Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important and necessary amendment, and I thank Representatives Studds and Miller for all of their efforts to protect our planet's ocean life and our Nation's consumers. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple: It protects dolphins from being chased, harassed, injured, or encircled with nets by tuna fishermen. It's necessary because the underlying legislation would allow unlimited harassment and injuring of dolphins, so long as no more than 5,000 are actually killed in the eastern tropical Pacific each year. Despite increased deaths and injury to dolphins, tuna caught under the provisions of the underlying legislation could still be labeled in the United States as dolphin-safe. That's not acceptable. In my view, there should be zero dolphin deaths associated with our dolphin-safe label. Seven years ago, 100,000 dolphins were slaughtered each year. As a result of the U.S. tuna industry's voluntary policy of refusing to purchase tuna caught while harming or killing dolphins, that number has dropped to approximately 3,200--an impressive 97 percent. The Studds amendment retains the integrity of the dolphin safe label by ensuring that dolphins are not harassed while fishing for tuna. Although H.R. 2823, even if improved by the Studds/Miller amendment, would condone more dolphin deaths than are associated with the current U.S. dolphin safe label, it would actually result in fewer dolphin deaths worldwide. This is because only 5,000 deaths total would be permitted, and only those foreign fishermen that fish in compliance with the 5,000 limit would be able to sell their tuna to the U.S. market. Consumers need to know that dolphin safe means what it says. The Studds amendment although imperfect, helps move us in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Studds amendment, support the wishes of the American consumer, and support the dolphins. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the campaign finance legislation being offered by the Republican leadership and in favor of the American Political Reform Act introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. Americans across the political spectrum have raised their voices in favor of real campaign finance reform, and I want to underscore that word, real campaign finance reform, and every major reform organization in America has spoken out against this Republican bill. Yet the Republican leadership is offering legislation that would actually turn the hands of the clock back on reform by restoring big money abuses that made Watergate a household word. The Republican leadership bill imposes no spending limits on campaigns, increases the amount of money individuals can give to candidates, and opens the door to bigger and bigger contributions to parties, PAC's and politicians. This is not reform. It only has a rubber stamp that someone found that stamped the page ``reform.'' It is not reform. I urge my colleagues to vote for the best and the only campaign finance reform bill being offered today, the American Political Reform Act, and I hope all my colleagues will on a bipartisan basis so we can prove to the American people that we can move along and reform the system.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment by Dr. Ganske. I believe he is raising an extremely important issue and I support the intent of his amendment to disallow the issuance of patents for medical procedures such as kidney transplants. However, this is a complicated issue that deserves greater consideration than 10 minutes of debate on an appropriations bill. It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee is currently reviewing the issue of patents for medical procedures. That is the correct forum for this debate. Hearings should be held. Testimony should be taken and the subcommittee and full committee should have the opportunity to mark up legislation. A bill should be brought to the House for consideration only after these steps have been taken. Lastly, greater care needs to be taken to ensure that medical advances in the field of biotechnology are not adversely affected by this legislation. The biotechnology industry is one of our country's greatest resources. We need to tread lightly in areas that could stifle the potential of this industry, because of the benefits it can bring to the health and welfare of the American people. I commend Dr. Ganske for bringing this issue forward and hope that we will have the opportunity to work together in the future to develop bipartisan legislation that addresses the need to prevent medical procedure patents.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the work that he has done, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], on this amendment. I share my colleagues' desire to adequately fund the Legal Services Corp. However, as a member of the Committee on Commerce that has jurisdiction over the Securities and Exchange Commission and our Nation's securities markets, I believe it is also essential to maintain adequate oversight over the life savings of millions of Americans. I see that the amendment will reallocate funds from a variety of agencies, including the SEC which performs that oversight function and I believe does it very well. Is it the gentleman's intention that carryover funds received by the SEC be available to it to compensate for the reduction in its budget called for in your amendment?

Ms. ESHOO. I am pleased about the assurance. I support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman from West Virginia. I think this is an important issue to have a part of the record.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and in strong support of the Tanner-Castle substitute for welfare reform. The Tanner-Castle proposal is sounder policy for our country and reforms a broken system by focusing on two critical elements: It protects children and it promotes and assures work. The Tanner-Castle proposal differs from H.R. 3734 in several other important areas: It provides $3 billion in mandatory resources for work programs; it requires vouchers for the needs of children during the 5- year time limit for benefits; enough mandatory funding is provided for child care for all welfare recipients; local governments are allowed greater participation in the process of setting up programs in their areas that meet the needs of their citizens; it includes an open ended contingency fund for States to access in the event of an economic recession; it requires a greater annual commitment by the States for welfare programs; it provides food stamp benefits for the children of legal immigrants. These are not differences that negate the reforms of the welfare system that my Republican colleagues are seeking. The provisions I have listed ensure that when we make these reforms we are improving the current system while maintaining a safety net for those who need it. Change for the sake of change is not good enough unless there is a regard for the impact it will have. Madam Chairman, the Tanner-Castle legislation meets the test that those who are in the system are given the assistance they need to move from welfare to work. H.R. 3734 does not. Our country must have a sound, workable, and fair welfare reform policy. H.R. 3734 is tough on kids and weak on work. More than 1 million children could be pushed into poverty and in 70 percent of these families, one of the parents is working. The bill makes it less likely that child support orders will be updated regularly--actually weakening current law on deadbeat parents--while increasing Federal costs. I urge my colleagues to support the Tanner-Castle substitute and oppose the underlying bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Omnibus Export Administration Act of 1995 to improve export opportunities for American businesses. Unfortunately, this legislation did not address the limits placed on overseas sales of encryption products. Encryption technology can make electronic information indecipherable to anyone lacking the mathematical formula, or key, to unlock the data. It offers companies the promise of protection against hackers, the Government the promise of protection from terrorists, and for e-mail users the promise of privacy against prying eyes. It also offers the promise of $60 billion in potential export sales for American high tech companies by the year 2000. But these sales will remain out of reach unless the U.S. Government loosens restrictions on encryption exports to reflect the ready availability of powerful encryption products on the foreign market and through the Internet. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to pass the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act. It's a bipartisan, commonsense approach to resolving a trade problem that's costing the high tech industry billions of dollars, and costing American citizens their right to privacy.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Export Control Act, which governs the export of dual use technologies. Ironically, it does not govern the export of encryption software, which is considered a munition, and is regulated under the Arms Export Control Act. In fact, encryption software is absolutely vital in national security, electronic commerce, and personal privacy applications. I can't imagine a technology that has more civilian as well as defense applications-- the very definition of dual use. I am very concerned that current Federal controls are holding American high tech companies back from developing and marketing superior encryption products. While I understand that these controls are aimed at keeping powerful encryption out of the hands of terrorists and hostile nations, they are succeeding only in keeping foreign customers away from American products. As you know, current U.S. policy only allows export of software with 40-bit encryption, while most encryption users prefer stronger 56-bit products that are already available on the Internet and from foreign manufacturers. In fact, over 200 foreign encryption programs are now available in 21 countries. This imbalance between what the market wants and U.S. law allows is creating a major economic problem for American companies. An industry study found that current export restrictions could cost U.S. businesses $30 billion to $60 billion by the year 2000. Further, current restrictions on U.S. encryption exports limit the types of products available here at home. It can be prohibitively expensive for companies to make two versions of the same software--a weak package for export and a strong package for domestic consumption. As a result, Americans often only have access to weaker encryption products. The administration has responded to this situation with a proposal that is inadequate at best. It would let U.S. companies export software with stronger encryption--up to 64-bits--but only if a key escrow system is attached. This key escrow system would require a third party located in the United States (or where we have bilateral escrow agreements) to have the key to encrypted material so the American Government could gain access to it if the United States determines that our national security is at stake. This plan is flawed for several reasons. Few foreign consumers are going to buy American encryption software that's compromised by our Government. Further, without stringent safeguards, the administration plan opens the door to potential Government violations of personal privacy. And it ignores the fact that foreign encryption programs without key escrow requirements are already widely available. I support a stronger, bipartisan effort to relax U.S. export restrictions while protecting our national security interests. The Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act [SAFE] would ensure that Americans are free to use any encryption package anywhere, prohibit mandatory key escrow schemes, guarantee companies the ability to sell any encryption package within the United States, and make it unlawful to use encryption to commit a crime. Most important, it would allow U.S. businesses to export encryption software if products with comparable security capabilities are commercially available from a foreign supplier. In effect, American encryption exports would be stronger, but offer no greater threat to the United States than other products already being used abroad. Reforming America's encryption export policy is important for high tech companies hoping to increase their sales, businesses that want better security for their computers, online entrepreneurs looking to tap a global market for their services, and e-mail users who desire more privacy for their electronic messages. SAFE offers a way to achieve all these goals and protect our national security interests at the same time.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to what I view as an unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional bill. This measure will federally codify discrimination against a group of Americans striking a blow to justice and equal treatment for all people. Mr. Chairman, less than 30 years ago many in this Nation believed that allowing interracial couples to marry would seriously denigrate American society, and many State laws reflected that. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated these laws, recognizing the freedom to marry as ``one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'' Should the Federal Government step in and dictate to States, it would be an abrogation of States' rights. Currently, no State permits same-sex marriages. Hawaii is debating the issue, but the final decision is not expected for another 2 years. Furthermore, States already have the capacity to determine whether they will recognize marriages performed in other States. Most importantly, in the entire history of this Nation--for over 200 years--never has the Federal Government intervened in the State regulation of marriage. Never. The 10th amendment to our Constitution--which we are sworn to uphold--states that powers not enumerated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. So, I ask my colleagues, why are we getting involved? This brings me to my final point. This measure is unconstitutional. Article four, section one of the U.S. Constitution states that the ``Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'' We cannot alter the U.S. Constitution with a simple act of Congress. In addition, the 14th amendment provides for ``equal protection of the laws'' for all citizens. Clearly the rights of gay and lesbian citizens would be abridged by this bill. Just as the Supreme Court found in 1967 that racial distinctions between citizens are ``odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,'' the Court would again, I believe, invalidate this bill. The Court most recently ruled that targeting a segment of society with animus must be unconstitutional. Lastly, there is clearly a political agenda driving this legislation. Barely 30 legislative days remain before the election and we have yet to complete our constitutionally mandated responsibility of funding the government. Yet we are debating this election-year ploy by a party attempting to divide the Nation. We are not debating the granting of a sacrament of marriage: Congress can't do that. We are debating States' rights and the rights of privacy. I recognize the general, pervasive discrimination gay men and lesbians face in society and in this House. I also recognize that many will disagree with me, but by advocating discrimination, we're breaking down the bonds which hold this Nation together when we should be strengthening them. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this unfair, unnecessary and unconstitutional legislation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives today will decide whether to extend most-favored-nation status on China. There are grave issues to be considered relative to this decision. Trade.--On a strictly trade-for-trade basis, China does not reciprocate the benefits we grant to them with MFN. Only 2 percent of United States exports are allowed into China and the result is a $34 billion United States trade deficit with China in 1995. Ten years ago this figure was $10 million. Piracy of U.S. Intellectual Property.--This issue represents a cost to the U.S. economy of $2.4 billion in 1995 alone, and does not include the loss to our economy from Chinese production and technology transfers which hurt our workers and diminish our economic future. Proliferation.--China continues to transfer nuclear, missile and chemical weapons technology to unsafeguarded countries including Pakistan and Iran in violation of international agreements. There is more. Human rights violations, the smuggling of AK-47's and other weapons into the United States by the Chinese military, the pointing of missiles at the democratic elections of Taiwan, and the occupation of Tibet. While it can be said that these issues are not technically about trade, we must, in my view, work to resolve them as we trade. With this heavily weighted case against the Chinese, what we need today more than ever before is a policy, not a protest. There must be a stiffening of the resolve of the administration to address the imbalance of trade and the balance of trade tariffs. The private sector together with the Government must speak up and help forge not just a message but a policy. My vote today to extend MFN is cast with the concern for the dangers of isolationism. One billion two million people cannot be ignored or isolated. We paid, in my view, an enormous price in dollars and decades by isolating the Soviet Union. I cast this vote with reservations--strong reservations which I've stated. My hope is that the next time an administration seeks congressional approval of MFN status for China, that a policy will have been stated and carried forward, that China's record will be one of fairer trade, a freer political climate and a safer world.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher delivered a major policy address at Stanford University regarding efforts to couple environmental objectives with out Nation's diplomatic efforts and set forth our priorities for the future. During the House of Representatives recent debates on bills providing funds for environmental protection, I was reminded of Secretary Christopher's timely message that in order to defend our Nation, we must protect and defend our collective environment. As the United States seeks to be a global leader in promoting peace and prosperity, as Secretary Christopher points out, `` * * * we must also lead in safeguarding the global environment on which that prosperity and peace ultimately depend.'' The United States has a responsibility to address global environmental concerns because pollution respects no boundaries. The greenhouse gases emitted by our powerplants and automobiles affect the health and climate of billions of people around the world. We are affected by the actions of other countries that create ozone depleting substances, overfish and dump low-level radioactive waste in the world's oceans, deplete our world's rainforests, and stress our Earth's ecosystem through overpopulation. Secretary Christopher pointed out that the needs of the American people are not well served if our foreign policy does not address these global concerns--we may be ``Americans,'' but we live on a planet that does not recognize geopolitical boundaries. In his speech, Secretary Christopher pointed out that environmental forces not only ``transcend borders and oceans to threaten directly the health, prosperity and jobs of American citizens,'' but that ``addressing natural resource issues is frequently critical to achieving political and economic stability and to pursuing our strategic goals around the world.'' He then outlined a series of initiatives the State Department will undertake to advance America's global environmental goals. Through the State Department and Secretary Christopher's leadership, the United States is working to reform and strengthen the U.N.'s key environmental and sustainable development programs. We have joined forces with the World Bank to incorporate sound environmental policies in lending programs, and to fund projects through the global environmental facility that directly benefit our health and prosperity. In addition, we are striving through the new World Trade Organization to reconcile the complex tensions between promoting trade and protecting the environment. We can look forward to a cleaner and healthier global environment in 1997. The State Department has begun negotiating global agreements to make further cuts in greenhouse gases, to address problems caused by migrating toxic chemicals, to promote sustainable management of our world's forests, to preserve biodiversity, and to safeguard ocean resources. The State Department is also taking steps to address scarce resource and overpopulation issues that are putting further stress on our environment and the environment our children will inherit. Through the State Department the United States is recognizing the importance of working bilaterally with key private, government, and nongovernment partners around the world to jointly address environmental concerns. In India, we are investing in environmental technologies and controlling pesticides. In Brazil, we are working to improve the management of forest resources. In Russia, we are promoting the safe operation of nuclear reactors and safe storage of nuclear waste. In fact, we are even using satellite imagery once used to spot missiles and tanks to help clean up military bases and track ocean pollution. As Secretary Christopher so eloquently stated: Our strength as a nation has always been to harness our democracy to meet new threats to our security and prosperity. Our creed as a people has always been to make tomorrow better for ourselves and for our children. For the sake of future generations, we must meet the challenge of making global environmental issues a vital part of our foreign policy. By advancing these environmental goals, we have the opportunity to protect our Nation and make it truly free. The policies set forth by Secretary Christopher are far reaching. They are the necessary mission for the United States to carry forward. I rise in recognition and with deep respect for what Secretary Christopher has set forth. It is environmental statecraft.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Commerce wrote a bill, and with it wrote a sad new chapter against children in our country. The Republicans voted down several key amendments, but I want to highlight one in particular this morning. The bill does state that Medicaid-insured children receive periodic medical examinations. That is the good news. Today, if any medical condition is discovered during screening, it is covered by that insurance. It makes sense, right? Check kids for medical problems and treat them if they are sick. Not according to the Republicans. Their bill says children are to be examined, but there are no provisions for treatment. Imagine the situation this creates. Children will be diagnosed, but no insurance exists for treatment. Are they to get better on their own? Would any of us as parents accept this for our children? I offered an amendment, Mr. Speaker, which restored the guarantee of treatment for children. All 23 Republicans voted against it. Those votes may have been louder than words in the committee, but I think the American people are going to screen out this policy. Our Nation's children deserve better.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dicks-Stark amendment, and I want to salute them for offering it. It would strike the language from this Interior bill which obviously I think has been established in the debate so far will harm the marbled murrelet. The bill prohibits the expenditure of funds to protect this endangered species that nests in the Head Waters Forest in California. As a Californian, I rise in support of the amendment. How dare anyone try to pluck out the jewels in the crown of our State? Why does this bill give special treatment to one timber company at the expense of this endangered species and the Endangered Species Act? The U.S. District Court in California has already stopped Pacific Lumber. Maybe the other side should have called this the Pacific Lumber amendment. The U.S. District Court in California already stopped Pacific Lumber from cutting crucial sections of this bird's habitat, because Pacific Lumber refused to comply with the Endangered Species Act. So it is not the Endangered Species Act that should be coming under the hammer today, it is Pacific Lumber. Now Pacific Lumber is asking the Congress to reverse that decision. Members, make no mistake about it. That is what the attempt is here today. I want to repeat that: Now Pacific Lumber is asking the Congress to reverse the court's decision. Why are we being asked to reverse this decision? Because 1 percent of the marbled murrelet's total critical habitat designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service is on private lands in Washington, Oregon, and California. Pacific Lumber is concerned that they will not be able to continue logging their logging activities in the area. Importantly, and this is something that every Member should listen to, a critical habitat designation does not in and of itself prevent logging or other activity; it simply triggers a process to ensure that any activity in the area does not adversely modify the habitat. That is a reasonable approach. I want to repeat that, that is a reasonable approach. There is nothing farfetched or off the ranch about this. It is a reasonable approach. Where there were once 60,000 marbled murrelets there are now only 2,000 to 5,000. Commercial logging has destroyed 95 percent of this nesting habitat. I think we have the responsibility to protect threatened and endangered species. They are a part of the cycle of our life. They are a part of the cycle of our life that God has given to us. It is not for us to desecrate, it is not for us to use up. The Riggs language in the Interior appropriations bill would doom this coastal bird forever, and I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks- Stark amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to strike language from the Interior bill which will harm the marbled murrelet. This bill prohibits the expenditure of funds to protect the threatened marbled murrelet, a sea bird that nests in the Head Waters Forest in California. Why does this bill give special treatment to one timber company at the expense of the marbled murrelet and the Endangered Species Act? The U.S. District Court in California has already stopped Pacific Lumber from cutting crucial sections of this bird's habitat because Pacific Lumber refused to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Now Pacific Lumber is asking the Congress to reverse that decision. And why are we being asked to reverse this decision? Because 1 percent of the marbled murrellet's total critical habitat designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service is on private lands in Washington, Oregon, and California. Pacific Lumber is concerned that they won't be able continue logging activities in the area. Importantly, a critical habitat designation does not, in and of itself, prevent logging or other activity--it simply triggers a process to ensure that any activity in the area does not adversely modify the habitat. That's a reasonable approach. Mr. Chairman, where there were once 60,000 marbled murrelets, there are now only 2,000 to 5,000. Commercial logging has destroyed 95 percent of their nesting habitat. We have a responsibility to protect threatened and endangered species--they are part of our cycle of life. The Riggs language in the Interior appropriations bill could doom this coastal sea bird forever. I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to comment on more than one thing. First, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, I say to the American people, the deficit was increased last night with the vote that was taken. Something extraordinary happened in the 14th Congressional District, just as something extraordinary happened last night in this Chamber, but it is far more positive. It happened a week ago this last Tuesday, June 2, where the voters of the 14th Congressional District, in community after community, voted and passed four school bond measures. Mr. Speaker, this is extraordinary, not only for what I said, but in California there is a requirement that there be a two-thirds vote, a two-thirds vote in order to make that happen. So the people of my congressional district, Mr. Speaker, understand that we will end up with many deficits in this country if we do not, in fact, invest in education. On Sunday, Tomorrow's Leaders Today, in Sunnyvale, CA, graduated 36 young people by investing in their education. Mr. Speaker, take notice from the people of the 14th Congressional District: Education, education, education. Invest in it, do not steal from it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Narsai M. David who is being honored by the Anti-Defamation League with its Restaurant Industry Achievement Award for his outstanding accomplishments and service to the bay area community. Narsai David brings people together and creates an understanding of cultural diversity through his exquisite culinary practices. Born to Assyrian immigrants, Narsai David ventured into a culinary career early in life, eventually working his way to the bay area in California where he became known as one of the bay area's leading restaurateurs. Narsai David has catered several large scale outdoor dining events including concerts for Bill Graham and the Napa Valley Wine Auction. Currently, his time is divided between travel and food segments for KTVU television, the management of Narsai's Specialty Food Business, and as wine and food editor of KCBS Radio. Furthermore, he is a columnist for the food section of the San Francisco Chronicle and makes celebrity chef appearances at gatherings throughout the world. Narsai David has devoted much of his time to charitable causes in the bay area. He is currently president of the board of the Assyrian Aid Society, a member of the board of directors of the Berkeley Community Fund of the San Francisco Foundation and International House of Berkeley. He serves as host for many fundraisers in the bay area including the annual Meals on Wheels event in Alameda County, the American Heart Association gala, the Warren Eukel Teachers Trust event, the Taylor Family Foundation Day in the Park fundraiser for Pediatric AIDS, and the Narsai Toast to the Arts for the Berkeley Repertory Theater. In addition, he is also the president of the Pacific Coast Farmer's Market Association. Mr. Speaker, Narsai David is an outstanding citizen of California and our country. As the only Assyrian-American Member of Congress, I salute him for the commitment he brings to, and the contributions he has made to our community. Narsai David is a great source of pride to the Assyrian-American community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. David as he is honored with the Anti-Defamation League's Restaurant Industry Achievement Award. He has promoted not only our foods but our culture as well.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representatives Visclosky, Bilirakis, and Durbin and my other colleagues helping to improve and strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. On May 16, to the surprise and disappointment of the international human rights communities, as well as Members of this body, President Clinton exercised his option to waive the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. Passed with strong bipartisan support as part of last year's Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the Corridor Act is essential because it exerts the appropriate pressure on countries, such as Turkey, that block United States foreign assistance to the region. As the only Member of Congress of Armenian descent, I have a deep understanding of how the Ottoman Empire decimated Armenians and thus wrote one of the darkest chapters in human history. Mr. Chairman, as we remember the tragic history of the Armenian people, it's essential for us to frame the role the United States can play in establishing peace in the caucuses. I'm committed to the safety and independence of Armenia. We must ensure that its people are protected. Therefore, I support efforts to strengthen the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and to curtail aid to Turkey should that country refuse to abide by the Act. Strengthening the Corridor Act by narrowing the waiver authority recently involved by the President will send a clear, decisive statement: that nations which continue hostile and aggressive policies against other countries will not be tolerated or rewarded with economic aid. We must do all we can to help advance a proactive foreign policy which can help bring lasting peace to the region. I urge the House to support the Visclosky Amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, on recorded vote No. 205, I was incorrectly recorded as voting ``aye.'' Please let the Record show it was my intention to vote ``no.'' I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of the space station.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my distinguished colleagues of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus in celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to honor the extraordinary contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation. We must take time to note the struggles of the Asian Pacific American pioneers, mainly immigrants to this country. As a daughter of immigrant parents, I know firsthand the obstacles immigrants faced in beginning a new life in a new land and providing for their families. We must acknowledge the accomplishments of these pioneers who had built a foundation for the subsequent advances made by the Asian Pacific American community. As we reflect on the significance of this month, we must certainly turn our thoughts to our friend and former colleague Norman Y. Mineta. He is remembered for his leadership in championing the causes of the Asian Pacific American community and of all people of color, culminating in the passage of House bill 442 which he introduced, that provided an apology by the U.S. Government to those Americans of Japanese ancestry who were interned during the Second World War. An outstanding legislator, Representative Mineta was a powerful force in Congress and a great role model not only for Asian Pacific Americans but for all people of colors in our country. Representative Mineta helped create a political voice for the Asian Pacific American community and inspired others to get involved in the political process. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent California's 14th Congressional District which boasts a significant and vibrant Asian Pacific American community deeply committed to political activism and public service. I am fortunate to work with many outstanding organizations such as the local chapters of the Japanese American Citizens' League, the Organization of Chinese Americans, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Self-Help for the Elderly, the Asian American Manufacturers' Association, Silicon Valley for Democracy, Asian Americans for Community Involvement, as well as the Asian Law Alliance, all fostering multicultural understanding. Each brings to the forefront the concerns on behalf of the growing Asian Pacific American community in the 14th Congressional District. I am also grateful to work with the many Asian Pacific American elected officials in my congressional district such as council members Michael Chang of Cupertino, Art Takahara of Mountain View, Naomi Patridge of Half Moon Bay, Cupertino School District Trustees Emily Lee Kelley and Barry Chang, Fremont Union High School District Trustees Homer Tong and Randy Okamura, and Foothill De-Anza Community College Trustees Paul Fong and Dolores Sandoval. I salute these organizations and leaders for their outstanding efforts and contributions to the well-being of our community. Despite the progress the Asian Pacific American community has made, we must continue to advocate for their concerns, protecting and advancing the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, especially when many of these issues are being threatened. I'm proud to have been invited to join the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus which my distinguished colleague Congresswoman Patsy Mink chairs. I join the members of the caucus to ensure that congressional legislation provides for the full participation of Asian Pacific Americans and reflects the concerns and needs of the Asian Pacific American communities to the greatest extent possible.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, last week, to the surprise and disappointment of the international human rights communities, as well as Members of this body, President Clinton exercised his option to waive the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. Passed with strong bipartisan support as part of the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill, the Corridor Act is essential because it exerts the appropriate pressure on countries, such as Turkey, that block United States foreign assistance to the region. As the only Member of Congress of Armenian descent, I have a very deep understanding of how the Ottoman Empire decimated Armenians and wrote one of the darkest chapters in human history. Mr. Speaker, these attacks against Armenians continue even today. Just last month the Agency France Presse reported unprovoked Turkish military shelling of Armenian territory on April 23 and 24. I'm committed to the safety and independence of Armenia and believe we must ensure that its people are protected. Therefore I am deeply disappointed that the President waived this important and needed act. Despite a history of suffering at the hands of others, Armenians have remained a strong people, committed to families and united by an enduring faith. Armenians have risen from the ashes of the 1915-23 genocide to form a new country from the remains of the Soviet Union, a new country which flourishes in the face of severe winters, ongoing military conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh, and the absence of strong international assistance. Today's Armenia is a living tribute to the indelible courage and perseverance of the Armenian people. Mr. Speaker, we in this body must do our part to protect Armenia. I support efforts to strengthen, enhance, and make permanent the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and to curtail aid to Turkey should that country refuse to abide by the standards established by the act. I urge the President to reconsider his position.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Computer Donation Incentive Act. This legislation is needed to encourage greater corporate involvement in the tremendous task of bringing computer technology to our public schools and other public facilities used by children. Currently, there are two types of charitable deductions for donated computer equipment under the Internal Revenue Service Code--standard and enhanced. Under the standard deduction, all donations by manufacturers of computer equipment to schools are allowed to deduct the cost of manufacturing the equipment. The enhanced deduction provisions of the Code allow an additional deduction of about \1/2\ the gain manufacturers would have realized based on the fair market valuation of the equipment. For elementary schools, this enhanced deduction is currently limited to donations made by manufacturers to private schools. This legislation is designed to increase donations by using the Tax Code as a carrot, rather than a stick. Specifically, the bill brings public schoolchildren in elementary and secondary schools into parity with their counterparts in private schools by allowing enhanced deductions for public schools; extends the enhanced deduction to libraries, local governments, community centers, and other organizations, such as boys and girls clubs, that promote the education of children; expresses the sense of Congress that donations to underprivileged schools should be a priority; allows nonmanufacturers the same enhanced deduction as manufacturers, so long as the original use of the computer originated with the taxpayer seeking the deduction. Provides that charitable contributions must be made within 3 years from the date the corporation purchased the computer; and clarifies that tangible personal property includes software. Mr. Speaker, computers can be the most important new learning tool in our classrooms since the chalkboard. Studies show that children with access to computers learn faster and better than those who don't. Their scores on standardized tests go up 10 to 15 percent. They master basic skills in significantly less time. And they stay in school more often. But computers will never realize their full potential in schools unless we figure out better ways to get them in the hands of our children. Silicon Valley has been blessed with several private-public initiatives to improve the technology available in our schools. Efforts like Challenge 2000, Net Day 96, the 21st Century Education Initiative, and Smart Valley's SmartSchools project continue to improve educational opportunities for students in our community. To better educate children, our policies should encourage and reward businesses to produce winning outcomes. The Computer Donation Incentive Act would accomplish these goals by encouraging corporations to donate computers to schools, libraries, local governments, and other organizations dedicated to children's learning. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget resolution introduced by the coalition to balance the budget by the year 2002, and salute my coalition colleagues for presenting a responsible, viable plan that meets the needs of our Nation today and our collective future. I oppose provisions of the Republican budget that assume dramatic and detrimental changes in Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and the earned income tax credit--all in the name of increased defense spending and tax breaks which we cannot afford. Block grants, medical savings accounts, higher Medicare premiums, increasing taxes on the working poor, eliminating guaranteed healthcare for children, women, and seniors, and denying benefits to legal immigrants are not solutions to our country's financial crisis. This proposal maintains basic human services at adequate levels. The coalition budget does not eliminate bilingual education programs or the direct lending program for student loans. Nor does it privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I believe the Republican cuts to these programs would harm children, our future, and I oppose them. Further, the Republican budget does not adequately protect our natural resources and the environment, reducing funding for these programs by 10 percent. The Department of Energy and its key research programs on alternative fuels, clean coal technology, and renewable energy would be eliminated. The coalition proposal freezes funding for natural resources and the environment at levels that are adequate to maintain the progress we have made in cleaning up our air, water, and land. Under the Republican budget, the important work of the National Institutes of Health would be endangered. Just recently, scientists have found the gene that causes breast cancer, and they are hopeful that this information will help them develop a cure for the disease. Now is not the time to decrease funds for this type of research. The coalition budget includes an additional $8.7 billion for this and other health research functions. Budgets always lack something. Neither includes a targeted capital gains tax cut, which I believe is critical to sustaining and increasing the level of economic growth we have enjoyed in this country. The Republican budget pays lipservice to capital gains by indicating that such a tax cut may be possible, but only if offsets can be found in the Tax Code. However, their budget resolution does not assume a capital gains tax cut. And it is clear that under the Republican proposal, there is not enough left over from savings over the 6 years to pay for such a tax cut. There is a need to permanently extend the research and development tax credit. Our country's leadership in high technology will wither if we do not reward our companies for investment in research and development of new products. These provisions, coupled with the Republicans proposal to eliminate the Department of Commerce, will sound a death-knell for our country's preeminence in the high technology arena. The coalition's budget is the most viable approach to deficit reduction, toward a balanced budget by 2002, with some tough medicine, and a recognition that we can retain investments in our people, and not abandon our principles to do so.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David Packard, an extraordinary American leader in industry, philanthropy, business management, public and community service, who passed away March 26, 1996. He will be remembered as a legendary figure in our national life who never lost sight of the need to value people and improve the world in which he lived. David Packard began his partnership with Bill Hewlett in 1939, founding the Hewlett-Packard Co., with $538 in a garage in Palo Alto, CA. From those humble beginnings, he guided his company in earning a reputation for product excellence and building a work force of over 100,000 people worldwide. In the process, David Packard helped launch what eventually became known as Silicon Valley. He developed a management system known as the ``HP Way'' which reflected his belief in corporate responsibility for workers, customers, and the community at large. Hewlett-Packard was among the first companies in the Nation to develop catastrophic medical insurance, profit-sharing for all employees, flex time for workers, and benefits such as stock-purchase options. In 1964, David Packard began contributing his wealth to the community on a large scale through the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, named for him and his beloved wife. Over the years, the foundation has given generously to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute; a nationwide program of science and engineering research fellowships; scholarships in science and mathematics at historically black colleges; the Stanford Theatre, and school music programs throughout Santa Clara, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties. In addition to the foundation, David Packard also personally donated substantial sums of his personal wealth to start the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital. David Packard gave distinguished service to his country as Deputy Secretary of Defense during the Nixon administration. He participated in civic affairs as a member of the White House Science Council, the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, and the Palo Alto School Board. Mr. Speaker, David Packard was an extraordinary leader, an exemplary entrepreneur, a manager par excellence, a philanthropist, and a highly respected national and community leader. He inspired his workers, won the devotion of his friends, and earned the gratitude of his Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring David Packard and his life of extraordinary achievements.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I call to the attention of my colleagues the installation early next month of Sara J. White, M.S., as president of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists [ASHP] at the society's 53d annual meeting in San Diego. ASHP is the 30,000-member national professional association representing pharmacists who practice in hospitals, health maintenance organizations, long-term care facilities, home-care agencies, and other components of health care systems. The society has extensive publishing and educational programs designed to help members improve their delivery of pharmaceutical care, and it is a national accrediting organization for pharmacy residency and pharmacy technician training programs. Since October 1992, Professor White has been director of pharmacy at Stanford University Hospital, a 500-bed academic health science center, which I am privileged to represent. She now holds this position with Stanford Health Services, a health care system formed last September. The Stanford Health Services Pharmacy has five inpatient satellites, three outpatient pharmacies, an operating room satellite, and a home pharmacy service. As director of pharmacy, she directs all financial, operational, and human resource components of a service with 100 full- time personnel serving the health care needs of more than 2 million people. She is also clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California-San Francisco School of Pharmacy. Prior to her current position, Professor White was associate director of pharmacy at the University of Kansas Medical Center from 1975 to 1992. A prolific author on topics of pharmaceutical management and human and financial resource management, Professor White's research has appeared in more than 100 pharmacy, nursing, and medical journal articles and textbook chapters. She has been an active leader and office holder in several State and national pharmacy organizations and participates in her community through the RotaCare Free Clinic. Professor White received the degree of bachelor of science in pharmacy from Oregon State University. Both her master of science and residency in Hospital Pharmacy came from Ohio State University. Mr. Speaker, Professor White has served her profession with distinction. I extend my best wishes to her as she takes over the leadership of the ASHP.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today before the House to celebrate the life of Allen E. Meier, Jr., who passed away peacefully in San Francisco, CA on September 10, 1993. On Friday, May 3, 1996, the family and friends of Allen Meier gathered at Congregation Emanu-El for the rededication of the robing room of the temple in his loving memory. The refurbishment of the robing room was made possible by the gifts of loving friends and family members to the Allen E. Meier, Jr. fund of the congregation as the first in a series of beautification and preservative projects. This undertaking was one that Allen Meier would have participated in himself and is a fitting tribute to him because few human beings embodied the devotion and dedication present in this good man. A member of a pioneer Oregon family and native of Portland, OR, Allen Meier acquired early on an internal drive to succeed. He served in leadership roles with the American Import Bank in San Francisco and on the board of the trustees of the Meier and Frank Co. Yet the business community was not Allen's only community. With infinite vision and wisdom, Allen understood the importance of community involvement and volunteerism. His community participation was exhibited in his service to SCORE, KCBS call for action, the Temple Emanu-El, and the San Francisco Academy of Sciences as a docent. As a loving husband, a caring father, a World War II veteran, and a community leader in San Francisco, Allen C. Meier was a master of both devotion to his family and his community. For his loving wife Janis and three daughters, Lynn, Muffie, and Mary, the many loving nieces, nephews and cousins, as well as the innumerable friends of a lifetime, Allen Meier will be missed all the days of our lives. May his sweet memory live on in what the robing room represents.