[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1145-H1151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by my colleague and
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). Both of us are
members of the Armenia Caucus in the House of Representatives and also
the India Caucus.
We have been active in dealing with some of the issues that would
bring Armenia and the United States closer together as well as India
and the United States.
There are a number of issues that we wanted to discuss this
afternoon. I wanted to start out by talking about a recent development
related to the Turkish Government, and what I consider a serious threat
to academic integrity at two great American universities.
Negotiations are now under way between the Republic of Turkey and the
University of California at Berkeley to establish a Turkish studies
program at that university. In addition, Portland State University in
Oregon has signed a contract with the government of Turkey to establish
a similar program, although Portland State is currently reviewing the
conditions of the grant.
These efforts, I want to stress, are part of a pattern that set up
Turkish studies programs at great American universities, all funded
with strings attached, I should stress, by the government of Turkey.
A similar study program was, in fact, set up at Princeton University
in my
[[Page H1146]]
home State of New Jersey and at other schools, all with endowments from
the Turkish Government.
Last year, yet another effort by the Turkish Government to set up a
program at a major American university, I think it was the alma mater
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the University of
California, Los Angeles, UCLA, was rejected by the school's history
faculty. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) played
a major role in that, and I also spoke out against UCLA setting up this
type of chair or program with the funding from the Turkish Government.
I just wanted to say that I believe that everyone associated with
UCLA should be proud of the stand taken by that university. UCLA is not
only a university with a grade academic reputation, it is also a school
that receives public funds giving it an added responsibility to the
community for maintaining standards of academic excellence and
integrity. I hope that Berkeley and Portland State will also take this
factor into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed an alumnus of UCLA. I was proud
when we won the NCAA championship in basketball again and again and
again. I was proud when we won the Rose Bowl, and proud when we beat
our crosstown rivals, a school whose name I have forgotten. I have been
proud to be a Bruin my entire adult life.
I am always aware of the fact that my alma mater needs funds, as
every school does. $1.2 million and more was offered to UCLA by the
Turkish Government which attached some strings to, in effect, require
that whoever sat in that chair would be in favor of the Turkish
interpretation of history and of the positions of the Turkish
Government.
{time} 1515
While I was proud of UCLA so many other times, I was never prouder
than when the UCLA history faculty and the UCLA academic community said
academic integrity is not for sale in Westwood. I hope that other
universities will say the same thing.
The Turkish Government should, as this Congress has called upon it to
do, admit the genocide that occurred in the beginning decades of this
century and other atrocities.
The United States is the greatest country in the world. Our greatness
relies in part on our honesty. Imagine the United States funding
academic chairs to say, Native Americans just voluntarily deeded all
their lands. Imagine the United States trying to put out propaganda
saying slavery never existed. America's greatness is based on truth.
The Turkish state should realize the same thing. The Turkish Government
should simply recognize the genocide and the massacres at Smryna.
Instead, they are using dollars all around the United States, as the
gentleman points out, to undermine academic integrity here in the
United States, to go to cash-strapped universities and say, ``Here's
half a million dollars, here's a million dollars. You can use it for
your history department. You can teach an important part of the history
of the world. Just make sure you teach it from a particular angle.''
I hope that Portland State University and the great University of
California at Berkeley will follow the lead of UCLA and say, ``Academic
integrity is not for sale.''
Mr. PALLONE. I just want to follow up on what my colleague from
California said.
As the gentleman said, there are countries that have contributed
funds to American universities for various history, language and
cultural programs, and in many cases these programs have a high
academic repute. The difference between these programs and what Turkey
is trying to accomplish and has already accomplished because unlike
UCLA, Princeton University in my State accepted these funds, and that
is that the Turkish studies program stipulate that their money goes to
hire only scholars with close and cordial relations with academic
circles in Turkey and those with access to that country's libraries and
historical archives.
The programs are not intended to encourage objective research into
Turkish history, but rather to further the Turkish Government's goal of
using a selective interpretation of history to advance official
government propaganda. To that end, Turkey restricts access to its
historical archives to those supportive of the official version of
Ottoman and Turkish history.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) talked about the Armenian
genocide, this terrible crime against humanity, the first example of
genocide in the 20th century. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this historic
tragedy should figure in any account of Ottoman and Turkish history.
Yet that is not the intent.
The Turkish Government is not interested in presenting an accurate,
complete or truthful overview of Turkish history, but rather uses cash
payments to major universities as a way of manipulating the teaching of
the history of the genocide. The consequences are severe, including the
denial or whitewashing of historically verified genocide of the
Armenian people, as well as other dark chapters in Turkish history,
such as the ongoing oppression of the Turkish people, the massacres at
Smyrna in the early part of this century and the invasion and
occupation of Cyprus.
This is basically a continued suppression of democracy and free
speech. That is why the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I
are so much opposed to what the Turkish Government is trying to do when
they donate and they give this money to major universities such as
Princeton, UCLA and now Berkeley and Portland State.
I wanted to just say briefly, we had a very interesting Armenian
Caucus reception a few weeks ago where we had Peter Balakian, a native
of my State of New Jersey and a renowned poet and professor at Colgate
University and the descendant of genocide survivors. Mr. Balakian
consistently cautioned against the efforts of the Turkish Government to
put its spin on Turkish history in major American universities.
I just wanted to take note where he said that the proposed chair, we
are talking now about, I think at the time it was either UCLA or
Berkeley, would be generated by a country with one of the worst and
most violent and most repressive regimes in human rights on this
planet.
And so this issue is not just about Turkey, but about academic
freedom and academic integrity. So it really goes beyond the issue of
even what Turkey is trying to do, but just the issue of academic
freedom and integrity at these universities. If the Turkish chair were
proposed at a university that included as part of its curriculum the
work of scholars like Peter Balakian and others who documented the
Armenian genocide, then I think they would have a credible academic
program that we would support. But the effort by a foreign government
in this way, to buy its way into our universities to rewrite history,
should not be tolerated.
I know both the Armenian-American and the Greek-American communities
have led the fight against this ongoing campaign. What is happening now
at Berkeley and Portland State is just another manifestation. I just
hope that these two universities will follow the example of UCLA and
reject this effort by Turkey to buy its way into our country's higher
learning institutions.
Mr. SHERMAN. I should point out that the Turkish studies proposal at
the University of California at Berkeley has an element in it that goes
even beyond the undermining of academic freedom. That would have been
the case if UCLA had accepted the offer, which I am so proud that they
chose not to accept.
The University of California at Berkeley, has proposed to establish
an advisory committee which would control how the funds will be spent,
the selection of visiting faculty and the establishment of an endowed
chair. That advisory committee will have on it an official of the
Turkish Government. This is an odd provision to have in a committee
given authority over what is taught and how it is taught and who
teaches at a great American university.
Mr. PALLONE. I was looking at what the gentleman said about this
advisory committee and its makeup. They are actually in charge of
providing advice on the disposition of the proceeds of the endowment,
the choice of teaching
[[Page H1147]]
personnel, visiting faculty, the planning of lectures and cultural
events, fund-raising. They basically are going to have input into the
whole process.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think it is unprecedented and particularly
unprecedented to give that kind of power to a country and a government
which, unfortunately, is bent on a process of genocide denial.
My own background is that I am a Jewish American. We have said time
and again, ``Never forget, never again,'' when it comes to the
Holocaust that destroyed over a third of the Jewish people in the
world.
It has been recognized by scholars of genocide that the last step in
a genocide is genocide denial. First is the actual murder and then the
cover-up. Because what that does is it does not only kill as the
genocide kills, but it kills the memory of those who perpetrated the
crime and those who were victims of it.
We must prevent this last step of the Armenian genocide. We must say,
as to that genocide and as to all genocides, never forget, and never
again.
Another concern we should have is that genocide denial is not only
the last step in the last genocide, it is the first step of the next
genocide. That genocide may not be against the same victims, that
genocide may be not committed by the same perpetrators, but when
genocide is denied in one place in the world, it sets the stage for
genocide to be committed somewhere else in the world.
We have all heard the words of Adolf Hitler when he explained to his
minions his plan for the destruction of the Jewish people and why he
thought they would get away with it. He said, ``Who remembers the
Armenians?'' Well, over some 70 years later, here in the House of
Representatives; we do remember those who were victims of the Armenian
genocide, and we will never forget. And we should never countenance the
academic integrity of our great universities being used to try to wash
away the blood. That blood should be acknowledged, it should be
apologized for, and we should look forward to the day when some new
Turkish Government takes a new tack, a tack of recognizing the mistakes
of the past, rather than using funds to try to erase them.
Mr. PALLONE. I was listening to what my colleague from California
said.
One of the things that Peter Balakian mentioned to me, and I think
that he is actually going to be writing a book on this subject, is that
at the time when the Armenian genocide was taking place in the early
part of this century, there was a tremendous amount of documentation;
it was written up rather frequently in just normal daily newspapers in
the United States and throughout Western Europe. It was a major topic.
People were concerned about it. Help was sent over to the survivors.
Efforts were made on a diplomatic level by the United States and
other Western countries to prevent it. And all of a sudden, by the
time, I guess, sometime in the mid-1920s when it was over, all that
disappeared. In other words, the emphasis that existed at the time, the
public concern and fury just simply died out. At that point and ever
since then, either the Ottoman and then finally the Turkish Government
began this process of trying to deny that it ever occurred.
One of the things that he said that he was going to do was to bring
out some of those old accounts at the time. I was surprised to hear
that, because I figured that there was not a great deal of attention
devoted to it at the time, but in fact the opposite was true.
It is kind of scary to think that something that was so much the
focus of attention at the time it occurred, in a matter of 10 or 20 or
30 years could sort of be buried in the fashion that it was.
As the gentleman said, what we have seen in the last few years,
really in the last 5 years, is sort of a flowering of research and
books and renewed interest in the genocide. I think that is all very
valuable, because that is the only way we could ever get to the point
where it is recognized here in the United States and other countries.
One of the things that I know you and I are very concerned about is
that we still do not recognize here in our Government of the United
States, we still do not have an official recognition of the genocide.
That is very disturbing and something that hopefully we will be able to
correct at some point in the future.
If the gentleman will allow me, I want to talk about two other issues
that are of concern with regard to U.S.-Armenian relations. Both the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I have been very concerned
about the fact that Armenia continues to be blockaded by two of its
most significant neighbors, both Turkey and Azerbaijan. Of course, we
are very supportive of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which
denies any assistance to Azerbaijan until they lift the blockade of
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. We have also played a role in trying to
get assistance to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, humanitarian
assistance, which is necessitated by the fact that they do continue to
be blockaded, and they have difficulty receiving certain supplies and
humanitarian assistance.
I just want to mention very briefly that it is very unfortunate, and
I know, as a member of the Committee on International Relations, that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has addressed this, that
this year once again our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, again
essentially articulating the administration's policy, came before his
committee and suggested very strongly once again that section 907 be
repealed.
{time} 1530
We are very much opposed to that. We think that it is totally
inappropriate, given that the blockade continues to do anything to
water down section 907. We have also been concerned that even though
this House in this Congress and the President signed a bill last year
that appropriated $12.5 million in humanitarian assistance to Nagorno-
Karabakh, that it has not been forthcoming. I do not believe any of
that money has actually gone to Nagorno-Karabakh, and the need is
there.
I would ask my colleague to comment on it, that there has been some
suggestion by the State Department that some of that money will be
forthcoming soon, but I am still very concerned that Karabakh will not
receive the full $12.5 million and that the State Department is not
doing enough to make sure that that money gets there. I yield to my
colleague.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Recently, before our
committee, representatives of the State Department claimed that the
first aid program within the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh would be
established within the next few weeks. We appropriated that money for a
fiscal year that began October 1, and I wish that they had acted more
expeditiously. I share in my colleague's concern to ensure that the
$12.5 million goes to where it is supposed to go, where we appropriated
it; that is to the victims of the war who are currently within the
borders of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Unfortunately, as the gentleman knows, our government chooses not to
recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. We joined the foreign
minister of Nagorno-Karabakh just a few days ago in recognizing the
tenth anniversary of the independence of that nation, a nation that
fought for its independence just as we in the United States did; a
nation whose government reflects the desire for independence that the
vast majority of its people share, and a government that I hope will be
recognized by the United States.
I know that American oil companies are very anxious to see peace in
that part of the world, to make sure that oil can be drilled for and
obtained and that pipelines can be built. But the best route for those
pipelines is through a peaceful Caucasus, and peace will arrive in the
Caucasus when the rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are
recognized. I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we of course are going to make a major
effort over the next few months to monitor this assistance going to
Karabakh and to make sure that it does get to those who need it, and
also to make sure that section 907 is not repealed. Obviously, we are
going to have the battle over the next few months also to make sure
that over the next fiscal
[[Page H1148]]
year this humanitarian assistance gets to both Armenia and Nagorno-
Karabakh.
I wanted to move on, if I could, to our other area of concern and
that is India, because India in fact just went through a very
successful election. Once again, India of course is the largest
democracy in the world, and it amazes me every time they have an
election that so many hundreds of millions of people are able to vote
in an election and that it is essentially a fair election and that
people vote and take part in a very orderly process.
One of the things that I know that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman) and I have been concerned about is that we want to make sure
that India continues to rise in importance, if you will, and be a
priority of American foreign policy. I think that we have seen that
happen over the last few years. We have seen that the amount of trade
that takes place between the United States and India continues to grow.
The United States is India's largest trading partner right now, and in
addition, at the presidential level, at the cabinet level, we have seen
many of the cabinet members visit India to show that India continues to
be more and more important as part of the United States' foreign
policy, and the President, President Clinton is again committed to
going to India sometime in 1998, which again shows the significance of
India.
One of the things that we have been working on, though, in the same
vein, we had the opportunity earlier this week on Tuesday at our India
Caucus meeting to hear from Bill Richardson, who is the United States
Ambassador to the U.N., one of our former colleagues here from the
House of Representatives, and we discussed a number of issues that
pertain to current U.S.-India relations at the United Nations. However,
I just wanted to talk briefly about the topic of India's permanent
membership to the U.N. Security Council.
I introduced a House Resolution, along with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman) and other Members of our India Caucus last
year, that calls upon this body to express our support for India
becoming a permanent member to the U.N. Security Council. Last year the
president of the U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Razali Ismail, introduced a
plan to expand the U.N. Security Council permanent membership, and
although this plan has not moved forward, I believe that expansion of
the Security Council is extremely important. It is the only
organization within the U.N. that can apply economic sanctions and
military force to carry out its decisions. I also believe that
membership to the Security Council should better reflect developing
countries, and India in particular qualifies for membership because of
its size and crucial role in South Asia.
I wanted to talk about this a little more, but I would like to yield
to my colleague on the same subject.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for putting
together that meeting with our former colleague, Bill Richardson, who
represents us so well at the United Nations.
As Mr. Richardson pointed out, it is the policy of the United States
to see an expansion by five seats of the Security Council. There are
issues of regionalism as to where those seats should be allocated.
There is a belief that Germany and Japan, being such powerful nations
and such large contributors to the United Nations, should be
represented.
But aside from issues of regionalism, if India were its own region it
would be larger than Sub-Saharan Africa, larger than Latin America. We
are talking about a population of virtually 1 billion individuals. For
a nation that size not to have a seat as a permanent member of the
Security Council flies in the face of its importance. One-fifth of
humanity lives in India, and at no time should that one-fifth of
humanity be excluded from the Security Council.
We do not have to change our position with regard to Latin America,
we do not have to change our position with regard to the other
countries of Asia or the countries of Africa, but if there are going to
be 5 new seats on the Security Council, it should be the position of
the United States that one should be reserved for the one-fifth of
humanity that lives in India. I yield back.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman.
My understanding is that the Clinton Administration, as the gentleman
said, supports expansion to five seats: one for Germany, one for Japan,
and then one each for Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Clinton
Administration is not saying that the Asian seat should be India at
this point, but we believe that it should be, and we are hoping that at
some point we can get this administration and the State Department to
agree that that Asian seat should belong to India.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that we understand that this
process of expanding the Security Council and gaining India access to
one of the seats may take some time. It seems like to some extent it
has been somewhat slowed down in 1998, but if it does not come up this
year, it probably will come up again, and we are going to continue to
make the fight that the United States should take the position that
India be included as one of the permanent members; again, part of the
process of stressing the importance of India not only in terms of the
world but also in terms of our foreign policy, and I think that our
caucus members have played a major role in trying to make that point.
So at this point I would like to yield to my colleague from
California and thank him for participating with me in this Special
Order where we talk about these issues relating to Armenia and India,
and thank him for all of his support with the caucus.
Foreign Policy and Domestic Concerns
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The gentleman from California
is recognized for the balance of the hour as the designee of the
minority leader.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for creating, founding, heading, and
organizing both the Armenian Caucus and the Indian Caucus long before I
got to Washington, and to thank him for the leadership that he shows in
building a relationship between the United States and the first full-
fledged democracy in the Caucasus, namely Armenia, and his leadership
in cementing a strong relationship between the United States and the
world's largest democracy, namely India.
I became aware that I would be speaking before this House just a few
minutes ago, and accordingly, I have sought to put together my notes as
quickly as possible. I am going to be dealing with a number of
subjects, several involving foreign policy, since Mr. Pallone and I
have just discussed elements of foreign policy, and then focusing on
some domestic concerns.
The first foreign policy issue that I would like to focus on is the
need to establish an American embassy in the eternal, indivisible
capital of Israel, Jerusalem. In 1995 this House and the other House
passed, and it was enacted into law, a statute, the Jerusalem Embassy
Relocation Act, which calls upon the United States to establish its
embassy in Jerusalem rather than in Tel Aviv.
That act states that the new embassy should be built and completed
and opened by May of 1999. In a simple phrase, it says, as to the
American embassy, ``next year in Jerusalem.'' Unfortunately, the State
Department has not even begun the logistical work to move the American
embassy to Jerusalem. Its failure to do so shows not only a lack of
respect for the statutes passed by the House and the Senate, but also a
missed opportunity.
We have an opportunity to show that we stand with Israel on one of
the most contentious issues in the Middle East; that we recognize that
since 1950 Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel; and that we
recognize that since 1967 Jerusalem has been the united and indivisible
capital of Israel. Instead, we continue to maintain our embassy in Tel
Aviv. This is clearly a mistake.
There are several other similar mistakes committed by the State
Department. For example, when an American traveling in Jerusalem gives
birth, the passport of that newborn American indicates that that
person, that new American baby was born in Jerusalem, which seems
logical, except when one realizes that if that same baby had been born
in Rome, the passport would say, place of birth, Rome, Italy. Place
[[Page H1149]]
of birth, Paris, France. Certainly if an American child is born in
Jerusalem, the passport should indicate that the place of birth was
Jerusalem, Israel.
We make a number of other mistakes. We maintain a consulate in the
eastern section of the unified city of Jerusalem, but we treat that
consulate as somehow independent of the American embassy to Israel.
Certainly, that consulate should report to the Ambassador, just as
every other consulate reports to the embassy in the relevant country.
This year, the State Department is asking our committee, the
Committee on International Relations, to authorize hundreds of millions
of dollars for the construction of new embassies, and in particular for
a new embassy in Berlin. The poetry is not lost on this Member.
{time} 1545
Here we have the State Department wanting to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars, of our tax dollars, building a new edifice
glorifying the union of Germany and the unification of Berlin. That is
a fine thing, but not if it precedes the construction of a new embassy
in Jerusalem.
That is why I hope that my colleagues will join me in the enactment
of appropriate legislation to say that no American Embassy should be
built in Berlin until we move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.
At the end of World War II both Berlin and Jerusalem were divided.
Jerusalem was reunified in 1967, yet the American Embassy was not moved
there. Berlin was reunified decades later, and yet the State Department
wants to build a large, new edifice in Berlin before moving the U.S.
Embassy to Jerusalem.
The best way we can ensure that we have not dishonored the victims of
the Holocaust is to ensure that before a gleaming new building is built
in Berlin with the American flag, symbolizing our relationship with a
new and rebuilt Germany, that we build an Embassy in Jerusalem
indicating our steadfast relationship with a reborn Israel.
Domestic Policy
Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks on international policy,
except for those dealing with international trade, which I would like
to address in a few minutes. Before I do that I would like to focus a
little bit on domestic policy.
First, I would like to thank President Clinton for declaring first,
Ventura County, and then Los Angeles County, to be disaster areas
eligible for Federal relief. The President went even further. Just 10
days ago, he visited the disaster scene and conferred with many of the
disaster victims from both Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
The President's responsiveness is something that those who suffered
from the El Nino rains and floods will always remember. Now, I call
upon the Army Corps of Engineers to work with officials in the City of
Thousand Oaks to make sure that on an expedited basis, the sewer system
of that city and its other waste treatment facilities are
rehabilitated.
All we are asking is that the Army Corps of Engineers expedite its
permitting process to make sure that that facility is fixed before this
coming fall and winter, when we need to make sure that those facilities
are operational.
I would like to address a bit the budget agreement that we crafted in
this House last year, and point out that the new revenues coming in,
the new so-called surplus, is beginning to fray some of the discipline
we exercised last year.
I turn to many of my colleagues who, along with me, care so much
about helping the poor, and point out that while we could all think of
new programs to help the poor, nothing has done as much for the poor
and unemployed in America than the rebound of the American economy, the
foundation of which is fiscal responsibility here in Washington.
That is why I think we must continue to exercise restraint, continue
to say that new programs must be paid for by cutting old programs, and
make sure that we not only balance the budget, but try to begin to
build up a surplus, a surplus available to protect the Social Security
system.
Likewise, many friends of mine on the other side of the aisle and on
both sides of the aisle are anxious to see the Federal Government do as
much as possible to help business. We have many fine programs to help
business, whether they be tax credits, whether they be the programs of
the Small Business Administration, or the Department of Commerce. But
none of those programs is as important for business expansion as
maintaining fiscal discipline here in Washington.
There is the fact that while countries in Asia are suffering
mightily, while Japan is in the doldrums, while unemployment is in the
double digits in most countries of Europe, during all of that,
America's economy is on the rebound, and thankfully, now, California's
economy is on the rebound. That is due in large part to fiscal
discipline here in Washington, discipline that we must, must retain.
Within the context of that fiscal discipline, last year we were able
to provide money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, some $699
million of additional funds, to acquire environmentally sensitive lands
around the United States. This year there is no request for the
administration to spend any additional and extraordinary amount.
Yet, as we approach the end of the millennia, it is critical that we
look around this country, find the environmentally sensitive lands,
prioritize them, and acquire those lands that we can afford. Nowhere is
that more important than in the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area.
My colleagues have heard me talk about the Santa Monica Mountains, to
where they are beginning to call me Santa Monica Mountains. But this is
a national park visited by over 30 million people every year. Over 30
million people visit the beaches and the mountains within the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Over 1 in 17 Americans live
within a 100-miles drive of the Santa Monica Mountains, one out of
every 17 Americans.
It is important that we continue the process of saving those
mountains from development, of expanding the Federal ownership, along
with the State and county ownership, to look for the day that we will
complete the land acquisition plan. I will be asking the Committee on
Appropriations this year for $8 million to acquire some critical land
in the Santa Monica mountains, lands that will expand the Backbone
Trail and widen it so it is large enough not only for hikers, but that
the trail is wide enough so that animal populations in one part of the
park can move to another part of the park.
I am told by biologists that this is critical to maintain healthy
animal populations, so that our furry friends are not forced to date
their cousins, but rather, can move from one part of the park to
another to establish healthy and viable animal populations.
I want to talk a little bit about the tax cuts that this House and
the Congress adopted last year. One element of those tax cuts was the
child tax credit, $400 per child in 1998, growing to $500 in 1999.
Unfortunately, neither the IRS nor the press has done a very good job
of telling parents how they can take advantage of this credit.
For most Americans, the child credit is something their accountants
are saying, well, that is for next year. There is no line for it on the
1997 tax returns that Americans are completing this month and next
month.
The fact is that our constituents can get the benefit of the child
credit now, simply by going to their employer and filling out a new W-4
form, which will reduce their withholding, which will increase their
take-home pay, and accomplish the goal of this Congress, which was not
to make people wait until April 15, 1999, but to provide working
families with tax credits today.
I would urge the press, I would urge the IRS, to do a better job of
telling those who are eligible for the child credit and those that are
eligible for the HOPE scholarship and the other tuition tax credits to
go to their employer, fill out another W-4 form, and take advantage of
this congressionally mandated tax relief today.
While I am focused on fiscal issues, I would like to turn the House's
attention to our international trade deficit. For all too long our
foreign policy seemed to be marked, and may still be marked, by the
following plea, where America goes to other countries and says, we
would like the honor of defending your country for free. In return
[[Page H1150]]
for that great honor, we would like to make trade concessions.
America needs to move forward, both on the burden-sharing fronts, so
our richer allies assume a more full and fair share of the costs of
defending the world from rogue States, from terrorists, et cetera, but
also we must move forward to a more aggressive trade negotiation
regime.
We had representatives of the State Department come before the
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the
Committee on International Relations just last week. They spoke with
pride about how the United States had never been cited for a foul, had
never been criticized officially by any of the referees of
international trade. They said it with pride.
Earlier today I spoke with pride of the UCLA basketball team of today
and of former years. Trust me, that team would not have been successful
if they could proudly state that in every game they never committed a
foul. If you want to win the game, you have to get in the paint, you
have to throw some elbows, you may be called for a foul, you have to
dive for the loose balls, you have to dive for the rebounds, jump for
the rebounds as well, if they happen to be higher than you are, and
that is not what our foreign policy establishment is doing. They are
losing every game in the realm of international trade, and taking pride
that they have never been called for a foul.
Instead, we have to focus on the one great deficit that we have not
been able to cure; that is, the trade deficit. For decades, as we ran a
larger and larger trade deficit, we were told by international
economists, that is not the other country's fault, that is the fault of
the United States Congress, because the trade deficit will always
follow if you have a fiscal budget deficit.
An economist presented very clear arguments as to why a Federal
deficit meant that we had to borrow from abroad. By borrowing from
abroad, we increased the value of the dollar in international trade,
and by doing that, we made our goods more expensive, imports cheaper,
and that resulted in a trade deficit.
It was all very logical, except for one thing; we have eliminated the
Federal budget deficit, for all intents and purposes, and yet, the
trade deficit does not just remain, it continues to grow. The
international economists and the establishment, the foreign policy
establishment, has simply shelved its old arguments and continues to
say, well, do not do anything about our trade deficit.
I think it is time that America must do something about its trade
deficit, and it is not by adopting one-way trade agreements in which we
open our doors to imports from abroad and do not insist that other
countries allow American goods to be sold there.
We must insist upon transparency. We must insist that other
governments do not discriminate against our goods and services
underneath the table, and where that insistence is unsuccessful, we
must look at goal-oriented and result-oriented trade regimes.
I would prefer a process-oriented regime, but where a country
corrupts its own processes, where it has hidden tariffs and secret
rules, where a Communist government controls its own economic
enterprises and tells them orally and secretly not to buy American
goods, then a process-oriented trade regime is not going to work. We
may have to look at a result-oriented regime.
Moving from the fiscal issues, I would like to bring to the attention
of my colleagues two bills that I have introduced, or in one case will
introduce later this month, designed to protect our children. The first
of these bills bans packs of cigarettes that contain just one or two or
three cigarettes.
When I first saw such marketing plans, I wondered what the tobacco
companies had in mind, until an expert told me, those are called kiddy
packs. They sell for 25 cents, and they are sold chiefly to those who
are 11 or 12 or 13 years old, young kids that do not need a whole pack
of cigarettes because they are not addicted yet; young kids that could
not necessarily afford a full pack of cigarettes, but for their candy
bar money, they can buy just a couple to start.
{time} 1600
We should insist that cigarettes are sold in packs of 20. I know the
FDA is trying to accomplish this through regulations, but the legality
of those regulations is subject to challenge. We can eliminate any
challenge bypassing a statute in the United States Congress to say no
to kiddy packs.
I want to point out that we in California achieved this same goal
through a unique device. Until I was elected to Congress, I served on
the State Board of Equalization, California's revenue commission. And
the tobacco companies came to us and they said, we would like to start
selling packages of cigarettes with only one or two cigarettes in the
package; and we would like you to give us a different revenue stamp so
that we do not have to pay the revenue for an entire package of
cigarettes if we are only going to put one or two in the package.
It seemed like a reasonable request from an industry that pays a lot
in taxes, until we analyzed what they were aiming for. They were aiming
for an opportunity to sell kiddy packs, packages that are chiefly
purchased by young teenagers. We at the State Board of Equalization in
California said no to kiddy packs.
We said no, we will not issue a different denomination revenue stamp;
and by insisting that the full tax for a package of cigarettes be paid
whether the package contains 20 cigarettes or two cigarettes, we made
sure that kiddy packs were not sold in California.
It is now time for Congress to act, and not act through the back
door, not hope that some tax device will not be evaded, but instead,
have a simple, direct, absolute ban from coast to coast against these
pernicious cigarette packages.
A second bill that I would like to commend to my colleagues is the
Child Protection Act. This act is designed to make national something
that has worked very well in California.
Last year there were over 425,000 children who were sexually abused.
It is time for the Federal Government to do all it can to empower
parents to be able to protect their own children. In California,
working pursuant to Megan's Law, we have established a single telephone
line that people from all over the State can call. If they identify a
particular adult, identify how that adult comes into contact with their
children, whether it be as a baby-sitter or a Scout leader or whatever,
and ask whether that individual has been convicted, not merely accused,
not merely rumored, but convicted of a sexual predatory offense, these
parents will be given that information.
There have been over 11,000 inquiries to this line that is maintained
by the Justice Department of the State of California, and of those
11,000 inquiries, on over 1,000 occasions parents were advised that the
individual about whom they sought information had indeed been convicted
of a sexual predatory offense.
For example, there was an amusement park that noticed that an
individual would show up every day by himself and would often talk to
children, strike up friendships there at the amusement park, that this
individual had purchased a year-long pass but he never came to the
amusement park with his own children. They checked on that individual,
who had purchased a year-long pass, and determined that he had been
convicted of a sexual offense involving a child under age 14.
There were several other circumstances that are just as poignant.
Already more than 30 of my colleagues have joined me in cosponsoring
the Child Protection Act. I urge the rest of the Members of this House
to do so as well.
What this act would accomplish is to take national that information
line that is operating in California. First, we would work from a
national database so that instead of being able to report on whether
the individual had been convicted in California, we would be able to
report to parents whether that individual had been convicted anywhere
in the United States. In this way, we would provide better information
to the parents of California.
Just as important, we would be able to provide information to parents
in all 50 States and to provide the same kind of protection that has
protected over 1,000 children in California, provide that same kind of
protection to children from coast to coast.
[[Page H1151]]
Mr. Speaker, there are many more issues that I could review, but I
think I am approaching the end of my time.
____________________