John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to tell this House today about someone who came to Washington to argue against this bill. This is the gentleman that I am speaking about. His name is Jim Hale. He is a resident of Chattanooga, TN. He works in the construction industry. He is opposing this bill because his brother was killed 30 years ago at the age of 23 in a construction accident. Jim will tell you that construction is a dangerous trade under the best of circumstances, and he will tell you that since he started working, it has become much safer, that it is safer because Federal rules that require employers to take steps have made it safer in these last 30 years or so. Jim believes that his brother might be alive today, that his brother would have had an opportunity to get married and raise kids if the protections that we have today had been there in the 1960's, and he feels so strongly about that that he took off work and came here to oppose this legislation that takes us back to the 19th century.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' defense appropriations bill earmarks $493 million to begin production of the first two unneeded B-2 bombers. But the Republicans' education appropriations bill which we debate today cuts funds for education. Safe and drug-free schools, special education, art in schools, adult education, education for gifted children, and public library funding all will be slashed. Education for homeless children will be eliminated, gone. Dropout prevention, gone. The national writing project, gone. The teacher corps, gone. Workplace literacy programs, gone. The irony here is that every single one of the cuts I just mentioned, plus many more, added together equals less than the startup costs of those two unneeded B-2 bombers. Cuts in education on the one hand, more money to build unneeded B-2 bombers on the other hand. The Republican priorities are wrong.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is time to do the right thing in Bosnia. From the first day of this war, Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia and the last Communist dictator in Europe, has orchestrated the actions of the Serb minority in Bosnia. He has armed them, he supplied them with all of the weapons of a modern army, the tanks, the heavy artillery and the missiles, while Bosnia, a U.N. member, has been embargoed. Three years ago Milosevic told General Mladic, the military commander of the Bosnian Serbs who has recently been indicted by the United Nations as a war criminal, for the deliberate slaughter of civilian populations, for the use of mass rape of women as a tool of terror, for the detainment of killing of male Bosnians between the ages of 16 and 65 in Srebrenica, Milosevic told Mladic to destroy Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. Mr. Chairman, we recently saw General Mladic strutting through the streets of Zepa after the U.N. safe haven was overrun with the United Nations doing absolutely nothing. Mladic said he intends to take Bihac, then Gorazde, then Sarajevo by winter, and ``eliminate the Bosnian Moslems as a people from the Earth''. The goal from the first day of this war has been the territorial expansion of Seriba by whatever means would eliminate the Bosnian Moslems as a people from this Earth. No amount of wishful thinking about being reasonable or making nice to Milosevic will change that policy. The United Nations had made it absolutely clear, at least to Milosevic, that the United Nations will not stop him, so it is time to allow the Bosnians to defend themselves. Mr. Chairman, there is something obscene about the adherence to a failed policy long after that failure has been proven again and again and again and again, any many more times again. There is something obscene about the tortured self-righteous defense of an arms embargo on only one side of the Bosnian conflict. The hand-wringers say the Bosnian Government cannot be allowed to defend its people from genocide because it would offend the Serbs. Mr. Chairman, there is something obscene about declaring that a whole people cannot be allowed the weapons to defend itself against genocide, and there is something monstrously obscene about the cowardice of the international community refusing to protect the safe havens that they themselves established. Srebrenica and Zepa and the others that are to come from the indiscriminate slaughter of males of all ages, the mass rape of women, the bombardment of fleeing civilian refugees, there is something overwhelmingly obscene about genocide in all its forms. It was obscene, and overwhelmingly so, in the 1930's and 1940's. It led to the near extermination of Jews in Europe and to the death of many more millions of Poles and other Slavic people from Eastern Europe. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, a coalition of 27 human rights and religious and medical groups called for stepped up United States and international action to stop the slaughter of Bosnian civilians. These are not warlike organizations. The American Nurses Association, the Human Rights Watch, Anti-Defamation League, Refugees International, Physicians for Human Rights, American Arab Antidiscrimination League, the American Jewish Committee, World Vision. Quite the opposite. These are organizations that are devoted to peace and toward a just peace. They know that if Bosnia is not allowed to protect itself and the United Nations refuses to stop the Serb minority from its stated goal of ``elimination of the Bosnian Moslems as a people from the Earth,'' then we will see in full color on CNN and all our other media the ethnic cleansing, the bombardment, the rape, and the slaughter of innocent people and the male populations of Bihac and Gorazde and Sarajevo repeated again. Mr. Chairman, it is time to allow the Bosnians to obtain the weapons of defense. This war will stop when the Serbs know the world will not tolerate genocide. It is time to do the right thing in Bosnia; it is time to lift the arms embargo.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert- Stokes amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Boehlert. I am firmly opposed to the legislative riders provisions of H.R. 2099. Prohibiting the EPA from enforcing or implementing regulations under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as limiting the scope of the Delaney clause, is a direct threat to our environment, as well as the health and safety of the American people. These riders represent a backdoor attempt by the Republican majority to ease environmental protections in order to increase the profit margins of their big business friends. No hearings were held by the legislating committees, there was no public debate over these dramatic changes in environmental practices. By simply inserting these riders into appropriations legislation, which is blatantly against House tradition, the majority hopes to endanger our environment without informing the public of their intentions. I recognize that some changes must be made in the regulatory process. However, I believe that careful review of specific laws is needed--not neutralization of a whole spectrum of laws which protect human health, safety, and our fragile environment. If these provisions remain in this legislation, it will roll back 25 years of environmental protections--laws which have made our water safe, our air and water cleaner, saved the natural habitats of hundreds of plants and animals, preserved our wetlands, and made our food safe and free from harmful pesticides. I urge my colleagues to support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for yielding this time to me. I rise to oppose H.R. 2099. The Republican majority finally has to reveal how they pay for $245 billion in tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest handful of Americans and who will get hurt. The hour of reckoning is here. Who gets hurt? Well, yesterday it was our neighborhoods which lost the certainty of security that more cops on the streets have given them. Today the victims of the Republican assault are the homeless and low-income families who lose billions in housing assistance. Today it is middle-class students who lose the opportunity to serve their country while paying for college. Today it is our cities and rural areas which lose millions in community development block grants. At a time when the majority is block-granting everything in sight, they choose to slash this effective, flexible block grant that was established 20 years ago by President Nixon. Today it is our environment that takes a hit. Clean water, clean air, safe drinking water, the cleanup of hazardous waste; all are hurt by this bill. Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples of the harm done in a bill that at the same time preserves funding for the archaic Selective Service and gives billions to the space station. This bill typifies the Republicans' agenda: Slash funding for housing, education, training, and job creation for average Americans to finance tax cuts for the handful making over $100,000 a year. Vote against this bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled why the Republicans want to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, which was established by President Bush. Every major industrialized country in the world has private sector, government cooperative programs designed to increase their country's competitiveness in this global economy. Incredibly, to me at least, this bill terminates our own program. That is like unilateral disarmament in the midst of a war, and competition in today's global economy is clearly the economic equivalent of war. Yesterday, my distinguished Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], asserted that tax cuts, regulatory relief, and product liability reform are more beneficial than ATP. Well, what better gift to governments and businesses around the world than to see the United States disarm its private sector- government partnerships that could support competitiveness? Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote for the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, Americans celebrate the 30th birthday of Medicare and Americans will celebrate the medical security that Medicare gives to our senior citizens. I am sure there are people listening who just turned 30 who are thinking: ``This doesn't affect me? Why should I care?'' I'll tell you why you should care. When the Republicans cut $270 billion from Medicare and use most of that to give tax breaks to the wealthiest handful of Americans, those cuts will make Medicare too expensive for many seniors who will have no place to turn for help except to their adult children. How else will seniors pay a deductible that has doubled, or pay a monthly premium that has doubled, or pay a new copayment for home care? How else will they pay the specialist not covered by the managed care plan they have been forced into? Young people cannot ignore the Republican attack on Medicare; 30- year-olds, seniors, and everyone in between should remember that Medicare is not just a seniors issue, it is a family issue.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking Member for yielding time. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking Member for their hard work under difficult conditions, but I must oppose H.R. 2076. There are so many things wrong with this bill that I believe the President is right to say that this bill is dead on arrival if it gets to his desk in this form. Mr. Chairman, why do the Republicans eliminate the Advanced Technology Program established by President Bush? ATP provides assistance to U.S. businesses to promote commercial use of cutting edge technology. ATP is designed to increase U.S. competitiveness. Every major industrialized country has private sector government cooperative programs designed to increase their country's competitiveness in this world economy. Incredibly, this bill terminates our own program. That is like unilateral disarmament in the midst of a war. Mr. Chairman, this bill eliminates funding for the Office of Advocacy in the SBA, which represents the interests of small businesses within the Federal Government. Just this year, just months ago, 415 Members of Congress voted to strengthen the Office of Advocacy's role as a small business ombudsman in the regulatory process. Now, just a few months later, the promise becomes a joke if this bill is passed. Mr. Chairman, at least the Legal Services Corporation is not eliminated; it is merely cut by 30 percent. But this bill would prohibit for the first time ever the Corporation from spending private funds it raises on activities for which it currently cannot spend funds. I know how unpopular legal services is to some. It is quite all right to ignore the unconscionable waste that goes on in military contracting, and it is okay for billionaires to renounce their homeland to avoid paying taxes. But Republicans are more than willing to attack a program that dares to help the poor obtain justice in this country. Women from all walks of life are victims of the violence done to them in this appropriations bill. The Violence Against Women Act was approved by the House last Congress by a vote of 421 to zero. Now, how can all those Republicans, Members who voted yes last year, justify what they are doing less than a year later? Appropriators with mock sincerity say they are actually spending more to combat violence against women than last year. Well, how nice. But this bill appropriates less than one-third of the funding authorized for battered women shelters, rape prevention, child abuse prosecution, and other domestic violence programs. Finally, this bill defunds the very successful community cops policing program established by last year's crime bill. It instead redirects these funds to a block grant program that is not even law. This again underscores the hypocrisy of the policies being pushed in this bill. Mr. Chairman, community policing works. Communities big and small want community cops. They like what they have seen with community policing. What the Republicans are doing is simply partisan politics. Mr. Chairman, I urge fellow Members to vote against this bill so that the appropriators can do the right thing. We can do that now, or we can do that in October or November when we most certainly will have to after the veto.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, Republicans are dodging the facts about their Medicare cuts. Let me give some of those fact. Fact No. 1, the Republicans will cut Medicare by $270 billion. No. 2, Republicans cut that Medicare to give $245 billion in tax breaks, mostly to people who do not need them, people making over $100,000 a year, and you guessed it, all Members of Congress are in that category. Fact No. 3, drastic cuts in Medicare will make health care too expensive for many seniors. Madam Speaker, we are not talking about just a little increase in out-of-pocket costs, we are talking about double the deductibles, double the premiums, and huge new copayments for services like home care. If seniors cannot afford to pay that much more, they must ration their health care or simply go without needed care. The last fact, Madam Speaker, the Republican plan is that simple and it is that real.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds, and then I will yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that, if there is a livestock loss which would not now be covered, not now be coverable, under the crop insurance program, that the livestock loss is still covered under the livestock feed program. That is the provision, that is the language of the legislation, that I have provided. So there is no problem, at least as I understand it, there. Secondly, if what we are doing is banking $60 million so that it will be easier there for the dealings on the problem of mandatory expenditure, then I think this will be much more valuable to put this where it can be used where 40 percent cuts were being made and use only 30 percent cuts in the infrastructure accounts which all of our communities do. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The language of my amendment prohibits benefits under the livestock feed program for losses which could be covered under the crop insurance program. The subcommittee had provided $80 million for the livestock feed assistance program, and by the language that I offer, by limiting that livestock feed assistance program to those who could not use the Federal Crop Insurance Program, we can reduce the needs for the livestock feed assistance amount from $80 to $20 million, and in that process we are able to free up $60 million which then can be used for the rural development performance partnerships, which is essentially the moneys that hundreds of communities all over this country use in districts all over the country in rural areas of the country, use to develop drinking water systems, waste water treatment systems, by either grants or loans, or a combination of grants and loans in most instances, and for solid waste management systems. The communities that get this money are small communities, the most stressed communities probably in this country outside of the very core urban areas. They are communities without a strong tax base, without a strong commercial base. They are continually under stress, and they are of a severely limited capacity to deal with what are extremely capital- intensive programs and where the per capita costs of those capital- intensive programs happen to be exceedingly high, therefore, because of the low population of rural communities. All that is required here is that if crop insurance is available, it is to be used rather than using the livestock feed assistance, and that gives us the $60 million available for the program. Now, this is a program which in the present fiscal year was counted at almost $700 million. Under the program as it now stands in the bill, it would be down to $430 million, and so the addition of 60 would bring that up a little bit and change a 40-percent cut in this program for so many communities all over the country, in infrastructure grants and loans, it would allow that cut to be only a 30-percent cut. So I would hope that we would adopt this amendment and help these hundreds of communities all over the country that this money can be used for. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for yielding this time to me, and I certainly do recognize and commend the work of the chairman and the ranking member in coming up with a bill under very difficult circumstances, and what I hear from a number of different Members is that the very commendable amendment being proposed in its principle by the gentleman from Delaware whose amendment I support is--wants to do the right thing, but takes the money from the wrong place. But here we are cutting out of a program of housing home ownership for low-income families. We are taking that one down by about 50 percent, more than 50 percent, over a 2-year period, and the whole program is coming down, the whole program in agriculture coming down less than 10 percent in its total, so it seems to me we ought to be able to find a way of putting some more money into the program for the 502 program here. It is a program that takes families who are on the edge of making it and allows them to have a stake in their community. It is their own chance for owning their own houses, in fact the only Federal program that gives assistance for low-income home ownership, so I would support the gentleman's amendment and hope that it would be adopted.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. I rise to oppose the chairman's en bloc amendment because it contains further reductions in direct loans available through the section 502 rural housing program. My district covers most of the rural areas of my State. Over the past year these low-interest loans have allowed 89 families in my district who otherwise could not secure a loan to buy or build their own home. these families earn an average of about $22,000 a year, which is only a little bit more than half the average income in Massachusetts. Even in the most rural areas of my district, homes cost upwards of $85,000. The 89 loans this year in my district are worth almost $5 million. This loan program is the one chance that many families have to own their homes. In fact, it is the only Federal assistance for low-income rural homeownership. Section 502 funding has already been cut by about 20 percent over the past 5 years, and the Skeen amendment would so reduce the funding for the direct loan portion of the program that only about 8,000 families in the whole country could be assisted next year. This is no way, in my view, to encourage people who are working hard to pay their bills and raise their kids, yet dream of owning their own home. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the Skeen amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment. The right to choose is the law of this land. It is constitutionally protected. Eliminating this right for one group of women--just because they happen to work for the Federal Government--is discrimination. Under present law, a Federal employee who opposes abortion can choose 1 of the 345 plans which does not cover abortion. But under the bill before us, no Federal employee is allowed the option of a plan which covers abortion. Women in the Federal service should not be singled out and given no choice. We must support the right of all women to choose. We must support the Hoyer amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 70.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 7114]] Mr. Chairman, let me say that my amendment meets the concerns of labor unions such as the IBEW in relation to the fluorescent light ballast issue, and of environmental organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters, and of businesses such as Honeywell and Whirlpool. My amendment specifically and explicitly prohibits the promulgation of the fluorescent lamp ballast standard without throwing national energy efficiency standards out the window. My amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from promulgating an efficiency standard if the Attorney General has determined in the course of her review, which is required by law, that the standard is likely to be anticompetitive. Furthermore, all proposed standards would have to show benefits greater than costs in an analysis which considers economic impact of the proposed standard on manufacturers and consumers. By adopting this language, we prevent regulatory excess without killing off a valuable program that saves the average American family hundreds of dollars in hard cash each year. Furthermore, we do not kill off the possibility of new standards being established for things like the refrigerator standards which have been jointly proposed by States, the environmental organizations and electric utilities, and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, the Olver amendment helps consumers, businesses, the environment and the economy, and prohibits the anticompetitive effects of the fluorescent ballast standard. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Parker amendment, and I join at the same time the strong disagreement with the fluorescent lamp ballast standard which the Department of Energy proposed last program for national energy efficiency standards. Now, since the rule that we are operating under prevents me from offering a substitute to the Parker amendment, I will have an alternative to this amendment, one which meets the concerns of fluorescent light ballast manufacturers and workers, as well as the environmental organizations, along the way. If you total the energy savings for all household appliances from efficiency standards which have been implemented over the last 5 years, each American family is saving $210 and every year. But efficiency helps businesses, too. Well-formulated standards would save industry enough money to create 160,000 additional jobs, and reduced demand for energy helps the environment. Further, the standard setting process does not have to be contentious. A new standard for refrigerators has been jointly proposed by States, environmental associations, electrical utilities, and the Association of Home Manufacturers. The amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Mississippi would prevent that new standard from going into effect, even though it has the support of every affected group and would benefit everyone who ever has to buy a refrigerator. Let us fix the problem of the lamp ballast, which my alternative which I will offer in a few minutes does, by prohibiting any issuance of standards in the fluorescent lamp ballast case, but does not throw out all of our program, which allows us to save money for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we defeat the Parker amendment and then adopt the Olver amendment, which we will be debating shortly.

Mr. OLVER. I accept the point of order.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my remarks to the President of the United States today. Mr. President, you have taken some truly courageous stands in foreign policy. Your finest hour, I think, came when you insisted that Haiti get its chance at democracy. You insisted that the military junta, which had overthrown the first freely elected President in Haiti's history, must leave. There was nothing to be gained politically. All the polls said not 3 percent of Americans thought we should get involved in Haiti, and there was great risk to American lives. But you did it because it was right. And your courageous decision to recognize Vietnam, what a gutsy thing to do, the right thing to do. But you will be vilified to your dying day by those who want to prolong the agony of the division which the Vietnam war caused in America. Never mind that 25 years have passed. Never mind that the MIA's from World War II numbered more than all the dead in Vietnam, yet Germany and Japan were our closest allies 25 years after the Second World War. Never mind that very prominent, decorated heroes of that war confirm your decision is the right one. ``The War Is Over. Life Goes On.'' That is the title of a poignant column by William Broyles, Jr., in the New York Times on Sunday, July 16. Mr. Speaker, I will place the text of that column in the Record, which is about Vietnam, but also about Bosnia. [From the New York Times, July 16, 1995] ``The War Is Over. Life Goes On'' (By William Broyles, Jr.) Representative Randy Cunningham burst into tears last week at a Congressional hearing on the recognition of Vietnam. Mr. Cunningham, a California Republican who had been shot down as a Navy pilot in Vietnam, was so overcome with emotion describing the deaths of his comrades that he could not go on. When he recovered, he charged that President Clinton was morally wrong to recognize the former enemy. Any one of us who fought in Vietnam knows the emotions Randy Cunningham must have felt: the deep grief and anger, the sense of loss, the pride, the whole confusing mess. I have wept, been to the wall on the Capitol Mall, traced the names of the fallen, sought out my old comrades, worked with troubled vets, helped build memorials and led parades. I feel for the families of the 2,000 or so Americans still unaccounted for. But Randy Cunningham's tears leave me cold. The grief we veterans share should be above partisan politics. It is purer, more honorable and lasting. And it is personal. Tears and emotion in politics fuel partisan suspicions and revenge. Public emotion has turned Vietnam into a haunting specter that has often sapped our military will. Bosnia is our greatest failure of collective security since Munich because we are afraid of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam. But Nazi aggression had little to do with the post-colonial war in Vietnam, which in turn has little to do with Bosnia. The Balkan tragedy does, however, have a lot to do with Munich. Because our memories are so faint and our emotions so vivid, we persist in applying the lessons of the wrong wars. We must put Vietnam behind us. The Vietnam veterans who support recognition have impeccable credentials: Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was a P.O.W.; Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, won the Navy Cross; Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, won the Medal of Honor and left part of a leg in Vietnam. Does their support for recognition mean they are betraying their comrades who are still missing? That is the hardest question, because the deep, uncompromising rule of the soldier is not to leave your comrades on the battlefield. But the fighting has been over for 20 years. Our battlefields are rice paddles now, tilled by men and women not even born when the guns fell silent. There were more M.I.A.'s in World War II than the total number of Americans killed in Vietnam. Thousands remain unaccounted for after the Korean War. We should continue to try to account for everyone. But the time has come to do so in cooperation with our old enemies. The reason why is in the mirror. Look at us. Our hair is gray, what little there is. Some of us are grandfathers now. Many of us went to war 30 years ago. Thirty years! That's the time between the start of World War I and the end of World War II. In those earlier 30 years, more than 100 million people died. Millions perished in death camps. Millions more died and were never found. Tens of millions were homeless. The maps of Europe and Asia were redrawn. Whole countries disappeared. In comparison, Vietnam is a footnote. Yet we can't get beyond it--supposedly because we lost. But our countryside wasn't ripped with bombs, our forests defoliated, our cities pulverized, our people herded into camps. We had casualties, but we did not have millions of refugees and more than a million dead. We weren't thrown into the sea as the British were at Dunkirk. I never felt defeated. I just felt wasted. I would have fought in World War II. I would fight today in Bosnia. But where I fought was in Vietnam. And by now the only true response by a soldier should be this: tough. As we said in Vietnam, it don't mean nothing. Which meant, it means everything, but what can you do? In war people die. Sometimes the best people die. We want there to be a reason. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. War is messy and unfair. That's why it needs a clear purpose. There was no clear purpose in Vietnam. There is one in Bosnia. Ten years ago, I visited the site of the base where I had been a Marine lieutenant, just west of Da Nang. I went with a man named Hien, who had been a company commander in the Vietcong. We had fought each other up and down the rice paddies, mountains and in the jungles. Almost all his comrades were dead or missing. It was hard not to respect our enemies. They had been bombed by B-52's, bombarded with shells hurled by battleships, incinerated by napalm and white phosphorous, drenched in defoliants. They had no R & R and no Medivacs. They lived in tunnels and caves, never going home and getting no letters for as many as 10 years. Hien and I met a woman whose husband had been killed where I had fought. She never found his body. Most likely we bulldozed him into a mass grave. That's what we did. We incinerated them, buried them alive, pushed them from helicopters. And they did their best to kill us. That's what happens in a war. What should happen after a war is what the woman said after we had talked long enough to realize her husband had been killed by my platoon, possibly by me. ``That was long ago,'' she told me. ``The war is over. Life goes on.'' The Vietnamese have hundreds of thousands of M.I.A.'s. Soldiers trying to find the bodies of their lost comrades is a constant theme in Vietnamese novels and films. Their families grieve no less than ours. They know better than anyone the pain we feel. We should all search together for the answers that would help families on both sides finally end this. I loved the men I fought beside. I feel pride in their courage and unselfishness. But the time has come to say to all my buddies who are missing, as we say to those names on the wall, rest in peace. You did your best. We miss you terribly. We fought to make Vietnam free and independent. Today it is independent. And if we engage its leaders diplomatically with the same will we showed against the Soviet Union, it will become more free. To recognize Vietnam is not to dishonor the memory of our fallen or missing comrades. It is to recognize the truth. The war is over. Mr. Speaker, why is it so hard to do the right thing in Bosnia? Granted, you inherited the disastrous American position and policy in Bosnia's version of the Holocaust from George Bush after 20 months of inaction by the European Community, the United Nations, NATO and the United States about the most vicious war in Europe in 50 years. Granted that the pattern of the United Nations issuing resolutions, which it turned out it had no intention of enforcing and which has led to the total and abject humiliation and discredit of the United Nations, had already been set. Granted that the moral and strategic error of the arms embargo placed on only one side in the conflict, placed on the elected government of Bosnia, a sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations, had already been made. You had a reasonable, credible proposal: Lift and strike. Remember lift and strike? It would be a vast improvement today over the unconscionable cowardice of the Western democracies toward Bosnia. However the United Nations, the European Community, and the United States twist and squirm, the fact remains that Slobodan Milosevic, the last Communist dictator in Europe, has orchestrated the destruction of the most evenly multireligious, multiethnic, multicultural state in Europe, using the most vicious and unspeakable tactics since the Holocaust. The Serbs have shown that no tactic is beneath them. Ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, destruction of hundreds of mosques and Roman Catholic [[Page H 7075]] churches, starvation of populations of Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde, and Sarajevo, deliberate bombardment of funeral processions, children in playgrounds, women waiting in water lines, mass deliberate use of rape, slaughter of whole families and whole villages, from the youngest baby to the aged. Why is it so hard to do the right thing in Bosnia? Is there no end to the cowardice of the West, no end to the stupidity of an arms embargo on only one side in a conflict? Is there no end to the stupidity of never enforcing resolutions for safe havens, for no-fly-zones, for heavy weapon exclusion zones, and no end to the cowardice of backing down again and again and again, sending the clear signal to Milosevic and the Serb rebels that they may continue the slaughter and the rape and the starvation and the ethnic cleansing without fear of reprisal? Why is it acceptable for United Nations commanders to drink with Serbian war criminals? Why is it acceptable for the Serbs to drag the elected vice president of Bosnia from a United Nations vehicle and execute him on the spot? Why is it acceptable to overrun Srebrenica and other safe havens, drive out thousands of women and children with nothing but what they can carry, raping the women as they flee and bombarding the columns of refugees as they flee? Why is it acceptable for the Serbs to detain all the male Bosnians between the age of 16 and 65? Will they ever be seen again? Not many of them very likely. Why will you accept this utter barbarity, this humiliation of the United Nations and of our closest allies, and ultimately the shame that inaction brings on all of the civilized world? Will we really accept and do nothing as Zepa, and then Gorazde, and then Biha, and finally Sarajevo are destroyed and all the people of those cities are ethnically cleansed? Mr. President, Americans have always done the right thing when confronted with such evil. Mr. President, do the right thing in Bosnia. You will find it is not so hard.