijan would claim a 
territory populated by Armenians and their only claim to it is Joseph 
Stalin gave it to us; I think that is a rather weak claim. President 
Aliyev urged us to repeal Section 907 which prohibits aid to a country 
that is receiving aid and is blockading another country to which we 
would like to send aid. The blockade of Armenia must end, and it is 
time for Turkey and Azerbaijan to provide humanitarian corridors so 
that food and medicine can reach the people of Armenia and so that 
Armenia can trade with the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 50th anniversary of the reemergence as an 
independent democracy of the Nation of India, and I would like to take 
this opportunity as the sun sets on this Congress until September to 
urge the President, and if that is impossible, then the Vice President 
or the Secretary of State to go to India to celebrate its independence.
  We have more in common with India than is commonly acknowledged. They 
are the world's largest democracy, we are the worlds greatest 
democracy. It is time to celebrate Indian independence.
  I am particularly proud of the role I played in the Committee on 
International Relations when one of my colleagues put forward an 
amendment that was a hidden attack against India, which said that we 
would end all aid to countries that did not vote with us all the time 
in the General Assembly of the United Nations. This was a ill 
considered amendment. Counting votes is not a way to see whether a 
country shares our values. Many of us here in the Chamber cast votes on 
a variety of things that are inconsequential, and those who try to 
judge our values by tabulating votes and producing scores, particularly 
if they look at every vote as being equivalent and of equal importance 
will be misled.

  Just one example. Every day we vote on whether to approve the 
Journal. The Journal for the Congressional Record I think is 
professionally prepared, and so I vote to prepare it, to approve the 
Journal, to say, yes, there are no typos in it that I have been able to 
find. The Republican leadership votes to approve the Journal in every 
recorded vote. The Democratic leadership, many of them, vote against 
approving the Journal. Perhaps they have a keener eye for typos than I 
do. It

[[Page H6700]]

would be rather absurd to decide that I shared more values with the 
Republican leadership than the Democratic leadership on the basis of 
such an inconsequential vote, and likewise our Committee on 
International Relations knows that you cannot judge whether America and 
other countries share values by tabulating of votes in the General 
Assembly of the United Nations.
  Now on the Committee on International Relations I serve on the trade 
subcommittee, and again and again my voice is there to say it is time 
for America to get tough on trade. Unfortunately on trade issues there 
appear to be only 2 voices, one a protectionist voice that says build a 
wall around America. That is impossible. The other a, quote, free trade 
voice that says open America to every import regardless of how that 
country treats our trade. That is absurd, but unfortunately it is 
treated as a serious policy by the trade establishment and by the 
foreign policy establishment of the United States.
  We even had a distinguished gentleman testify before our subcommittee 
that trade deficits do not matter. That is as absurd as the people who 
10 years ago told us that budget deficits do not matter.
  America runs a huge trade deficit with the world year in and year out 
every year and it is time for us to focus on that deficit with the same 
intensity that we focused on the Federal budget deficit.
  For all too long our foreign policy around the world could best be 
described by one sentence uttered by an American diplomat to a diplomat 
from any of the other countries. America's position was that we would 
like the honor of defending Europe and Japan for free, defending their 
territory, their trade routes and their interests, and in return for 
that honor we were prepared to make trade concession after trade 
concession.
  No country in the history of the world has ever exercised our 
responsibility or our power around the world. But no great country has 
survived with such unmitigated generosity. We cannot simultaneously 
open our markets to Japan and Europe and China while their markets 
remain closed to us.
  Now at least this year we voted in favor of Most Favored Nation 
status for China, and it is good that we retain a trade relationship 
with China. But it is time for us to demand that they give Most Favored 
Nation status to the United States. Perhaps the least audible part of 
the debate on Most Favored Nation status was the fact that China sends 
$45 billion of goods to the United States every year and accepts only 
$11 billion of our exports.

                              {time}  2045

  We must restore balance to this relationship. We must insist on 
parity. We must insist that a country like China, which, whether we 
like it or not, is a Communist State with a government in control of 
major economic decisions, make those economic decisions in a way that 
opens their markets to American goods.
  Mr. Speaker, this weekend many of us will get a chance to see a 
movie, and we should reflect that at least for the area I represent, 
the movie business is the biggest business and the television business 
is included in that. We have tolerated for no ascertainable reason a 
policy that discriminates explicitly, repeatedly and consistently 
against American television programs and against American movies when 
we seek to exhibit them in France and other European countries. The 
French explicitly discriminate and say that one-third of all TV shows, 
one-third of all movie screens are available only for domestic content. 
I am not sure of that standard of one-third; it might even be higher.
  They say it is not a matter of trade; they say it is a matter of 
culture. Well, I am from California, where in the south of California 
culture is Hollywood, but in the north of California culture is 
exemplified by our fine wines. If the French can tell us that we cannot 
have our movies and our TV programs in their country because it 
corrupts their culture, then why are we drinking French wines? Are they 
not having an equivalent effect on our culture?
  Certainly, we should be as aggressive in trade negotiations with the 
French and we should use every device, including exaggerated cultural 
sensitivity if that is what we need to get access to their markets, and 
to deny access to the French where they deny access to us.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks I will get a chance to go to Israel with 
a delegation of our colleagues, and I will have a chance to see for 
myself what can be done to maintain a strong relationship between the 
United States and Israel. Our group will meet with Prime Minister 
Netanyahu and we will also meet with the head of the Palestinian 
Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. We will have, I believe, some very 
pointed questions for Mr. Arafat, for it is his government that 
announced a death warrant for those people whose crime it was to sell 
land to Jews.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of realtors in my district. Now and then 
they face some danger in their business, maybe a flat tire on the way 
to show a house, but the idea that one would assassinate people for 
engaging in the real estate business strikes me as an all-time low in 
human rights and human dignity, and an all-time low in an effort to 
create peace in the Middle East. Likewise, it is the Palestinian 
Authority which time and again has arrested terrorists, known 
terrorists, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, arrested them and then released 
them.
  Certainly one must take responsibility for the actions of those one 
facilitates. One must take responsibility for the actions one was 
obligated to prevent and chose not to prevent. The deal in the Middle 
East is land for peace, and again and again and again Israel has 
conceded and provided land.
  Lands that Israel came to occupy by defending itself in a war of 
aggression it returned, not by force of arms of its adversaries, but by 
a genuine and sincere wish for peace. The land is there, the Sinai has 
been returned. Gaza is now under the Palestinian Authority. Huge areas 
of the West Bank have been turned over to Mr. Arafat's government. The 
land is there. Where is the peace?
  We must remember that turnovers of land are permanent, or relatively 
so. They are ascertainable. Each acre turned over to an Arab government 
or to the Palestinian Authority can be measured, ascertained and 
protected. In contrast, the peace which is supposed to be delivered to 
Israel is ephemeral. There can be peace today and a terrorist incident 
tomorrow, and then peace the next day.
  It is time to insist that peace be delivered, and it is not just 
peace with the fathers of the Middle East that Israel deserves, because 
what good is it to have peace with all of those in their 40s and 50s 
and 60s in positions of power in various Arab States, if the children 
are educated for hatred and war? It is time for the Middle East peace 
treaty to reach into every textbook in every Arab land and to begin to 
teach Arab children the truth: that Israel is a legitimate, permanent, 
unerasable part of the Middle East; that its presence in the Middle 
East may well lead to prosperity and enlightenment for much of that 
region; that lands have been returned because of a pledge of peace.
  But instead, Arab children are taught lies. They are taught hatred. 
There are still textbooks that teach math by asking what happens when 
you add two dead Jews to three dead Jews.
  The answer is that they do not have peace, and it is time for Arab 
states to deliver the ephemeral by looking at every aspect of their 
society and saying, have we complied with the peace agreement? Have we 
provided Israel with the security of knowing that the next generation 
and the generation after that will accept the borders that Israel has 
voluntarily retreated to?
  So while we take a minute to reflect on those who died in Israel and 
in Jerusalem just a few days ago, we must reflect on what needs to 
happen: the reinternment of those that were wrongfully released by the 
Palestinian Authority, and education for peace among all the Arab 
States who once were at war. From Morocco to Tehran, Arab and Islamic 
children should be educated for peace. And until that happens, Israel 
will have conceded land and will have received only a temporary peace, 
a peace that may die with the fathers, a war that may be born with the 
sons.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their patience and 
indulgence, for I have spoken longer than I

[[Page H6701]]

had imagined, but it has been a long session of Congress, and we all 
look forward to returning to our districts.
  I look forward to returning to Woodland Hills, where I am available 
to my constituents at 818-999-1990, and I especially look forward to 
seeing hundreds of people at a new home-buyer fair, a fair designed to 
give people, particularly first time buyers, information about buying a 
new home. We will also have information about the new tax law and how 
it affects those selling a home. We will convene on Saturday, August 9 
at 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. If my constituents cannot be there the whole 
time, we will have information for people for part of the time. We will 
be at the Coast Federal Bank in Canoga Park.
  I know that all of my colleagues are smiling today. We all get to go 
home, but none of them deserve to smile more than me. I get to go back 
to the San Fernando, the Conejo and the Las Virgenes Valleys, and I am 
looking forward to it.

                          ____________________