Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by suggesting that perhaps the relatively calm and deliberate and judicious tone of this debate reflects the bipartisan judgment of Congress of NATO's quintessential importance during the past two generations to our security, and our bipartisan commitment to the expansion of NATO.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of NATO expansion. Two weeks ago this past Sunday, I had the privilege in Bucharest of delivering to President Goncz of Hungary and President Constantinescu of Romania a letter by President Clinton. In this letter, President Clinton congratulated the two Presidents and the two countries for reaching an historic accommodation after centuries of bloodshed, bitterness and wars. The long-awaited period of reconciliation and peace between these two important countries of central and Eastern Europe is now a reality. The two Presidents jointly responded to our President, and the two governments strongly favor their simultaneous invitation as NATO members. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the debate in this country and in the other 15 NATO countries basically comes down to whether in the first round we should invite just three potential new members, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, or whether we should invite four or five, including Slovenia and Romania. I strongly favor, as one who has spent a great deal of time over a lifetime in that region, the simultaneous invitation to membership to all five countries, with the clear understanding that a simultaneous invitation to membership does not guarantee simultaneous acceptance into NATO. Such a formula, Mr. Speaker, would give us the best of all possible worlds. It would avoid the public relations disaster of having some countries invited and others not invited; it would avoid the backlash that would surely take place in Romania, which has gone through free and open and democratic elections, which has moved vigorously toward privatization and the free market, and which recognizes the importance of a free press and religious freedom. It now is as well qualified to be invited as any of the other five. Yet I think we must understand that, in terms of economic development and other criteria, all five countries may not be ready to join NATO simultaneously. Therefore, my recommendation: simultaneous invitation; no guarantee of simultaneous admission. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that, should this formula not be acceptable, the very least the NATO countries should do at their July meeting is to designate a time certain when the second round of countries will be invited to join NATO. Failure to do so would lead to significant disappointments, a xenophobic backlash and a severe destruction of the spirit which now permeates this region. These five countries, in my judgment, are fully prepared to begin negotiations in July, and with assistance from the existing NATO contingent will be ready within the next 2 or 3 years to enter NATO as full-fledged, fully equal members. This will be good for NATO, this will be good for the new members, and, I underscore, it will be good for Russia. In the cold war days, the Soviet Union assumed that NATO is an aggressive military alliance. Those of us who understood NATO throughout argued that NATO is a defensive military alliance. It is a force for stability, prosperity, democracy and freedom. Those are the attributes in central and Eastern Europe that are beneficial to Russia, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support simultaneous invitation to all five countries mentioned, and I support the legislation of the gentleman from New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps]. Although he has been with us only this term, he has already made great contributions to the body.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my friend from New York I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would merely like to suggest to the distinguished gentleman who has just spoken that in addition to President Reagan, beginning with President Truman, all of our Presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, deserve a great deal of credit, as do Members of Congress who on a bipartisan basis have been so strongly supportive of NATO through the decades. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Speaker, NATO has been the cornerstone of American security for two generations. NATO has been the essence of our defense strategy vis- a-vis our most formidable opponent since the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union, and it takes a great deal of naivete to assume that new threats might not reemerge on the Eurasian continent aimed at our allies and indeed the United States. Expanding NATO and continuing to fund NATO perhaps in a more proportional fashion, as my friend from Massachusetts recommends, is very much in the American national security interests, and to send a message at this stage that the United States wishes to cut back its NATO commitment would be the most suicidally shortsighted gesture of U.S. defense and foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the notions presented by my good friend from California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of collegiality and civility, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, how much time have we consumed?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this past week the United States and the countries of Western Europe celebrated the 50th anniversary of the June 5, 1947, Commencement Address at Harvard University by then Secretary of State George C. Marshall in which the idea of the Marshall plan was first publicly discussed. Fifty years to the day after Secretary Marshall delivered that seminal speech, our current Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, was likewise honored with an honorary degree from Harvard University. It was an appropriate and well-deserved honor for Secretary Albright. She has demonstrated during her 5 short months as Secretary of State great sensitivity and outstanding ability to deal with the foreign policy issues facing our Nation. During the previous 4 years when she served as the Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, she demonstrated great diplomatic capability as she acted to further our interests in that world body. She has had a most distinguished academic career, and she has been actively involved in public service throughout her life. In her address at the Harvard University commencement, Secretary Albright, gave an address that was a masterfully crafted balance of graduation humor, tribute to her predecessor coupled with proper commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Marshall plan, and the articulation of a vision of the challenges and opportunities for United States foreign policy at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Secretary Albright's historic commencement address be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to give it the serious and thoughtful attention is clearly deserves. Secretary Albright: Thank you. Thank you, President Pforzheimer, Governor Weld, President Rudenstine, President Wilson, fellow honorands, men and women of Harvard, all those who comprise the Harvard community, guests and friends, thank you. I'm delighted to be here on this day of celebration and rededication. To those of you who are here from the class of `97, I say congratulations. (Applause.) You may be in debt, but you made it. (Laughter.) And if you're not in debt now, after the alumni association get through with you, you will be. (Laughter and applause.) In fact, I would like to solicit the help of this audience for the State Department budget. (Laughter.) It is under $20 billion. As a former professor and current mother, I confess to loving graduation days--especially when they are accompanied by a honorary degree. I love the ceremony; I love the academic settings; and although it will be difficult for me today--let's be honest--I love to daydream during the commencement speech. (Laughter.) Graduations are unique among the milestones of our lives, because they celebrate past accomplishments, while also anticipating the future. That is true for each of the graduates today, and it is true for the United States. During the past few years, we seem to have observed the 50th anniversary of everything. Through media and memory, we have again been witness to paratroopers filling the skies over Normandy; the liberation of Buchenwald; a sailor's kiss in Times Square; and Iron Curtain descending; and Jackie Robinson sliding home. Today, we recall another turning point in that era. For on this day 50 years ago, Secretary of State George Marshall addressed the graduating students of this great university. He spoke to a class enriched by many who had fought for freedom, and deprived of many who had fought for freedom and died. The Secretary's words were plain; but his message reached far beyond the audience assembled in this year to an American people weary of war and wary of new commitments, and to a Europe where life-giving connections between farm and market, enterprise and capital, hope and future had been severed. Secretary Marshall did not adorn his rhetoric and high- flown phrases, saying only that it would be logical for America to help restore normal economic health to the world, without which their could be no political stability and no assured peace. He did not attach to his plan the label, Made in America; but rather invited European ideas and required European countries to do all they could to help themselves. His vision was inclusive, leaving the door open to participation by all, including the Soviet Union--and so there would be no repetition of the punitive peace of versailles--also to Germany. British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin called the Marshall Plan a ``lifeline to sinking men,'' and it was--although I expect some women in Europe were equally appreciative. (Laughter) By extending that lifeline, America helped unify Europe's west around democratic principles, and planted seeds of transatlantic partnership that would soon blossom in the form of NATO and the cooperative institutions of a new Europe. Just as important was the expression of American leadership that the Marshall Plan conveyed. After World War I, America had withdrawn from the world, shunning responsibility and avoiding risk. Others did the same. The result in the heart of Europe was the rise of great evil. After the devastation of World War II and the soul- withering horror of the Holocaust, it was not enough to say that the enemy had been vanquished, that what we were against had failed. The generation of Marshall, Truman and Vandenberg was determined to build a lasting peace. And the message that generation conveyed, from the White House, from both parties on Capitol Hill, and from people across our country who donated millions in relief cash, clothing and food was that this time, America would not turn inward; America would lead. Today, in the wake of the Cold War, it is not enough for us to say that Communism has failed. We, too, must heed the lessons of the past, accept responsibility and lead. Because we are entering a century in which there will be many interconnected centers of population, power and wealth, we cannot limit our focus, as Marshall did in his speech to the devastated battleground of a prior war. Our vision must encompass not one, but every continent. Unlike Marshall's generation, we face no single galvanizing threat. The dangers we confront are less visible and more diverse--some as old as ethnic conflict, some as new as letter bombs, some as subtle as climate change, and some as deadly as nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. To defend against these threats, we must take advantage of the historic opportunity that now exists to bring the world together in an international system based on democracy, open markets, law and a commitment to peace. We know that not every nation is yet willing or able to play its full part in this system. One group is still in transition from centralized planning and totalitarian rule. Another has only begun to dip its toes into economic and political reform. Some nations are still too weak to participate in a meaningful way. And a few countries have regimes that actively oppose the premises upon which this system is based. Because the situation we face today is different from that confronted by Marshall's generation, we cannot always use the same means. But we can summon the same spirit. We can strive for the same sense of bipartisanship that allowed America in Marshall's day to present to both allies and adversaries a united front. We can invest resources needed to keep America strong economically, militarily and diplomatically- recognizing, as did Marshall, that these strengths reinforce each other. We can act with the same knowledge that in our era, American security and prosperity are linked to economic and political health abroad. And we can recognize, even as we pay homage to the heroes of history, that we have our own duty to be authors of history. Let every nation acknowledge today the opportunity to be part of an international system based on democratic principles is available to all. This was not the case 50 years ago. Then, my father's boss, Jan Masaryk, foreign minister of what was then Czechoslovakia--was told by Stalin in Moscow that his country must not participate in the Marshall Plan, despite its national interest in doing so. Upon his return to Prague, Masaryk said it was at that moment, he understood he was employed by a government no longer sovereign in its own land. Today, there is no Stalin to give orders. If a nation is isolated from the international community now, it is either because the country is simply too weak to meet international standards, or because its leaders have chosen willfully to disregard those standards. Last week in the Netherlands, President Clinton said that no democratic nation in Europe would be left out of the transatlantic community. Today I say that no nation in the world need be left out of the global system we are constructing. And every nation that seeks to participate and is willing to do all it can to help itself will have America's help in finding the right path. (Applause.) In Africa, poverty, disease, disorder and misrule have cut off millions from the international system. But Africa is a continent rich both in human and natural resources. And today, it's best new leaders are pursuing reforms that are helping private enterprise and democratic institutions to gain a foothold. Working with others, we must lend momentum by maintaining our assistance, encouraging investment, lowering the burden of debt and striving to create successful models for others to follow. In Latin America and the Caribbean, integration is much further advanced. Nations throughout our hemisphere are expanding commercial ties, fighting crime, working to raise living standards and cooperating to ensure that economic and political systems endure. In Asia and the Pacific, we see a region that has not only joined the international system, but has become a driving force behind it--a region that is home to eight of the ten fastest growing economies in the world. With our allies, we have worked to ease the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear program, and invited that country to end its self-imposed isolation. We have encouraged China to expand participation in the international system and to observe international norms on everything from human rights to export of arms-related technologies. Finally, in Europe, we are striving to fulfill the vision Marshall proclaimed but the Cold War prevented--the vision of a Europe, whole and free, united--as President Clinton said this past week--``not by the force of arms, but by possibilities of peace.'' Where half a century ago, American leadership helped lift Western Europe to prosperity and democracy, so today the entire transatlantic community is helping Europe's newly free nations fix their economies and cement the rule of law. Next month in Madrid, NATO will invite new members from among the democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, while keeping the door to future membership open to others. This will not, as some fear, create a new source of division within Europe. On the contrary, it is erasing the unfair and unnatural line imposed half a century ago; and it is giving nations an added incentive to settle territorial disputes, respect minority and human rights and complete the process of reform. NATO is a defensive alliance that harbors no territorial ambitions. It does not regard any state as its adversary, certainly not a democratic and reforming Russia that is intent on integrating with the West, and with which it has forged an historic partnership, signed in Paris just nine days ago. Today, from Ukraine to the United States, and from Reykjavik to Ankara, we are demonstrating that the quest for European security is no longer a zero-sum game. NATO has new allies and partners. The nations of Central and Eastern Europe are rejoining in practice the community of values they never left in spirit. And the Russian people will have something they have not had in centuries--a genuine and sustainable peace with the nations to their west. The Cold War's shadow no longer darkens Europe. But one specter from the past does remain. History teaches us that there is no natural geographic or political endpoint to conflict in the Balkans, where World War I began and where the worst European violence of the past half-century occurred in this decade. That is why the peaceful integration of Europe will not be complete until the Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia are fulfilled. (Applause.) When defending the boldness of the Marshall Plan 50 years ago, Senator Arthur Vandenberg observed that it does little good to extend a 15-foot rope to a man drowning 20 feet away. Similarly, we cannot achieve our objectives in Bosnia by doing just enough to avoid immediate war. We must do all we can to help the people of Bosnia to achieve permanent peace. In recent days, President Clinton has approved steps to make the peace process irreversible, and give each party a clear stake in its success. This past weekend, I went to the region to deliver in person the message that if the parties want international acceptance or our aid, they must meet their commitments--including full cooperation with the international war crimes tribunal. (Applause.) That tribunal represents a choice not only for Bosnia and Rwanda, but for the world. We can accept atrocities as inevitable, or we can strive for a higher standard. We can presume to forget what only God and the victims have standing to forgive, or we can heed the most searing lesson of this century which is that evil, when unopposed, will spawn more evil. (Applause.) The majority of Bosnia killings occurred not in battle, but in markets, streets and playgrounds, where men and women like you and me, and boys and girls like those we know, were abused or murdered--not because of anything they had done, but simply for who they were. We all have a stake in establishing a precedent that will deter future atrocities, in helping the tribunal make a lasting peace easier by separating the innocent from the guilty; in holding accountable the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing; and in seeing that those who consider rape just another tactic of war answer for their crimes. (Applause.) Since George Marshall's time, the United States has played the leading role within the international system--not as sole arbiter of right and wrong, for that is a responsibility widely shared, but as pathfinder--as the nation able to show the way when others cannot. In the years immediately after World War II, America demonstrated that leadership not only through the Marshall Plan, but through the Truman Doctrine, the Berlin airlift and the response to Communist aggression in Korea. In this decade, America led in defeating Saddam Hussein; encouraging nuclear stability in the Korean Peninsula and in the former Soviet Union; restoring elected leaders to Haiti; negotiating the Dayton Accords; and supporting the peacemakers over the bomb throwers in the Middle East and other strategic regions. We welcome this leadership role, not in Teddy Roosevelt's phrase, because we wish to be ``an international Meddlesome Matty,'' but because we know from experience that our interests and those of our allies may be affected by regional or civil wars, power vacuums that create opportunities for criminals and terrorists and threats to democracy. But America cannot do the job alone. We can point the way and find the path, but others must be willing to come along and take responsibility for their own affairs. Others must be willing to act within the bounds of their own resources and capabilities to join in building a world in which shared economic growth is possible, violent conflicts are constrained, and those who abide by the law are progressively more secure. While in Sarajevo, I visited a playground in the area once known as ``sniper's alley,'' where many Bosnians had earlier been killed because of ethnic hate. But this past weekend, the children were playing their without regard to whether the child in the next swing was Muslim, Serb or Croat. They thanked America for helping to fix their swings, and asked me to place in the soil a plant which they promised to nourish and tend. It struck me then that this was an apt metaphor for America's role 50 years ago, when we planted the seeds of renewed prosperity and true democracy in Europe; and a metaphor as well for America's role during the remaining years of this century and into the next. As this great university has recognized, in the foreign students it has attracted, the research it conducts, the courses it offers and the sensibility it conveys, those of you who have graduated today will live global lives. You will compete in a world marketplace; travel further and more often than any previous generation; share ideas, tastes and experiences with counterparts from every culture; and recognize that to have a full and rewarding future, you will have to look outwards. As you do, and as our country does, we must aspire to set high standards set by Marshall, using means adapted to our time, based on values that endure for all time; and never forgetting that America belongs on the side of freedom. (Applause.) I say this to you as Secretary of State. I say it also as one of the many people whose lives have been shaped by the turbulence of Europe during the middle of this century, and by the leadership of America throughout this century. I can still remember in England, during the war, sitting in the bomb shelter, singing away the fear and thanking God for America's help. I can still remember, after the war and after the Communist takeover in Prague, arriving here in the United States, where I wanted only to be accepted and to make my parents and my new country proud. Because my parents fled in time, I escaped Hitler. To our shared and constant sorrow, millions did not. Because of America's generosity, I escaped Stalin. Millions did not. Because of the vision of Truman-Marshall generation, I have been privileged to live my life in freedom. Millions have still never had that opportunity. It may be hard for you, who have no memory of that time 50 years ago, to understand. But it is necessary that you try to understand. Over the years, many have come to think of World War II as the last good war, for if ever a cause was just, that was it. And if ever the future of humanity stood in the balance, it was then. Two full generations of Americans have grown up since the war--first mine, now yours; two generations of boys and girls, who have seen the veterans at picnics and parades and fireworks saluting with medals and ribbons on their chests; seeing the pride in their bearing and thinking, perhaps, what a fine thing it must have been--to be tested in a great cause and to have prevailed. But today of all days, let us not forget that behind each medal and ribbon, there is a story of heroism yes, but also profound sadness; for World War II was not a good war. From North Africa to Solerno, from Normandy to the Bulge to Berlin, an entire continent lost to Fascism had to be taken back, village by village, hill by hill. And further eastward, from Tarawa to Okinawa, the death struggle for Asia was an assault against dug-in positions, surmounted only by unbelievable courage at unbearable loss. Today, the greatest danger to America is not some foreign enemy. It is the possibility that we will fail to hear the example of that generation; that we will allow the momentum toward democracy to stall; take for granted the institutions and principles upon which our own freedom is based; and forget what the history of this century reminds us--that problems abroad, if left unattended, will all too often come home to America. [Applause.] A decade or two from now, we will be known as neo- isolationists who allowed tyranny and lawlessness to rise again; or as the generation that solidified the global triumph of democratic principles. We will be known as the neo-protectionists, whose lack of vision produced financial meltdown; or as the generation that laid the groundwork for rising prosperity around the world. We will be known as the world-class ditherers, who stood by while the seeds of renewed global conflict were sown; or as the generation that took strong measures to forge alliances, deter aggression and keep the peace. There is no certain road map to success, either for individuals or for generations. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment, a question of choice. In making that choice, let us remember that there is not a page of American history, of which we are proud, that was authored by a chronic complainer or prophet of despair. We are doers. We have a responsibility, as others have had in theirs, not to be prisoners of history, but to shape history; a responsibility to fill the role of pathfinder, and to build with others a global network of purpose and law that will protect our citizens, defend our interests, preserve our values, and bequeath to future generations a legacy as proud as the one we honor today. To that mission, I pledge my own best efforts and summon yours. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this past week the United States and the countries of Western Europe celebrated the 50th anniversary of the June 5, 1947, Commencement Address at Harvard University by then Secretary of State George C. Marshall in which the idea of the Marshall plan was first publicly discussed. Just a few days ago here in Washington on June 5--the anniversary of former Secretary of State Marshall's address at Harvard--our current outstanding Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, delivered excellent remarks at the dinner of the George C. Marshall Foundation celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Marshall plan. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Secretary Albright's remarks be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to give her statement serious and thoughtful attention. President Ford, thank you for that wonderful introduction. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues and guests, in the last few years, we seem to have observed the 50th anniversary of everything. Today, we have been brought together by a foundation dedicated to the memory of a man who made everything possible. As much as anyone else, it was George Marshall who engineered our victory in the Second World War and who helped us prevent a third. The United States entered World War II because we had to, because our immediate survival was at stake. The same cannot be said about the Marshall Plan. In 1947, the American people were weary of war and wary of new commitments. They wanted nothing more than to come home, stay home and make the baby boom boom. It was not self evident that our nation would come together to support the act of unparalleled generosity which was the Marshall Plan. But we did. And we did it in a way that was uniquely inclusive in design, uniquely expansive in scope, and uniquely American in spirit. We used Marshall aid to encourage the creation of a united Europe, which was an amazingly ambitious goal just a few years after the most terrible war in European history. We offered Marshall aid to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, though the Iron Curtain had already begun to descend. Our vision specifically embraced our former adversaries, even though this was hard for many people to accept. Soon, we would launch the Berlin airlift, though the experts said it was not possible to feed a whole city by air. We would pledge to defend Greece and Turkey, though many said that these nations were too distant and remote to be a part of our community. Today people ask: How can we best live up to the spirit of the Marshall Plan? The answer is that we must do what is right, even though it is hard. That is the spirit in which our soldiers and diplomats are working in Bosnia. That is the spirit in which we are enlarging NATO, forging new ties with all of Europe's new democracies, and building a new partnership with Russia. Each of these commitments entails risks and costs. But that just reminds me of something Senator Arthur Vandenberg said during a debate on the Marshall Plan 49 years ago. I quote, ``The greatest nation on earth,'' he said, ``either justifies or surrenders its leadership. I have no quarrel with those who disagree because we are dealing with imponderables.'' He said, ``But I cannot say to those who disagree that they have escaped to safety by rejecting or subverting this plan. They have simply fled to other risks, and I fear far greater ones. For myself,'' Senator Vandenberg said, ``I can only say that I prefer my choice of responsibilities.'' In the letter that President Clinton asked me to deliver to all of you today, he writes that ``our generation has been blessed with the chance to complete the great endeavor that Marshall's generation began--to build a democratic, peaceful, undivided Europe for the first in history.'' He reminds us that the Marshall Plan's success is evident not just in the recovery of Western Europe's economies, but in the process of European integration that it sparked; the reconciliation between old adversaries that it enabled; and America's lasting engagement in Europe, which it sealed. ``No one better understands,'' the President continues, ``all those transatlantic strands than your honoree tonight, my friend Helmut Kohl.'' At the beginning of this miraculous decade of coming together, Chancellor Kohl engineered the unification of Germany within the NATO Alliance and the European Union. This was not an easy thing to do. It was an act of faith, requiring great sacrifice. But it was right. And today we look back upon it as the founding act of a Europe that is becoming whole and free. Chancellor Kohl was a child of the Europe that the Marshall Plan rebuilt and transformed. All his life, he has been a champion of the kind of Europe that Marshall's generation envisioned--a Europe where borders unite rather than divide. Chancellor Kohl, we thank you for your many years of statesmanship, and we salute you for your leadership in the present. It is my great privilege to introduce you to this audience today. (Applause.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding efforts of the city of San Bruno for its recycling program. The city of San Bruno, located in the heart of my congressional district, was the first city in San Mateo County to implement a weekly curbside recycling program. Starting in 1988, the program grew to be one of the outstanding environmentally conscious recycling programs in the State of California. The tremendous efforts of the city of San Bruno earned it numerous awards. One year after implementing the curbside recycling program, the city of San Bruno received the Helen Putnam Award for Excellence in Citywide Weekly Curbside Program by the California League of Cities. Working in conjunction with community leaders, the recycling program was able to boast that 70 percent of the city's households actively participated in recycling, compared to the statewide average of 30 percent. Since then, San Bruno received the first place award from the California State Department of Conservation and the merit of excellence for its curbside recycling program. The growing success of San Bruno's recycling effort is attributed to the proactive partnership between the San Bruno City Council, the San Bruno Garbage Co., city residents, businesses, schools, apartment complexes, and office parks. Recently, the city of San Bruno renewed its recycling effort by reinstating the San Bruno Environmental and Recycling Committee. The Recycling Committee brings together members of the community and the city of San Bruno to coordinate recycling efforts. The committee, comprised of city council members, teachers, business professionals, and residents, advises the city of San Bruno on methods to improve the recycling campaign. Empowering communities with the ability to recommend policy on environmental and recycling efforts has proven to be a highly effective technique to ensure the long-term success of this community-based recycling effort. San Bruno's newest effort is driven by the mandate from the State of California that all cities reduce their solid waste by 50 percent by the year 2000. In response to this ambitious goal, the San Bruno Recycling Committee launched its SPACE 2000 Program [Save, Protect and Clean our Environment]. This effort aims to bring recycling to the forefront of the community. In addition to focusing on government and corporate office recycling, SPACE 2000 targets youth. The SPACE 2000 program reaches out to a new generation in order to keep San Bruno an environmentally healthy community. On June 1, 1997, over 1,000 children marched for the environment and recycling in San Bruno's annual Posy Parade, the longest running children's parade in the United States. I am pleased to recognize San Bruno's proactive, leadership role in reengineering and revitalizing its environment and recycling efforts. As we move into the 21st century, conservation and recycling programs will be the cornerstone of our environmental policy. I am proud of San Bruno's efforts to strengthen community involvement, and its vision and commitment to renew, reuse, and recycle our Nation's resources.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary and heroic accomplishments of Jan Karski, and to invite my colleagues to join me in commending this man who refused to sit quietly and watch the extermination of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Mr. Karski risked his life to journey into the heart of the Warsaw ghetto and a concentration camp so that he could effectively detail and then convey the horrors of the Nazi regime to the Allied forces. Through his accounts, he is credited with providing President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the motivation to establish the U.S. War Refugee Board, an organization that saved tens of thousands of Jewish lives toward the end of World War II. Born in 1914 in Lodz, Poland, Jan Karski joined the Polish underground at the age of 25. He was caught and tortured by the Gestapo but did not divulge any information pertinent to his cause. After being rescued from a prison hospital by members of his underground organization, he disguised himself and snuck into both the Warsaw ghetto and in concentration camp. There he witnessed the emaciation, hopelessness, and subhuman conditions that characterized both by the ghetto and the camp. Mr. Karski's mission was to gather information and convey these horrors to the outside world. Upon speaking with London authorities in 1942, his frightful accounts were met with disbelief and denial. One member of the Polish National Council, Szmul Zygebojm, insisted upon hearing every detail of the squalor that Karski had witnessed, Zygebojm made a vow to do what he could for his fellow Polish Jews that were still living. A few days after his conversation with Mr. Karski, he committed suicide, despairing, and discouraged that he could not help his homeland. In July 1943, Mr. Karski met with President Roosevelt to inform him of the atrocities being committed by the Nazis and of Hitler's Final Solution. he also met with Felix Frankfurter, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. At Justice Frankfurter's request, Mr. Karski again described the horrors he had seen with his own eyes. After listening quietly, Justice Frankfurter responded, ``Mr. Karski, a man like me talking to a man like you must be totally frank. So I must say: I am unable to believe you.'' The Polish Ambassador jumped to his feet in indignation at having his young representative insulted. Justice Frankfurter explained, ``Mr. Ambassador, I did not say this young man is lying. I said I am unable to believe him. There is a difference.'' Mr. Speaker, one can only imagine the strength Mr. Karski must have possessed to constantly tell his harrowing story, only to be met with disbelief and in some cases denial. In 1944, Jan Karski wrote the book ``Story of a Secret State'' detailing his experiences, which became a bestseller. After the war, he moved to the United States where he married, became an American citizen, and received a doctorate from Georgetown University. Mr. Karski went on to a distinguished teaching career at Georgetown. His many honors and awards include the distinction of ``Righteous Gentile,'' bestowed by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem. He is also an honorary citizen of Israel, the recipient of a Doctorate of Human Letters honoris causa from Georgetown University, the recipient of a special citation by the United Nations, and the recipient of the Order virturi Militair, the highest Polish military decoration. Mr. Karski's humility is always evident. When visiting the National holocaust Museum, he came upon the Wall of Righteous, the tribute to non-Jews. He quickly passed the plaque upon which his name was inscribed, instead preferring to seek out the names of his underground comrades. Mr. Karski is quick to point out that ``the Jews were abandoned by governments, by church hierarchies, and by societal structures. But they were not abandoned by all humanity.'' He feels that he is no different from anyone else who tried to ease the plight of the Jewish people. Remarkably, he insists he did ``nothing extraordinary.'' The true nature of Jan Karski, despite his protestations, is summed up by two men whose words speak for themselves. Shimon Peres said, ``a great man is one who stands head and shoulder above his people, a man who, when surrounded by overpowering evil and blind hatred, does all in his power to stem the tide. Karski ranks high in the all-too-brief list of such great and unique personalities who stood out in the darkest age of Jewish history.'' In the words of Elie Wiesel: ``Jan Karski: a brave man? Better: a just man.'' Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the courage and selflessness of Jan Karski. He is a hero who risked his life for strangers to fulfill what he considered his duty as a human being.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Phil Friedman, founder of Computer Generated Solutions [CGS], who is receiving on June 8, 1997, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Emanuel Foundation for Hungarian Culture. This richly deserved recognition highlights the outstanding accomplishments of a remarkable man. An immigrant from the Soviet Union in 1976, Phil came to the United States with his wife, Rose, a few hundred bucks, even fewer English words, and a determination to succeed. In this new chapter of his life, Phil became a model immigrant and lived the American dream. From his business success to his impressive charitable and philanthropic commitments to his community, he has become an inspiration to all who know him. Although he was trained in both electronic engineering and in accounting and finance, Phil discovered that the first requirements of life in America were learning both the language and cutting edge skills. He went to school to learn English and study computers, while Rose studied accounting. Much to his surprise, his first job lasted only 6 months before he was laid off for lack of work. Although the shock of unemployment was a new sensation to a man from the Soviet Union, Phil landed on his feet as a programmer, and then director of management information systems, in a major apparel firm. From his experience integrating software for the firm, he developed the innovative idea that would change his life yet again. In 1984, Phil discovered that the systems integration software and techniques he had mastered could serve the entire fashion industry and not just one firm. He formed CGS and immediately landed a number of major companies as clients. In 1994, he bought out the software company on which his business depended and has invested millions to upgrade the products and remain competitive. Today CGS employs nearly 1,000 people with offices in seven major cities and business partnerships throughout Europe, North America, and East Asia. Phil's 5-year plan to expand his operations and dramatically increase CGS revenues is well underway. Mr. Speaker, Phil Friedman is a man who started with virtually nothing but the determination to not only survive, but succeed, in a new, unfamiliar, and highly competitive country. From his spectacular success he has sought to return as much as possible to his community and adoptive country. I am proud to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Phil and celebrating his lifetime of achievement.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ambassador Ronald S. Lauder who is being honored June 8, 1997, at the annual dinner of the Emanuel Foundation for Hungarian Culture. Each year the Emanuel Foundation honors outstanding individuals whose service to the community and whose dedication to teaching current and future generations the history and lessons of the Holocaust deserve the highest recognition. Ambassador Lauder's unparalleled efforts toward these worthy goals merit our praise. I am delighted that the Emanuel Foundation has chosen to honor him this year. Ambassador Lauder demonstrates his active support for culture and education in the United States through his leadership positions in some the our most distinguished institutions. He was elected chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, serves as a trustee for the New York Landmarks Conservancy and the World Monuments Fund, and is a member of the Board of Governors of the Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies at the University of Pennsylvania and the Visiting Committee of the Wharton School. Ambassador Lauder's commitment to advancing our Nation's democratic and free market principles is underscored by his activities to assist in the economic, social, and political transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. A leading proponent of private enterprise in that region and in the former Soviet states, he is chairman of the Central European Development Corp. chairman and primary stockholder of Central Media Enterprises, Ltd., and has formed RSL Communications, Inc., a company involved exclusively in telecommunications investments. He has been involved in such projects as the privatization of Hungary's oldest bank, the development of the American Business Center at Checkpoint Charlie, and the opening of NOVA TV in Prague, which is the first privately owned television station in a former Communist country. Through his active involvement the economies of the former Soviet bloc and his efforts to build free and private media resources in those societies, Ambassador Lauder is making a tremendous contributions to the future prosperity and freedom of millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe. Ambassador Lauder is being honored also for his passionate commitment to protecting and teaching Jewish culture and history, and preserving the Jewish legacy to the world. He serves as president of the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation which he founded in 1987 in response to the need to revitalize Jewish life across Central and East Europe where it has been devastated by the Holocaust. The foundation supports Jewish schools camps and community centers stretching across Eastern Europe from Austria to Ukraine. Ambassador Lauder has further demonstrated his commitment to Jewish education and cultural prosperity by this leadership activities in some of the most important Jewish organizations and institutions in American and around the world. He is chairman of the International Public Committee of the World Jewish Restitution Organization and treasurer of the World Jewish Congress. He serves as President of the Jewish National Fund, chairman of the Jewish Heritage Council, director of the International Board of Governors of the International Society of Yad Vashem, member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, member of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Theological Seminary, member of the Board of Directors of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, member of the Board of Trustees of the Anti-Defamation League Foundation, member of the Board of Trustees of the Abraham Fund, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Sakharov Archives at Brandeis University, and member of the International Board of Governors of the Tel Aviv Museum. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Ronald Lauder is a man of outstanding commitment and accomplishment in the noblest of pursuits. His contributions to culture, education, and the spreading of democratic and free market principles is truly awe inspiring. Through his vast commitments to preserving and nurturing Jewish communal life both in the United States and in Eastern Europe, Ambassador lauder has made a tremendous and enduring contribution to the education of future generations about the Holocaust. I applaud the Emanuel Foundation for choosing to honor this remarkable American citizen and I invite my colleagues to join me in applauding Ambassador Lauder's continuing mission.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week an event of historic international importance took place in Bucharest, Romania. The President of the Republic of Hungary, His Excellency Arpad Goncz, paid a state visit to Romania at the invitation of His Excellency Emil Constantinescu, the President of Romania. This visit marks a new milestone in the efforts of both countries to reconcile historical differences that have divided the two for most of this century. I have been a strong and consistent advocate and supporter of the efforts of Hungary and Romania to improve their relations. The expansion of democracy in both countries since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact six years ago has been an important element in the reconciliation that we have witnessed over the past few years. Changes in Romania have permitted that government to recognize the civic rights of the minority of ethnic Hungarians which live within the borders of that country. The recently elected Romanian Government includes, as one of the partners in the governing coalition, representatives of the Union of Democratic Hungarians in Romania. Last year, in September of 1996, the Governments of Romania and Hungary signed a ``Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness'' in the most significant concrete realization of this reconciliation to that point. These steps set the stage for the recent visit of President Goncz to Romania. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this reconciliation began under the previous government of Romania led by former President Ion Iliescu, and it has continued and expanded under the present government led by President Constantinescu. This reflects the broad national consensus in Romania in support of this effort. I congratulate the leaders of both countries on their continuing efforts to improve the relationships between their countries. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of meeting in Bucharest with the two presidents--President Goncz of Hungary and President Constantinescu of Romania--during the historic visit to Romania. On the occasion of the state dinner, which was the formal highlight of the visits, at the request of President Clinton, I read and delivered to the two presidents letters from our own President commending the two leaders for their efforts and their contribution to this unprecedented reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, I place in the Record the text of the letter from President Clinton to the Presidents of Hungary and Romania: The White House, Washington, May 22, 1997. Dear Mr. President: Please accept my congratulations and profound support on the occasion of your historic meeting with President [Constantinescu/Goncz]. The reconciliation and strengthened friendship that Hungary and Romania have pursued in recent months are an inspiration for Europe and the world. We have all witnessed too many rivalries the world over, conflicts that are not resolved but become endless cycles of recrimination and bitterness. Today, Romania and Hungary are showing that with wise leadership, democracies can chart a better course; that the values of tolerance, understanding, and common purpose can overcome division, with benefits for all. Through your meeting and the other steps being taken to cement the growing friendship between your two nations, Romania and Hungary are demonstrating that they share the deepest values of our common Western civilization and have the strength and conviction to put these values into practice to the benefit of all their citizens. I know that the governments and peoples of both nations are determined to continue on this path as they move toward joining an undivided Europe. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to House Resolution 159, the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, and H.R. 1758, European Security Act. I want to associate myself in particular with the outstanding remarks that were made earlier in this debate by our distinguished colleague from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, the ranking Democratic member of the International Relations Committee. First, Mr. Chairman, the rule being proposed by the Rules Committee today is a mindboggling travesty of the procedures of this House. Almost since the very beginning of this Congress, as the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, I have worked and my staff have worked with the chairman of the subcommittee, our distinguished colleague Mr. Smith of New Jersey and his staff. We resolved a number of difficult issues in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that I have welcomed. We worked out a good Foreign Relations authorization bill--it included provisions that involved compromise and accommodation that were carefully and thoroughly worked through with the administration and with other members of the subcommittee and the committee. The bill was considered by the full International Relations Committee where it was seriously and thoughtfully considered over a number of days. The final bill-- H.R. 1486, the Foreign Policy Reform Act--was the bipartisan product of that effort. When H.R. 1486 was considered by the Committee on Rules, the committee essentially rewrote the bill. All of this was done without hearings, without the involvement of the members of the International Relations Committee, against the previously expressed views of the chairman of the International Relations Committee, and in the back room, out of the view of the Members of this House. Mr. Chairman, if the standing committees of this House are so irrelevant, so unimportant, that their efforts are totally ignored, perhaps we should save money by simply abolishing all of the standing committees of the House. Then all of our decisions can be made for us by the Committee on Rules. My first concern then, Mr. Speaker, is that the rule for the consideration of these bills today is a total travesty of fairness and the normal procedures of this House. The second reason for my opposition to this rule, Mr. Chairman, is that the rule also provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 1758, the so-called ``European Security Act.'' This is likewise an astounding provision. During the present Congress, the Committee on International Relations has not even so much as held a hearing on the principal issues with which this legislation deals: NATO enlargement, the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It is an egregious violation of House procedures to prohibit amendments to this amendment which has never been considered by the International Relations Committee and Members have never had the opportunity to consider this important legislation. I have strongly advocated that Romania should be one of the countries invited to join NATO in the first round of expansion later this year. H.R. 1758, the European Security Act, as it is now written, does not call for the immediate admission of Romania. I would like to offer a sense-of-the-Congress provision that urges the inclusion of Romania in NATO when invitations are extended to other countries later this year. Unfortunately, I will not even have the opportunity to raise this important issue upon the floor when we consider this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have been delighted and impressed with the progress that the Government has made in moving Romania toward a Democratic political system which recognizes and copes with ethnic diversity and in moving Romania toward a market-oriented economic system. The Romanians have worked to resolve differences with their neighbors, most particularly with Hungary, with whom there have been longstanding historical differences. The Romanian people clearly desire to be admitted to membership in NATO, and I strongly believe that Romania should be considered and accepted for NATO membership in the first round of expansion. The third reason for my opposition to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that we are being asked today to begin immediate consideration of these new bills: H.R. 1757 and H.R. 1758. Both of these bills were introduced in the House only very late yesterday, after H.R. 1486 was, in effect, rejected by the Rules Committee. We are told that the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1757 is an ``open'' rule. Mr. Speaker, the ``open'' portion of the rule applies to a bill that has been available to Members only since late last night. None of us were aware that a new bill was being offered in place of the bipartisan legislation approved earlier by the International Relations Committee until today, just a few hours before it is being brought up for consideration. We have had so little time to review and examine this bill, and to draft amendments to fit with the text of the new bill, that the ``open rule'' is virtually meaningless. Two weeks ago, the Rules Committee issued a call for amendments to the Foreign Relations authorization legislation, which we were told would have to be printed in the Record before they could be considered. Now we have a totally new bill that is being considered under a supposedly ``open'' rule, but, in fact, the limited time to review it provides no opportunity for serious, thoughtful consideration of these important issues. Mr. Chairman, the fourth reason I will oppose this legislation is the highhanded way in which the Committee on Rules has altered, changed, and inserted Chairman Gilman's language on the reorganization of foreign affairs agencies. This is reform language that was not considered by the International Relations Committee. It is language that is inappropriate and premature, because the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies are now in the process of working out the realignment of the structure of the agencies responsible for the conduct of our Nation's foreign policy. The Gilman language is opposed by the administration, and if it remains in the bill, this legislation will be vetoed by the President. The new bill also drops four budget-related provisions which were included in the bipartisan legislation reported out by the International Relations Committee. Another provision dropped from this new bill was the so-called ``Lautenberg'' language regarding the definition of refugee status. Again, this provision was included in the bipartisan original legislation that was reported out of the International Relations Committee. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the rule we are considering today replaces a bill that had been developed over a long period of time with a great deal of consultation and compromise. It had bipartisan support in the International Relations Committee and among the Members of this House which had the support of the administration. Now, in place of this bipartisan bill, we will now consider a partisan bill that has not had any opportunity for thoughtful input or hearings and which has virtually no chance of being signed by the President in anything like the form in which it is now being considered by the House today. Mr. Chairman, I originally intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 1486. In good faith, I submitted that amendment for publication in the Record. I will not offer that amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose adoption of the rule, and I will oppose the adoption of the bill that is being considered by the House today if, after the amendment process, the bill is anywhere close to its present form. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this unfortunate and unfair rule. I also urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1757 and H.R. 1758 unless they are substantially amended. This is not the way that the House of Representatives should exercise its important role and responsibilities in the organization, structure and conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding musical contributions that Mr. Gallen Marshall has given to our community. Mr. Marshall, who is celebrating his 33d and final season as music director and conductor of the Masterworks Chorale and Orchestra, has devoted his life to sharing with others his love for the creative arts. He has inspired a generation of Californians with his passion for music and his talent for teaching. He will be sorely missed. Gallen Marshall joined the music faculty at the College of San Mateo in 1963 and a year later founded the Masterworks Chorale at the college. Mr. Marshall's original group consisted of 40 singers. Under his leadership, the chorale quadrupled in size and it blossomed musically as well. Mr. Marshall's singers performed with a wide range of internationally renowned organizations, including the San Francisco Symphony, the San Francisco Opera, the San Jose Symphony, the Festival of Masses, and the Cabrillo Festival. Gallen Marshall challenged his pupils to fully cultivate their musical talents, and he helped them to achieve new heights of skill and creativity. The chorale performed some of the most demanding works, among them ``Flos Campi'' by Vaughan Williams, ``Four Sacred Pieces'' by Verdi, Britten's ``War Requiem,'' and Beethoven's ``Missa Solemnis.'' Mr. Marshall's singers delighted audiences far and wide, from California to Carnegie Hall, where the chorale performed in 1989 to rave reviews. In praising the chorale, Peter E. Tiboris, the music director and principal conductor of the Manhattan Philharmonic, exclaimed, ``Without question this was one of the greatest performances of Verdi's ``Requiem'' that this hall ever heard. This is a world-class organization and your region is fortunate to have such a musical organization in its midst.'' The chorale received similarly effusive praise in response to concerts around the world, including its seven European tours and the chorale's concert series in the People's Republic of China. For over three decades, Gallen Marshall's chorale has served as one of the finest examples of bay area culture, and it has been received by the community in a manner worthy of this status. The San Francisco Examiner noted that ``choruses abound in the Bay Area, but few, if any, are finer than the Masterworks Chorale.'' The San Jose Mercury gushed: ``The Masterworks Chorale bites off immense challenges and carries them off without blinking.'' The outstanding quality of Mr. Marshall's work was cited by the Hillbarn Theater, which honored him as the 1992 recipient of its Bravo! Award for excellence and service to the arts in San Mateo County. In describing one notable performance, the San Francisco Chronicle paid special tribute to Marshall's leadership: ``Conductor Marshall's skill, as well as fidelity to the music, added a constant plus factor to the evening--a major event of the season. He deserved his ovation.'' As Gallen Marshall's congressional representative, I could not agree more. He is truly a credit to our community. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gallen Marshall for his outstanding musical achievements and to join me as well in wishing him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this week the United States and the countries of Western Europe mark the 50th anniversary of the June 5, 1947, Commencement Address at Harvard University by then Secretary of State George C. Marshall in which the idea of the Marshall Plan was first publicly discussed. That idea was an act of statesmanship, and its implementation was one of the greatest examples of bipartisan foreign policy. Secretary Marshall's address was given just 2 years after the end of World War II at a time when the economy of Europe was still in shambles. Many cities were in rubble, in most countries food was still rationed, and those factories that were still functioning were operating at only a fraction of their prewar levels. The decision by the Government of the United States to contribute to the rebuilding of Europe by sending money, equipment, and services was a major factor in accelerating Europe's recovery. It helped restore the confidence of the political and economic leaders of the countries of Western Europe, and it brought to Europe an infusion of American ideas--economic and management concepts, as well as political ideas. These have been major factors in the economic and political transformation of Europe. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, this House considered and adopted a resolution which I introduced with the cosponsorship of a number of my colleagues, House Concurrent Resolution 63, recommitting the United States to the principles of the Marshall Plan. Mr. Speaker, that resolution recognizes the wisdom and insight of Secretary Marshall's address and of the policy that resulted from it, and it recommits the United States to that wise policy first enunciated 50 years ago. I appreciate the wisdom of the House in rededicating our Nation to those principles. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post Outlook Section in its issue of May 25 published a brilliant essay by historian John Lukacs on the legacy of the Marshall Plan. Professor Lukacs is one of the most distinguished and articulate scholars of contemporary history, and he is the author of a number of important books on international politics in the second half of this century. He points out that the greatest importance of the Marshall Plan was not its contribution to European economic recovery, but the affirmation of an American commitment to the political and military security of Europe. We recognized through our unselfish implementation of the Marshall plan that our own Nation's future was linked with the security, prosperity, and democratic success of Europe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the article by Professor Lukacs be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to give it careful, serious, and thoughtful attention. The Idea That Remade Europe (By John Lukacs) The fifth of June, 1947, was a milestone in the history of the United States, and of what was soon thereafter called the Western World. Fifty years ago, in a speech to Harvard University's graduating class, Secretary of State George C. Marshall announced the European Recovery Program, later known as the Marshall Plan. It described the American government's firm resolution to underwrite the economic recovery of European countries damaged by the recently ended war and threatened by the possible expansion of international communism. The plan was a great success. It provided for generous loans, outright gifts and the furnishing of American equipment, eventually amounting to some $13 billion (or about $88.5 billion in today's dollars) tendered to 16 countries over five years between 1947 and 1952. West Germany was included among the recipients when it became a state in 1948. The Marshall Plan was a milestone; but it was not a turning point. The giant American ship of state was already changing course. Two years before, the government and much of American public opinion had looked to the Soviet Union as their principal ally, even sometimes at the expense of Britain. But by early 1947, the Truman administration had begun to perceive the Soviet Union as America's principal adversary--a revolution in foreign policy that has had few precedents in the history of this country. In 1947, this was marked by three important events; the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in March, committing the United States to the defense of Greece and Turkey; the announcement of the Marshall Plan in June; and the publication in the July issue of Foreign Affairs of the famous ``X'' article by George F. Kennan, then director of the State Department's policy planning staff, who defined a policy of Soviet ``containment.'' In a radical department from American traditions, these three statements showed that the United States was committed to defend a large part of Europe, even in the absence of war. All this is true, but perhaps a whit too simple in retrospect. The term ``Cold War'' did not yet exist, and there was still hope that a definite break with the Soviet Union--leading among other things to a hermetic division of Europe--might be avoided. Marshall's speech suggested that the offer was open to the states of Eastern Europe too, and perhaps even to the Soviet Union. One reason for this somewhat indefinite generosity was to maintain an American presence in Eastern Europe, since the plan called for the establishment of ties with the United States, including the temporary presence of American administrators. That is why Stalin refused to countenance the Marshall Plan from its inception. (As Winston Churchill had said, Stalin feared Western friendship more than he feared Western enmity.) Czechoslovakia provides a case in point. Ruled by a coalition government in which the Communists were amply represented but which was parliamentary and democratic, Czechoslovakia still hoped to remain a possible bridge between East and West. The first reaction of the Prague government was to accept the offer of the Marshall Plan. Moscow then ordered the government to refuse it, which it did--instantly. This did not surprise officials in Washington, including Kennan. By June, the division of Europe was already hardening fast. The Iron Curtain (a phrase first employed 15 months before by Churchill) was becoming a physical reality. Eight months after Marshall's speech, the Communists took over Prague. Soon after came the Russian blockade of West Berlin, the Berlin airlift, the final separation of Western from Eastern Germany, and the formation of NATO in early 1949. The partition of Europe was frozen; the Cold War was on. So, generously offered and eagerly accepted, the Marshall Plan was restricted to Western Europe. Within four years, the economic and financial recovery of Western Europe was advancing swiftly. It is interesting that the costs of the American contribution to rebuilding Europe during those first crucial years of the Cold War were about the same as the costs of the materials it had given the Soviet Union during World War II to help with the Allied victory. After 1947, not a single European country went Communist that was not already Communist in 1947--a situation that remained unchanged until the dissolution of the Soviet Eastern European empire in 1989. But the economic effects of the Marshall Plan should not be exaggerated. Its principal effect was political: a definite sign of America's commitment to the defense of Western Europe, and to maintaining an American presence there. Behind the Marshall Plan, of course, was the habitual American inclination to overrate economic factors, coupled with the inclination to think in ideological terms, to be preoccupied by the dangers of communism, rather than by the existence of Russian nationalism, including the Russian military presence in Eastern Europe. Despite the success of the Marshall Plan and of Western European economic recovery, the proportion of Communist voters in countries such as France and Italy did not decrease from 1947 to 1953. The Marshall Plan left a more long-standing legacy than recovery. It was one of the instruments of the democratization of Western Europe, resulting in the emulation and adoption of American ideas and institutions, such as progressive income taxation, Social Security, near-universal education and installment buying, all of which led to the gradual homogenization and rising prosperity of entire peoples. It included giving credit to the masses, financially and otherwise: ``On ne prete qu'aux riches''--credit is only for the rich--was not just a French aphorism but the established capitalist practice in Europe until about 1948. By the 1950s, the social structure of Western Europe was starting to resemble that of the United States. Now, this transformation is largely completed and the differences between the United States and other democratic societies are no longer mainly economic or social, but national and cultural. The Truman administration was able to push the Marshall Plan through a predominantly Republican Congress in 1947-48, in which the main opponents of the European Recovery Program were right-wing Republicans, the very people who accused Truman and his government of being soft on communism. Most of these people had been isolationists before and during the first years of World War II. Their conversion to another kind of internationalism (more precisely: supernationalism) was easy. By 1956, the Republican party adopted a platform calling for ``the establishment of American air and naval bases all around the world''--proposed by a party that was even then called ``isolationist'' by its opponents, wrongly so. The Marshall Plan in 1947 was followed, less than two years later, by the creation of NATO, an alliance that, for all its merits, contributed to a political division of Europe lasting for 40 years. With the retreat of the Russians from Eastern Europe in 1989, the Cold War--and the partition of Europe--came to an end. Some people called for a new Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe and, perhaps, for Russia. But this did not come about, for many reasons. In 1947, the United States was the only economic superpower in the world; 40 years later, this was no longer the case. In 1947, the countries of Western Europe were threatened by a possible expansion of communism; the opposite was true of Eastern Europe 40 years later. In 1947, the global financial economy was in its embryonic stage; 40 years later, principal investments abroad no longer required the principal thrust of a government. But with all of these differences in mind, there remains one similarity. History does not repeat itself, but some historical conditions do. The main beneficial result of the Marshall Plan was Western Europeans' confidence that the United States was committed to maintaining their freedom. The American commitment to Eastern Europe now is not clear. It is suggested here and there by American actions, as in Bosnia, but it is not a commitment. Yet it is in the interest of most European countries--yes, including even Russia--that a new division of Europe should not occur. The main instrument for its avoidance may no longer be an Eastern European Marshall Plan; but it is certainly not an extension of NATO.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this past week the United States and the countries of Western Europe marked the 50th anniversary of the June 5, 1947, Commencement Address at Harvard University by then Secretary of State George C. Marshall in which the idea of the Marshall Plan are first publicly discussed. That important anniversary was commemorated last week at a special celebration in the Hall of Knights in the Binnenhof in The Hague, the capitol of The Netherlands. Attending the festive occasion were the heads of state and government of the countries of the European Union and other distinguished European leaders. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, this House considered and adopted a resolution which I introduced with the cosponsorship of a number of my colleagues, House Concurrent Resolution 63, recommitting the United States to the principles of the Marshall Plan. Mr. Speaker, that resolution recognizes the wisdom and insight of Secretary Marshall's address and of the policy that resulted from it, and it recommits the United States to the wise policy first enunciated 50 years ago. I appreciate the wisdom of the House in rededicating our Nation to those principles. Mr. Speaker, representing the United States for this commemoration was our President, Bill Clinton. His remarks at the celebration represent the best of American statesmanship--recognizing the importance of our country's contribution to European recovery 50 years ago, the importance of European unification initiated under the Marshall Plan and continuing today through the European Union, and the importance for democracy of the enduring links that were forged between the United States and the countries of Western Europe by our joint struggle in World War II, through the cooperation of the Marshall Plan, and our long struggle in the Cold War. Mr. Speaker, I ask that President Clinton's remarks be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give them thoughtful attention. The Marshall Plan was truly one of the great milestones of American diplomacy, and the President's remarks in Holland place that great act of statesmanship in a fitting context. Remarks by the President at Commemorative Event for the 50th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan President Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Sedee, for sharing your wonderful story. I forgive you for stealing the matchbook from the White House. (Laughter.) In fact, just before we came in, I confess that I had heard did such a thing, so without theft, I brought him some cufflinks and some Oval Office candy for his grandchildren today. (Laughter.) Your Majesty, Prime Minister, fellow heads of state and leaders of government, ministers parliamentarian, members of Congress, to the youth leaders from Europe and America, to all of you who had anything to do with or were ever touched by the Marshall Plan. And I'd like to say a special word of appreciation to two distinguished Americans--former ambassadors, General Vernon Walters and Arthur Hartman, who worked on the Marshall Plan as young men, who have come here to be with us today. This is a wonderful occasion. We are grateful to the Queen, the government and the people of the Netherlands for hosting us and for commemorating these 50 years. The words of Mr. Sedee reach out to us across the generations, no matter where we come from or what language we speak. They warn us of what can happen when people turn against one another, and inspire us with what we can achieve when we all pull together. That is a message that we should emblazon in our memories. Just as we honor the great accomplishments of 50 years ago, as the Prime Minister said so eloquently, we must summon the spirit of the Marshall Plan for the next 50 years and beyond; to build a Europe that is democratic, at peace, and undivided for the first time in history, a Europe that does not repeat the darkest moment of the 20th century, but instead fulfills the brightest promise of the 21st. Here in a citadel of a prosperous, tolerant Dutch democracy, we can barely imagine how different Europe was just 50 years ago. The wonderful pictures we saw, with the music, helped us to imagine: some 30,000 dead still lay buried beneath the sea of rubble in Warsaw; 100,000 homes had been destroyed in Holland; Germany in ruins; Britain facing a desperate shortage of coal and electric power; factories crippled all across Europe; trade paralyzed; millions fearing starvation. Across the Atlantic, the American people were eager to return to the lives they had left behind during the war. But they heeded the call of a remarkable generation of American leaders--General Marshall, President Truman, Senator Vandenberg--who wanted to work with like-minded leaders in Europe to work for Europe's recovery as they had fought for its survival. They knew that, as never before, Europe's fate and America's future were joined. The Marshall Plan offered a cure, not a crutch. It was never a handout; it was always a hand up. It said to Europe, if you will put your divisions behind you, if you work together to help yourselves, then American will work with you. The British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, called the Marshall Plan ``a lifetime to sinking men, bringing hope where there was none.'' From the Arctic Sea to the Mediterranean, European nations grabbed that lifetime, cooperating as never before on a common program of recovery. The task was not easy, but the hope they shared was more powerful than their differences. The first ship set sail from Texas to France with 19,000 tons of wheat. Soon, on any given day, a convoy of hope was heading to Europe with fuel, raw materials and equipment. By the end of the program in 1952, the Marshall Plan had pumped $13 billion into Europe's parched economies. That would be the equivalent of $88 billion today. It provided the people of Europe with the tools they needed to rebuild their shattered lives. There were nets for Norwegian fishermen, wool for Austrian weavers, tractors for French and Italian farmers, machines for Dutch entrepreneurs. For a teenage boy in Germany, Marshall aid was the generous hand that helped lift his homeland from its ruinous past. He still recalls the American trucks driving onto the schoolyard, bringing soup that warmed hearts and hands. That boy grew up to be a passionate champion of freedom and unity in Europe, and a great and cherished friend of America. He became a first Chancellor of a free and unified Germany. In his good life and fine work, Helmut Kohl has come to symbolize both the substance and the spirit of the Marshall Plan. Thank you. (Applause.) Today we see the success of the Marshall Plan and the nations it helped to rebuild. But, more, we see it in the relations it helped to redefine. The Marshall Plan transformed the way America related to Europe, and in so doing, transformed the way European nations related to each other. It planted the seeds of institutions that evolved to bind Western Europe together--from the OECD, the European Union and NATO. It paved the way for reconciliation of age- old differences. Marshall's vision, as has not been noted, embraced all of Europe. But the reality of his time did not. Stalin barred Europe's eastern half, including some of our staunchest allies during World War II, from claiming their seats at the table, shutting them out of Europe's recovery, closing the door on their freedom. But the shackled nations never lost faith and the West never accepted the permanence of their fate. And at last, through the efforts of brave men and women determined to live free lives, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell. Now, the dawn of new democracies is lighting the way to a new Europe in a new century--a time in which America and Europe must complete the noble journey that Marshall's generation began, and this time with no one left behind. I salute Prime Minister Kok for his leadership, and the leadership his nation has given, to ensure that this time no one will be left behind. (Applause.) Twenty-first century Europe will be a better Europe, first, because it will be both free and undivided; second, because it will be united not by the force of arms, but by the possibilities of peace. We must remember, however, that today's possibilities are not guarantees. Though walls have come down, difficulties persist; in the ongoing struggle of newly free nations to build vibrant economies and resilient democracies; in the vulnerability of those who fear change and have not yet felt its benefits; to the appeals of extreme nationalism, hatred and division; in the clouded thinking of those who still see the European landscape as a zero-sum game in terms of the past; and in the new dangers we face and cannot defeat alone--from the spread of weapons of mass destruction to terrorism, to organized crime, to environmental degradation. Our generation, like the one before us, must choose. Without the threat of Cold War, without the pain of economic ruin, without the fresh memory of World War II's slaughter, it is tempting to pursue our private agendas--to simply sit back and let history unfold. We must resist that temptation. And instead, we must set out with resolve to mold the hope of this moment into a history we can be proud of. We who follow the example of the generations we honor today must do just that. Our mission is clear: We must shape the peace, freedom and prosperity they made possible into a common future where all our people speak the language of democracy; where they have the right to control their lives and a chance to pursue their dreams; where prosperity reaches clear across the continent and states pursue commerce, not conquest; where security is the province of all free nations working together; where no nation in Europe is ever again excluded against its will from joining our alliance of values; and where we join together to help the rest of the world reach the objectives we hold so dear. The United States and Europe have embraced this mission. We're advancing across a map of modern miracles. With support from America and the European Union, Europe's newly free nations are laying the cornerstones of democracy. With the help of the USIA's Voice of America, today's celebration is being heard freely by people all across this great continent. In Prague, where listening to Western broadcasts was once a criminal offense, Radio Free Europe has made a new home, and an independent press is flourishing. In Bucharest, democracy has overcome distrust, as Romanians and ethnic Hungarians for the very first time are joined in a democratic coalition government. Thank you, sir. (Applause.) From Vladivostok to Kaliningrad, the people of Russia went to the polls last summer in what all of us who watched it know was a fully democratic, open, national election. We must meet the challenge now of making sure this surge of democracy endures. The newly free nations must persevere with the difficult work of reform. America and Western Europe must continue with concrete support for their progress, bolstering judicial systems to fight crime and corruption, creating checks and balances against arbitrary power, helping to install the machinery of free and fair elections so that they can be repeated over and over again, strengthening free media and civic groups to promote accountability, bringing good government closer to the people so that they can have an actual voice in decisions affecting their lives. We have also helped new democracies transform their broken economies and move from aid to trade and investment. In Warsaw, men and women who once stood in line for food now share in the fruits of Europe's fastest growing economy, where more than nine of 10 retail businesses rests in private hands. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the international financial institutions have channeled to the new democracy some $50 billion to strengthen the foundations of their market economies. And as markets have emerged, another $45 billion in private investment has flowed from places like Boston and London to help support enterprises from Budapest to L'viv. Now, as the new democracies continue to scale the mountains of market reform, our challenge is to help them reap more fully the benefits of prosperity, working to make the business climate as stable and secure as possible, investing in their economies, sharing entrepreneurial skills and opening the doors of institutions that enable our community to thrive. Again let me say America salutes the European Union's commitment to expand to Central and Eastern Europe. We support this historic process an believe it should move ahead swiftly. A more prosperous Europe will be a stronger Europe and also a stronger partner for Europe's North American friends in America and Canada. Nations that tackle tough reforms deserve to know that what they build with freedom they can keep in security. Through NATO, the core of transatlantic security, we can do for Europe's East what we did in Europe's West--defend freedom, strengthen democracy, temper old rivalries, hasten integration, and provide a stable climate in which prosperity can grow. We are adapting NATO to take on new missions--opening its doors to Europe's new democracies, bolstering its ties to non-members through a more robust partnership for peace, and forging a practical, lasting partnership between NATO and a democratic Russia--all these things designed to make sure that NATO remains strong, supports the coming together of Europe, and leads in meeting our new security challenges. Yesterday in Paris the leaders of NATO and Russia signed the historic Founding Act that will make us all more secure. We will consult, coordinate and, where both agree, act jointly, as we are doing in Bosnia now. Now, consider the extraordinary milestone this represents. For decades, the fundamental security concern in Europe was the confrontation between East and West. For the first time, a new NATO and a new Russia have agreed to work as partners to meet challenges to their common security in a new and undivided Europe, where no nation will define its greatness in terms of its ability to dominate its neighbors. Now we must meet the challenge of bolstering security across outdated divides, making the NATO partnership work with Russia, continuing NATO's historic transformation. In less than six weeks, NATO will meet again in Madrid to invite the first of Europe's new democracies to add their strength to the Alliance. The prospect of NATO membership already has led to greater stability, for aspiring members are deepening reform and resolving the very kinds of disputes that could lead to future conflict. The first new members will not be the last. NATO's doors must, and will, remain open to all those able to share the responsibilities of membership. We will strengthen the Partnership for Peace and create a new Euro-Atlantic partnership council so that other nations can deepen their cooperation with NATO and continue to prepare for membership. But let us be clear: There are responsibilities as well. Enlargement means extending the most solemn guarantees any nation can make--a commitment to the security of another. Security and peace are not cheap. New and current allies alike must be willing to bear the burden of our ideals and our interests. Our collective efforts in Bosnia reflect both the urgency and the promise of our mission. Where terror and tragedy once reigned, NATO troops are standing with 14 partner nations-- Americans and Russians, Germans and Poles, Norwegians and Bulgarians, all in common cause to bring peace to the heart of Europe. Now we must consolidate that hard-won peace, promote political reconciliation and economic reconstruction, support the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal here in The Hague, and help the Bosnian peace make the promise of the Dayton Accord real. Today I affirm to the people of Europe, as General Marshall did 50 years ago: America stands with you. We have learned the lessons of history. We will not walk away. No less today than five decades ago, our destinies are joined. For America the commitment to our common future is not an option, it is a necessity. We are closing the door on the 20th century, a century that saw humanity at its worst and at its most noble. Here, today, let us dedicate ourselves to working together to make the new century a time when partnership between America and Europe lifts the lives of all the people of the world. Let us summon the spirit of hope and renewal that the life story of Gustaaf Sedee represents. He has a son, Bert, who is a bank executive. Today, he is helping to fulfill the legacy his father so movingly described--for just as the Marshall Plan made the investment that helped Holland's industry revive, Bert Sedee's bank is helping Dutch companies finance investments in Central and Eastern Europe. Just as the American people reached out to the people of his homeland, Bert Sedee and his colleagues are reaching out to the people in Slovenia, Latvia, Bosnia and beyond. The youngest members of the Sedee family are also in our thoughts today--Gustaaf Sedee's grandchildren, Roeland and Sander, nine months and one-and-a-half--I wonder what they will say 50 years from today. I hope that they and all the young people listening, those who are aware of what is going on and those too young to understand it, will be able to say, we bequeath to you 50 years of peace, freedom and prosperity. I hope that you will have raised your sons and daughters in a Europe whose horizons are wider than its frontiers. I hope you will be able to tell your grandchildren--whose faces most of us will not live to see--that this generation rose to the challenge to be shapers of the peace. I hope that we will all do this, remembering the legacy of George Marshall and envisioning a future brighter than any, any people have ever lived. Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, and the distinguished Democratic ranking member, Mr. Hamilton, for supporting my resolution. Mr. Speaker, the end of the Second World War found Europe at a hinge of history. And had it not been for the Marshall plan and related events, the whole history of mankind during the last half century and beyond could have turned out in a totally different and in a totally ugly fashion. The Soviet empire was ready to expand its control and influence beyond Eastern and Central Europe to Western Europe, and it was the incredible vision and courage and determination of U.S. bipartisan foreign policy leadership that stood in the way. It began with President Truman's enunciation of the Truman Doctrine, which provided economic and military assistance to Greece and Turkey at a most critical moment, followed by, 50 years ago this summer, the historic remarks of Secretary of State Marshall calling for the nations of Europe to come together, rebuild their devastated economies, and forge the framework for political democracy. I was a young student in Budapest at that time, Mr. Speaker, and it was my privilege on Radio Budapest to call on the Government of Hungary to join the Marshall plan because the Marshall plan was open to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. But of course, the Soviet Union vetoed any such attempt. And we have seen over the last half a century a differential development in Europe, spectacular economic growth in Western Europe, and devastation, destruction and backwardness in Central and Eastern Europe until the collapse of the wall in the last few years. I think it is important to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that in today's dollars, the Marshall plan represented a commitment of some $135 billion by the United States to help the Nations of Western Europe to rebuild their economies. This was the largest philanthropic enterprise in the history of the world. We went in to do good, and we did well. Europe's prosperity contributed enormously to our own prosperity. And Europe's ability to develop Democratic societies has enabled us first to prevent Soviet expansion and, with the creation of NATO, to see the disintegration of the Soviet empire. We now are at phase 2. We are now asking the question, are we going to have anywhere near the comparable, vis-a-vis Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to see to it that these countries and these peoples will also have the opportunity of developing viable economies and strong and Democratic societies. This is the opportunity for our Western European friends to show a forward-looking outlook with respect to the European Union to open up the European Union to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, just as we provided the Nations of Western Europe with the aid and assistance to rebuild their economies. It is our joint opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that as the various countries of the region qualify for NATO, we in fact open the doors of NATO so we expand the arena of peace, stability, democracy, and respect for human rights throughout the European Continent. Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to underscore that while in 1947 we were a country enormously limited in resources, we had unlimited vision on the part of our political leadership, and what we have to hope for now is that our political leadership on a bipartisan basis recognizes the same opportunities with respect to Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that the leadership 50 years ago recognized in the Marshall plan.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. As a cosponsor of the Porter bill, I merely want to commend my good friend, the Republican cochairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, for another act of legislative statesmanship. He is bringing great credit to this institution, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] for bringing this issue to our attention. I am fully in support of his efforts, and I want to identify myself entirely with the words of my distinguished Republican cochairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. It is absolutely critical that we prevent Cambodia from sliding back into violence, dictatorship, human rights violations, and terrorism; and every effort should be made, with the assistance of all of our appropriate agencies, to bring the perpetrators of this outrage to justice.