Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking and congratulating Henry and Bobbie Shaffner who composed an evocative and hauntingly beautiful musical score dedicated to Swedish humanitarian and Holocaust hero, Raoul Wallenberg. Their composition of the song, ``Wallenberg,'' together with the lyrics of Ms. Lillian Lewis, captivated an audience of over 650 people at the dedication of the bust of Wallenberg in the Great Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on November 2, 1995. The song, ``Wallenberg,'' is a tribute to Raoul Wallenberg the Swedish diplomat credited with savings 100,000 Jewish lives in Budapest in 1944. Using false passports, diplomat safe houses, and extraordinary bravery, Wallenberg repeatedly deceived and evaded the Nazis in his heroic mission to prevent the deportation of Hungary's Jews in the death camps. Wallenberg was arrested by Soviet authorities after the war and disappeared into the Gulag. His ultimate fate remains a mystery. The Shaffners' interest and concern about Wallenberg's fate grew after they read about him in a 1980 New York Times article. They joined the Wallenberg Committee of the United States decided to join those seeking to find him and honor his miraculous deeds. In 1986, the committee commissioned the Shaffners to compose an inspiring piece that would embody Wallenberg's heroic spirit. In 1992, the song was performed with the lyrics of Lillian Lewis at the committee's annual meeting in New York. Today's the Shaffners' inspirational music is part of a program titled: ``Raoul Wallenberg: A Study in Heroes'' which has been implemented in over 50 schools in New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, in kindergarten through the eighth grade. Plan call for the program to soon spread across the country. At the dedication ceremony of the Wallenberg bust, the song was performed by the U.S. Army Band, Sergeant First Class Beverly Benda, soprano, and Staff Sergeant Mary Beth Mailand, harp.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending an outstanding artist from Israel, Ms. Miri Margolin. Ms. Margolin is the creator of a bronze bust of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat whose courageous efforts in Budapest in 1944 saved the lives of as many as 100,000 Jews. The bust now stands for all time in the U.S. Capitol following an historic dedication ceremony in the rotunda on November 2, 1995. In 1920, Ms. Margolin immigrated with her family to Israel from Poland. She descends from a family of committed Zionists, all of whom have made remarkable contributions to the foundation and endurance of the State of Israel. Her father was famed for his international travels to raise support among diaspora Jewry for the Zionist dream. She and her eight brothers distinguished the family legacy through their own careers of dedication to the Jewish people and its young State. In war and peace, politics, business, and academia, the Netanyahu, Milo, Milikowsky, and Margolin families are known and respected throughout Israel. These families, and many more, traveled across America and across the globe to Washington to honor Ms. Margolin and celebrate her success on November 2. Those family members attending included Mrs. Ceila Netanyahu, Iddo and Daphna Netanyahu, Nathan and Sinai Netanyahu, Zach and Claire Milo, Amos and Anna Milo, Dr. Gil Mileikowsky, Ron and Glynnis Mileikowsky, Hovav and Alice Milikowsky, Mrs. Esther Copelon, Nathan and Rebecca Milikowsky, Daniel and Sharon Milikowsky, Ezra and Ruth Mileikowsky, Nathan Margolin, Shai Margolin, Luzi and Edna Margolin, and Richard and Michelle Harmon. Ms. Margolin's personal story as a sculptor in bronze began late in life. The defining moment came from the tragic death of her heroic nephew, Jonathan Netanyahu, who died commanding the historic rescue of Jewish hostages held in Entebbe, Uganda, Seeking a way to express her grief and feeling for Jonathan, she began to sculpt a bust of the young officer. A ceramic artist all of her life, Ms. Margolin's bust of ``Yoni'' was her first work in bronze. She then began a career immortalizing other heroes of the Jewish people. Her busts of David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres, and Moshe Dayan have earned her the highest critical acclaim--as have her busts of peacemakers past--Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, and President Jimmy Carter. Her bust of Ben-Gurion is on display at the David Ben-Gurion Library at the Kibbutz, Sde Boker. Her bust of Wallenberg, and its placement in the U.S. Capitol, is a crowning achievement. Commenting on Ms. Margolin's work in 1988, then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres wrote to her on the subject of his own bust: ``* * * I deeply admire your creative talent, certainly more than your sculpture's subject. I can tell that you truly know how to infuse stubborn, solid matter with power and content. Your watchful and confident personality gives this item, like many of your other creative works, a dominance bearing vitality, standards which create a new resonance. * * *'' On November 2, 1995, one of Ms. Margolin's most magnificent works, her bust of Raoul Wallenberg, was dedicated for permanent placement in the U.S. Capitol. In a ceremony that included speeches from Speaker Newt Gingrich of the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Speaker Birgitta Dahl of the Swedish Parliament, Speaker Zoltan Gal of the Hungarian Parliament, and Speaker Shevach Weiss of the Israeli Knesset, the life and deeds of Raoul Wallenberg were praised and honored. Ms. Margolin was recognized for her unique contribution to Wallenberg's legacy, and she warmly thanked the Congress for accepting her work. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our eternal gratitude to Miri Margolin, the creator of the U.S. Capitol's bust of Raoul Wallenberg.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking Lillian Lewis for writing the beautiful lyrics to a song dedicated to Raoul Wallenberg, the meaning of which touched hundreds of people at the very core of their being. Her words truly capture the spiritual essence of Raoul Wallenberg's heroic mission. The song is called ``Wallenberg,'' and was composed by Henry and Bobbie Shaffner in tribute to Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat credited with saving 100,000 Jewish lives in Budapest in 1944. Issuing false passports, hiding people in a multitude of safe houses, and using raw courage and bravado, Wallenberg repeatedly deceived the Nazis and saved lives. Aware of the enormous significance of Wallenberg's deeds, the Shaffners sought unsuccessfully for years for a worthy lyricist. While attending a meeting of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Lillian Lewis, a published lyricist with a major hit by Lou Rawls, was approached by the Shaffners. They spent the evening together, rode home together, and in the end the Shaffners asked Ms. Lewis to write the lyrics to their song. This request triggered a need in Lillian Lewis to know more about Raoul Wallenberg. She read about him avidly, recognized the exceptional courage and noble qualities that define him, and turned her assignment into a mission of love. Ms. Lewis was inspired to write the beautiful words that follow herein. The song and her lyrics were performed by the U.S. Army Band, Sfc. Beverly Benda, Soprano, and S. Sgt. Mary Beth Mailand, Harp, at the dedication of the bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the U.S. Capitol on November 2, 1995. Wallenberg Wallenberg, Wallenberg You're a man of special courage You risked everything for what you knew was right Wallenberg, Now the world Knows the evils you have vanquished While protecting those who had no way to fight You came to save the children first It was as if you knew That future generations would be living because of you Wallenberg, You deserve All the glory due a hero Your selfless acts are part of history In countless ways You've won our praise Forever, Wallenberg

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in the past few days, the world has celebrated the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Those of us who are from the San Francisco Bay area are justly proud that the United Nations was born in our area at the San Francisco Conference in June 1945. The congressional celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations was a reception honoring Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and Ambassador Madeleine Albright, the permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations and a Member of the President's Cabinet. That event was sponsored by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which I cochair along with my Republican colleague John Porter of Illinois. Other colleagues from the House and the Senate joined us in sponsoring this important event. There is no question that, as a result of the existence of the United Nations, the world is now a better place than it would be otherwise. It is also important to realize that U.S. participation in the United Nations has been an important positive factor in the constructive actions of the United Nations over the past half century. Furthermore, the United Nations has been an important element of American foreign policy. We have been able to accomplish through cooperative and joint efforts with the U.N. actions that would have been much more difficult or even impossible for the United States to accomplish alone. A careful examination of U.S. participation in the United Nations leads inescapably to the conclusion that we should continue to participate actively and fully in the United Nations. It is clear that the United Nations is in need of serious review and reform, and it is my hope and expectation that we in the Congress can provide impetus and support for U.N. reform. At the same time, however, it is important that, in our zeal for reform and our concern with the problems of the United Nations, we not lose sight of the vitally important role which the United Nations has played during the past half century. Mr. Speaker, the remarks of Ambassador Madeleine Albright at the congressional reception honoring the 50th anniversary of the United Nations are particularly appropriate for my colleagues to consider as we mark the United Nations' first half-century. I ask that Ambassador Albright's excellent assessment of the United Nations be included in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give serious and thoughtful consideration to her remarks. Remarks of Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright, U.N. 50th Anniversary Celebration Good evening fellow multilateralists. Now, to some, multilateralism is a sin; sort of like watching PBS or liking art. And it is true that multilateralism is a terrible word; it has too many syllables; there's a little Latin in there; and it ends in i- s-m. But supposedly, the big rivalry these days is between unilateralists and multilateralists. This is a phony debate. I have been studying, teaching and practicing foreign policy for more than 30 years, and I have yet to come across anyone who has accomplished anything without understanding that there will be times we have to act alone, and times when we can act with others at less cost and risk, and greater effectiveness. That isn't unilateralism or multilateralism--it's realism. On the things that matter most to our families, from drugs to terrorists to pollution to controlling our borders to creating new jobs, international cooperation isn't just an option, it is a necessity. And the UN is a unique mechanism for providing that cooperation. This is the UN's 50th anniversary; but reading the newspapers, you would think, at times, we were observing not a birthday, but a wake. We have such short memories. The UN at 50 is far stronger, effective and relevant than the UN of 40, 30, 30 or 10 years ago. Cold War divisions are gone; north-south differences have narrowed; the non-aligned movement is running out of factions to be non-aligned with. Measured against impossible expectations, the UN will always fall short. Measured in the difference it has made in people's lives, we can all take pride in what the UN has accomplished. It matters that the ceasefire in Cyprus is holding; that confidence is being built in the Middle East; and that Namibia, Cambodia, [[Page E 2128]] Mozambique, El Salvador and Haiti have joined the great worldwide movement to democracy. It matters that the economic pressure of sanctions has improved the climate for peace in the Balkans; penalized Libya for the terror of Pan Am 103; helped to consign apartheid to the dustbin of history; and forced Iraq to confess its program of deadly biological weapons. It matters that millions of children each year live instead of die because they are immunized against childhood disease. It matters that smallpox has been eradicated, that polio is on the way out, and that a global campaign to increase awareness about AIDS has been launched. It matters that so many families in Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, Sudan, the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Central America and Southeast Asia owe their survival to the World Food Program and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. It matters that the IAEA is working to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons across the face of the earth. And it matters that the Wars Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia will strive to hold the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and mass rape accountable for their crimes. Let us never forget that the United Nations emerged not from a dream, but a nightmare. In the 1920's and 30's, the world squandered an opportunity to organize the peace. The result was the invasion of Manchuria, the conquest of Ethiopia, the betrayal of Munich, the depravity of the Holocaust and the devastation of world war. This month, we observe the 50th anniversary of the start of the Nuremburg trials. This same month, we observe the start of the first trial of the War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. A cynic might say that we have learned nothing; changed nothing; and forgotten the meaning of ``never again''--again. We cannot exclude the possibility that the cynic is right. We cannot deny the damnable duality of human nature. But we can choose not to desert the struggle; to see our reflection not in Goebbels and Mladic, but in Anne Frank, Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi and the people who founded and built the United Nations. We can understand there will be limits on what we accomplish; without placing unnecessary limits on what we attempt. We can believe that humans do have the ability to rise above the hatreds of the past and to live together in mutual respect and peace. We can believe that justice matters, that compassion is good, that freedom is never safe and that the capacity to work effectively with others is a sign not of weakness, but of wisdom and strength. And we can recognize that the principles embodied in the UN Charter matter not because they are so easy to obtain, but because they are so terribly hard. When Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg returned to Washington from the Convention in San Francisco where the UN Charter was drafted, he was challenged by those who thought it too idealistic, even utopian. He replied that: ``You may tell me that I have but to scan the present world with realistic eyes in order to see the fine phrases (of the Charter) . . . reduced to a shambles . . . I reply that the nearer right you may be . . . the greater is the need for the new pattern which promises . . . to stem these evil tides.'' The Truman-Vandenberg generation understood that although the noble aspects of human nature had made the UN possible, it was the ignoble aspects that had made it necessary. It is up to us in our time to do what they did in their time. To accept the responsibilities of leadership. To defend freedom. And to explode outwards the potential of institutions like the UN to keep peace, extend law, promote progress and amplify respect for the dignity and value of every human being. In that effort, I ask your help.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the assassinated Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin. I knew the Prime Minister well and I have met with him frequently, most recently just 2 weeks ago when he was here in the great rotunda of this building to mark the 3,000 anniversary of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and to mark the adoption by the Congress of legislation that will move the United States Embassy in Israel to Israel's capital, Jerusalem. I wish to express to Yitzhak's dear wife, Leah, my sincere and heart- felt sympathy at the tragic personal loss that she and her family have suffered as a consequence of this senseless and reprehensible political murder. I also want to acknowledge my deepest admiration and my sincere appreciation for the heroic role which Prime Minister Rabin played-- first, as an outstanding warrior and military leader in fighting to bring security and safety to the people of Israel, and second, as a bold political leader who took great risks in the effort to bring peace to Israel and its neighbors. Mr. Speaker, international leaders from numerous countries have paid eloquent and moving tribute to Prime Minister Rabin--in statements issued at the time the world [[Page H 11851]] learned of the shocking and tragic death of the Prime Minister and in powerful eulogies to him on the occasion of his funeral in Jerusalem. I cannot add to those well-spoken phrases. I do, however, wish to call the attention of my distinguished colleagues to the profound statements of others who have spoken of Prime Minister Rabin. Mr. Speaker, last Monday, I participated in the memorial service for Mr. Rabin that was held in Los Angeles at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. On that occasion, we heard the eloquent words of Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean of the Holocaust Studies Center at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I ask that his excellent statement be placed in the Record. I also ask that the wonderful statement by Israel's Consul General in San Francisco, Nimrod Barkan, be placed in the Record. Consul General Barkan's statement about Prime Minister Rabin was published in the San Francisco Chronicle in today's edition. Eulogy Delivered by Rabbi Marvin Hier Memorial Service in Memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin--November 6, 1995 This is one of the saddest days in modern Jewish history. A day when the life of a courageous Prime Minister of Israel was snuffed out by one of our own. One supposedly schooled in law and morality, one versed in the Torah, in the Juridic principals of pluralism and democracy. What shall we say. What words are there to comfort us in this dark hour when we are confronted by a killer who has the audacity to declare, ``I do not regret what I have done. G-D spoke to me and told me to do it''. No, my friends. The G-D of Israel who commanded ``Thou shalt not kill'', the G-D of Israel who demanded of Cain . . . ``Where is Abel thy Brother?'' . . . ``His blood crieth to me from the ground''. That G-D is much too clever to speak to such a fool. Much too humble to empower such arrogance and much too noble to dignify such deception. No, it is not the words of the Almighty that the assassin heard that day, rather it is the cynical rhetoric of extremism. The anthem of fanatics that struck down Israel's Prime Minister. A climate of going beyond the pale--beyond the parameters of legitimate criticism which is the sacred rite of every democracy. A climate that allows a man to hold up a placard showing Yitzhak Rabin dressed in an SS uniform, * * * justifying it by declaring--it's an expression of my opposition to his government's policies. Such tyranny against a man who fought the Nazis when he was 19 years old during World War II when many others sat by silently. Against a man who in 1945 launched a daring raid to rescue 200 holocaust survivors that the British had interred on a Greek island. Such a placard against the deputy commander of the Palmach who kept the roads to Jerusalem open, enabling crucial supplies to get through during the War of Independence in 1948. An SS placard against the Chief of Staff who brilliantly won the six-day war and who restored the Western Wall to the Jewish people for the first time in 2,000 years of exile. A placard against a man who launched the raid on Entebbe * * * dealing a mortal blow to international terrorism. And still the placards appeared and re-appeared and no one rose up to tear them down. Such infamy breeds a climate of hatred. Such indignity gives birth to killers. Yes, even killers smart enough to work their way through law school. What is especially painful, my friends, is that we are the people who walked away from the Holocaust and yet maintained our faith in G-D! The people who walked away from the crematoria and still showed a capacity to love! The people who moved away form the valley of the shadow of death to rebuild our lives in our communities without rancor! Fostering new dreams and singing new songs of hope for a better world and a better tomorrow, just as Yitzhak Rabin did only moments before he was gunned down. Who can believe that this great leader in war and peace is no longer with us because he refused to believe that someone would open another front against him in an area where he was most vulnerable. He had successfully fought a three-frontal war in 1967 and now he was engaged in an historic three-frontal effort for peace. But he never believed that someone from within would rise up and open a fourth front against him. One that would pit Jew against Jew and one in which 2,000 years ago was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of its temple. My friends, Yitzhak Rabin is assured his place of honor in the rich history of the Jewish people. The bullet that killed him will not prevent future generations from learning the story of this noble warrior and this great man of peace who asked for nothing more than the right to bequeath his grandchildren and great-grandchildren a promised land free of war and want, rich in spirit and ideas where the words of the ancient prophet still ring true * * * righteousness, righteousness shalt thou pursue. May the memory of Yitzhak Rabin be for a blessing and may the peace he gave his life for take hold and endure forever.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of the dedication of the bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, two tributes stood out as singularly accurate reflections upon the extraordinary acts of this Swedish-American hero. The first, a letter to Raoul Wallenberg by my granddaughter, Chelsea Lantos-Swett, read at the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial Museum and again at today's ceremony has already appeared in the Congressional Record. The second, which I ask be placed in today's Record, is a letter to Wallenberg from Ms. Lillian Hoffman, who donated the bust which we unveiled today in the Capitol Rotunda. These two letters, which span four generations, are testimony to the endurance of Raoul Wallenberg's legacy and lessons. He was an inspiration to Lillian Hoffman, of the World War II generation, and, four generations later, he is an inspiration to Chelsea. I am confident that, four generations from now, our great-grandchildren will look upon Raoul Wallenberg's image in the U.S. Capitol, and reflect upon the strength of the individual human spirit and the ability of each and every one of us to make the world a better place. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to take a moment to read Lillian Hoffman's letter and to pause by the bust of Raoul Wallenberg: An Open Letter to Our Dear Friend, Raoul Wallenberg (By Lillian Hoffman) Dear Raoul: No, you are not ``the forgotten hero.'' Wherever you are, we are gathered here to celebrate your unique historic valor. We know that somewhere you are out there and very much aware of the great love and indebtedness we Americans feel for you. It is with considerable humility and emotion that we write to you to express our gratitude and admiration for your remarkable feat. The brilliant imagination, daring and compassion that you exerted to rescue over 100,000 Jewish souls was breathtaking and monumental. In the heart of every Jew there is a special memory of this accomplishment. You have long deserved this special commemoration for your contribution to all freedom-loving people everywhere. Here we stand under the historic roof of the Congress of these United States amidst our nation's leaders and friends. The echoes of the heartbeats of American heroes, whose busts are encircling us, remind us of what an exceptional privilege it is to place your bust among these heroes. My children and I are filed with immense pride to donate Mirri Margolin's bust of you to the U.S. Congress. Finally, you are being recognized and lauded for your great spirit and exceptional courage. Only in the United States could decendents of immigrants join with our nation's leaders to herald the life of a leader like you. Thank you, Raoul; thank you for showing the world what one determined individual can achieve in a daring battle against the forces of evil; thank you for restoring to so many of us our faith in mankind--the faith which is the first prerequisite, the strongest stimulant, and the greatest asset for all who seek to build a better world. With great admiration, Lillian Hoffman, Denver, CO.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in appreciation and celebration of the life of Madeleine Herling. Annette and I were very saddened by her passing, for the world was graced by her extraordinary life. Madeleine had an insatiable good will--she could not do enough for her fellow human being. She worked tirelessly as a leader at the Emmanuel Foundation, where she was a vigilant guardian of the lessons of the Hungarian Holocaust and an invaluable advocate for the rights of Hungarian Jews. Madeleine's contagious warmth and optimism could overcome any dark situation. She used these qualities to bring hope and happiness to those who seemed beyond hope, such as the occupants of an old Jewish nursing home for survivors of the Holocaust. She gave every person she met her undivided attention and devotion. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Madeleine Herling. Please join me in taking a moment to remember the many accomplishments of this extraordinary woman.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to this ill- conceived and flawed resolution. I wish to outline for may colleagues the reasons for my strong opposition. A flawed process for considering this resolution First, serious procedural irregularities along justify rejection of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime lies principally in the procedural rules that are followed to reach decisions. In a democracy we have rules that assure that full, open and fair discussion and consideration are given to an issue before a decision is taken. With great fanfare the Republican majority in this House adopted rules at the beginning of this Congress that were supposed to bring greater democracy to the House of Representatives. In practice, however, the Republican majority flaunts these rules and procedures. Today, we are considering this resolution on Bosnia without following House rules that call for committee deliberation before legislation is considered. We are supposed to have proper consultation with the minority before issues are placed upon the House calendar. None of these rules has been followed in this case. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has not even been considered by the Committee on International Relations--the committee which has principal jurisdiction. The International Relations Committee and the National Security Committee have each held one initial hearing with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those two hearings were held last week. There has been no committee consideration at all of this specific resolution. There has been no opportunity for the administration to review the text and make its position on this resolution known to the Congress. The resolution itself was only added to the schedule late on Friday of last week, and until late this afternoon, we did not even have a resolution number or a text of the resolution to review. This is hardly the way a serious deliberative legislative body should be considering major issues of foreign policy and national security. The total of 40 minutes allocated for consideration of this resolution this afternoon hardly can be regarded as adequate deliberation of an issue of this importance. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first such flagrant breach of the rules of this body. Last week the House also considered legislation moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That bill was brought to the floor without committee hearings or committee consideration. While I strongly agreed with that legislation, I cannot agree to the blatant abuse of power and the flagrant ignoring of procedure by the Republic leadership. Later today we will see yet another such example when the House Rules Committee will present a completely closed rule on the legislative branch appropriations bill. If such a egregious violation of the rules of the House had taken place under a Democratic majority in this body, the shrieks of outrage from my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle would still be echoing. This is the wrong way to conduct the serious business of the United States. These procedures are reminiscent of the regimes whose overthrow we celebrated just 5 years ago. the text of this resolution is fundamentally flawed and factually inaccurate Second, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because it is flawed; it is a document that simply boggles the mind. It puts the House on record as making a statement of the views of this House that is blatantly and completely inaccurate. The resolution says that ``there should not be a presumption, and it should not be considered to be a prerequisite to the successful conclusion of such a negotiation, that enforcement of such an agreement will involve deployment of United States Armed Forces on the ground'' in Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is such a presumption, and this resolution can and will do nothing to change that presumption. The truce agreement that was negotiated with the involvement of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, as well as the parties to the conflict--the Bosnian Government, the Croatian Government, the Serbian Government, and representatives of the Bosnian Serbs--agreed to participate in the peace negotiations that are to begin later this week in Ohio because they received assurances that the United States and other partners would participate in a peace-keeping force. If the House passes this resolution, it does not change that fact. To call black white or to call white black does not make it so--even if it is done by a resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives. the purpose of this resolution is to undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign policy Third, the purpose of this resolution is to undermine the President's authority to conduct foreign policy. No final peace agreement is in place. The President and his representatives who are dealing with the festering problem of Bosnia have made clear in public hearings with members of this body and with members of the Senate as well as in numerous public statements that no American troops will be sent to Bosnia until and unless a peace agreement has been negotiated and accepted by the parties in question. Clearly we have not reached that point. The negotiations are not to begin until Wednesday and they will take some time to conclude, U.S. troops will not be a question until a peace agreement has been reached. This resolution today is clearly intended to undermine the President's ability to deal with the problem of Bosnia. It is an effort to prevent the possible commitment of U.S. troops at some time in the future, regardless of the conditions under which they might be sent. It is an irresponsible and reckless effort to raise doubts in the minds of the participants in the peace negotiations and ultimately to undermine these negotiations. This resolution is being rushed through the House in stark contrast to the way in which the Congress considered the involvement of [[Page H 11407]] U.S. troops in the gulf war. On that occasion, President George Bush sent 500,000 American troops to Saudi Arabia. These were not troops on a sight-seeking expedition; these were troops which were positioned on the borders of Kuwait with the clear intention of preventing an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. They were in harms way; they were in danger. The Congress considered the use of U.S. troops in the gulf area in numerous hearings and in numerous meetings with administration officials. When the President and his advisors had clearly defined the scope of what was intended in that conflict, the Congress was asked to consider the use of United States troops against Iraq. The House and Senate debated that issue for 2 full days, and then voted to authorize the use of U.S. troops. The House of Representatives should reject this present ill- considered resolution because this is the wrong time to consider such an issue. The resolution is poorly worded and is solely intended to undermine the President's authority to conduct our Nation's foreign policy. this resolution articulates the wrong policy for the united states Fourth, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today articulates the wrong policy for the United States to follow. We are considering this resolution because 4 years ago the previous administration, in an incomprehensible and excusable fashion, failed to provide NATO the leadership that is now being provided. Let no one make a mistake about this. The 200,000 dead would still be alive. The million refugees would not now be refugees, but would be living in their homes. And the viable multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious community of Bosnia would continue to be a thriving community. It is important, Mr. Speaker, to realize that we did not just arrive at this point yesterday. it is vitually important for the United States to show leadership within NATO. As we have seen so clearly, NATO works when the United States exercises leadership. It is essential for the United States role in Europe and in the world that we exercise leadership. If we had shown the leadership 4 years ago, as I said earlier, we would not be facing the problems that we now face. Now that the administration is pursuing a policy that demonstrates U.S. leadership, it is important that we not undermine that effort. I am one of those--and we are a vanishing breed--that does believe that politics should stop at the water's edge. I was one of the handful of Democrats in this House to support President Bush on the uses of U.S. troops in the Gulf war. It is my sincere hope that our Republican colleagues will also see fit to support a Democratic President who is pursuing the correct course of action. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution before us today.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues have described the fundamental flaws of this disastrous bill--this bill makes huge cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs for low- and middle-income Americans in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. More than half of the $245 billion in Republican tax cuts will go to those who earn over $100,000 per year, and at the same time almost seven-eighths of middle-income families will actually pay more in taxes or will see no benefit at all from this disastrous plan. The $270 billion cut in Medicare, which is included in this bill, is three times greater than the amount recommended by the Medicare trustees--and this provision will force American seniors to pay more, limit their choice of doctors, and lead to a reduction in health care quality. This legislation abolishes minimum quality standards for nursing homes. Another provision of this calamitous legislation allows corporations to take $40 billion out of worker pension funds and use them for any purpose those corporations choose. Mr. Chairman, as I have just enumerated briefly, there are a whole host of fatal flaws in this ill-conceived piece of legislation. But in the interest of time, I would like to concentrate on a single problem in the bill. This one problem is only a single small example of the horrendous fundamental defects of this legislation. The problem I am talking about is the great pension fund raid of 1995. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, the Congress makes a decision which shows remarkable long-term foresight and wisdom. Sometimes, however, it makes a decision which shows awesome short-term irresponsibility. Today, we are about to witness such short-term irresponsibility. The Republican majority--first on the House Ways and Means Committee and now in the full House of Representatives--is marching in lock-step to approve a provision which clearly qualifies as one of the most mind- boggling examples of shortsightedness I have seen since I have served in the Congress. The Republican's self-imposed deadline to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002 has run into the brick wall of no new taxes and constituent support for continuing existing Federal programs. Now, the Republicans are desperately searching for the magic bullet that will balance the budget without cutting Government programs. In this atmosphere, some Republicans think they have found such a magic bullet. They have proposed a change in pension reserves that will raise an estimated $9.5 billion in tax revenue. The proposal does indeed sound too good to be true. Companies which maintain their own pension programs are required to fund the programs at 150 percent of current liabilities. The Republican proposal would allow them to fund their programs at only 125 percent of current liabilities. The excess in the pension funds could be withdrawn by the companies for any purpose, and taxes would be paid on those funds. The $9.5 billion in revenues are the estimated taxes that would be paid on those funds that would be withdrawn. The shortsightedness of that proposal is incredible, particularly because there is a massive potential cost to the Federal Government. If the companies are unable to fund their own pensions, the American taxpayers are left holding the bag. An agency of the Federal Government--the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation [PBGC]--is the ultimate guarantor of all of these private pension programs. If a pension plan goes belly up, for whatever reason, the PBGC has the obligation to continue funding those pensions. As the former chairman of the congressional Subcommittee on Employment and Housing, I held a series of hearings on the ability of the PBGC to handle potential defaults in private pension programs. The conclusion of my subcommittee hearings and the thorough review we undertook--as well as the review by independent Government auditors of these programs--is that the PBGC could face potentially serious unfunded liabilities if there are major pension program defaults. A modest increase in pension plan defaults will overwhelm the PGBC's resources, and the American taxpayer will be left holding a very large bag. How better to turn solemn warnings into dire reality than to reduce the corporate funding requirements of those pension plans. The short- term gain of less than $10 billion over the next 7 years--which will make a minimal contribution to balancing the Federal budget--could result in pension defaults which could cost the American taxpayer in the long run many times the minimal amount gained in the short run. This is typical of the Republican social and economic legislation that we have seen this year. The beneficiaries of this program are the corporate fat cats, who will reap a windfall because they will put away considerably less for future pension needs. The little people are the ones who will suffer. When the PBGC assumes the increased burden that will follow as more pension programs go into default, pension recipients will be cut. If the PGBC cannot meet its increased liabilities, the taxpayers--again working American men and women--will have to foot the bill. Mr. Chairman, the corporate pension windfall provision of this legislation is in and of itself amply reason for rejecting this entire budget reconciliation package. But this is only a small example of the short-term irresponsibility and reckless policy that this single bill contains. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to include in the Record a statement issued yesterday by Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich, who is also the Chairman of the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Secretary Reich's statement clearly and concisely identifies the problems with this horrendous provision of the budget reconciliation bill. Statement of Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich The legislation that Congress is considering this week is exactly the wrong thing to do. At a time when there is widespread agreement that we need to strengthen pensions and increase the savings rate, this legislation sends absolutely the wrong signal. I strongly support Congressman Matsui's proposal to strip this pension grab out of the reconciliation bill that will be on the House floor tomorrow. And I support efforts to do the same thing in the Senate. I called this a pension grab and that's what it is, pure and simple. It's an attempt to turn the clock back to the 1980s, when companies raided tens of billions of dollars from the private pension system and undermined confidence in the system. During those years, there were no restrictions on pension plans and we saw the result--billions of dollars were taken out of the pension system, and much of the money went to pay for corporate takeovers. The practice continued until Congress wisely put a stop to it with excise taxes. Now, Congress is about to remove the safeguards which have strengthened the pension system. And let's remember whose money will be taken--it will be the money earned by America's working people to pay for their retirement, money they will need to take care of themselves. The fact is simple and bears repeating: a plan which is overfunded today can quickly become underfunded next week. Changes in asset values and interest rates can reduce funding levels. Companies in financial trouble will have an incentive to strip assets from pension plans. As Congress considers this legislation, one fact should be kept in mind--last year, the pension insurance system was already running a deficit of $1.2 billion. When this administration took office, we moved quickly to address the serious problems we found with underfunded pensions. And last year, Congress acted on a bipartisan basis to pass our Pension Protection Act. This legislation would undo the protections in that legislation. This proposal should be rejected. As chairman of the board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, I'm worried about the pensions of 41 million Americans. For that reason, I urge the House and Senate to halt this pension raid--and I commend the members here today for protecting America's working men and women.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, relations between the United States and Iran are and have remained for the past 15 years at an all-time low. There are disturbing signs that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear capacity, and clearly Iran has been an unstable influence throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The United States has--wisely in my view--pursued a policy of seeking to isolate Iran and to limit economic, political, and diplomatic relations with the extremist Iranian Government. We have undertaken a major diplomatic effort to urge our allies in Western Europe and Japan to join us in economically isolating Iran in order to bring about democratic and rational change in Teheran. Mr. Speaker, I have been among those who have called for strong sanctions against Iran. Earlier this year, I proposed, and my colleagues on the Committee on International relations accepted, my amendment to the American Overseas Interests Act which would impose tough sanctions, including reduction of foreign assistance, against Russia if that country goes ahead with reported plans to sell advanced nuclear technology to Iran. I have also supported legislation to impose tougher sanctions against Iran and restrict the ability of international oil corporations to deal with the Iranian companies and the Government of Iran. The position I have taken on these issues involving Iran are taken because of my serious concern with the policies pursued by the Government of Iran, and not from any sense of irreconcilable problems with Iran. There are possibilities for change in Iran--for the evolution of government institutions that will allow the people of Iran to express their wishes through an open and free and democratic process and there are possibilities that will permit the people of Iran to enjoy the full spectrum of human and civil rights to which they are entitled. I would welcome the end of radical Islamic extremism in Iran and rejoice if we could witness the return to serious and responsible participation of Iran in the international community. The positions I have taken on U.S. policies toward Iran are motivated by that desire. Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Washington Post, July 9, 1995, published an analysis and a thoughtful, but iconoclastic, proposal about the steps that might be taken by the United States in an effort to produce the domestic changes in Iran that will make it possible to bring an end to U.S.--Iranian hostility. I am not certain that this proposal will achieve its objectives, but it has been put forward by a gentleman whose experience, insight, and thoughtfulness I admire greatly. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that this article-- ``Beyond the Great Satan How the U.S. and Iran Can Mend Their Rift''-- be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it careful and thoughtful consideration. This excellent article was written by Mr. Hushang Ansary. Mr. Ansary has an extremely distinguished record in business, government service, and diplomacy. He is an international entrepreneur with business interests in the United States, Europe, and the Pacific rim. He worked his way through high school serving as a correspondent for the International News Service and the King Features Syndicate. He later earned a Ph.D. in Economics and International Relations from the University of Seoul, South Korea. After World War II, Mr. Ansary worked in Japan, initially as a business consultant to Mitsubishi, Japan's largest trading company. In his native Iran under the previous government, Mr. Ansary served as Deputy Minister of Commerce, Minister of Information, Minister of Economics and Finance, and chairman and CEO of the National Iranian Oil Co., which at the time he served as chairman had after-tax earnings of $18.2 billion. In the diplomatic realm, he served as Iran's roving Ambassador to Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, and the Ivory Coast, and he was also Ambassador to the United States, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress, as well as the leaders of the administration, to read and thoughtfully consider Mr. Ansary's well-reasoned arguments. Beyond the Great Satan (By Hushang Ansary) The Clinton administration has taken a series of steps to further isolate Iran and tighten the economic sanctions that could throttle its economy. If successful, these new U.S. initiatives against the Islamic Republic are likely to have a far-reaching impact on the course of events in a region that supplies much of the West's oil needs. At the same time, U.S. failure to win strong international backing for its containment policy would allow Iran to continue its, pursuit of a nuclear development program, one that continues to raise questions. President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has retorted that the United States will be the ultimate loser. And so far, America's European allies and Japan have not been supportive. The latest move to raise the stakes in a decade and a half of hostility between the United States and Iran is no surprise. Secretary of State Warren Christopher has called Iran an outlaw state. President Clinton has used his executive authority to nullify an agreement between Iran and Conoco. A more alarming hint was dropped in February by Gen. Binford Peay, commander of the U.S. Forces in the Middle East, that the two countries might even become involved in military conflict. By the time the last of the American hostages returned home from Tehran just over 15 years ago, even the most optimistic knew that the historic friendship between the United States and Iran had suffered a terrible setback. Successive U.S. administrations have pursued policies of accommodation, military pressure and sanctions against Iran. Some of these policies have backfired, as in the case of the Iran-contra affair. Some have inadvertently provided trading opportunities for others. By and large, this potpourri of U.S. measures has not altered the fundamental positions of Iran. These measures have, however, helped to push Iran toward international isolation and accelerated the pace of its mostly self-inflicted social and economic ills. Even a policy of critical cooperation, advocated by Germany with French support, has not had the desired effect. Now that the Clinton administration and the new Republican majority in Congress appear to agree on placing Iran high on the agenda of U.S. foreign policy, is it not time to address the Iranian dilemma at its roots? The United States may hold to its current course of isolating Iran, but it has to reckon with all the international forces at work on this issue. Russian and Chinese nuclear agreements, and German and Japanese debt refinancing, give evidence of the fragility of the administration's approach. This appears to be a propitious time for a different approach and it is, therefore, worth considering how relations between the United States and Iran might be set on a new course. Iran is now facing mass unemployment, double-digit inflation, falling productivity and massive foreign debt. The value of the Iranian currency, the rial, dropped from 75 to the dollar in 1977 to 6,000 at one point. Iran's GNP per capita is now less than half its 1977 level. Iran is also feeling the weight of diplomatic isolation. Sixteen years after the revolution, the only Western head of state to have paid a visit to Tehran is Kurt Waldheim, the former Austrian-president. Economic and governmental disorder have unleashed political forces beyond the control of the radical clergy. In recent months, Iran has faced a number of industrial strikes and anti-government demonstrations. Important social groups, including lawyers, doctors, bazaar merchants, retired military officers, writers and journalists, having publicly challenged the government and its policies. Even the Shiite Muslim clergy, initially the backbone of the revolutionary regime, has asserted its independence. Some senior ayatollahs have said publicly that they would support new policy makers and policies capable of turning the economy around and ending the nation's diplomatic isolation. The constant theme of these dissenting voices is a call for a new political course, one freely chosen by the Iranian people. As the level of dissent rises, there is reason to believe that even some of the more extreme elements of the regime, their customary rhetoric notwithstanding, may now be inclined to consider a plan that would address the country's economic disorder and diplomatic isolation. General elections are scheduled in 1996 and presidential elections in 1997. A workable plan, properly monitored and performance-related, could have a positive effect on these two crucial events. Such a plan should let the people of Iran normalize the state of the nation. At home, it should aim for democracy, respect for human rights and an agreeable quality of life. Abroad, it would need to restore the image of Iran as a responsible member of the United Nations, ready to live in peace with all other nations. In the first phase of such a plan, Iran would have to take appropriate steps, in keeping with its constitution, to dismantle the bureaucracy it created to cope with the problems of the early years of the Islamic revolution. These steps should include the rehabilitation of those unjustly deprived of their civil rights on the basis of their political beliefs, the repeal of laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity and faith, and the removal of restrictions, often unconstitutional, on freedom of expression, association and election. The normalization of political life in Iran would facilitate the no less complex task of bringing the country's foreign policy into line with its international obligations. This would, of necessity, include measures to dispel any notion that Iran supports international terrorism and the assassination of dissidents abroad. Iran would also need to cease its campaign against the Middle East peace process, adhere to the now renewed version of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and take steps to make credible its announced decision not to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran could also facilitate visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross to prisons where it is alleged that prisoners of conscience and members of religious and ethnic minorities are being held, often without charges being filed. It should allow international human rights organizations access to its officials and open itself to the international media in the normal manner. Linking its response to Iranian performance, the United States would need to give evidence of its own willingness to make positive contributions. First steps would include establishing a timetable for the final settlement of all outstanding claims between the two countries and for the release of the remaining Iranian assets, setting up a procedure in which sanctions against Iran would be lifted in stages and normalizing visa requirements for Iranian nationals visiting the United States. The United States could encourage the formation of a Council on Trade and Economic Cooperation with Iran with the participation of the leaders of the U.S. business community. The United States might also form an appropriate body to advise on various aspects of U.S. Iranian relations. While policies are obviously formulated by governments, this could help mobilize private resources in the service of the new set of foreign policy objectives as containment gives way to rapprochement. In the next phase, Iran would resume its quest for democracy that started almost 100 years ago. The Iranian people would be given the opportunity to return to the electoral process and the organization of presidential and parliamentary elections in line with the provisions of Iran's constitution. These elections should be open to political parties of all denominations and conducted in a verifiably fair fashion. The last phase of the plan would thus begin in an atmosphere of stability, without which all attempts at reviving Iran's economy through domestic and international cooperation will remain tentative and fragile. At this point, the Council on Trade and Economic Cooperation with Iran, having completed its initial studies, would be in a position to sponsor a series of conferences designed to help Iran reintegrate into the world-economy and to realize its economic potential, estimated to reach $100 billion in annual trade and economic opportunities. The stage could thus be set for the Middle East to open a chapter in regional economic cooperation--possibly including Central Asia, which hungers for peach and development--an enterprise that could foster opportunities not dissimilar to those in the Pacific Rim nations. Moderate Arab nations too would be helped to accelerate the pace of their social and economic transformation, and the way would be paved for a more constructive relationship between the West and the world of Islam as a whole. Is this farfetched? It is no more farfetched than the thought of a visit to Jerusalem by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War or the thought in the mid-1980s that the Berlin Wall could be brought down before the end of the decade. The Middle East has always dealt with logjams that block the normal course of its politics through courageous steps that have defied conventional wisdom. History belongs to those who do not merely contemplate the sour aspects of present reality, but labor with persistence to give birth to new possibilities of hope.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues' attention to an excellent analysis of the difficult issues surrounding a possible United States troop deployment in Bosnia by our former Secretary of State and my good friend, Dr. Henry Kissinger. The article, which appeared in last Sunday's Washington Post, rightfully calls for Presidential leadership and congressional approval for a well-defined and realistic mission in Bosnia--including American military forces. Dr. Kissinger offers a persuasive argument for why a U.S. participation in such a NATO mission is necessary, and he identifies the dire consequences for inaction. The President has extended a ``commitment of U.S. troops for every foreseeable contingency,'' according to Dr. Kissinger, and therefore must lead Congress and the American public in a discussion of American objectives in the Balkans. I enthusiastically agree with Dr. Kissinger's call for an open and frank discussion of these extremely important matters, and I hope that a debate of this magnitude, on an issue where American lives will be at stake, will not be tainted by partisan politics. I made that point during the recent International Relations Committee hearing on this issue with Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, Secretary of the Treasury William J. Perry, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili. In the past partisanship stopped at the water's edge, but lately, unfortunately, our Nation's foreign policy has become a domestic political issue, and this has made it increasingly difficult to conduct a rational and effective international policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read and carefully consider the issues raised by Dr. Kissinger and to fully participate in the upcoming debate. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 22, 1995] What Is the Mission? (By Henry Kissinger) President Clinton's pledge to contribute 25,000 American troops to a peacekeeping force for Bosnia has been greeted with a mixture of resignation and uneasiness. Resignation because, despite deep misgivings, it would be a grievous blow to NATO if America failed to back an agreement it had negotiated on behalf of NATO--an agreement that U.S. air power, buttressed by British and French ground forces, played a major role in bringing about. And uneasiness because failure to fulfill the president's promise would almost certainly lead to the withdrawal of British and French forces, testing yet another presidential promise: that U.S. troops will protect any allied withdrawal. To send troops when there is ambiguity regarding the objectives, rules of engagement or relationship of NATO to non-NATO forces such as Russia's would be to stockpile dilemmas that the passage of time would be sure to magnify. Therefore, the administration, Congress and NATO must clarify goals and strategies in Bosnia. The agreements they reach must be incorporated into the peace negotiations slated to begin Oct. 31. Far better to pay the price to delay than to have a NATO peacekeeping effort break down under the weight of its internal contradictions or of American domestic pressures. Repeating the experience of Somalia, where an ill- defined commitment concluded in ignominious withdrawal, would gravely damage America's leadership position in the world as well as in the Atlantic Alliance. Recent American efforts to bring peace to Bosnia have been constructive. American power was used skillfully, and our negotiator Richard Holbrooke has displayed persistence and ingenuity. Nevertheless, before we go any further we must examine the two ``commitments'' made by President Clinton that created the dilemma on the horns of which we are in danger of being impaled. The first was to promise some 10,000 troops to assist in the withdrawal of British and French forces should our NATO allies abandon their effort. The second was to pledge an American contingent of 25,000 toward a NATO force of 50,000 if a Bosnian peace agreement is concluded. Both undertakings, amounting to a commitment of U.S. troops for every foreseeable contingency, represented attempts to ease immediate pressures without examining the full implications. The commitment to facilitate British and French withdrawal was designed to provide a safety net to encourage our allies to continue NATO's role in Bosnia. If a peace agreement fails, the nearly inevitable British and French withdrawal is expected to last 24 weeks, assuming such a redeployment is possible at all. Whatever the schedule, a situation in which American forces were being committed while allied forces were progressively being reduced could tempt the three Bosnian ethnic rivals to involve us in their brutal struggle, whether by inflicting casualties to speed up withdrawals or by trying to incite us against ethnic enemies by committing atrocities that would be blamed on the other side, as has already happened. And at a moment when our allies had washed their hands of the whole affair, our military commitment would become increasingly lonely. Thus the deployment of American forces to cover a British and French retreat is the most precarious option. But an American refusal to police a settlement would be likely to make such a deployment unfavorable. I opposed the War Powers Act when it was legislated; current domestic realities, however, permit no other choice than to obtain clear and unambiguous congressional backing. As a first step, the administration must answer these threshold questions: What exactly is the peacekeeping force supposed to protect? And how do we measure success? Until now, the administration has been extremely vague (or perhaps merely confused) about its political objectives. This ambiguity may have been helpful in encouraging the cease-fire negotiations but when it comes to determining what is to be safeguarded, ambiguity is dangerous and, in the end, self- defeating. Two schools of thought have dominated the debate about America's objectives. The first treats Bosnia as a case of Serb aggression calling for a collective response by the world community or NATO or the United States. Convinced that Serbia should be punished, this school of thought would fortify the Bosnian Muslims with American arms, instructors and perhaps air support to resist pressures and reestablish a multi-ethnic, unitary state. Advocates of this approach consider a cease-fire tantamount to collusion with aggression, and are willing to agree to American peacekeeping forces only to provide a secure basis from which to compel dissident Serbs and Croats to return to a unified Bosnia. The other point of view sees Bosnia as an ethnic conflict sparked by thoughtless NATO decisions in 1991 to treat Bosnia as a unitary state, which it is not and never has been. Composed of Croats, Serbs and Muslims united only by their common determination never to be ruled by either of the other groups, the resulting--nearly inevitable--ethnic conflict was waged with the barbarities unfortunately characteristic of all its forerunners. While the Serbs initiated the present round of slaughter, they would no doubt hark back to comparable depredations inflicted by Croats and Muslims within the memory of most family groups. Early resistance by the Western allies to ethnic cleansing might well have stopped the outrage, but by now too many brutalities have been wrought by all groups against their enemies to envision coexistence under a single government as a realistic option. Indeed, such a project would court resumption of the slaughter. Any change in territorial boundaries by any side would produce ethnic cleansing; the quest for a unitary state is therefore a prescription for open-ended war and continued suffering. So far the administration has tried to carry water on both shoulders. Its policy has promoted a cease-fire, which implies partition, while its rhetoric has advocated a unitary, multi-ethnic Bosnia that is unachievable without continued war. Our action on the ground is not synchronized with our rhetoric. As a result, the peacekeepers could end up in an intellectual as well as physical no man's land. Is the central government entitled to try to extend its authority? Can the various ethnic enclaves receive arms from the outside? Who controls the armed forces of the state and how? We need to stop dodging the central issue. An independent, ethnically diverse Bosnia would require a concerted Western strategy with a vast program of troops, arms and training and constitutional tutoring for an indefinite time. Are we and our allies prepared for a program of transforming peacekeeping into nation-building--as we were not in Somalia--and for the casualties it entails? Would it actually work? How would other countries, especially Russia, react? The three ethnic groups have in effect been separated by the revolting ethnic cleansing they have practiced. The so- called Croat-Muslim federation is a fraud. No Muslim authorities are permitted in Bosnia's Croatian territory, and the currency remains Croat. Therefore, the first question to be settled is what the peacekeeping force is supposed to protect--the dividing lines between ethnic groups or the borders of a unified Bosnia? If it is the former, the political goal must be partition; if the latter, we need to be prepared for an open-ended, brutal conflict. Ironically, a continuation of the war in the name of a unified Bosnia is likely to be most disadvantageous to the original victims, the Muslim community. For it is likely to result in the partition of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia. Bosnia is not Haiti, where we can declare victory while the country relapses into historical squalor under only slightly modified oppression. In Bosnia, fudging the issue spells continued conflict; the only outcome that has a slight chance of surviving a time limit is partition, and even that is unlikely to be effective in the one-year period that so many American experts believe will be imposed by our electoral timetable. It will not do for the president to try to propitiate media and congressional concerns by assuring his interlocutors that American troops will not be put in harm's way, as he has done in some recent comments. In Bosnia, troops are inherently in harm's way. And if we insist that the front lines be manned primarily by allies, with little U.S. participation, we will undermine the NATO alliance. What the American people, Congress, and the allies must hear is precisely what the risks are in Bosnia, why they must be run and over what period of time. And we must ask ourselves where we will be a year from now, after casualties have been suffered and journalists and other observers report that they can discern no moral distinction among the warring parties. No magic solutions are available to avoid the need for clarity and purpose. Defense Secretary William Perry mentioned a time limit of one year for American peacekeepers. He has yet to explain what will have changed in one year and who will then take on the burden if ethnic hatreds persist. The feasibility of withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground that cannot possibly be predicted at this juncture. Nor will the use of American peacekeepers to arm and train the Bosnians change the problems described here. I favor abandoning the arms embargo, which in any event does not seem to have inhibited the Croats (and through them, the Muslims) from developing a significant military capability. But no military aid program, even backed by American instructors, can change the demographic realities in which Serbs and Croats between them outnumber the Muslims nearly 10 to one. If we want an ethnically diverse, unitary Bosnia, we must be prepared to pay the price--which is not peacekeeping but the support of one side in a civil war. At the same time, if American peacekeepers are deployed for whatever purpose, care should be taken to convey determination, Doubt and hesitation will invite attacks to speed our departure. Reducing the size of our troop contribution too much might also have the effect of limiting the risk to potential violators. Adversaries must understand in advance that attacks on the peacekeeping force will not, as in Somalia, go unpunished. Endurance becomes vitally important if non-NATO, especially Russian troops join the peacekeeping operation. Given Russia's historical ties to Serbia, a Russian role in negotiations is desirable, and a Russian role in peacekeeping could prove useful, provided we are ready to maintain a symmetry of commitments. Still, it would be ironic if Russian peacekeepers on the Serbian side and NATO peacekeepers on the Muslim side moved an East-West confrontation line from the Elbe to the Drina. And if we leave precipitately, we tilt the scales toward Serbia and enhance Moscow's influence in the Balkans--all in the name of peacekeeping. The deployment of troops to Bosnia is a fateful decision requiring a full national debate that, in the nature of our system, must be led by the president. He must clarify America's political objectives--especially our view of the relationship of the three ethnic groups to each other--and explain the rules of engagement, the risks and the duration of our commitment. There must be public agreement with our allies about strategies and rules of engagement. In addition, the Bosnian parties must agree on dividing lines and undertake not to change them by force. And Congress must unambiguously endorse the program. The word of the president is a national asset not to be trifled with; the cohesion of NATO remains a vital national interest. But we serve these causes only by devising undertakings that can command consensus and be sustained over a period of time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today Members of Congress will have the opportunity to meet with His Excellency Juan Carlos Wasmosy, President of the Republic of Paraguay, who is visiting the United States. Mr. Speaker, President Wasmosy is the first civilian constitutional President of Paraguay in over half a century, and he has worked diligently to move his country and society along the path of democracy, social justice, and market economic development after years of the dictatorship of General Stroessner. As my colleagues know, the Stroessner regime permitted a number of leading Nazis, including Josef Mengele, to find refuge in Paraguay. I am delighted to report that under President Wasmosy important changes are being made in Paraguay's policies. As my colleagues also know, terrorism has been a particular concern of mine. President Wasmosy has been a good ally in the effort to deal with Middle Eastern terrorists. Earlier this year, President Wasmosy courageously withstood pressure to release seven individuals arrested in Paraguay in connection with the bombing last year of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which resulted in the death of nearly 100 people. The Paraguayan courts ordered the extradition of these individuals to Argentina. For these actions, Bnai B'rith commended the Paraguayan Government. Mr. Speaker, I commend President Wasmosy for his conscientious efforts to change the policies and the political culture of Paraguay. The institutionalized negative impacts of the Stroessner dictatorship have left a legacy that is difficult to eliminate. Paraguay still faces difficulties in dealing with international drug traffickers, and we in the United States must intensify our efforts to work with the government of President Wasmosy to eradicate this vicious scourge. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in welcoming to the Congress His Excellency Juan Carlos Wasmosy, President of the Republic of Paraguay.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1114, legislation which would overturn existing child labor protections prohibiting young people under the age of 18 from loading paper balers and compactors. I oppose this legislation because I believe that any weakening of current child labor standards will only lead to more exploitation and endangerment of our Nation's most precious resource-- our youth. As the former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Employment and Housing which investigated workplace injuries of minors, including the death in 1988 of a 17-year-old boy who was crushed while operating a paper baler at the direction of his supervisor, I am appalled that this Congress is about to take this dangerous and ill-conceived step. This legislation will unfortunately result in more tragic deaths and injuries involving our Nation's teenagers. In 1989, my subcommittee found that, although minors are prohibited by law from operating balers and compactors, serious injuries and deaths occur because the law is ignored by employers. According to the latest figures available from the Department of Labor, this tragedy continues. There were six fatalities involving paper baling machines between 1993 and 1995. In 1991, the most recent statistical year available, more than 50 accidents were reported involving minors and paper balers. Children have suffered amputated limbs and crushed bones. I do not want to imagine how many more of our children will suffer once these regulations are loosened. Mr. Speaker, it has become popular these days to question regulations without considering the important reasons behind the regulation. Some regulations are out-dated and should be repealed; this regulation emphatically should not be repealed. A paper baler is not merely a recycling bin or a waste paper bin. It is a large, dangerous machine that can severely injure a careless, untrained, or inexperienced worker. It has a power-driven steel plate which crushes and compresses paper into a tight mass. The paper is then secured by steel straps or wire. When the baler is hand-fed, an arm or a hand can get caught and crushed. A worker can receive serious lacerations to the face or other parts of the body if there is an accidental release of the baling steel or wire. The legislation before us today would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to permit minors to load balers and compactors and provides a legal and occupational justification for minors to be present while a baler is being operated. I oppose any effort which will increase the proximity of minors to these machines, even if minors are not actually turning the machines on. It does not take a genius to figure out that permitting children to work in and near these machines will increase the likelihood of serious injury and death. Let me cite a few examples of the horrific injuries which can occur when minors were allowed or were directed to work illegally in the vicinity of paper balers and compactors: An 11-year-old boy was loading paper boxes in a paper baler at the C- Town Food Corporation in the Bronx, NY, when his arm got caught in the baler which pulled his body up against the machine and crushed him. He died as a result of internal injuries. A 16-year-old girl at an IGA Supermarket in Michigan was loading cardboard boxes into a paper baler and started the machine. When she reached down to pick up a loose piece of cardboard, her smock became entangled in the machine. The baler dragged her right arm in and tore muscle and tendon. A 16-year-old material handler in Yadkinville, NC, got his hand caught in a baler while loading it and suffered a crushing injury to his hand. A 16-year-old lost the tip of his index finger while operating a box compactor at Gordy's IGA in Chippewa Falls, WI. These accidents occurred despite a regulation that prohibits minors from loading or operating paper balers. It is our duty to ensure that our youth are employed in occupations which do not expose them to unnecessary safety risks. The Congress can do much more to provide our young people with opportunities which provide safe and sound work experience which contribute to their development into responsible, confident, and able-bodied adults. I will not support legislation which will expose our children to needless risk or put them in harm's way. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the legislation we are considering, S. 1322--the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995. Symbolically, this is an important and an appropriate gesture for the United States to make at this particular time. This week we commemorate the anniversary of the date 3,000 years ago when David, the King of Israel, captured the city of Jerusalem and made it his capital. Under David and his successors, Jerusalem became the religious and political and emotional center of Israel, and it remains so to this very day. Mr. Speaker, almost 12 years ago--in November of 1983--I introduced legislation in the Congress that was identical in purpose to the legislation that we are considering here today. At that time, a majority of the Members of the House cosponsored this legislation, and a majority of the Members of the Senate cosponsored the identical bill which was introduced in the other body by the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Then--as now--this legislation had broad bipartisan support. Our distinguished colleague, Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, was the principal cosponsor of our bill in the House, and a broad bipartisan group of our Democratic and Republican colleagues joined us in cosponsoring the bill. I might add that there were fewer Republican cosponsors at that time, in part because there were fewer Republican Members of the House in those days. I might add that 12 years ago, the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan and his Vice President, George Bush, opposed our legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed important changes since 1983 and 1984--changes which now make the adoption of this legislation more timely and appropriate. The peace process has transformed the Middle East. The Government of Israel has taken bold steps in a courageous effort to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. The end of the cold war has created the fundamental conditions that have permitted this peace process to move forward. U.S. administrations have played a critical role in encouraging and facilitating this peace process--administrations of both parties with the bipartisan support of the Congress. The Bush administration played a major role in starting the process following the victory of U.S.-led forces in the gulf war. The Clinton administration continued actively to encourage, cajole, and support the process, culminating in the signing ceremony on the White House lawn in September 1993. With the support of the United States, a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan has been signed, and agreements have been signed regarding Palestinian administration of Palestinian-inhabited territories and arrangements for democratic Palestinian elections. Although conditions in the region have changed that now permit us to move forward on this legislation, the arguments and reasons for adopting this legislation have not changed over the past 12 years. Mr. Speaker, the United States maintains diplomatic relations with 184 countries. In virtually all of these countries where we have a resident Embassy, our Embassy is located in the capital city. When the Government of Brazil decided to move its capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia, the United States moved its Embassy to the new capital. When the Government of Saudi Arabia, which until a few years ago indicated that it would like to have Embassies located in Riyadh, the United States Government followed traditional diplomatic practice and constructed an Embassy building in Riyadh. This is as it should be. An Embassy should be in the same city as the Government to which it is accredited. In one case, however, our Embassy is not located in the capital city--despite the expressed desire of the house country that this be done. Although Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our Embassy is located in Tel Aviv. Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 1949. Presidents of the United States, Secretaries of State, United States Ambassadors, Members of Congress--all have done business with the Government of Israel at the seat of government in West Jerusalem. When Anwar Sadat of Egypt paid a historic visit to Israel and addressed the Israeli Knesset, he spoke at the Knesset building in West Jerusalem. Moving the U.S. Embassy to West Jerusalem does not affect any of the issues surrounding the peaceful resolution of the Palestinian issue. West Jerusalem has been an integral part of Israel since 1949 and this has been recognized by all nations with whom Israel maintains diplomatic relations. An analogy with the situation in East Germany prior to the unification of Germany just 4 years ago this month is particularly appropriate in this case. The Government of East Germany claimed that East Berlin was an integral part of its territory. The United States, however, did not recognize this claim and maintained that East Berlin and West Berlin had a unique status guaranteed by the four occupying powers--the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain and France. Nevertheless, when the United States established diplomatic relations with East Germany in 1971, we located our embassy in East Berlin. At that time the State Department affirmed: The United States Government proceeds on the basis that the locations and functions of an American Embassy in East Berlin, where it will be convenient to the government offices with which it will deal, will not affect the special legal status of the Berlin area. We were broadminded enough to enunciate and observe this rational principle in dealing with a communist dictatorship which sought to undermine our own treaty obligation for all of Berlin. Why should we not follow the same rational principle in dealing with a democratic ally? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the adoption of this legislation. The time has come to end inconvenience, inefficiency, and expense by moving our Embassy to Israel's capital city--Jerusalem. [[Page H 10688]]

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the progress and success that has been achieved by Bulgaria in the past 5 years, as the Government of Bulgaria has implemented a number of democratic reforms. Since that transformation, there has been considerable progress, although these times of change and instability have been difficult for many of the Bulgarian people. The relationship between the United States and Bulgaria has improved steadily since 1990, when the authoritarian Communist government was replaced by a democratically elected government. There have been a number of concrete indications of the growing cooperation between our two countries. In early 1991 our two countries completed a bilateral trade agreement, and as a consequence of that agreement, most-favored- nation trading status was extended to Bulgaria in November 1991. Thanks to Bulgaria's progress, the House passed a bill earlier this year to grant permanent MFN trading status to Bulgaria. Several decisions have been made recently confirming the commitment of Bulgaria toward strong bilateral cooperation with the United States. These decisions include revoking export licenses from two arms trading companies for irregularities in their trade operations. The Bulgarian Government has taken positive steps to provide restitution of property, both private and communal, to individuals of Jewish descent. In addition, the Bulgarian Parliament has taken steps to strengthen and improve export and visa regulations, and it has reaffirmed support of the United States-supported peace program for Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, Bulgaria has been a source of stability in the Balkan region and this steadiness has contributed to preventing potential expansion of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Bulgaria has maintained its policy of noninterference in the affairs of other countries of the Balkans. With regard to humanitarian concerns, Bulgaria has been actively involved in providing humanitarian assistance and shelter to refugees from the regions of conflict. I commend our colleagues in the Bulgarian Parliament for their efforts and their legislative actions to ensure Bulgaria's transition to a democratic government and the full implement of market economic reforms. The dedicated members of the Bulgarian Parliament have played a critically important part in the progress, thus far, and I am sure will continue to play an essential role as this transformation continues and succeeds.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute and expressing deep appreciation to a truly outstanding American, my good friend, the courageous and inspirational Rabbi Arthur Schneier. Rabbi Schneier has earned his place among the great leaders in human rights of this century with his tireless efforts on behalf of the world's victims of ultranationalism, religious persecution, ethnic cleansing and intolerance. He has risen above religious differences to establish the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, which has, for 30 years, brought together Roman Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, and Islamic religious and lay leaders to solve the problems that face our globe. As a young man, Rabbi Schneier led a highly successful campaign to recruit young people at a time of religious disaffection in the 1960's to a program at the Park East Synagogue which eventually became a seven-story day school cultural center that continues to attract young people and currently educates 250 children. This effort, begun in 1965, was the beginning of an extraordinary career in religious leadership for Rabbi Schneier. That year, he recruited and led a group of political and religious leaders for an Appeal of Conscience rally protesting religious repression in the Soviet Union. Rabbi Schneier then established the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, which continues to this day to provide effective and increasingly influential leadership on behalf of religious freedom and human rights throughout the world. Just a few weeks ago, Rabbi Schneier met with Pope John Paul II to discuss the problem of radical nationalism around the world and its inevitably negative effects on human rights and religious freedom, particularly the prevalence of anti-semitism and xenophobia in troubled countries. The Appeal of Conscience Foundation and Rabbi Schneier have been involved in a wide range of the world's most intractable problems and most egregious human rights violations. From meeting with Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev to discuss United States-Russian relations to meetings with the Presidents of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia to discuss a lasting peace in that troubled region, Rabbi Schneier has taken it upon himself to provide inspirational and effective leadership that has won him praise around the world. Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Schneier is an inspiration to all Americans. He has taken his wealth of good will, tenacity and intelligence and brought his message to the forefront of international discussions. He has championed an issue that touches us all--the protection of the most basic human rights and the freedom to practice one's chosen religion. It is with the deepest appreciation and most heartfelt thanks that I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Rabbi Arthur Schneier.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this economically bankrupt proposal that will damage seniors and children. Today, the House is considering the so-called Medicare Preservation Act. Naming it does not make it so. We could just as well call this legislation the End of Medicare as We Know It Act. One of my favorite stories about Joseph Stalin relates to his manipulative use of labels. He designated the Soviet satellites of Eastern Europe ``People's Democracies.'' The label did not make these enslaved countries either democratic or popular. When the Soviet-dominated international Communist movement wanted a snappy title for its newspaper, Stalin came up with a real show- stopper. The newspaper was called: For a Lasting Peace, For a People's Democracy. The strategy was simple--make capitalists mouth a Communist political slogan when they quoted the newspaper. The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist parties were hardly committed to peace or democracy, but the slogan got considerable mileage. Today, Mr. Chairman, we have the same type of subterfuge being carried out by the majority in this body. They have given this economic monstrosity a politically correct title, ``The Medicare Preservation Act of 1995''. This legislation will neither preserve nor protect Medicare. It will simply strip away benefits to America's most vulnerable and voiceless citizens of our country in order to pay for an outrageously large tax break for the wealthiest individuals. I have several names to propose for the legislation that we are considering today, Mr. Chairman. First of all, this could be called ``The Robin Hood in Reverse Act of 1995.'' It clearly deserves that title. It robs the poor to give to the rich. A $270 billion cut is unnecessary to save Medicare. Democratic alternatives--the one we are permitted to consider today as well as others that should be considered--would keep Medicare solvent without imposing a huge burden on our senior citizens. The reason we have this economically irresponsible legislation is so the Republicans can offer a $245 billion tax cut to the wealthy. Second, we could call this legislation Bash the Seniors Act of 1995. Premiums for our senior citizens will increase by some $400. Since a third of all seniors barely get by on their monthly Social Security checks, this Republican legislation will force seniors to choose between health care and food, or between health care and heat, or between health care and rent. Third, we could logically call this The Them That Has Gets Even More Act of 1995. While our low-income seniors--those in the sunset of their lives--will be forced to dig deeper in their meager resources. Meanwhile, those earning over $100,000 a year will receive half of the Republican tax break. Furthermore the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will get an average tax break of $19,000. Those who need this tax break least are the ones who get the most, while costs for our seniors are increased. [[Page H 10343]] Mr. Chairman, I could continue with a number of other titles for this legislation, all of which would more accurately describe the impact of this ill-named, ill-conceived, ill-considered sell out of our senior citizens for the benefit of special interests. My point is clear. This is poor legislation. It should be rejected. I urge my colleagues to repudiate this ill-named bill.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the leadership James D. Wolfensohn is displaying in his new role as the President of the World Bank. At the Bank's annual meeting this past week in Washington, Mr. Wolfensohn unveiled his ambitious blueprint for the global development agency's role in a changing world. He is fully cognizant of the difficulties facing the organization, but emphasizes the new opportunities for the Bank, the donor countries, and the recipient nations to forge a more effective partnership. Of course, Mr. Wolfensohn has been forging productive partnerships in the business, academic, and philanthropic communities throughout his long and distinguished career. Prior to joining the Bank, Mr. Wolfensohn was an international banker who played a prominent role in the performing arts. Before assuming the presidency of the World Bank on June 1, 1995, Mr. Wolfensohn was the chairman of the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. From 1980 to 1991, as chairman of New York's Carnegie Hall, he oversaw the much hailed renovation of this treasured national cultural landmark. Mr. Wolfensohn also held several key positions in the international community in addition to leading the World Bank. He is chairman of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University as well as the finance chairman of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. In addition, he is an honorary trustee of the Brookings Institution and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record some highlights from Mr. Wolfensohn's address to the Board of Governors of the World Bank Group at their joint annual discussion on October 10. I think he offers sound advice on the future of multilateral development assistance that all of us would do well to consider: Excerpts of James D. Wolfensohn's Address to the Board of Governors of the World Bank, October 10, 1995 ``We have made good progress on poverty reduction in several areas--in East Asia and some parts of Latin America. But there are still 1.3 billion people living on a dollar a day or less. Adequate sanitation and electricity are still beyond the reach of two-fifths of the world's people. ``This shocking poverty is fueled by continuing rapid population growth--increasing by more than 80 million people a year, 95 percent of them in the developing countries. And it is compounded developing world. . . . ``It strikes me as bitterly ironic that just as we are reaching a consensus on how to address these challenges in our changing world, the threat to development assistance has never been greater. I refer here specifically to the funding crisis facing our concessional affiliate, the International Development Association--IDA. . . . ``. . . IDA is the backbone of the international effort to help the poorest nations help themselves. And yet, despite the record, there is a serious question about the fulfillment of some donor commitments under IDA-10 (covering the years 1993-1996). Budget cutting by the U.S. Congress has led to delays, and probably large reductions in the size of the contribution by IDA's leading donor. And for every dollar cut by the United States, IDA could a total of $% as other nations reduce their contributions proportionally. ``This means that if congressional estimates of a U.S. cut of approximately 50 percent materialize, overall donor contributions to IDA this coming 12 months could be reduced from $6 billion to under $3 billion. Achieving an adequate IDA-11 (covering the years 1996-1999) for the next three years will be extraordinarily difficult if IDA-10 is reduced so drastically. This is not only a threat to IDA, it is a threat to the long-term viability of multilateral financing for development. ``As Michael Camdessus (Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund) has pointed out, if there is a seriously underfunded IDA, we will be faced with a world of increasingly unstable nations. . . . ``The donor community needs to understand the cons of an underfunded IDA. We must explain that world citizenship has a price and that IDA is central to the whole development process. National budget cutting exercises in the developed countries must give due weight to international considerations. Money saved now for domestic purposes will lead to huge costs later. It is the donors' own self-interest to maintain an adequate level of support. ``Obviously, IDA and its partners in government and civil society must be accountable--and must be seen to spend scarce resources wisely and well. There must be a `compact': that in return for the donor community ensuring IDA has adequate resources, recipient countries and the bank must ensure that those resources are used more effectively. Projects must be well managed and corruption eliminated. In addition, we need to provide better information about the benefits of this important work to donor governments--and to their voters. . . . ``From my experience in the private sector I know the power of partnership. This was reaffirmed during my recent travels (to China, Mexico, and the West Bank and Gaza). . . . ``We must deepen our cooperation--as we have begun to do-- with the UN system, the IMF and the WTO. We can expand our cooperation with the private sector--which plays such an increasingly important role in development. And we can do much more to reach out to NGOs and civil society. Let me also pay tribute to the regional development banks with whom we work, and to their leaders who have given me so much advice and help. . . . ``Of all our partnerships, we must remember that the most important is that with the governments to which we lend--and the people that they serve. It is a point worth repeating: we must get closer to our clients. This will mean continuing to strengthen our field presence, while maintaining a very strong base at the center. At the same time, we must be mindful that the projects we finance are not World Bank projects--they are Chinese, or Haitian, or Malawian projects. But it is for the countries to own them and be responsible for them.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of Taiwan celebrated the anniversary of the 1911 revolution in China which led to the overthrow of the last imperial dynasty and the establishment of the Republic of China under Dr. Sun Yat-sen. This was a critically important event in the history of modern China, and it is highly appropriate to commemorate this event as the watershed moment for the beginning of democracy in the Republic of China in Taiwan. We hope that one day it will also be commemorated as a turning point in the struggle for democracy in the People's Republic of China as well. In a formal speech marking this important anniversary, President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan urged the Government of the People's Republic of China to respect the democratic system of government and the free market economic system that are now in place in Taiwan. President Lee said that China cannot resist the trend toward freedom and democracy, and that respect for Taiwan's democratic system of government is ``the most important precondition for Chinese reunification.'' The people and Government of Taiwan have made great progress in democratic development, and President Lee deserves particular commendation for his critical role in this process. Next March, the people of Taiwan will have the opportunity to participate in the first direct Presidential election. This development reflects the changes that have taken place throughout Taiwan in recent years. The evolution of a strong democratic tradition on Taiwan is something that all of us can welcome. Mr. Speaker, I join in extending my warmest best wishes and heartiest congratulations to the people of Taiwan on their national day, and I wish them great success as they continue their democratic development. Government officials in Beijing should take note of the outstanding progress that has been achieved on Taiwan in a flourishing democracy.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in welcoming Dr. Margaret A. Huber as the 16th president of the College of Notre Dame in Belmont, CA. As Dr. Huber is inaugurated, I am confident that her proven leadership abilities will allow the college to build upon its foundation of success and its commitment to the education of the whole person. Dr. Huber will lead the College of Notre Dame into the 21st century as an elite institution in the world of academia. Upon earning a bachelor of science in chemistry from Duquesne University, a master of science administration from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, and a Ph.D. in higher education at the University of Michigan, Dr. Huber began her administrative career in Santa Fe, NM. There she served as the executive director of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe Catholic Foundation, distinguishing herself as a future leader. From there, Dr. Huber moved to La Roche College in Pittsburgh, PA. Working as president of the college from 1981 to 1992, she helped to increase the enrollment by 47 percent and the gifts by an outstanding 1000 percent. Dr. Huber also created long-range planning and budgeting processes which helped in the redirecting of the mission of the college. Throughout her distinguished career, Dr. Huber has been honored by a number of organizations, including Zonta International with their Status of Women Award. Arriving at the College of Notre Dame, the first accredited all women's college in the State of California, Dr. Huber has drawn from her experience at La Roche College by developing a new master plan and creating new marketing and technology plans for the college that will be put into practice next year. She continues to strive towards the goals of preparing the students of Notre Dame to be better citizens, to be aware of the world and its affairs, to develop stronger characters and self confidence, and to build a sense of community among all the students. According to its mission statement, the College of Notre Dame is ``dedicated to the search for truth, the transmission of knowledge, and the appreciation of beauty.'' I am confident that Dr. Huber will devote herself to these pursuits, thereby making the College of Notre Dame the best it can possibly be. Leading the College into its third century of existence, Dr. Huber's efforts to fulfill the goals of the College have already spurred growth in the college's many programs. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, please join me in wishing Dr. Huber all the best as she sets about her difficult but extremely important task of educating the leaders of our future.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, United States participation in the United Nations Conference on Women, which was held in Beijing in early September, was far more controversial in the United States than it should have been. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of American participation because the conference was held in China and, clearly, the human rights record of the Beijing regime is appalling. Others expressed concern about the supposedly ``radical'' agenda of the conference. Mr. Speaker, I defended United States participation in the conference as appropriate and useful in several International Relations Committee hearings on that issue. I feel strongly that participation was in our interest. This was a U.N. conference, not a Chinese conference. The agenda and the procedures were agreed to by the member states of the United Nations, not dictated by the Chinese Government. I personally opposed the decision of the Bush Administration to accept Beijing as the site of the conference. But I recognize that it was the executive branch's prerogative to make that decision. Those who argued that we should have refused to participate ignored the fact that our absence would have been detrimental to our Nation's standing in the world and would have eliminated all possibility of our influencing the work of the conference in galvanizing the international community into meaningful action to advance the status of women. Mr. Speaker, many countries shared the concerns that were expressed about U.S. participation, but they decided that the best option was to go to Beijing and engage in the most open forum possible under the circumstances. We fully realized that the Chinese would attempt to place severe limits on freedom of action, and they did so. At the same time, however, our delegates protested these violations of internationally recognized rights. Our presence in Beijing and the presence in Beijing of a large gathering of non-Chinese from all over the world had important repercussions on that very closed society. The voices of our American participants were heard, and our American women brought to the conference unparalleled commitment, expertise, experience, vision, and the passionate commitment to a free and open society. Mr. Speaker, Judy Woodruff, an outstanding journalist and an anchor and senior correspondent of CNN, was one of the many international correspondents who attended and reported on the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing. In the Washington Post, October 1, 1995 she gave her assessment of the conference. Ms. Woodruff has given us an excellent evaluation of the results of the conference. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ms. Woodruff's article be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to give careful attention to her thoughtful views. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 1995] Beijing: A Real Picture . . . (By Judy Woodruff) Since returning earlier this month from 2\1/2\ weeks of covering the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, I have been repeatedly asked what it was like to arm-wrestle muscular Chinese security men amid nude protesters while reporting on the dominant issue of lesbian rights. The Chinese police, uniformed and plainclothed, were ubiquitous, carrying out the orders of a government determined to minimize contact between foreigners and the Chinese population. The security was at times oppressive; there were hall ``monitors'' in most hotels. Buses were unreliable and conditions were especially difficult in Huairou, where the 32,000 nongovernmental organization (NGO) delegates were forced to gather, largely isolated, as the Chinese had wanted. All of them put up with relentless rain and ankle-deep mud in order to move from one workshop to another. But the picture, fed by conservative critics, of a festival of radical feminism where ideas germinated in the West were spread aggressively among wide-eyed disciples from the rest of the world, didn't match the conference that I covered. Despite some of China's anti-women practices--a one-child policy that has led to frequent abortion of female fetuses, for example--it was fitting the conference was held in the world's most populous and dynamic continent. The Far Eastern Economic Review--hardly a beacon of radicalism--noted: ``Just as Asia has outstripped the rest of the world in economic growth, so too has the continent experienced more than its share of the attendant social dislocations and what is termed in conference jargon the `feminization' of poverty.'' Indeed what the Beijing conference really was about was tens of thousands of women--and more than a handful of supportive men--who raised the money and carved out time to travel long distances to discuss and exchange valuable information about their work promoting health, education, and economic opportunity for women and girls and preventing violence. Some whom I met and interviewed for CNN were particularly memorable. Merab Kiremire of Lusaka, Zambia, who three years ago started a program to give prostitutes information and skills to get them off the streets and into jobs. ``I want to tell the world,'' Kiremire said, ``that a lot of African women go into prostitution not because they want to but because they have no other alternatives.'' Since 1992, Kiremire has helped more than 150 prostitutes move to different occupations but also has seen dozens of women become sick with HIV infections, some of whom have died. She is a passionate advocate of the need to devote more resources to women's health and education. Stories of violence against women and exploitation of women were pervasive at the conference, both at the formal U.N. session and at the NGO meeting. Jacqueline Pitanguy of Rio de Janiero runs an organization that tries to help domestic workers, who she says are paid little for their long hours, yet are devalued by society and physically isolated, making it hard for them to speak out about their plight. Back in Rio, she told me the conference Platform for Action ``gives us international legitimacy . . . so in moments of difficulty . . . [public policy makers can't argue] what I'm saying is crazy; it can be supported by a document to which my country has agreed.'' Among the many remarkable mothers and daughters who came together to the conference were Estefania Aldaba-Lim and her daughter, Cecilia Lazaro, from Manila. Aldaba-Lim, an official delegate and a former minister of social development and welfare in the Philippines, told riveting stories about her work during the past two decades with the ``marginalized members of the population,'' the more than 55 percent of women in her country who are impoverished. They have been victims of incest, abuse and violence in the home; many have been forced to migrate to the United States and elsewhere to work as domestics to send money back to support the families they left behind. Anyone who doesn't understand the pain of a young mother leaving her children behind in order to try to provide some minimal economic security, ought to talk with Aldaba-Lim and Lazaro. The daughter, a television journalist, is just as eloquent: She says her mother, who was widowed at an early age, is her role model--a woman of privilege who has worked tirelessly for the less fortunate of her country. Despite tight restrictions, the sessions had a visible effect on some Chinese women there. Chen Shu Yun, from the ancient capital of Xian, is a senior engineer and international trade specialist who is on the standing committee of the provincial people's congress in her home. Steering clear of publicized controversies in her country, Chen nevertheless came away determined to help women get better access to schooling and jobs. ``Before this, I didn't pay enough attention to women's problems,'' she said, adding she plans to go back to per provincial government and suggest ``a special group for the women's affairs. We have the special group . . . for the economic, for the industry, for the foreign affairs, but not for the women affairs.'' To the skeptics who dismiss the Beijing conference as an inconsequential event in the world of serious international affairs, that will be true only if international and grass- roots organizations don't hold governments accountable. And to those who argue there was a dangerous political agenda at work, that is true only if you believe there is something dangerous about helping 70 percent of the world's poor, who happen to be women.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Before making substantive comments, I would like to express my appreciation to my good friend from Michigan, the gentleman from California, Chairman Thomas of the Committee on House Oversight, to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking Democratic member of the committee, and to the scores of colleagues in this body and in the other body who over the years have paid tribute to Raoul Wallenberg. Specifically, in connection with this resolution are Senator Warner of Virginia, Senator Stevens of Alaska, Senator Ford of Kentucky, and Senator Pell of Rhode Island. I also want to express my appreciation to two colleagues who have over the years been steadfast in their recognition of Wallenberg's unique heroism, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Gilman, and Senator Moynihan of New York. Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is so much partisanship in this body, it is wonderful to have a moment of high nobility on a bipartisan basis. As my good friend from Michigan indicated, 50 years ago Raoul Wallenberg, son of a most distinguished Lutheran family in Sweden, risked his life leaving behind the comfort, the safety and the security of neutral Sweden to come to Nazi-occupied and war-torn Hungary to save innocent lives. Through his heroism, 100,000 innocent human beings were saved. Raoul Wallenberg did this heroic feat of larger than human proportions at the request of our own Government. My first legislative act, Mr. Speaker, in 1981, was to introduce a resolution making Raoul Wallenberg the second honorary citizen of the United States, second since Winston Churchill was the first. The House and the Senate had approved that legislation, and in a special Rose Garden ceremony, President Reagan signed the bill making Raoul Wallenberg the second honorary citizen of the United States. A decade ago, through legislation, we succeeded in renaming a portion of the street where the Holocaust Museum is located as Raoul Wallenberg Place. Raoul Wallenberg Place is now the official address of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Last year, as my friend from Michigan indicated, Congress passed legislation to accept a statue of Raoul Wallenberg, donated to the Congress by an American citizen, Ms. Lillian Hoffman of Colorado. The Swedish Government donated the marble pedestal on which the bust will be located. We are now dealing with a special dedication ceremony scheduled for November 2. All of our colleagues are cordially invited. We expect the legislative and executive branch of our own Government to be present at the highest levels. The Government of Sweden, Hungary and Israel will be represented with appropriate officials. We will have in our Nation's Capitol a tribute for all eternity honoring the heroism of a human being, who went beyond himself, who recognized that true satisfaction comes only from serving others, in this case in sacrificing his own life so others may live. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to approve this resolution.'

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last evening a delegation of the Members of the U.S. Congress hosted a dinner in honor of our colleagues of the European Parliament who are here in Washington for the semi-annual meetings between delegations of our two legislative bodies. The current meeting between our two [[Page E 1893]] delegations is the 44th meeting since this parliamentary exchange began not long after the European Parliament was established. Last night our two delegations had the honor and pleasure of hearing from our distinguished Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot. His remarks were not sugar-coated, and they were not the light fare of an after dinner speech. Deputy Secretary Talbot gave us a very sober, thoughtful, and insightful analysis of the impact and consequences of the various appropriations and authorization bills that have been adopted by the House and Senate thus far this year. Fortunately, none of these bills have yet been approved by both Houses, and none have been enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we fully understand the effect of these pieces of legislation before the members of this body uncritically vote again for the unfortunate legislation that has been approved already by one of the Houses of Congress. I ask that Deputy Secretary Talbot's remarks of last night be placed in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely urge my colleagues in the Congress to give serious, thoughtful, and careful consideration to these views. Prepared Remarks by Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbot, Congressional Dinner in Honor of European Parliamentarians Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representatives of the European parliament and of the diplomatic corps, members of the House and Senate, friends and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen: it's an honor to be here with you tonight. I want to join the rest of you in offering my thanks to Ben Gilman for his hospitality. Mr. Chairman, I bring greetings from Secretary Christopher, who is now at an event honoring the Israeli and Palestinian statesmen who, a few hours ago, took another bold step toward a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. Today's landmark agreement--like those in September 1993 and August 1994 that preceded it--is in no small measure the result of hard work by European, as well as American, diplomats. Today's good news also reflects bipartisan cooperation here in the United States going back over two decades and several Administrations, Republican and Democratic. Leaders from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill have played an essential role in securing the funding for the Middle East peace process. I can only hope that in the future the same kind of cooperation--between the two branches of our government, and between our two parties--will be possible on other issues of abiding concern. As everyone here knows, the Clinton Administration and the 104th Congress have some serious differences, notably over the amount of money that Congress is prepared to allocate to the conduct of American foreign policy. There is a lot at stake in how this issue is resolved. If the cuts suggested by Senate appropriators are put into law, the State Department would be forced to close as many as a quarter of our posts worldwide--some 50 embassies and consulates, including in Europe and the Middle East. Other proposed cuts would force the United States to fall even further behind in its payments to international organizations. That would result in clear violations of our international obligations, including our Treaty obligations under the UN charter. These cuts would make all but impossible the kind of initiatives that have supported the Middle East peace process. The case for continuing American engagement in the world may be self-evident to everyone here this evening, but I'm not sure that it is obvious to all of your constituents, who include the citizens of Galway, Ireland, and Genoa, Italy, and Regensburg, Germany as well as those of Tampa, Florida, and Middletown, New York, and Bakersfield, California. Let me offer an explanation for why some in the United States are flirting with ideas and proposals that are isolationist in their potential consequence if not in their motivation. During the Cold War, many Americans defined what we were for--and what we were willing to pay for, and even fight and die for--largely in terms of what we were against. There was a world-class dragon out there for us--if not to slay, then at least to contain in its lair. For most Americans, the principal objective of American foreign policy--and the principal purpose of our diplomatic activity and military presence in Europe--could, quite literally, be reduced to a two- or three-word slogan: ``Contain Communism,'' or ``Deter Soviet aggression.'' There was, on the home front of American foreign policy, little doubt or dispute that we had a vital national interest in supporting institutions, and participating in ventures, that enabled us to protect ourselves and our Allies from the Red Menace. Today, the rationale for vigorous American international engagement--and for the resources to support it--will no longer fit on a bumper sticker. But it can fit easily enough into a single paragraph, which might go something like this: At the heart of President Clinton's foreign policy--and underlying much of his domestic policy as well--is a recognition that the world is increasingly integrated and a determination to make integration work in our favor. Integration means that, for good or for ill, one nation, region, or continent is susceptible to influences from others. Distances are shorter, borders more permeable. Commerce and culture ride the jet stream, the air waves, an the fiber-optic cables, to the betterment of all of us. But so do crime and terror, to our common peril. Those scourges, along with nuclear proliferation, infectious disease and environmental degradation, are truly international problems that demand international solutions. That means we must not only revitalize and enlarge existing institutions and arrangements and habits of cooperation, but we must also put in place new ones. The purpose of such enlargement, revitalization and innovation should be to make sure that the ties that bind us together are positive--that they benefit and strengthen us, individually and collectively; and that they enable us better to deal with common threats and enemies. Therefore, it is no less important today than it was during the nearly fifty years of the Cold War that the United States remain engaged in the world--and especially, I stress: especially in Europe. I emphasize the transatlantic dimension of America's international role not just because I am speaking to visitors from across that particular ocean. And not just because the ties between the United States and Europe date back to our colonial origins. I do so because what happens in Europe is key to what happens everywhere else. The Cold War was a global struggle. But it began in Europe, and it ended there. It is in Europe that, together, we are establishing the guiding principles of the post-Cold War era. It is also there that we are facing the most daunting tests of our ability to concert our energies and our wisdom--and thus to defeat the most serious threats to our common interests and our shared goals. As Secretary Christopher said last June in Madrid, ``every generation must renew the [Transatlantic] partnership by adapting it to meet the challenge of its time.'' The challenge for our generation is in large part economic and commercial. As leading economic powers, the United States and the nations of Europe share an interest in a vibrant open trading system. That means that we must apply to the elimination of trade barriers the same far-sightedness and sense of common purpose that we applied to tearing down the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. And there still are such barriers, both between Western and Central Europe, and between the European Union and the United States . The need to eliminate these barriers takes on added importance in light of the worrisome long-term economic trends that the transatlantic community faces--stagnant income growth in North America, and stubborn unemployment in Europe. We can certainly do better--and that means better by our own people--if we further open our markets to one another. Let me, if I may, now speak about integration and cooperation in the realm of our common political values and our common security interests. The goal of peace, stability and cooperation among nations is as near fulfillment in Europe as it is anywhere on earth; but it is also in Europe that this goal faces one of its greatest dangers. That may sound paradoxical, but it is actually quite natural, since Europe has been the site of both the best and the worst in human history, especially in this century. Europe is, after all, both the birthplace and the graveyard of fascism and communism. The political culture that nurtured, if that's the word, the monstrosities perpetrated in the name of Kark Marx and in the careers of Hitler and Mussolini also made possible the realization of the dream of Jean Monnet. So it is understandable that Europe today, as this century comes to an end, should provide the most promising and advanced example of integration--dramatized by the very existence of a European Parliament--while, simultaneously, it confronts us, in the former Yugoslavia, with the most vexing and dangerous example of disintegration. Over the past four years, the tragedy and horror in the Balkans has occasioned a good deal of finger pointing back and forth across the Atlantic. That is as understandable as it is regrettable. After all, when it seems too hard to fix a problem of this magnitude, it is all too easy to fix the blame on someone else. But in recent months, and particularly in recent weeks and days, the situation, while still perilous, has become more hopeful. A turning point came, I believe, at the London Conference in late July. That gathering of seventeen nations crystallized the resolve of the international community to back diplomacy with force, and it streamlined the mechanism for doing so. The day before yesterday, Secretary Christopher, Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke, and EU special envoy Carl Bildt announced another breakthrough in the negotiations over the constitutional underpinnings of a Bosnian peace settlement. As we speak, Ambassador Holbrooke is flying back to the region for more negotiations. When future historians write the history of this episode-- the worst conflict in Europe since the end of World War II and the first major threat to peace on the Continent in the post-Cold War era--they may give us credit for getting it right, although they will unquestionably regret that we took so long to do so. I, for one, will settle for that verdict. But I also hope that future historians will note that we drew the right lessons. And first among these is the need for the United States to work with individual European [[Page E 1894]] governments as well as with collective European institutions to prevent such conflicts in the future, and to increase our capacity to resolve them if they do occur. There are many organizations that have vital roles to play in this regard, notably the OSCE. But as we are now seeing in the Balkans, the two most important institutions are, and will continue to be, the EU and NATO. The EU is the foundation for future economic growth and prosperity across the continent, while NATO is the bulwark of transatlantic security and the linchpin of American engagement in Europe. Let me say a word about why both should take in new members. Over the past six years, virtually all of the peoples of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union have undertaken dramatic reforms. They have toppled communist dictatorships, liberalized command economies, and begun the hard work of building stable, secure, independent, democratic, market- oriented and prosperous states, at peace with their own populations and at peace with their neighbors. But those reforms are not guaranteed to continue or succeed. All of these countries, whether they have gained their freedom for the first time or recovered the sovereignty that they lost earlier in the century, are embarked on a difficult transition that will take years, if not decades, if not a generation or more. It is in our interest as well as their own that they succeed. That is why the United States is counting on the European Union to expand. Only the EU can offer the newly liberalized economies of these newly liberated nations the markets they need to continue and complete their evolutions. Only EU membership can lock in the essential political, economic and social reforms that these emerging democracies are now implementing. We understand the political difficulties involved in expansion. We know that the candidate members will have to work hard to meet the conditions of membership. But we also hope that current EU members will approach the question of expansion with an open mind, understanding the benefits to all. Now, a few words about NATO-an organization that includes twelve members of the EU but that also serves as an anchor of American and Canadian commitment to the Continent's security. Earlier today, NATO Secretary General Willy Claes held a briefing in Brussels for representatives from twenty-six nations in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union on the rationale and process of NATO enlargement. This morning, as part of President Clinton's commitment to full consultations with Congress, we provided staff members with that same briefing. As today's briefings make clear, the enlargement of NATO will bolster democratization and regional stability in the region that used to be the domain of the Warsaw Pact. But this process is going to require skill and steadiness in many respects. We must--pursue the goal of NATO enlargement in a way that genuinely and comprehensively advances the larger one of integration; that does not, in other words, create a new division in Europe. With that imperative in mind, the Alliance is well on its way to developing new ways to promote cooperation with the armed forces of the non-NATO European states. Under the banner of the Partnership for Peace, nations that have been enemies in the past are now conducting joint peacekeeping exercises: Albanians and Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, Hungarians and Romanians. In August, soldiers from three Allied and fourteen Partnership countries trained together at Fort Polk in Louisiana; another set of exercises will begin in Vyskov in the Czech Republic this weekend; and starting on Monday there will be a maritime training maneuver in the Skagerrak Channel off the north coast of Denmark. In order to ensure that NATO enlargement does indeed serve the larger cause of post-Cold War integration, the Alliance is prepared, in parallel with the process of bringing in new members, to conduct a dialogue, and eventually to develop a more formal relationship, with the Russian Federation. That way, all parties will be assured that the emergence of the new security order in Europe respects, and enhances, their legitimate interests. This goal may sound rather abstract, but we have, in the work that our governments are doing with the Russian Federation today, an opportunity to make cooperation between NATO and Russia concrete, practical, productive and promising, both for the immediate cause of peace in the Balkans and for the long-range one of European security and integration. Earlier today, President Clinton and Foreign Minister Kozyrev met in the White House and agreed that Russia and the members of NATO have a shared interest in cooperating closely in implementing the settlement that will, we all hope, emerge from the current negotiations. Of course, any U.S. participation in a peace implementation plan will be under NATO command and control, and we are committed to full consultations with the Congress as the planning unfolds. So the paradox of the former Yugoslavia can, I believe, still be turned to a net advantage for the future of Europe: the most immediate and dangerous challenge we face offers a historic opportunity for pan-European and Transatlantic cooperation. In the relatively near future, peacekeepers from NATO and former Warsaw Pack countries could be working side- by-side to implement a peace settlement. Let me close with reference to a European city that is not represented by any of you here tonight: Sarajevo. In 1914, its citizens heard the first shot of what became known as the Great War, the conflagration that plunged Europe into darkness. Seventy years later, another generation of Sarajevans were the hosts of the 1984 Olympic Games. They distinguished themselves, however briefly, in the eyes of the world as a model multi-ethnic, multifaith community. Serbs and Croats--Orthodox, Catholics, Jews and Muslims--lived together in harmony. For most of the past four years, this same city has been besieged; its citizens struck down by snipers and torn limb from limb by mortars; its outskirts the site of mass graves for the victims of genocide. But there is now some hope that this same city could, before this year is out, be universally recognized, including by Serbia and Croatia, as the capital of a unitary state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In which case it would be, once again, as it was during the Olympics eleven years ago, a symbol of Europe's--and the world's--noblest aspirations. We might dare to imagine that a politician from Sarajevo may, in the not-too-distant future, take a seat in the European Parliament. In that capacity he or she might even have the honor, as I have tonight, of addressing a meeting of this biannual interparliamentary gathering. Of course, that will happen only if the current negotiations stay on track, and that's a very big if indeed. So it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of the evening tonight, you'll be serving us coffee and not champagne. It's too early to celebrate a victory or congratulate ourselves on success. There's plenty of hard work ahead. But it's not too early to see where we want to go and to reaffirm our determination to get there together.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the House voted recently to approve the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission's recommendations to close additional military bases in California with strong opposition from many in the California Congressional Delegation. We opposed the Commission's recommendations on national security grounds and because the economic impact--particularly on California--will be enormous. We opposed the Commission's recommendations because we have very serious concerns about the effect of base closures on California's economy--particularly since our State has sustained a disproportionate number of job losses stemming from previous rounds of military base closures. Although there are no military bases slated for closure in my congressional district, I oppose the closures out of concern for the citizens of California who are being asked to bear a disproportionate burden of military downsizing. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address an issue which I do not believe has received enough attention by the Congress. I am concerned that in the rush to close military bases we are forgetting about the impact of these decisions on the civilian employees who have dedicated their lives and their careers to strengthening and maintaining our Nation's defense. I am concerned about the impact of base closures on thousands of families of Federal workers who will lose their jobs as a result of downsizing. We must ensure that these employees receive job training and assistance in finding new jobs in the private sector. We must also ensure that when we require employees to retire early we treat these employees in a fair and equitable manner. I am particularly concerned about the fairness of forcing workers to retire early because of a base closure. Many of these workers will stand to lose substantial pension benefits through no fault of their own. Mr. Speaker, we must look for ways to help soften the blow to families who will be adversely affected by military base closures. H.R. 2735, would ease some of the pain for Federal employees who are forced to retire early because of a base closure. My legislation would change language in existing law that penalizes Federal workers who are forced to retire involuntarily. As you know, current law requires that a Federal employee who retires early loses a considerable amount of his or her retirement earnings for each year he or she is under the age of 55. My legislation would reduce the penalty by one-half of an employee is forced to retire early because of a base closure. I urge my colleagues not to forget the thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their lives and careers to Government service. I urge you to support this important legislation.