[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.

                          ____________________