Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, following up on the previous gentleman from American Samoa, this week's headlines have focused on India's nuclear tests at a below-ground location within India. Analysts have interpreted this action as an indication that India is moving from a policy of ambiguity about its nuclear capabilities, a policy that has essentially stood since India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, to more openly declaring that it has nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose nuclear testing by India or any other nation, I want to stress that this week's test should not derail the U.S.-India relationship, which has been growing closer and stronger over the past 5 or 6 years. Particularly in the areas of trade and investment, the United States and India are finding that we have many common interests. In terms of our strategic relationship, this week's news demonstrates, if anything, the need for closer coordination between the United States and India, the world's two largest democracies, and more effective diplomacy in trying to improve stability and working towards a reduction in nuclear weapons arsenals. Mr. Speaker, in light of this week's test, it is particularly important to remember the defense situation that India faces. India shares approximately a 1,000-mile border with China, a nuclear-armed Communist dictatorship that has already launched a border war against India and maintains a large force on India's borders. China maintains nuclear weapons in occupied Tibet, on India's borders, and also maintains a military presence in Burma, another neighbor of India. China has been proven to be involved in the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to unstable regimes, including Pakistan, a country that has been involved in hostile actions against India for many years; and China has conducted some 45 underground nuclear tests over the years. Mr. Speaker, I bring out these facts to help put India's action this week into perspective, to try to explain to my colleagues here and to the American people the background for India's decision to conduct these tests. I know that India's action has met with widespread criticism, including from our own administration, but India's decision to test a nuclear explosive device should be understood in the context of the huge threat posed by China. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe the United States should be taking the threat from China more seriously and doing much more to discourage and deter China's proliferation efforts. Now that India has demonstrated its nuclear capability, I would urge India's government to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, following the other democratic nations in the nuclear club, including the United States, that have now discontinued testing. Having nuclear capability means that India has an even greater burden to ensure peace in its region and in the world. I would urge President Clinton to wait before imposing sanctions, I am talking about the sanctions that have been discussed, particularly if India announces that it will not conduct any further tests. The implications of the sanctions are so broad that many of our own interests could be damaged, particularly in the area of trade and investment. A wide range of international financial institutions would also be prevented from working in India, potentially thwarting important development projects that will help improve the quality of life for India's people. Since India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, it has maintained the strictest controls on transfers of nuclear technology. India's nuclear program is indigenous, and successive Indian governments have not been involved in the transfer or acquisition of nuclear technologies with other nations. I believe it is very important that this policy be maintained, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, although I oppose the nuclear tests, I believe that we must now work with India and the rest of the world community in enacting and enforcing an effective worldwide ban on nuclear testing, leading to the reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on May 3rd, the new round of peace talks in Cyprus collapsed when the Turkish Cypriots abruptly changed their position in the negotiations and began insisting that two new conditions be met as preconditions to reunification. Led by U.S. Special Envoy to Cyprus Richard Holbrooke, this new attempt to breathe life into the moribund Cypriot peace talks has been scuttled by the Turks before it even had the slightest chance of producing a breakthrough. There is absolutely no doubt who the obstacle to peace is. I quote from Mr. Holbrooke, ``If progress is to be made on Cyprus, genuine progress,'' Richard Holbrooke said after the talks collapsed, ``both sides will have to be willing to engage in a genuine give and take during serious negotiations. But,'' added Holbrooke, ``this is not the current situation. This was especially true in regard to two positions taken by the Turkish side.'' Mr. Speaker, the Turkish side is now vowing that there will be no peace negotiations until the United Nations recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and until the Greek Cypriots withdraw their application for membership to the European Union. These new demands, Mr. Speaker, are as ridiculous as they are unacceptable. After nearly 24 years of failed negotiations, the criteria for a settlement are well known to everyone involved. They have been outlined by the international community a variety of times in a number of U.N. resolutions, and they have been agreed to by the Greek Cypriots. Any settlement to the Cyprus situation must be consistent with the numerous U.N. resolutions. None of these, incidentally, even hint at bestowing an iota of legitimacy on the self-declared Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is, of the 180-plus countries in the world today, recognized only by Turkey. What they do say is that any solution to the Cyprus problem must include a bizonal, bicommunal, sovereign federation with a single federal government and a single international identity. There is widespread support on the Greek Cypriot side for structuring this federal government in accordance with these terms and a new federal constitution. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the administration shares the view of many of us here in Congress that the key to progress in Cyprus lies not with Rauf Denktash and the Turkish Cypriots, but in Ankara, particularly in light of the linkage by the Turkish side of Cypriot accession to the European Union to peace talks. Washington has been wary of Ankara's response to the European Union's decision not to invite Turkey to apply for membership in the European Union since that decision was made in December. Privately, U.S. policymakers feared that the decision would prompt Turkey to take an even harder line on Cyprus, and they are right. That is what has happened. Mr. Speaker, I think these developments, coupled with the administration's knowledge that Ankara is calling the shots for the Turkish Cypriots, necessitate a swift change in U.S. policy and diplomacy. While I would like to commend Ambassador Holbrooke for his public rebuke of the Turkish side's new conditions, I believe it is time to stop focusing public and private efforts on the Turkish Cypriots and intensify American efforts to move the peace process forward by putting pressure on Ankara and, more importantly, on the Turkish military. In forceful and unequivocal terms, the administration should convey to Ankara that there will be direct consequences in U.S.-Turkey relations if Ankara does not prevail upon the Turkish Cypriots to retract the two new conditions and allow the Cyprus peace talks to move forward. I intend to do everything I can as a Member of Congress to push U.S. policy towards Turkey in this direction. I hope the administration will work with me and the many Members of Congress who are exasperated with Turkey's intransigence and disrespect for international law and the will of the international community. The people of Cyprus have waited far, far too long for their freedom, and the U.S. should take the appropriate course of action to help them get it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight apologized to his Republican colleagues for the uproar over his release of the Hubbell tapes. The gentleman from Indiana also announced the removal of his chief investigator. However, it is not enough for the gentleman from Indiana to fire his chief staff person. He should have removed himself from any further role in this investigation. The staff person did not release the tapes; the gentleman from Indiana did. The staff person did not change and edit the tapes, the gentleman from Indiana did. The gentleman from Indiana claims immunity from prosecution because he is a Congressman. If an ordinary person had released or changed the tapes, it would be a crime, obstruction of justice, and they would go to jail. The gentleman from Indiana uses his position as a Congressman to assert immunity, claiming, in effect, that he is above the law. At a minimum, the gentleman from Indiana should be removed from any further role in this investigation. He clearly cannot operate as chairman in a fair manner. Neither he nor any other Member of this House is above the law.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress my concern this evening over the continued role of Pakistan in the transfer and proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Last month, the U.S. State Department determined that sanctions should be imposed on Pakistan pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, and this decision comes in the wake of a determination that entities in Pakistan and North Korea have engaged in missile technology proliferation activities. According to the notice published in the Federal Register on May 4 of this year, Khan Research Laboratories in Pakistan and the North Korean Mining Development Trading Corporation are subject to sanctions, including denial of export licenses, a ban on U.S. Government contracts with these entities, and a ban on importation to the U.S. of products produced by these two entities. The sanctions are in effect for 2 years. Now, although these sanctions seem relatively modest, I still want to applaud the Clinton administration for imposing the sanctions on these companies. I hope that enforcement efforts against these and other firms involved in the proliferation of missile technology will remain strong. As if this recent disclosure, though, about Pakistani nuclear missile technology with North Korea was not shocking enough, there are reports this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, is investigating whether a leading Pakistani scientist offered Iraq plans for nuclear weapons. The information, first reported in Newsweek Magazine, has been confirmed by the IAEA. According to the report, in October of 1990, prior to the Persian Gulf War, but after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, while our troops were massing in Saudi Arabia under Operation Dessert Shield, a memorandum from Iraqi's intelligence service to its nuclear weapons directorate mentioned that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, offered help to Iraq to ``manufacture a nuclear weapon.'' The document was among those turned over by Iraq after the 1995 defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's secret weapons program. The Pakistani Government has denied the report and the IAEA has not yet made any determination, but this report is part of a very troubling pattern involving Pakistan in efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems or to share this technology with unstable regimes. Recently, Pakistan tested a new missile known as the Ghauri, a missile with a range of 950 miles, sufficient to pose significant security threats to India and to launch a new round in the south Asian arms race. I am pleased that the recently elected Government of India has demonstrated considerable restraint in light of this threatening new development. While I welcome the sanctions against North Korea, I remain very concerned that China is also known to have transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan. Our administration has certified that it will allow transfers of nuclear technology to China, a move I continue to strongly oppose. Mr. Speaker, for years many of our top diplomatic and national security officials have advocated a policy of appeasement of Pakistan, citing that country's strategic location. But I think the time has long since passed for us to reassess our relationship with Pakistan. The two developments I cite today are only the latest developments. North Korea, the last bastion of Stalinism, is also one of the most potentially dangerous nations on Earth and the U.S. has been trying to pursue policies to lessen the threat of nuclear proliferation from North Korea, but now we see that Pakistan is cooperating with North Korea on missile technology. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to be reminded of American concerns over Saddam's regime in Iraq. Now credible reports have surfaced suggesting the possibility of nuclear cooperation between Iraq and a top Pakistani scientist. Concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons proliferation efforts have been a concern for U.S. policymakers for more than a decade. In 1985 the Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act to prohibit all U.S. aid to Pakistan if the President failed to certify that Pakistan did not have nuclear explosive devices. This is known as the Pressler amendment. And it was invoked in 1990 by President Bush when it became impossible to make such a certification. The law has been in force since, but we have seen ongoing efforts to weaken the Pressler amendment, including a provision in the fiscal year 1998 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that carves out certain exemptions to the law. Several years ago, $370 million worth of U.S. conventional weapons to Pakistan, which had been tied up in the pipeline since the Pressler amendment was invoked, was shipped to Pakistan. There is also the specter of U.S. F-16s, the delivery of which were also held up by the Pressler amendment, being delivered to Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that Pakistan has continued to take actions that destabilize the region and the world. Providing and obtaining weapons and nuclear technology from authoritarian, often unstable regimes, is a pattern of Pakistani policy that is unacceptable to U.S. interests and the goal of stability in Asia. Pakistan is a country that faces severe development problems and really they should not be involved in this continued proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its people would be much better served if their leaders focused on growing the economy, promoting trade and investment and fostering democracy. U.S. policy needs to be much stronger in terms of discouraging the continued trend toward destabilization and weapons proliferation that the Pakistani government continues to engage in.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when someone takes on the job to be chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in this case, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), they have an obligation to be impartial in conducting the investigation. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has totally abrogated that responsibility, in particular this last week, in the way that he released the Hubbell tapes. The gentleman from Indiana carefully edited and rearranged the tapes, releasing them with errors and omissions so as to be damaging to the President. I ask, how can the gentleman's committee's investigation possibly be fair when the chairman acts in this fashion? The public is tired of this investigation. It is expensive. It has cost over $6 million so far. It takes away from the real issues that the House of Representatives should be addressing. But at least if the gentleman from Indiana is going to do the investigation, he should do it fairly. Since he cannot, he should be removed as the chairman in charge of the investigation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the members of this House, and of the American people, some recent, disturbing information about the continued role of Pakistan in the transfer and proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Last month, the U.S. State Department determined that sanctions should be imposed on Pakistan, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act. This decision comes in the wake of the determination that entities in Pakistan and North Korea have engaged in missile technology proliferation activities. According to the notice published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1998, Khan Research Laboratories in Pakistan, and Changgwang Sinyong Corporation, also known as the North Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation, are subject to sanctions including denial of export licenses, a ban on United States Government contracts with these entities, and a ban on importation into the U.S. of products produced by these two entities. The sanctions are in effect for two years. Although the sanctions seem relatively modest, I still want to applaud the Clinton Administration for imposing the sanctions on these companies. I hope that enforcement efforts against these and other firms involved in the proliferation of missile technology will remain strong. As if this recent disclosure about Pakistani nuclear missile technology with North Korea were not shocking enough, there are reports this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating whether a leading Pakistani scientist offered Iraq plans for nuclear weapons. The information, first reported in Newsweek magazine, has been confirmed by the IAEA. According to the report, in October 1990, prior to the Persian Gulf War--but after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, while our troops were massing in Saudi Arabia under Operation Desert Shield--a memorandum from Iraq's intelligence service to its nuclear weapons directorate mentioned that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, offered help to Iraq to ``manufacture a nuclear weapon,'' according to Newsweek. The document was among those turned over by Iraq after the 1995 defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's secret weapons program. The Pakistani Government has denied the report, and the IAEA has not yet made any determination. But this report is part of a very troubling pattern involving Pakistan and efforts to either obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems, or to share this technology with other unstable regimes. Recently, Pakistan test-fired a new missile, known as the Ghauri, a missile with a range of 950 miles, sufficient to pose significant security threats to Pakistan's neighbors, including India, and to launch a new round in the South Asian arms race. I am pleased that the recently elected Government of India has demonstrated considerable restraint in light of this threatening new development, a view echoed by the U.S. Delegation that travelled to the region recently with our U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson. While I welcome the sanctions against North Korea, I remain very concerned that China is also known to have transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan. Our Administration has certified that it will allow transfers of nuclear technology to China--a move I continue to strongly oppose. Mr. Speaker, for years, many of our top diplomatic and national security officials have advocated a policy of appeasement of Pakistan, citing that country's strategic location and cooperation in Afghanistan. I think that the time has long since passed for us to reassess our relationship with Pakistan. The two developments I cited today--sanctions over missile technology proliferation with North Korea and allegations of efforts to provide nuclear weapon technology to Iraq--are only the latest developments. North Korea, a closed society, the last bastion of Stalinism, is also one of the potentially most dangerous nations on earth. The U.S. has been trying to pursue policies to lessen the threat of nuclear proliferation from North Korea. Now we see that Pakistan is cooperating with North Korea on missile technology. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't need to remind you and the American people of American concerns about Saddam's regime in Iraq. Yet, now credible reports have surfaced suggesting the possibility of nuclear cooperation between Iraq and a top Pakistani scientist. Concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons proliferation efforts have been a concern for U.S. policy makers for more than a decade. In 1985, the Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act to prohibit all U.S. aid to Pakistan if the President failed to certify that Pakistan did not have a nuclear explosive device. Known as the Pressler Amendment, for the former U.S. Senator who sponsored the provision, it was invoked in 1990 by President Bush when it became impossible to make such a certification. The law has been in force since, but we have seen ongoing efforts to weaken the law, including a provision in the FY 98 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that carves out certain exemptions to the law. Several years ago, $370 million worth of U.S. conventional weapons to Pakistan, which had been tied up in the pipeline since the Pressler Amendment was invoked, was shipped to Pakistan. And there is the ever-present specter of U.S. F-16s, the delivery of which was also held up by the Pressler Amendment, being delivered to Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, Pakistan has continued to take actions that destabilize the region and the world. Providing and obtaining weapons and nuclear technology from authoritarian, often unstable regimes is a pattern of Pakistani policy that is unacceptable to U.S. interests and the goal of stability in Asia. Pakistan is a country that faces severe development problems. Its people would be much better served if their leaders focused on growing the economy, promoting trade and investment and fostering democracy. U.S. policy needs to be much stronger in terms of discouraging the continued trend toward destabilization and weapons proliferation that the Pakistani government continues to engage in.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 30, the Neptune Township Education Foundation, Inc., and the Neptune Township Board of Education, hosted the Neptune High School Hall of Fame Dinner at Mike Doolan's Restaurant in Spring Lake Heights, New Jersey. It is a great honor for me to join with the Neptune Township Education Township Foundation and the Board of Education in paying tribute to the distinguished inductees: Patricia Battle, Robert Davis, Jr., Ermon Jones, William King, 2nd, Harry Larrison, Jr., Lawrence Lawson, Joseph Palaia, Haydn Proctor and James Ward. All nine of these exceptional individuals have contributed significantly to our community, in Neptune, in Monmouth County and throughout the State of New Jersey, through their distinct talents and abilities. The nine awardees represent a broad cross-section of the community, a testimony to the diversity that is one of our greatest strengths. But all nine have at least two things in common: a strong record of accomplishment and a sincere desire to give something back to the community. They have all richly earned the honor of being inducted into the Neptune High School Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to these fine leaders of the Jersey Shore area in the pages of the Congressional Record.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 30, the Monmouth County Urban League held its Fifth Annual Equal Opportunity Awards Dinner at Gibbs Hall Officers Club at Fort Monmouth, NJ. This year's Founder's Awards were presented to Dr. Donald Warner, Superintendent of the Red Bank Regional High School, and Mr. Jack Kaye, Vice Chairman of the Shrewsbury State Bank, for their dedicated services over the last five years. The Corporate Award was presented to Monmouth Medical Center and Core States National Bank, in recognition of their strong support for the last five years which has contributed significantly to the Urban League's success. The Community Service Award was presented to The Asbury Park Press for ``Crossroads,'' a weekly column that deals with multi-cultural issues of interest to the people of Monmouth County. Finally, the Youth Award honored three outstanding high school seniors for their achievement and community service: Aaron Rouse of Monmouth Regional High School, Corrine Burton of Long Branch High School, and Laura C. Nieves of Long Branch High School. Mr. Speaker, the Monmouth County Urban League is a non-profit agency with its headquarters in Red Bank, NJ. It was officially chartered by the National Urban League of July 1995. The Monmouth County Urban League is one of 115 affiliates of the National Urban League, which was founded in 1910 to assist African Americans and other people of color to achieve economic and social self-sufficiency. The mission will be achieved by forming partnerships with other organizations that target the unmet needs and gaps in service with a strategic focus in Health Education and Prevention, Advocacy, Youth, Economic and Community Development along with Community Mobilization. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to pay tribute to all of these fine award recipients, and to cite the accomplishments of the Monmouth County Urban League in the pages of The Congressional Record.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 7, 1998, the City News Publishing Company of Plainfield, NJ will present the City News 100 Most Influential. According to the parameters of the 100 Most Influential, the awards are presented for the purpose of ``honoring individuals for their tireless efforts in furthering the progress of black people in New Jersey and rebuilding New Jersey's urban communities.'' Mr. Speaker, City News is the largest African American newspaper in New Jersey. It created the 100 Most Influential Award to honor and celebrate the efforts of people and corporations that have supported efforts to infuse economic, social, cultural, scientific, spiritual and political vitality into New Jersey's urban centers. Individuals are honored for their work in the following categories; civil rights; corporate community involvement; community development; community service; education; economic development; entertainment and sports; health, science and technology; media, arts and culture; minority business enterprise; politics, law and government; and religion. Nominations for the 100 Most Influential are received from former nominees and honorees, the corporate community and from the readers of City News. While honorees are notified of their awards, the names are kept confidential until the night of the award ceremonies. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to salute the City News Publishing Company for their ongoing service to the community, and, particularly for their recognition of outstanding citizens of our state for their contributions in many walks of life. With the support of numerous corporate sponsors, particularly event co-sponsors PSE&G and Dun & Broadstreet, City News is continuing its fine tradition of leadership. I anxiously await to hear the names of the winners, all of whom I am sure will be very well deserving of this great honor.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the nation and the people of Sri Lanka during this year of celebration of the 50th anniversary of their independence. I want to congratulate the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Bereuter, for introducing this resolution, as well as the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, the Ranking Democrat of the IR Committee, Mr. Hamilton, the Ranking Democrat of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Faleomavaega, a member of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, for their support of this initiative. I am proud to join my colleagues, as a co-sponsor of this Resolution. As the co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian- Americans, I welcome the continuing trend toward more attention to the vitally important South Asia region on the part of Congress, the Administration and the private sector. At the same time, I hope we will continue to encourage greater regional cooperation and confidence building measures among the nations of South Asia. Mr. Speaker, Sri Lanka has been an independent country for the last 50 years, but relations with the United States have gone as far back as 1850. John Black, an American merchant residing in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, was appointed as the first commercial agent. His job was to assist American shipping with Sri Lanka. Now, 150 years later, the United States is Sri Lanka's largest trading partner, accounting for 30% of Sri Lanka's exports, with 90 U.S. companies having invested in mining and textiles. Furthermore, U.S. investments will reach $500 million after the completion of certain trade agreements. Bi-lateral relations between the two countries have always remained strong. We can see this in numerous economic and technical support programs, trade and investment agreements, and the continuous exchange of high level officials--the most high-profile being the visit by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1995. We have signed agreements to protect investments and intellectual property rights to foster trade and encourage economic growth. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is in Sri Lanka and works with the Sri Lanka government in creating an investment friendly climate. Sri Lanka rose to international prominence when on July 21, 1960, the Sri Lanka Parliament appointed Ms. Bandaranike as the prime minister of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka became the first country in the world to appoint a woman as the head of state. Interestingly enough, in a part of the world, where many Westerners believe women are being treated as second class citizens, Sri Lanka became the first country to recognize a women's ability to lead a nation. This led to women heads of government in Bangladesh, Britain, France, India, Israel, Norway, Pakistan, Poland and Turkey. Sri Lanka was the first country in South Asia to introduce economic liberalization policies (1977) and shifted away from state controls. Recently, Sri Lanka has embarked on market oriented reforms that have allowed the economy to grow by 6% last year. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka been plagued with ethnic violence. Despite this, Sri Lanka continues to be one of the few countries in South Asia committed to democracy. For the last 50 years, Sri Lanka has held national, provincial and local government elections. Sri Lanka has provided universal adult suffrage, including women. Indeed, Sri Lanka had democratic elections 20 years prior to independence, when it was part of the British Empire. Thus, Sri Lanka is one of the oldest practicing democracies in the developing world. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the next 50 years holds tremendous potential for Sri Lanka. With the recent collapse of the East Asian economies, and the South Asian economies remaining stable, is a strong indication that Sri Lanka and the rest of South Asia will demonstrate new economic strength.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now move to a couple of foreign policy issues that I consider very important. I often talk about Armenia and India because of my position as a cochairman, the Democratic chairman, of the India caucus and also the Armenia caucus; and there are two issues, one with regard to each country, that I would like to address. With regard to Armenia and the separate Republic of Nagorno Karabagh, which is next to Armenia, I would like to address the need to expedite humanitarian assistance that has already been appropriated to Nagorno Karabagh. Just by way of background, the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh is a region which has been populated by Armenians since ancient times and which is still an Armenian region known as Artsakh to the Armenian people, but which is claimed by the Republic of Azerbaijan as part of that country's territory. As I have mentioned in this House on several occasions, the people of Karabagh fought, and won, a war of independence against Azerbaijan. A cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but it has been shaky at best. The U.S. has been involved in the negotiations intended to pursue a just and lasting peace in this region but, unfortunately, the United States' position has sided with Azerbaijan's claim of so-called territorial integrity, despite the fact that this land has been Armenian land for centuries and the borders which gave the land to Azerbaijan were imposed by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Despite the ongoing pressures on Nagorno Karabagh, the people of that mountainous land have built a viable, democratic society. In February, they celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Karabagh movement, the galvanizing moment in the long history of the Armenian people. But it has not been easy. The people of Karabagh are victims of a cruel and illegal blockade maintained by Azerbaijan. Karabagh's only connection to the outside world is via the Republic of Armenia, which is also the victim of blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey; and front-line Karabagh defense forces are constantly under attack from Azeri snipers violating the cease-fire, as I witnessed firsthand during my visit to the region just in January of this year. The humanitarian and infrastructure needs of this area are severe, and I also witnessed that firsthand. Now, last year, this Congress played an extremely positive and constructive role in helping the people of Karabagh. I want to praise the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations for providing for the first time direct aid to Karabagh in the amount of $12.5 million for humanitarian assistance. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, none of that aid has yet been provided to Karabagh, and that is why I am addressing the House tonight on this issue. I am very concerned that some elements in the administration have misinterpreted the clear intent of Congress that the aid is destined for the people of Karabagh and, instead, are suggesting some of the funds should be diverted to Azerbaijan. I will be circulating a letter to Brian Atwood, the Administrator of USAID, the Agency for International Development, urging that the funds be provided immediately; and I am also demanding the entire $12.5 million be provided to Karabagh as it was intended by Congress. I hope my colleagues will join me in this appeal as we go around and try to get co-signatures for this letter over the next few days. It is true that USAID did send a need assessment team to Nagorno Karabagh earlier this year pursuant to the language in the Foreign Ops bill. While the team has reported its findings to Congress, we are still waiting for the aid to be provided. Give us the aid. It needs to be provided. These people are hurting, and they need the help. USAID officials have suggested that humanitarian aid will be committed in the near future; but, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize this aid was appropriated by Congress last fall. So we are talking 6 months for humanitarian assistance that is desperately needed, and there is no excuse for this delay. While working to get the aid that has already been appropriated to its intended recipients in Karabagh, I am also urging the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs this year to build upon its historic achievement in the fiscal year 1998 bill to earmark assistance to Nagorno Karabagh at $20 million, an increase, and make it even more clear that aid is intended for disbursement within Nagorno Karabagh. I also hope the subcommittee will consider broadening the scope of assistance to Karabagh to include the rebuilding and reconstruction of infrastructure damaged during the war. I know there are some true friends of Armenia on that subcommittee, and I am hopeful of support for these much-needed funds. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, having twice visited this mountainous republic, I can attest that it is indeed a functioning society, a fact also attested to by members of the USAID team that visited Karabagh to conduct a needs assessment pursuant to this year's fiscal year 1998 bill. Unfortunately, the State Department has apparently interpreted the provision of aid to the ``victims of the Karabagh conflict'', and they have interpreted this language of ``victims of the Karabagh conflict'', contrary to the intent of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, as referring also to expanding existing funds for Azerbaijan's needy. While I am concerned about the needy people of Azerbaijan, two things are important to point out: First, U.S. assistance is already being provided to Azerbaijan's needy through nongovernmental organizations, with tens of millions of American funds having been provided over the past few years. And, second, and I regret to say, the government of Azerbaijan has done very little to help the needy population in its rural areas, despite the huge revenues being generated for Baku for development of the Caspian Sea oil reserves. This is a fact that even our own State Department acknowledges. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to again stress the importance of maintaining the current ban on government aids to Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockade of Armenia and Karabagh. This ban was enacted as part of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, and it is a good law. Now, Congress, unfortunately, is re-examining the issue of the prohibition on aid to Azerbaijan as part of an effort to enhance U.S. engagement in the region. While I am all for greater U.S. engagement in the Caucasus, we must not tinker with this provision. That is Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Unfortunately, some in Congress, the administration and the oil industry are looking to curry favor with Azerbaijan by lifting or at least easing the ban on aid to Azerbaijan. And for the ban on aid to be lifted, Azerbaijan need only lift the blockades of Armenia and Karabagh. Until then, there should not be any consideration of asking the United States taxpayers to support the dictatorship in Baku. Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about this matter, and I think we need to seriously address the fact that this aid has not been coming to Nagorno Karabagh and that, hopefully, if we continue to tell the State Department that they are not doing their job in providing the assistance, they will do so forthwith. Positive Developments in U.S.-India Relations

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a number of issues tonight: first, a very important domestic issue, and that is the tobacco settlement and some recent information that has come out which supports, in my opinion, the need or the suggestion that many of us have made, that we need to move forward quickly and pass a tobacco bill that is very stringent in its effort to try to get after the problem of teen smoking in this country. That basically increases the Federal tax on cigarettes so that the money can be used for these tobacco prevention programs, particularly among young people. Then I would like to move on from there and talk about a couple foreign policy issues. But I would like to begin with a report that just came out again on the issue of tobacco and teen smoking. Yesterday, the Surgeon General, David Satcher, released a report. It was prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is called Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups. The report is the 24th in a series of tobacco reports that began 34 years ago. It has some very disturbing information in it. This report's release also, I might add, Mr. Speaker, could not be made more timely in light of what is going on in this House of Representatives on the issue of tobacco settlement. It is very unfortunate, and I have already said on the floor and I will say again, that Speaker Gingrich and the House Republican leadership has opposed tough tobacco legislation. Because of their opposition and because they are in the majority and control what happens on the floor of this House of Representatives, tobacco legislation and the tobacco settlement's future is essentially in doubt. It is not clear at all that we will be able to pass a tobacco bill this year. I want everyone to know, and I think everyone does already, that myself and other Democrats and the Democratic leadership and the Democratic caucus in general are very much in favor of a tobacco bill passing. Because if it does not pass this year, we are going to lose the opportunity to deal with the problem of teen smoking in the United States. Getting back to the report that was released yesterday by the Surgeon General, it makes a compelling case, I believe, for passing a tough tobacco bill. In a letter to Members of Congress that accompanied the report, the Surgeon General explained, and I quote, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Certain racial/ethnic minority populations remain at high risk for using tobacco and often bear a disproportionate share of the human and economic cost of tobacco use. Although some recent declines in lung cancer trends are encouraging, we have reason for great concern about reported increases and rates of smoking among African American and Hispanic high school students. That is in the letter that accompanied the report from the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General then continues that the report sounds an urgent alarm. If minority tobacco use continues to increase, we can expect severe health consequences to begin to be felt in the early part of the next century. We must use every tool at our disposal to reduce tobacco use amongst racial and ethnic minorities, especially amongst adolescents, and to reverse these frightening trends. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this report, and I actually brought a copy of the report with me this evening, it is a rather thick report, it is a rather thick document, and there is an executive summary, but it does give us some very alarming information. It says that teen smoking rates grew among all ethnic groups in the 1990s. So even though this is about ethnic minorities, the teen smoking rate grew amongst all ethnic groups in this decade. The smoking rate amongst African American teenagers grew a staggering 80 percent between 1991 and 1997. Approximately 20 percent of African American high school students smoke today, and that is one out of every five African American teens. The Surgeon General estimates that if this trend continues, 1.6 million African American children will become regular smokers and 500,000 of them will die as a result of that smoking habit. I think it is important to note that the increase in the 1990s amongst black children reverses the trend set in the '80s and '70s when smoking rates actually declined. Among Hispanic teens, the smoking rate rose by 34 percent over this same period. Approximately 33 percent, or one out of every three Hispanic teenagers smokes cigarettes. Amongst Asian American teens, the smoking rate rose 17 percent between 1990 and 1995; and the overall rate of teens who smoke in the Asian American community is estimated to be about 20 percent. The report also provides information with regard to Native American teens, the fourth ethnic group examined by the report; and the teen smoking rate rose by 26 percent amongst that group between 1990 and 1995. Approximately 50 percent or one of every two Native American teens smokes. It is also estimated that about 40 percent of white high school students use cigarettes. Now, the unfortunate thing about all this is, and we have pointed this out, myself and other Democrats who have been concerned about this issue, is that the tobacco companies clearly see the need to increase smoking amongst teenagers because they are the smokers of the future. If the teen smoking rates decline, then in another 10, 20, or 30 years the amount of tobacco use in the country would significantly decline. So that is the particular reason why the industry targets teenagers. It is also the reason why we must stop them from continuing to do that targeting amongst young people. As numbers like these continue to roll out, in concert with the documents from the tobacco industry that detail their efforts to target children, I think Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate should not ignore reality and block progress and basically join with the Democrats and particularly with President Clinton in trying to move tobacco legislation in the few months that we have left in this Congress. Now, of course, we know that the opposite is, in fact, happening. Just last week, Speaker Newt Gingrich felt compelled to defend Joe Camel, among all things. He went out of his way to make it known in his opinion that Joe Camel is not the reason why teenagers smoke cigarettes. Now, we have document after document and report after report being released, many of those reports coming out of my own committee, the Committee on Commerce, and they show the havoc that tobacco has wreaked on our children in the past and the devastation it is causing today, and they clearly show that Joe Camel is part of this effort, that Joe Camel was an effort to essentially target young people. And here we have the Speaker of our House of Representatives defending Joe Camel. This, I should add, comes shortly after the Speaker picked up the mantle of the tobacco industry itself and blasted the bill authored by his fellow Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona. I have said before that I admire Senator McCain for pushing a relatively tough piece of tobacco legislation. It does not go as far as I would have it go. I think it does not go far enough on the issue of liability for the tobacco companies and some of the issues that Democrats care about. But he is making a bipartisan effort to pass a tobacco bill that deals with the problem of teen smoking; and he should be commended for it, not condemned for it. Speaker Gingrich said that, in talking about Senator McCain, he said that those people who say that is not a Republican bill, he is talking about Senator McCain's bill, they are right. So I guess, from what the Speaker seems to be suggesting, any bill that does not win the tobacco industry's stamp of approval cannot be called the Republican bill. The reality is, it is sponsored by a Republican, and it was passed on a bipartisan basis, and I commend the Republicans who have been joining with the Democrats to try to move this legislation. This weekend, still more of Senator McCain's colleagues took to the airwaves to bash his bill. Again another Republican, Senator Orrin Hatch, appeared on Meet the Press this Sunday to make it known he, too, does not approve of the McCain bill. And at the same time that members of his own party continue to publicly squabble about tobacco legislation, the Republican majority leader, Senator Lott, ironically enough, continues to criticize the President for showing no leadership on the tobacco issue. I would suggest that Senator Lott needs to check his facts. The President and congressional Democrats are on the same page. We are all in agreement that the tobacco companies should not be left off the hook. In fact, President Clinton, when this report that I am making reference to today from the Surgeon General, it was actually released at a press event with the President, where he stood with I think 30 teenagers from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and he noted the fact that the tobacco industry, in order to survive, has to attract these young people and how wrong it is for them to attract young people. And he has been pushing have very hard for tobacco legislation almost on a daily basis. To suggest that somehow the President is not supportive of efforts to move a tobacco bill is simply not true. What I think is going on here is that the Republican leadership is in the process of what I call a work slowdown. There are only about 40 legislative days left in the year in which the Republicans basically have clearly projected their intention to do nothing, and the tobacco bill could very easily be a victim of that. If we do not move something quickly to the Senate floor, out of committee in the House of Representatives, there will not be an opportunity this year to pass a strong anti-tobacco legislation. With 3,000 kids a day getting hooked on cigarettes, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an awfully high price to pay. We need to move on tobacco legislation. I know that myself and other Democrats are going to continue to press this until the Republican leadership agrees to move anti-tobacco legislation to address the tobacco settlement and to try to make it possible for us to address the growing problem now of teenage smoking. No Excuse for Delay in Aid to Nagorno Karabagh

Mr. PALLONE. Lastly, this evening, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity today to visit in New York with the President of India. Some of my other colleagues were there, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton). Each of us had the opportunity to talk for some time with the President, and I wanted to comment on his historic visit to New York. He was there to receive an award, I believe at a reception this evening; and he also spent some time at the United Nations. But he, in my conversations with the President, was very optimistic about what has been happening in terms of India and U.S. relations. And those of us who are members of the India caucus, again which I mentioned that I co- chair, are very pleased because we see more and more positive developments in terms of U.S.-India relations. Just to mention a few things, just a few weeks ago, one of our former colleagues who is now the U.N. Ambassador, Bill Richardson, visited India along with Rick Inderfurth, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, and also some other U.S. officials as part of the first delegation that the President sent to India since the new government was formed just about a month ago. And that trip I commented on last week was a very good trip because it really enhanced good feeling, if you will, between other two countries. But one of the things that the President of India said today that was very good about the trip or that he appreciated about this trip by Bill Richardson was the fact that the U.S. representatives, including Ambassador Richardson, viewed India independently from the other South Asian countries. In other words, in the past, India has felt that U.S. foreign policy looks at India vis-a-vis Pakistan or vis-a-vis Bangladesh or some of its other South Asian neighbors and does not see it as its own country with its own place, if you will, an important place in world affairs. And that clearly has changed. When Ambassador Bill Richardson went to India, he made it quite clear that India is a priority of U.S. foreign policy, and it is a priority viewed independently, if you will, because of India's own status in world affairs. Now, that is not to say that Ambassador Richardson and the others during this visit did not want to increase the dialogue between India and its neighbors in South Asia. Quite the contrary. They stressed during the trip, and the media reported the fact, that they stressed the need for India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue and try to improve their relations. And in fact, today when I spoke to the President of India, he was very optimistic that that indeed would happen, that sometime in the next few weeks or the next few months that the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan would meet at the Prime Minister level possibly, at the trade meeting of the SAARC group in July, or maybe even sooner than that, and that this dialogue between the two countries to try to reduce tension and bring not only Pakistan and India but all the countries of South Asia together again economically, politically and maybe even eventually militarily, that this dialogue would continue. So that was a very optimistic aspect of my conversation today with the President that I wanted to mention to my colleagues this evening. The other thing that the President of India stressed at the meeting today was the need for U.S. support for India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Obviously, a big part of his trip today to New York related to the United Nations, and the United Nations is a focal point of India's efforts these days to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Myself and a number of other members of our India caucus have, in fact, sponsored a House resolution where we express the sense of this Congress that India should be a permanent member of the Security Council, and we are hoping that eventually we can get that resolution passed, but we are also hopeful that the State Department will eventually come around to that point of view. Again, the President of India was appreciative of the fact that the United States is pushing for an expanded Security Council, but he would like to see the U.S. directly support India's bid for a seat, as would I. The last thing I wanted to mention in this regard is that when I spoke to India's President today, he was also very much of the vein, and I certainly agree, and I think it has been shown in the last 2 weeks as well, that the trade and business and investment relationship between our two countries, between India and the United States, is also going to move progressively forward. There was some concern, I think, on the part of American businesspeople that with the new government, the BJP government as we call it, that they might not be as willing to move forward to encourage U.S. investment and more trade or might put up some barriers to U.S. articles, certain U.S. materials or articles coming into India. But that has sort of been put to rest in the last 2 weeks. India's Finance Minister was in Washington just a short time ago, and he made it quite clear that the new government wants to move forward in terms of U.S. investment, particularly in infrastructure, that the market reforms would continue, that privatization would continue. And I mentioned to the President of India today that this was very important to the United States, and he was of the opinion that we had nowhere to go but forward in terms of increasing our trade and business relationships. So once again, I just wanted to say in conclusion this evening that what has been happening since the new government was elected in India in March has been very positive in terms of U.S. relations. I believe very strongly that the United States needs to think of India as a priority of its foreign policy and that we need to expand business and trade opportunities with India and basically have our countries work together in almost every area, whether it is political, diplomatic, economic, or even military. And I think we are clearly moving in that direction in terms of the developments that have taken place in the last month between our two countries.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting as Israel approaches the fiftieth anniversary of its independence to commemorate this event. It is also fitting to recognize this historic event here in the U.S. Congress. The U.S. has been Israel's friend and supporter from its inception. On a personal level, I have been an ardent supporter of Israel throughout my life. I became more of a staunch supporter after I traveled to Israel in 1989 toward the beginning of my Congressional service. Once one has seen the many unique features of Israel and its people, one cannot help but be awestruck by this nation's accomplishments in its short 50 years. First, Israel has provided a refuge and homeland to hundreds of thousands of persecuted Jews from the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and many other places. In meeting with Israeli leaders and residents, I also was struck by their deep commitment to achieving a lasting peace in the region. This commitment is easily understood as Israeli Remembrance Day approaches: nearly every citizen has lost a relative or friend in the effort to protect and defend the land and its people. Thus, the desire and need to achieve peace for the present and future generations becomes even more evident. As a Congressman actively involved in environmental issues, I have been particularly impressed with the stewardship Israelis exercise over natural resources. Israelis learn from a young age that every drop of water is precious. But the pioneers worked the land and developed the technologies to make these precious drops of water help grow trees, flowers, and crops, so that the entire nation could not only survive, but flourish--to the point where they now export flowers and produce all over the world. And, while Israelis still bargain over prices in traditional, Middle Eastern-style market places, they also have developed a light industrial base that employs many people in high technology and computer-related fields. One example of the developmental progress that has occurred can be seen in the telephone systems. When I was last in Israel a decade ago, making a telephone call was difficult. Today, not only are phones accessible and easy to use, but cellular phones, call waiting services, and answering machines are prevalent. Moreover, Israeli's GDP has grown from $2.5 billion to an astonishing $90.6 billion in the past three decades. Equally important, if not more so, is the fact that Israel is the only pluralistic democracy in the region. At the same time, Jerusalem, the unique ``City of Gold,'' is the holy site for a number of the world's most important religions. And yet, this nation is smaller than my home state of New Jersey; one can walk across the country (East to West) in one day. David Ben Gurion was prophetic when, on May 15, 1948, he stated that ``[s]omething unique occurred yesterday in Israel, and only future generations will be able to evaluate the full historical significance of the event. It is now up to all of us, acting out a sense of Jewish fraternity, to devote every ounce of our strength to building and defending the State of Israel, which still faces a titanic political and military struggle.'' I hope that as we recognize the fiftieth anniversary of its creation, Israel will soon cease to face such struggles. Yitzhak Rabin was deeply committed to securing peace for Israel. For this reason, the ``Song for Peace'' was being sung at the rally where he last spoke, and the words to this song were found in his shirt pocket at the time of his assassination. I pray that Rabin, and the many that will have fought for peace both before and after him, will not have sacrificed their lives in vain. In closing, since I have seen the marvels of Israel and its people first-hand, and have been a strong supporter of Israeli and Jewish causes throughout my service in Congress, I am particularly pleased to be a cosponsor of this joint Congressional resolution that is being brought to the House floor today. The resolution recognizes the historic significance of the fiftieth anniversary of the reestablishment of the State of Israel; commends the Israeli people for their achievements in building a new state and a pluralistic, democratic society in the Middle East; reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel; and extends congratulations and best wishes to the State of Israel and her people for a peaceful, prosperous, and successful future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to use very much of the hour this evening, probably about 15 or 20 minutes. My topic relates to foreign affairs and U.S. relations with two countries that I feel very close to. One is Armenia. I happen to cochair the Armenia Caucus in the House of Representatives. And also India, another country where I cochair our Members' caucus that we have with approximately 100 Members, in the case of the India Caucus, and I think 65 or so in the Armenia Caucus. I would like to turn first to the situation in Armenia. I should say really threats, if you will, to the Republic of Armenia, and also the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh that are coming, once again, from its neighbors. I would like to specifically address a very troubling situation involving the possible transfer of sophisticated U.S. arms to Azerbaijan, an unstable and undemocratic regime. There have recently been press reports suggesting that the Republic of Turkey, another neighbor of Armenia, is seeking U.S. approval to sell F-16 fighter planes, assembled in Turkey, but based on a U.S. license, to the Republic of Azerbaijan. According to the press reports, the idea of arms sale emerged during talks between government officials from the two countries regarding a Turkey-Azerbaijan defense agreement. Mr. Speaker, for the transfer of the F-16's to take place, Turkey would have to seek permission from the United States and also of NATO. I have come to the House floor tonight to ask my colleagues to join me in urging our administration to reject any such proposal and discourage Turkey's growing role as an arms supplier to such volatile regions as the Transcaucasus and the Middle East. In the next few days, I will be seeking signatures for letters to our President and other key national security officials in opposition to the Turkish sale of F-16's to Azerbaijan. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable to me, and I think to most of the American people that our military, diplomatic, and intelligence agencies would even contemplate such a proposal. While all the facts about the F-16 deal are still somewhat in dispute, these recent reports are the latest indication of a growing military and political alliance between Turkey and Azerbaijan, a very troubling development in terms of peace, stability, and democracy in this strategically important Caucasus region. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to maintain blockades of their neighbor, Armenia. These blockades, which are both illegal and immoral, have made it extremely difficult for much-needed emergency food, medicine, and energy supplies to reach the people in Armenia, including supplies sent by the American people. In addition, Azerbaijan continues to refuse to compromise on negotiations to achieve a settlement over the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. Nagorno Karabagh is a region that has been primarily populated by Armenians for centuries, which has proclaimed its independence about 10 years ago, but which continues to be claimed by Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, Azerbaijan also continues to maintain a blockade of Nagorno Karabagh, causing significant human hardship there as well. Mr. Speaker, when I was in the region earlier this year in the Caucasus, in the frontline area of Karabagh, which was the target of constant sniper fire from Azerbaijani forces, I became aware of a very disturbing fact, which I would like to point out this evening. The equipment that was being used by the Azerbaijani forces, from the weapons right down to the uniforms, were American and NATO supplies, provided to Turkey and then funneled to Azerbaijan. Of course, Turkey, as we know, is a NATO ally, despite the fact that, unlike the other NATO countries of North America and Western Europe, Turkey is a country with numerous restrictions on democratic and civil liberties and a terrible human rights record. But while Turkey is a NATO member, Azerbaijan is not, and it should not be receiving American military equipment, particularly not anything as sophisticated and dangerous as F-16 aircraft. Turkey should not be supplying such equipment to other nations. Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan is not exactly one of the democratic success stories of the former Soviet Union. In fact, the leader of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, is a former Communist Party boss who seized power in a coup and has led an authoritarian regime ever since. He has not permitted opposition political organizations or a free media. More shocking, while oil wealth begins to pour into the Azeri capital of Baku, President Aliyev has done nothing to relieve the suffering of his own people in the countryside of Azerbaijan. Yet, it is precisely the huge oil wealth and Azeri territory in the Caspian Sea that has led Western Governments, including, I am sorry to say, our own government, to tolerate and promote this antidemocratic regime. The combination of the oil resources in Azerbaijan and Turkey's position as a NATO member have led to excessive tolerance, in my opinion, on the part of our State Department for these two regimes and their growing military partnership. I just hope, Mr. Speaker, and this is the last thing I would like to say tonight on this subject, is I just hope that the proposed Turkish- Azerbaijani F-16 sale will be where we finally draw the line in our support for this undemocratic regime and the dangerous situation that the F-16s might pose if this sale were ever allowed. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to switch now and talk again briefly about the situation in India. I would like to make a very positive statement, if I could, about the recent visit to India by some of our U.S. officials representing the President. I speak today specifically about U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bill Richardson, a former colleague of ours in the House of Representatives; Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Mr. Karl Inderfurth; and Director for South Asia in the National Security Council, Mr. Bruce Reidel, who recently made a very successful trip to India. Indian and American officials associated with the trip have stated that the meetings were conducted with exceptional warmth, which can only indicate that U.S.-India relations have never been stronger. I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that Ambassador Richardson and Secretary Inderfurth have traveled to South Asia in preparation for President Clinton's trip to the subcontinent, which was scheduled for this fall. As you know, President Clinton's trip to South Asia will be the first by an American President that has taken place in over 20 years. These meetings were not intended to produce high-level agreements, but they gave senior administration officials the opportunity to meet with senior officials from the newly elected Indian government. The government in India changed hands. It was an election in March, and a new government took office in early April. Numerous issues were discussed with our U.S. officials and the new government, and I am pleased to see that the talks were very positive. I wanted to talk about some of the issues that were discussed, because I think they are important. The U.S. delegation spent much of its time encouraging the reassumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan. This was something that the previous Prime Minister Gujral had encouraged quite a bit. Talks between these South Asian neighbors had abruptly ended in September just prior to the new election cycle when both countries failed to resolve their differences over Kashmir. Fortunately, soon after Ambassador Richardson and Secretary Inderfurth had left South Asia, reports indicated that talks between the two countries may resume after a summit meeting of the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers during the SAARC meeting in July. So we are very hopeful that we are going to see the reassumption of these talks, and I was very pleased to see that our representatives encouraged the reassumption of the dialogue between India and Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, both the United States and India also, I would note, were very willing to discuss sensitive and controversial issues. For example, Ambassador Richardson stated that the United States will continue to work with the Indians in curbing the development of the nuclear weapons program, but that the nuclear issue would not dominate the dialogue between the two countries. The U.S. Delegation informed Indian officials that the United States was pleased that the Indians had shown restraint after Pakistan had test-fired the Ghauri missile. I would like to inform Members of this body that the Defense Department is ready to consider sanctions against Pakistan following the firing of the missile. A spokesman from the Pentagon recently stated, and I quote, that the United States has imposed sanctions against Pakistan in the past under the Missile Technology Control Regime. We are continuing to review the particular case and that review was in its advanced stages. I would like the administration to look very closely at this issue. I am concerned that China or North Korea might have provided Pakistan with the technical information for the Ghauri missile. The continued illegal transfer of missile and nuclear technology may lead to further instability in South Asia. That is why I continue to oppose the administration's certification that will allow the United States to transfer nuclear technology to China. Mr. Speaker, China is known to have transferred nuclear technology to Pakistan, so we should not be transferring any kind of technology to China that ultimately could be transferred to Pakistan. I would also like to note that, on the heels of Ambassador Richardson and Secretary Inderfurth's trip, reports from India indicate that the United States and India are set to reinitiate civilian nuclear cooperation after 20 years. This partnership will focus on bilateral research projects and aimed at the improvement of the operational safety of India's nuclear power plants. The first meeting between the two countries is scheduled to take place in the U.S. later this year. U.S. law will govern the exchange of civilian nuclear officials. The proposed safety cooperation between our countries would not involve the transfer of technology or controlled information or commodities from the U.S. to India. But increased dialogue on nuclear issues between our two countries can only lead to a safer and cleaner nuclear environment. So again, this is a very positive development. During the meetings that took place with Ambassador Richardson and Secretary Inderfurth the United States also acknowledged India's bid for permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council. Now basically what the U.S. position is, and they basically stated it again at this meeting, is that the U.S. endorses Security Council reform and the U.S. supports the inclusion of Germany and Japan and one country each from Latin America, Asia and Africa. The United States, however, would allow the regions to determine who their representatives would be. So United States is saying that there should be another Asian representative, but it does not necessarily have to be India. I have to say, though, that in private discussions with administration officials there is no question in my mind that they support India's bid, and I hope that the United States public policy will ultimately be supportive of India being a permanent member of the Security Council. There was also discussion between the U.S. and Indian officials during this recent trip on the need to fight terrorism. Ambassador Richardson had called on India's prime minister and home minister and had shared their concern over Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and in other parts of India. Obviously, again, the United States needs to do more to fight terrorism, to basically put pressure on Pakistan to not encourage and to harbor and train terrorists on its soil, and hopefully the comments that were made by Ambassador Richardson and Mr. Inderfurth will mean that the U.S. takes a more proactive view and tries to basically pressure, if you will, Pakistan into not encouraging terrorism in Kashmir and in other places in south Asia. Both countries also discussed, very importantly I would say, the need to increase trade and investment. Finance Minister Sinha was just in the United States last week, this is the new finance minister in India, in the Indian government, and he assured U.S. business leaders that the new BJP government was not anti-foreign investment and that economic reforms would be accelerated with the new government. He recently stated that there was no doubt about the continuity of the reform process, and the finance minister said that the Indian government would seek foreign investment, particularly infrastructure like roads, railways, power, rural and high technology sectors, and he assured investors that the new government would continue the deregulation process to help build a strong private sector. Now once again this is very important. One of the goals of our India Caucus is to promote more trade and investment by U.S. businesses in India. It is very important to see that the move towards a market economy, towards privatization, continues under the auspices of this new government. There was a lot of attention paid during this recent trip to the so- called strategic dialogue that has been initiated by U.S. officials, and I would like to see the strategic dialogue extended into the defense area. During the trip Defense Minister George Fernandez and the U.S. delegation agreed that more cooperation was needed in technology and military-to-military exchange, and I think that India, Mr. Speaker, can be a bulwark against the expansion of China's military in Asia. India should be more integrated in my opinion into the U.S. defense framework, and it should be able to buy military equipment and supplies from the United States on an equal basis with other allies. The strategic dialogue being fostered by the U.S. officials' recent trip I think will hopefully lead in this direction. And finally, Mr. Speaker, my overall goals and the goals of the India Caucus include bringing India and the United States closer together, making India more of a foreign policy priority for the United States and, again, increasing U.S. trade with and investment in India. And I believe very strongly that this recent trip by U.S. officials to India has clearly helped to achieve these goals and is going a long ways towards improving our relationship on almost every level with India.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Democratic colleagues and the Democratic leadership for a successful effort to push Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans, and force them to bring up real campaign finance reform. Speaker Gingrich tried to get around his promise to bring up campaign finance reform by posting a phony bill with a sham procedure just before the April Congressional recess. Democrats responded by signing a discharge petition, and forcing the Republican leadership's hand. Our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), was right when he said yesterday this was not a conversion, but a retreat by Speaker Gingrich. He now promises to bring up campaign finance reform again in May. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have to be vigilant and hold Speaker Gingrich to his promise. Campaign finance reform needs to be brought up with an open rule so that Members have an opportunity to vote on proposals that will limit the amount of money in political campaigns, and not allow more money from wealthy special interests, and that is, of course, the position favored by Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on May 16, 1998, Rabbi Jack M. Rosoff of Congregation B'nai Israel in Rumson, NJ, will be honored on the occasion of his retirement after 34 years of devoted service to his congregation and his community. It is a great honor for me to join in paying tribute to this great religious leader, who has done so much to foster positive values among young people and has courageously fought against bigotry. Since 1964, Rabbi Rosoff has led the growth of the Congregation, quadrupling its members to the present total of 600 families. He has also presided over the expansion of the religious school, which now provides education for 300 students from kindergarten through grade 12. He developed the Israel Scholarship Program, enabling all junior students to spend six weeks in Israel. Rabbi Rosoff's organizational and motivational skills in the service of good causes was evidenced by raising over $3 million for the United Jewish Appeal and Israel Bonds through inspiring High Holy Day appeals, as well as his organizing and chairing the first Madison Square Garden rally for Soviet Jewry. He led the annual Walk for Israel, involving many synagogues in the Shore Area, and he led moving Holocaust Memorial Day Services every year. Rabbi Rosoff has been devoted to every aspect of his service to the Congregation, officiating outstandingly at life's joyous events--Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, weddings and brises--as well as counseling families and individuals a times of sickness, stress and bereavement. He organized and led the Rabbi's Bible Study and other Adult Education activities, and every week, through his inspiring sermons, he urged the members of his Congregation to join him in confronting the most serious issues. Rabbi Jack Rosoff bravely confronted discrimination everywhere he found it. When B'nai Israel, and a nearby Catholic church, were desecrated by vandals, he organized and led the response by more than 25 houses of worship in the Greater Red Bank religious community. He served as a strong influence in securing equal rights for women in all religious observances, and was a key figure in securing acceptance of women as rabbis in the Conservative movement. Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Rosoff's list of associations, tributes and awards is a long one. Among his leadership positions were First President of the Shore Area Board of Conservative and Reform Rabbis, President of the New Jersey Rabbinical Assembly of United Synagogue and Rabbinical Assembly Representative to the American Conference on Soviet Jewry. He has served on the Board of Directors of Riverview Medical Center, Board of Directors of the Monmouth County Mental Health Association, where he chaired the Suicide Prevention Committee, Board of Directors of the Monmouth County Day Care Center, Board of Trustees of the Monmouth County Action Program and a member of the Planned Parenthood of Monmouth County Clergy Advisory Council. The Rabbi was Founder/Director of the Pastoral Counseling Institute for Clergy at Brookdale College, was a founding member of the Greater Red Bank Interfaith Council, and supported active participation in the Lunch Break program for the needy in the Red Bank area. He received the Jerusalem City of Peace Award from Israel Bonds and the Israel Solidarity and Aliyah Laregal awards for promoting tourism to Israel. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Other Body was honored by Rabbi Rosoff's presence when he delivered the opening prayer at the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Rosoff has recently been battling cancer. Just as Rabbi Rosoff has prayed for so many during his years of service to Congregation B'nai Israel, our prayers are now with him. For his years of service, he has richly earned the admiration, gratitude and love of his Congregation and our entire community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as my colleagues and I do every time at this time of year, I should say, in what has become one of the proudest traditions in this House and that is to remember and pay tribute to the victims of one of history's worst crimes against humanity, the Armenian genocide of 1915 through 1923. General Leave

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know there are a number of Members who would like to participate in the special orders tonight on this subject, and I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the topic of my special order.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the Armenian genocide, we are describing one of the most horrible events of the 20th century and in all of human history. Yet many, perhaps most, Americans and most people around the world are barely aware of this extremely significant historical event. There are those who even try to deny that the genocide ever happened. But it did happen. The Armenian genocide was the systematic extermination of 1\1/2\ million Armenian men, women, and children during the final years of the Ottoman-Turkish empire. This was the first genocide of the 20th century, a precursor to the Nazi Holocaust and other cases of ethic cleansing and mass exterminations which are still all too common around the world. Friday, April 24, marks the 83rd anniversary of the unleashing of the Armenian genocide. This evening, here in the Capitol building, the Armenian National Committee of America is sponsoring a ceremony and reception of remembrance for the genocide; and the ANC and the Armenian Assembly have both been at the forefront for calling for recognition of the genocide, not just for the people of Armenian descent who have heard the history from their parents or grandparents but for all of us as an active education and witness about the evils of genocide and the danger of forgetting. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the United States still does not officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Bowing to strong pressure from Turkey, the U.S. State Department has for more than 15 years shied away from referring to the tragic events of 1915 to 1923 by the word ``genocide.'' President Clinton and his recent predecessors have annually issued proclamations on the anniversary of the genocide expressing sorrow for the massacres and solidarity with the victims but always stopping short of using the word ``genocide,'' thus minimizing and not accurately conveying what really happened beginning 83 years ago. Mr. Speaker, the United States should go on record clearly and unambiguously recognizing the Armenian genocide and setting aside April 24 as a day of remembrance. To that end, I urge renewed efforts to, on the part of Congress, to pass a resolution that puts the United States firmly on record on the side of truth. We will also keep up the pressure on the President to call the genocide by its proper name. And what is almost as appalling as the act of genocide itself is the fact that the Republic of Turkey simply goes on denying that the genocide ever took place. Indeed, Turkey has mounted an aggressive effort to try to present an alternative and false version of history, using its extensive financial and lobbying resources in this country. The Turkish Government has embarked on a strategy of endowing Turkish study programs at various universities around the United States. And while Turkish and Ottoman studies are cleared worthy of academic interest, the Turkish Government is attaching conditions to these funds that make it clear that the program will be carried out under the watchful eyes of the Turkish Government and other pro-Turkish elements. One of the major goals of this propaganda effort is to minimize, distort, and outright deny the facts of the Armenian genocide. Mr. Speaker, adding insult to injury, the Republic of Azerbaijan has mounted an effort to try to accuse Armenians of committing genocide against the people of Azerbaijan, in many cases directly mimicking Armenian statements and simply turning them around against the Armenians. Recently, the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations circulated a booklet to congressional offices denying the Armenian genocide and fabricating a wide range of half-truths, slanders, and lies against the Armenian people. But these denials fly in the face of the preponderance of evidence. The U.S. National Archives holds the most comprehensive documentation in the world on this historical tragedy. Formal protests were made at the time by the U.S. Ambassador, and Congress approved of allowing a private relief agency to raise funds in the United States. American consular officials and private aide workers secretly housed Armenians at great personal risks to themselves and in direct defiance of Turkish orders not to help the Armenians. Mr. Speaker, I know many of my other colleagues would like to address this subject tonight, and I would like to say that the Armenian genocide is a very painful subject to discuss, yet we must never forget what happened and never cease speaking out. We must overcome the denials and indifference and keep alive the memory and the truth of what happened.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the tobacco agreement, which of course has been much in the news lately, particularly during the last 2 weeks when Congress was not in session. As everyone knows I think by now, during the congressional recess the tobacco companies pulled out of the agreement and have essentially refused to do any future negotiation at this point on the agreement. And I think the reason they did that is because they did not like the looks of what was developing here in Congress, and basically have declared war on all legislation that does not have their blessing. In his April 8 announcement that his company was pulling out of the agreement, RJR Nabisco CEO Stephen F. Goldstone declared, and I quote, that the legislative process as far as tobacco is concerned is broken beyond repair. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this declaration is wrong and it is also rather arrogant. Congress does not need and I do not believe will wait for the tobacco industry to pass legislation to protect our children. Even the Republicans I think would agree with me on that. But what the Republicans cannot agree on and I am particularly talking about the Republican leadership, is what form tobacco legislation should take here in Congress, and particularly in the House. Big tobacco dollars have produced a fissure in the Republican Party on how to approach tobacco legislation. Senator John McCain, as I think many of us know, authored legislation that was approved recently by the Senate Commerce Committee by a 19 to 1 vote, very lopsided. The Senator's bill, while not as strong as measures that are being pushed by Democrats here in the House and also in the Senate, is at least a step in the right direction, and I want to commend him for that. Among other things his bill generates $516 billion from the tobacco industry over 25 years, and it would raise the price of cigarettes by $1.10 over 5 years, strengthen Federal regulation of tobacco products, and impose penalties on the tobacco companies if teen smoking rates do not decline in the coming years. And this is bitterly, this legislation by Senator McCain is bitterly opposed by the tobacco industry, and after a lot of twisting, turning and flip-flopping has also been now opposed by Speaker Gingrich as well. Yesterday's New York Times, I thought, was very interesting in recounting Speaker Gingrich's history on tobacco since the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in 1994. The Speaker's comments on tobacco reported in the Times, the Times said in its editorial that the Speaker has been ``a model of inconsistency.'' I just want to read from the article that was in the New York Times, because I think it clearly illustrates whose side Speaker Gingrich is on. ``Shortly after Republicans won control of Congress in 1994,'' the article says, ``Mr. Gingrich announced that his party would end an investigation of the tobacco industry that had begun under the Democrats. Mr. Gingrich called David A. Kessler, then Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and the leading spokesman of the antismoking forces, a thug and a bully.'' This is what the Speaker said about Mr. Kessler. I would like to point out that since that time, a steady stream of documents concerning the marketing of cigarettes towards children and the deliberate manipulation of nicotine have been flowing from the tobacco industry. The recent release of 39,000 documents in the Minnesota case will surely bring more disturbing revelations. A lot of this has come up in the Committee on Commerce that I am a member of, and it has been reported on a bipartisan basis. So the notion that Mr. Kessler was wrong in being critical of the tobacco industry, I think, now has been totally repudiated. Clearly, Mr. Kessler was right, and there is no question that the industry was targeting children and deliberately manipulating both its marketing as well as the statements it was making about nicotine and the negative aspects of nicotine. Continuing again in yesterday's New York Times article, it reports that early this year, after a 2-day Republican Party retreat, Mr. Gingrich would say nothing about his position on tobacco legislation except that reducing teenage smoking was important and that lawmakers needed to be careful to avoid a contraband market in cigarettes. But a few weeks later, Mr. Gingrich said there was no sentiment for in any way eliciting favorably to the tobacco companies. Then, as we go on with Mr. Gingrich's flip-flopping and changing his position, in a speech to the American Medical Association about a month ago, this was before our Congressional recess, he called for tough and sweeping tobacco legislation. In March, the Washington Post reported that Mr. Gingrich had warned tobacco lobbyists that he would not allow Democrats ``to get to the left of me on tobacco legislation.'' Now, of course, this past weekend, most recently, the Speaker completely reversed himself again. In words that could have been scripted by the tobacco companies themselves, Mr. Gingrich stated that the McCain bill was ``a very liberal, big government, big bureaucracy bill.'' Mr. Gingrich, who apparently is unaware that the bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce by a 19 to 1 vote, also commented that the bill would be very hard to get through Congress. Well, the only reason it is going to be very hard to get through Congress is because he and the other Republicans in the leadership will not allow it to get through, because, obviously, the Members on the Senate Commerce Committee overwhelmingly voted for the bill. I yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett). I would like to point out that my colleague has been in the forefront on this issue, particularly with regard to the all-important issue of not allowing the tobacco companies to start marketing overseas to children. I am very afraid, as I know the gentleman is, that even when we pass legislation to stop teenage smoking or cut back on it, that if we do not do something in that legislation about marketing overseas, they will simply expand their operations overseas. I want to commend the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I wanted to point out, and I do not know that it needs to be pointed out, but as the gentleman knows because he has been at the meetings, the Democratic Caucus has put forward legislation. We spent about 6 months, I think, having our own hearings and meeting with people in our tobacco working group that the gentleman from California (Mr. Vic Fazio), the chairman of our Democratic Caucus, put together, and both the gentleman and I were at many of those meetings. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) has introduced legislation, with a lot of cosponsors on the Democratic side, and I know I am one of the cosponsors, that does not include any liability caps for the tobacco industry. It is called the Healthy Kids Act. The legislation also calls for higher cigarette prices than the McCain bill, and of course one aspect of that that the gentleman and I have talked about a lot is some kind of limitation on the international activity of tobacco companies. The Healthy Kids Act, the Democratic bill, includes a ban on the promotion of U.S. tobacco products abroad, and it would also require warning labels on all exported tobacco products, and fully fund international tobacco control efforts. I cannot emphasize how important I consider control of international tobacco operations to be. I know the gentleman has introduced legislation specifically on that subject that I have cosponsored. Maybe if I could talk a little about that.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening the Democrats plan to discuss the Republican plan to abolish the Tax Code and replace it with either a flat tax or a sales tax. I yield at this point to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).