Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the last hour, this bill has been made obscenely worse, in the dead of night, with very few of the press here. We already knew that most of the benefit, two-thirds of the benefit, goes to the richest 10 percent of Americans, but now they have added a trigger that allows Alan Greenspan to fatally shoot the 10 percent across-the-board tax cut provided for the middle class. But no matter what Alan Greenspan does, no matter what happens to interest costs, no trigger can prevent the huge tax loopholes for the superwealthy. This is a bad rule because it prevents us from dealing with the New Democratic Coalition proposal to provide a roughly $300 billion tax cut. This rule allows only a discussion of the lowest possible tax cut or the most extreme and biased tax cut. Do not muzzle the moderates. Defeat the rule.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today the new Democratic coalition, a group of Democrats who have brought our party into line with the real needs of the business community, unveiled our own tax cut plan, and I rise to compare that plan with the Republican plan that was floated over the last 2 to 3 weeks and which the House is likely to address in the next several days. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I think that we will discover that this should not be a bidding war to see who can offer the American people or who can offer the business community the largest tax cut, but rather that the business and investment community should embrace the tax cut package which keeps our economy strong and, at the same time, provides essential tax relief. I have been down this road before, but from a long way away. As a CPA and tax attorney in California, I watched the floor of this House as the ERTA bill, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, was passed. And there was celebration in the business community. Lower taxes on capital gains; huge depreciation write-offs. No thought of fiscal responsibility. And I had to tell my clients, this was not the tax policy they should want. Because what we saw was an explosion of deficits, a stock market that performed not near as well as the stock market has performed of late. What we saw was a tax bill that needed to be corrected in 1986 and then again in the early 1990s and again in 1994. What we saw was a tax bill that undermined the economy. The lowest taxes that Ronald Reagan could possibly promise the business and investment community did not lead to the highest after-tax return. Instead, it led to deficits, inflation, high interest rates and unemployment. But, Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax plan that has been floated recently is ERTA on steroids. It gives us a plan to undermine the economic vitality that we have built over the last several years at great difficulty. $900 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, nearly $3 trillion in tax cuts over the following 10 years, exploding tax cuts. What does that mean? It means that everything that we have done in building this economy is under attack. Yes, they say that these are tax cuts we can afford. But just barely, and just if you believe the most rosy of economic projections. What makes more sense is a fiscally responsible tax cut, for two reasons: First, because by paying down and paying off the debt, we will put ourselves in a position where we can assure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare through the retirement of those of us who are baby boomers. We can turn to today's seniors and tomorrow's seniors and say, ``We have done the fiscally responsible thing in the 1990s and you can be sure Social Security and Medicare will be there.'' Just as importantly, in terms of dealing with the economy for the next 5 and 10 years, we can assure the markets that low interest rates are called for, that the high Dow is justified because we here in Washington continue to have our fiscal house in order. The tax bill that the New Democrats have put forward is a reasonable one. It is news today that the President has announced that he would be willing to go along with a $290 billion tax cut, $50 billion more than his own proposal. Well, our tax cut comes in at just a little over that, a little over $310 billion. It provides a permanent R&D tax credit. It encompasses the President's plan for aid for school construction. It goes a long way toward eliminating the marriage penalty. It provides for credits for those families that have to deal with the responsibilities of long-term care for those who are elderly and infirm. Finally, it provides for estate tax relief so that only the top 1 percent of Americans will ever have to worry about the estate tax. Finally, the people in my district will not have to prepare long estate planning documents. Mr. Speaker, we should stand for reasonable and fiscally responsible tax cuts, and that is why I think we should adopt the tax cut plan of the New Democratic Coalition.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McGovern-Campbell- Hoeffel-Holt amendment, but first to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for bringing to this floor a very good bill, and given the constraints they were under, bringing to the floor an excellent bill. Focusing on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of today's session I had a chance to watch the floor. There, Member after Member rose to praise the women's soccer team that won the World Cup, to praise our heroes more eloquently than I can here, Michelle Akers, Mia Hamm, Brandi and Briana, so many who filled us with pride. But will that praise merely be empty symbolism, or are we actually willing to do something? Are we just going to talk about what sports mean to our kids, about teamwork and confidence-building, or are we going to do something? We who praise what this woman's soccer team has done, to make sure that girls as well as boys fill the clubs, fill the teams and are out there playing sports rather than being distracted by the latest splatter video game or experimenting with sex and drugs and violence, we who are so good at rhetoric need to put this Nation's money where our mouth is. Likewise, we have to keep faith with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We promised the people of this country over 20 years ago that the funds obtained from offshore oil drilling would go to preserve open space in our Nation, across the country, for our national parks and also in the State-side program for recreation. Mr. Chairman, I know that this amendment has been criticized because it means an 8 percent cut to coal research. But, Mr. Chairman, we have had not an 8 percent, not an 18 percent, but a 100 percent cut in the State-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If this budget has got to be this tight, certainly the damage or the tightness or the inability to spend should be spread more equitably and $30 million should be found for recreation. Mr. Chairman, most juvenile crime takes place between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. What we need are supervised afterschool activities, especially sports which build teamwork and which build confidence. Mr. Chairman, in Montgomery County, for example, there are 1,000 soccer teams trying to play on a hundred fields. In Ft. Lauderdale there is a waiting list of a thousand kids waiting to play soccer. I had the chance to visit the grand opening of the new AYSO headquarters in the Los Angeles area, and everyone there involved in youth soccer said and asked just one question: Mr. Chairman, where will the children play? The answer is to be found in this bill. It is time for us to expand the recreation facilities available to our youth and to have a vision of tomorrow's kids that involves teamwork outside and not splatter video games inside.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Ambassador Yoram Ben- Ze'ev as he steps down as Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles and is promoted to Deputy Director General for North American Affairs in the Foreign Ministry of Israel. It is not often that a member of this House rises to pay this high honor to a foreign diplomat. As one of the most effective diplomats and committed servants assigned to represent his country in the United States, Yoram Ben-Ze'ev is one truly worthy of this distinction. Throughout his career, he has worked to improve relations between Israel and other nations, serving from Hong Kong, to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, to Los Angeles. Ambassador Ben-Ze'ev has served since 1993 as the Deputy Director General for the Middle East Peace Process; and since 1995 as Consul General, based in Los Angeles and responsible for the Western States. He has been intimately involved in the peace process negotiations which have transformed Israel's relations with the world. All the while, he has effectively ensured that the people of the Western United States can do business with Israel, travel to that country, and understand its rich culture and history. He has done much to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel. As Israel looks to this next and most critical phase of the peace process, Ambassador Ben-Ze'ev will no doubt once again provide exemplary service to his country, contribute to its security and stability, and strengthen the US-Israel partnership. Once again, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring this most distinguished diplomat and public servant for his tireless work on behalf of friendship between the Israeli and American people. Let us extend our best wishes to Yoram and his wife, Iris, as they return to Israel.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. I hope this amendment has the support of all but the most extreme of the anti- choice Members of this body, because this is indeed a very moderate approach. It simply says that women stationed overseas will be allowed to have abortions in safe military facilities at their own expense, at an expense that covers the full cost, not just the marginal cost, including, I would assume, a charge for the facility itself. It says that no doctor would have to perform the procedure if or she did not want to because of moral or religious or ethical objections. It simply reinstates the policy of this country from 1973 to 1988 and again from 1993 to 1996. We are about to deploy servicewomen even into the Balkans, where the hospitals have been damaged, where the Albanian hospitals are overrun or are having to deal with refugees, where all of the hospitals are overburdened, and we are turning to American servicewomen and saying, ``Yes, you might risk your life because of a sniper or a land mine, but, in addition, you must risk your life to an unsanitary operation performed in whatever hospital or whatever illegal facility is available.'' The other alternative available to our servicewomen is to wait. Instead of the abortion taking place in the first month, it would take place in some later month. Is that what the so-termed pro-life forces want?

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the designation of Westlake Hills Elementary School as a United States Department of Education National Blue Ribbon School. The Blue Ribbon Award for Educational Excellence recognizes a school's achievement in all facets of academic development including teacher training, student achievement, educational innovation, and community involvement. Westlake Hills Elementary School has far transcended the norm in all these areas and has demonstrated its deep commitment to molding well rounded, socially conscious leaders for the 21st century through its outstanding range of programs. Westlake Hills teachers frequently participate in workshops and conferences on a wide range of educational issues, showing the tremendous value Westlake Hills places on maintaining the high caliber of its faculty and keeping its teachers abreast of new idea in education. These teachers then employ these ideas in the classroom, resulting in projects including a 6th grade ``wax museum'' and a 1st grade ``dinosaur dig.'' In addition, Westlake Hills recognizes the importance of involving a child's first and most influential teachers in the learning experience, with 75% of Westlake Hills parents logging in an astounding 12,000 hours of volunteer time. These efforts are reflected in the test scores of the student body, which place Westlake Hills above all the other elementary schools in its district. Westlake Hills has also answered President Clinton's ``America Reads Challenge'' by forging a partnership with nearby Pepperdine University, in order to ensure that each and every child can read both independently and effectively. Along with its demonstrated excellence in the classroom, Westlake Hills realizes the importance of extracurricular activities in creating the ``total'' student. Over 200 children participate in clubs for subjects including drama, physical fitness, and Spanish. A club also exists for computers, making use of the school's technology center. Westlake Hills believes that their goal in forming the ``total'' student would also be incomplete without instilling in the students a sense of their responsibilities as members of their local community. They have joined General Colin Powell's ``Make a Difference'' volunteer program, where the children share their time assisting senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in celebrating the recognition of Westlake Hills Elementary School as a National Blue Ribbon School. It is a prime example of the extremely positive effects which a partnership between all members of a school community can produce. Westlake Hills' approach to public education is a paradigm which all American schools should strive to emulate.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Justice for Homicide Victims. The Board of Directors of the California Center for Family Survivors of Homicide, which includes its action arm, Justice for Homicide Victims has been a constant advocate for victims rights. Today, we honor those who make it possible to help create a working environment with legislators so victims and their survivors may attain equal rights. Marcella Leach, Executive Director of JHV, is one of the many dedicated individuals who help to make the public and legislators alike aware of the need for victims rights. Justice for Homicide Victims was founded in 1984 by Ellen Griffin Dunne. The first goal of JHV was to establish a public perception that those who commit serious or malicious crimes should be punished accordingly. JHV has been working tirelessly to effect legislative change. As a result, JHV helped implement a newly passed Victims Bill of Rights. In addition to support services through their hotline and at murder trials, JHV cooperates with the District Attorney's office on a regular basis which results in positive relationship and spreads JHV's goals and objectives. JHV has worked for many years to educate and inform legislators on many aspects of the law. This year, JHV was honored to be the most organization for the Governor's Crime Summit and their efforts helped in the passage of legislation that was previously thought to be unattainable. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in celebrating the success of the California Center for Family Survivors of Homicide and Justice for Homicide Victims.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elaine and David Gill for their almost fifty years of leadership and devotion to the Brandeis-Bardin Institute and the Los Angeles Jewish community. Since they first attended the Brandeis Collegiate Institute in the 1950s, Elaine and David have forged a warm, longstanding relationship with the Brandeis-Bardin Institute as a whole. Both of them have served on the Board and David is a member of the Executive Committee. Elaine has served as chair of the Alonim Committee, the Women of Brandeis- Bardin, and as co-chair of the Brandeis-Bardin Associates. The Gills have recognized the important role that BBI plays in enhancing the spiritual life of Jews of all ages and levels of observance, and they have committed their time and energy to ensuring the Institute's continued success and development. The Gills' relationship with the Brandeis-Bardin Institute exists on the personal level as well. All four of their sons have attended Camp Alonim, the youth resident summer camp held on the grounds of the Institute. Between 1971 and 1994, at least one of their sons was involved with the camp either as a camper or a staff member. In fact, both of the couple's married sons met their wives at Alonim. A third generation of Gills, grandsons Jasper, Jonah, and Micah, are all future campers. In addition to all their efforts on behalf of Brandeis-Bardin, Elaine and David have found time to volunteer with several other Jewish organizations, showing that their dedication to the local Jewish community extends far beyond the tree-lined gates of the institute. At Valley Beth Shalom, one of the largest Conservative synagogues in the San Fernando Valley, the Gills have both been active members. They have served as pararabbinic counselors and they have been instrumental in developing the synagogue's havurah program, which brings together families with similar interests for social and religious fellowship. David has been chairman of the Board and has led two building fund campaigns. Elaine is currently Religious Vice President. The Gills have also devoted an extraordinary amount of time to the Los Angeles Jewish Federation which offers a wide range of activities and services to individuals throughout Los Angeles. Together, David and Elaine have led several missions to Israel and they have each chaired committees too numerous to mention. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Elaine and David Gill's outstanding work with the Brandeis-Bardin Institute and the Los Angeles Jewish community. They are the true embodiment of the concept that ``all Israel are responsible for one another.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in my remarks I simply stated that it would be unfortunate if that were to be the motivation of anyone in this House. I believe that my colleague is referring to only a single phrase in a speech that was not as brief as I wish it was. And I think that my colleague can join with me in believing that all of us should cast a vote for what is in the best interests of the space program and what is in the best interests of our relations with Moscow without being colored by any concerns about any political matter.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this amendment. For many years we have been cooperating with Russia. There is perhaps nothing more important in our space program than the symbol that it has for all of man and womankind, the chance to show two former adversaries working together. Now, as we have a conflict in the Balkans, would be the worst possible time to slap the Russians. More importantly, this would be the worst possible time to have thousands of Russian scientists capable of building ballistic missiles suddenly unemployed as a result of a deliberately political and deliberately hostile action of this House against Russia, motivated, some would say, by a hostility toward the Vice President who played such a creative and important role in negotiating with Russia. Clearly, the most cost effective way for us to explore space is to do it together, not in a race against Russia but in a race against the hostilities that can build up between countries, in a race to achieve peace and a race to achieve a working together with the only other nation to send men and women into space. So I speak not only for an efficient space program but also for a lessening of international tensions when I rise against this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I also rise to shock the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) because I rise to echo the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay). Mr. Chairman, when Columbus set sail, about two-thirds of the way into his journey a group of the sailors rose and urged that the project be defunded and that they return to Spain. We would not be standing here today if that amendment had not been defeated, just as we must defeat the amendment before us now. The Space Station gives us a chance to build bridges to other countries, one in particular of which was our former adversary. It helps us build our own aerospace industry, which is the leading source of American exports. In my own district, we are developing batteries for the Space Station in a way that may well lead to breakthroughs for an electric automobile so critical to the air quality of the most air-quality challenged city in America. Just as important is the research that can be done only in space on so many diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and influenza. This Space Station, of course, is a cooperative project, including some 16 nations. Those other nations have contributed already $5 billion to this effort. Today, 250 miles above the Earth, already circle the first elements of the Space Station, Zarya and Unity, one from Russia, one from the United States. Mr. Chairman, America belongs in space. Humankind belongs in space. And I can think of nothing worse that we can do at the beginning of a new millennium than defund the Space Station. That is why I urge all of our colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Herman and Gladys Sturman for their outstanding commitment to others that has done so much to improve the quality of life in our community. The Talmud tells us that ``He who does charity and justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' The Jewish Community Centers of Greater Los Angeles has recognized both Herman and Gladys for their tireless dedication to the Jewish community and the community at large. Their philanthropy sets an example for us all. Along with having been members of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Community Centers, Herman and Gladys have contributed immensely through an array of activities. Gladys was the founder of West Valley Kehillah, a group of 21 Jewish organizations that exemplifies leadership, volunteerism, and service throughout the greater Los Angeles area. In 1974, she was selected as the Most Outstanding Member of the Quarter Century by Temple Beth Ami. While she continues to serve as a member of numerous Jewish organizations, she still finds the time to contribute articles to several Jewish magazines. Dr. Sturman is a past president of Temple Beth Ami and was a founding member of the Board of Humana Hospital. In addition to his charitable work, Dr. Sturman was the first practicing gynecologist and obstetrician in the West San Fernando Valley. Aside from their devoted service to the community, Herman and Gladys' unwavering commitment to their family is praiseworthy in and of itself. Throughout their forty-nine years of marriage, they have maintained a Jewish home which is compassionate, accepting, moral, and intellectually alive. They have passed these values on as well to their four children and twelve grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Dr. Herman and Gladys Sturman, true role models for the residents of Los Angeles.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Sally Olins for her outstanding contributions to the Jewish community and the community at large for many years. The Talmud states that ``He who does charity and justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' In a unique and lasting bond, Rabbi Sally Olins and Temple B'nai Hayim have established a relationship which members of the temple and members of the community benefit greatly from. Temple B'nai Hayim is the only Conservative synagogue in Sherman Oaks and is now celebrating its 40th anniversary. Rabbi Sally Olins, the first female Conservative rabbi on the West Coast, now serves the members of Temple B'nai Hayim. Rabbi Olins received master's degrees in kinesiology and dance therapy from UCLA. Later she attended the University of Judaism in Los Angeles and earned a master's degree in Jewish philosophy. After studying at New York's Academy for Jewish Religion, five years of in- depth study of the Talmud, the Torah, biblical and modern Hebrew, history, law and more, Rabbi Olins was ordained in 1989. Temple B'nai Hayim appointed her as its first female rabbi. Rabbi Olins has been appointed to the executive committee of the Rabbinic Assembly of the Pacific Southwest Region, where she serves on the Bet Din (Court of Law) Committee of Conversions. Rabbi Olins has been an integral figure in building a congregation and community at Temple B'nai Hayim. She spends countless hours making herself available to the fortunate members of the Temple. Today, we honor Rabbi Olins for her 10 years of service and not to be outdone, we also celebrate the 40th anniversary of Temple B'nai Hayim. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Rabbi Sally Olins and Temple B'nai Hayim on this joyous and memorable day.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Steven J. Fogel, for his contributions to the Jewish community. The Talmud states, ``He who does charity and justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' Stephen S. Wise Temple has recognized Steven for his many accomplishments in the Jewish community. I commend Steven for selflessly devoting his time and his efforts. He helps enrich us with his zeal for life and his determination to better our community. Aside from his achievements as president of Stephen S. Wise, Steven has made his mark in other aspects. He worked his way through college as a professional photographer, first at USC and then as a graduate student at the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. In 1967, he co-founded Westwood Financial Corp., which owns and operates over 125 shopping centers. In addition to writing three published books, Steven is a self-taught artist, with over fifty portraits in private collections. Along with his devoted service to the community, Steven and his wife, Darlene, have maintained an unwavering commitment to their family. They have raised their four children in a Jewish home which is compassionate, accepting, moral and intellectually alive. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Steven J. Fogel for his past, present, and future achievements for both the Jewish community and the community at large.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorothy and Ozzie Goren and their family for their outstanding contributions to the Jewish community and the community at large for many decades. The Talmud states that ``He who does charity and justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' The Jewish Family Service has recognized the Goren family for their exceptional commitment others that has done much to improve the quality of life in our community. Their philanthropy sets an example for us all. Dorothy's dedication to the Jewish Federation began on a mission in 1962. Since then, she has served as chair of the Women's Division Campaign, president of the Western Region, and was the first woman to chair the UJF campaign. She has also served as a past president of the Jewish Federation and continues her service as an active board member on all key committees. Ozzie has also been very committed to the Jewish community. In addition to serving as president of the Jewish Federation, he has also chaired the UJF campaign. His dedication surpasses the Jewish community with his efforts on issues such as human relations and civil rights. Both Dorothy and Ozzie have passed these values on to their children. Jerry and Julia are helping to reform the criminal justice system and education. Carol and her husband, Ron Corn, volunteer their time in an array of organizations in the Denver community. Bruce and his wife, Susie, are volunteers in the Los Angeles Community. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Dorothy and Ozzie Goren and their family. They are true role models for the citizens of Los Angeles.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Shirley and Eric Mauer, recipients of the Rabbi Elijah J. And Penina Schochet Founders Award for Community Service. The Mauers are being honored for their 25 years of outstanding contributions in the field of education. The Talmud states that ``He who does charity and justice is as if he filled the whole world with kindness.'' In the spirit of such words, wonderful community activists such as Shirley and Eric actively participate in delivering tremendous support, selflessly dedicating their time and energy to enriching our community. I can think of no better tribute to Shirley and Eric. Both natives of Montreal, Canada, Shirley and Eric have been married for 41 years. Shirley received her degree from McDonald College for Teachers and Eric earned his degree in accounting from McGill University. Shirley has enjoyed a long and prosperous teaching career. She began her career by developing a kindergarten program and teaching it at the Boulevard School. Several years later, she became Director of the Boulevard School. In 1981, the Mauers bought the Boulevard School and transformed it into one of the most distinguished and academically enriched pre- schools in the San Fernando Valley. In addition, Shirley sits on the Board of Directors at Temple Aliyah and Eric engages in ongoing volunteer activities. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Shirley and Eric Mauer for their ongoing service to the Jewish community and the community at large.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Steven Jacobs, who has maintained a commitment to his congregants at Temple Kol Tikvah and the San Fernando Valley Community for the past thirty years. The Talmud states that ``He who does charity and justice is as if he had filled the whole world with kindness.'' In the spirit of such words, dedicated community leaders such as Rabbi Jacobs actively participate in delivering tremendous support, selflessly dedicating their time and energy to enriching our community. I can think of no better tribute to Rabbi Jacobs. Motivated by a sense of the many injustices in the world, Rabbi Jacobs has actively pursued solutions to right the wrong. Dedicated to improving the status quo, he devotes his energy and time in ways that truly do make a difference. Outreach to everyone and a desire and sensitivity for social action continually shapes his Rabbinate. Most recently, Rabbi Jacobs was invited by the Rev. Jesse Jackson to join a 20-member delegation on a mission to free the three soldiers who were captured along the Macedonia-Kosovo border. Rabbi Jacobs, who was able to speak with the captured soldiers and comfort them, played an integral role in the mission. Rabbi Jacobs and the rest of the delegation eventually facilitated the release of the soldiers. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Rabbi Steven Jacobs for his ongoing service to the Jewish community and the community at large.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judy Geller as she is honored as Woman of the Year by Temple Valley Beth Shalom. Mohandas Gandhi said that ``You find yourself by losing yourself in service to your fellow man, God, and country.'' As Judy Geller receives the prestigious Woman of the Year Award, it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge her dedicated service to Valley Beth Shalom, to the Jewish community and the community at large, and to her family. Judy's commitment and devotion to Valley Beth Shalom sets an example for us all. Prior to serving as Temple President, Judy held numerous other positions at Valley Beth Shalom including Administration Vice President, Religion Vice President, Membership Vice President, Education Vice President, and Sisterhood President. She also continues to serve, as she has since 1982, as a member of the Temple's Board of Directors. Service to the Jewish community and the greater community have been central to Judy's life as well. She is a member of the Hillel Campus Council at Los Angeles Pierce and Valley Colleges, a Past President of the San Fernando Council of B'nai B'rith Women, Past President of the Encino Chapter of B'nai B'rith Women, and is a Life Member of Jewish Women International and Hadassah. She also has served as a Social Welfare Aide Volunteer with the American Red Cross, and is a past Chair of the Women's Auxiliary Committee of the Los Angeles Open Golf Tournament. Through her forty-four years of married life, Judy and her husband, Gene, have maintained a Jewish home which is compassionate, accepting, moral, and intellectually alive. They have passed these values as well on to their three children and five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Judy Geller for her exemplary dedication and service to Valley Beth Shalom, to her family, and to our community.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his hard work. It did not just start recently. He has been building bridges between the United States Congress and the Russian Duma for many years. And I think he speaks well of the need for us to break out of this stranglehold that our policy is in where it seems like not only are we reluctant to compromise, we may even be reluctant to take ``yes'' for an answer. I would like to focus my remarks on my recent trip, along with a delegation from this Congress, to the Balkans. Putting it into context, there were three different groups from this House that went to the Balkans over the weekend. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) reported from his group. A second group, a group of only one Member of this House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), our colleague from Chicago, went with Reverend Jesse Jackson with a delegation that included Rabbi Steven Jacobs of my district in the San Fernando Valley in California; and they, as everyone knows, secured the release of the three American soldiers. The delegation that was the largest of the three visiting the Balkans has received the least coverage, perhaps because we were kind of the most establishment oriented trip. Our itinerary was put together with the full involvement of the administration and the Department of Defense. But given the importance of what is going on in Kosovo, I would like to take the next 40 minutes, perhaps even an hour, to report on my observations on that trip. Our delegation was led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) the majority leader and included, I believe, 17 or more Members of this House. I want to point out that this speech will not only be a description of what we saw in some of my observations but will also act as a convenient pretext for me to once again address this House about our policy in Kosovo and some of the steps I think that we ought to be taking in order to bring this conflict to a conclusion. Mr. Speaker, our trip began here in Washington at 6 a.m. at the Rayburn House Office Building just across the street from this House. And we proceeded to Ramstein, Germany, the site of our large Air Force base there, in fact, the largest group of Americans living anywhere outside the United States. There we were briefed by General John Jumper and his professional staff, and we were indeed impressed by every part of that plan and operation, from the intelligence to weather. And in fact, I came out of that briefing believing, as I did not believe when I went into it, that perhaps there is some chance that bombing alone will bring Milosevic to his knees. But we should not kid ourselves. That is still only a chance. And furthermore, bringing Milosevic to his knees and bringing Serbia to its knees, and I will talk about this a little later, is itself not a total victory for what we set out to do. Because this is not a war to acquire territory or secure strategic position. This is a war that we engaged in to achieve a humanitarian result. And clearly, looking at the carnage in the Balkans, it is hard to call this, even if it were to end tomorrow, a victorious humanitarian effort. I should point out that certainly those of us at that meeting came away with the belief, I think most of us did at least, that the interference or delay involved in NATO being involved in selecting targets has been reduced substantially and that our military is now carrying out the air war in a manner very close to the manner that they would carry it out if there was no political involvement or diplomatic involvement in their decisions at all. We then, after a night's sleep, proceeded that morning to Tirana, Albania. We landed at the international airport, the only significant airport in that country. But to give my colleagues an idea of how poor and undeveloped Albania was and is, Tirana International Airport prior to this war was dealing with an average of seven flights a week, one flight on the average day for the entire country of Albania. The Albanians have basically turned their country over to NATO and the United States both for our humanitarian efforts to provide refugee camps and military efforts to provide bases for us to carry the war to Serbia. I want to first focus on discussions regarding the camps. We need to build more. Over half the Kosovars are still inside Kosovo, and every day thousands stream over that border. Yet it will be months before that stream necessarily comes to an end, even if it continues at the rate of 4,000 or 5,000 or even 10,000 every day. Now, we will be passing from this House a supplemental appropriations bill, a bill which I am told by my colleague and friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who heads the Subcommittee on Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, on which I serve, that that bill may very well not contain the funds we need to build two more camps in Albania. Well, we will need to build far more than two camps. And when I say, ``we,'' I mean not only the United States but NATO and the other countries of goodwill. Japan has chipped in I think a modest insufficient amount, but even that amount will be helpful in building more refugee camps. And when we look at this supplemental, we should look forward to a conference committee which will hopefully add whatever funds are necessary to make a full American effort toward building camps now. Because we clearly misjudged this effort at the beginning and we did not expect a large number of refuges. We were behind the curve in preparing to absorb those refuges. There is no reason for us to be behind the curve still. We should be building camps as quickly as possible. We should not be over optimistic and assume that we will bring Milosevic to our terms in a few days, for it is that kind of optimism that has led to some of the difficulties we face now. I should point out that one of the biggest problems as far as accommodating new refugees is the fact that humanitarian organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, both the private charities, often called NGOs have a tradition in dealing with refugee camps, that they never pay money to rent the land on which those camps will be constructed. This tradition is founded on the belief that when you build a refugee camp that is supposed to be there for weeks, it may be there for decades. But Albania is a mountainous country, there is very little flat land. What land is there is being farmed. And it is absurd to think that we will slow down the process of providing even basic tent shelter for the refugees that are still streaming across the border because of some tradition of not going to this farmer or that farmer and renting their farm so that a camp can be constructed. I should also point out that it is somewhat deceptive how the initial refugees were dealt with and might lead us to the conclusion that we can go at a moderate rate at building refugee facilities. You see, Mr. Speaker, many of the refugees that came at the beginning of this conflict had close relatives to northern Albania who opened their homes and many of the towns in Albania took every available public building and opened it up to refugees. Mosques, local gymnasiums are now full. So every new refugee needs a place to stay that has to be provided through humanitarian effort. And so we need to move forward and recognize that we are going to have to build these camps more quickly than we have in the past. One issue that has come up that I had a chance to discuss with the prime minister of Albania, Mr. Majko, is the idea of resettling refugees in western Europe and in the United States. Our hearts go out to these refugees. It would take a hard-hearted Member of this House to criticize the administration in opening up our country to 20,000 Albanian refugees from Kosovo. However, I do think that I should point out to this House my discussions with the prime minister of Albania in which he made it clear that he was willing to make available his country to provide refugee camps for all of the refugees. There is no shortage of land or space or political willingness to accommodate these refugees subject to the need to rent farmland to build the camps. Moreover, he actually opposed the resettling of these refugees in western Europe and the United States, pointing out that as long as the Kosovars live close to Kosovo, the pressure will continue and the likelihood will continue that they will return to Kosovo. In contrast, we only have to look at Bosnia, where after years of terrible struggle, peace has been restored and the Bosnian Muslims can now live in security. But 70 percent of those Bosnian Muslims who left Bosnia have not returned, even though security has been provided, even though it is possible to live and to make a living, they have not returned and show no likelihood of returning. And so any Albanian nationalist, and the prime minister of Albania certainly fits in this category, would want to keep the Albanian Kosovars in the Balkans, a few miles or at least 50 or 100 miles from Kosovo rather than see these people relocated to far distant areas. Keep in mind that Milosevic's objective is to cleanse the Balkans of Albania or at least of the Kosovars and perhaps we make that easier if we absorb refugees or urge our western European allies to do likewise. As far as the logistics, I think that if we put the same effort into building camps that we are going to have to put into absorbing refugees from other countries, that we could build the camps necessary. But whether we absorb another 20,000 refugees to the United States or not is a drop from one bucket into another bucket. For 20,000 Kosovars is but 1 percent of those who may become refugees if this matter continues as it has. And 20,000 refugees to the United States is but a small portion, perhaps only 20 percent of the refugees that we will absorb every year, not to mention that it is an infinitesimal fraction of our great country's population. So whether 20,000 Kosovars come here or not is but 1 percent of the Kosovars, and we have to focus on the other 99 percent. While I am mentioning my discussions with the Albanian prime minister, I should mention one very interesting idea, and this is one idea to solve two problems. The first problem is that as winter arrives, it is possible that the Kosovars will still be refugees. If this is the case, we need more than simple tents to provide shelter. In addition, we would hope that perhaps before this winter, the Kosovars returned to Kosovo, where they will find decimated and burned-out villages and perhaps no place to stay. What the ambassador of Albania suggested, and this is a matter that I look forward to discussing with the Manufactured Housing Institute and other experts, is that we acquire portable housing, something more solid than a tent, that we erect it in Albania for the refugees, and that it be designed so that when peace comes to Kosovo or even part of Kosovo, that we can tear this housing down and reassemble it so the Kosovars will have a place to live even if their particular village has been burned to the ground during this ethnic cleansing. After our meeting with the Albanian prime minister, we went to visit the American Apache helicopters and more importantly the men and women of the United States who are there to man those helicopters. I was very much impressed with the quality of our military forces. The generals, the officers and even the enlisted men are well aware of their mission and of the complexities. Walking the streets of America, you hear people say, ``Well, let's just get it over with right away.'' Or, ``Let's pull out right away.'' Or, ``What are we doing somewhere unless we can get our way all the way?'' These military men and women that I talk to understand the complexity of the world and understand the complexity of their mission. They recognize that whether it is the Balkans or perhaps some other crisis at some other time, they may be called upon to provide modulated levels of force, peacekeeping, warmaking, retaliatory strikes or humanitarian efforts as necessary to achieve our diplomatic and humanitarian purposes. And they do not insist that the world be made simple, for they recognize how complex it is. We were briefed by Lieutenant General Hendrix and we learned some very interesting facts. The first is about the mountains that separate northern Albania from Kosovo. The general assured us that the Apache helicopters under his command could go over those mountains, many of them over 9,000 feet high, and into Kosovo, and that he thought it was important that they be trained, that they go through some ground exercises before they were deployed. We questioned the general because there was some concern that in order to get these Apache helicopters into Kosovo, that they would need to fly through the two or three passes that are in these mountains that separate Albania from Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognized that any force going through the passes is going to have a tough time since that is the easiest place for the Serbs to set up defense. He assured us that those Apache helicopters could indeed either go through the passes, if that was visible, or instead go over the mountains. But keep in mind that just 2 days after we left, after we had a chance to talk to the brave men and women who pilot those helicopters and who serve the United States by operating those helicopters, that one of those helicopters crashed and two of them lost their lives, and when I began, right as of the time I began trying to put together my thoughts for this speech, the names of those two first casualties had not yet been released, and so I do not know whether it was one of the young men that I spoke to who lost their lives and taught us what the ultimate, showed us what the ultimate sacrifice was and also showed us that this is not a casualty-free war. Now it is true that this helicopter was not lost in combat, but it was lost in a training mission done on an accelerated basis under hazardous conditions, hazardous conditions that were necessary in order to prepare for imminent combat. These two soldiers are the first casualties of this war. As I mentioned, there are mountains that we had a chance to see, albeit from a distance, on the Albania-Kosovo border. Now that is particularly important when we think of the possibility of deploying ground forces. It is true that the KLA lightly-armed guerrilla fighters are slipping over that border now and carrying on operations, but we did not win Desert Storm by sending a few lightly-armed guerrilla fighters up against Saddam Hussein's Army. Even after that Army was subject to a level of bombardment that may be impossible in the terrain of the Balkans we sent in a very heavily armed armored force. And those who talk about starting a ground war must explain to this Congress how that ground operation will operate. Will it be airborne? And what are the casualties of parachuting into hostile territory? Will it be some lightly-armed force, and what are the casualties of sending a lightly-armed force against a heavily-armed adversary? Will we be trying to put heavy armor through mountain passes, and if so, how easy will it be for the Serbs to set up defenses to that armor? Or finally, is it possible that we will convince some country other than Albania to be the jumping-off point for any ground action? As to that last point, as I said, Albania has turned its territory over to NATO, both for military and humanitarian operations, but I do not expect any other country that borders Yugoslavia to do the same thing. For no other country has all without complaint even accepted refugees. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has accepted refugees but has made it very clear that after accepting almost 200,000 they are not necessarily willing to accept more, and I think those who observe diplomatic affairs in the Balkans would have great doubts that American soldiers or NATO soldiers based in that republic or based in Hungary or Romania would ever be allowed to assemble and attack Serbia from those countries. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that I put this speech together because I thought it was important to report on our trip, how that report would still be current and worthy of the attention of our colleagues. I have not had the time I would have liked to make this speech as concise as possible. But continuing with the description of our trip, we then, after visiting with General Hendrix and his men and women, we then went on to be briefed by Colonel Bray of Task Force Hope. Both of these generals and their forces are deployed there at Tirana International Airport where the first thing they have to do is provide security around the perimeter lest some sapper or commando or terrorist force seek to destroy them on the ground. In any case Task Force Hope is America at its best using our helicopter and other logistical efforts to take humanitarian supplies from Tirana in central Albania to northern Albania where most of the refugees unfortunately still are, the part of Albania that borders Kosovo, and so the part that initially receives the refugees. What was driven home to us by this Operation Task Force Hope, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a humanitarian effort. If you are waging a war against a country because of some strategic reason that if you beat the country and achieve your strategic objective you could call it a complete victory. If you are waging war for money and gold, then if you capture the money and gold you can call it a victory. This war is not part of the Cold War or not fighting for some strategic advantage over a larger adversary. This war is not a war of imperialism. This war is a humanitarian effort, and that is why it is so important to end it as soon as possible. An even total victory 3 months from now is less important than a reasonable outcome reached today because every day Kosovars are killed, every day they die of exposure before they are able to reach refuge on the other side of the border, and while the Serbs are our adversaries in this conflict, humanitarianism is not served by their destruction. We are unfortunately treated to the videos of the collateral damage, and I will discuss later whether we can believe all those videos, but clearly there are civilian Serbs being killed every day by our bombing, and if not every day, then every second or every third day. And over $100 billion is the estimate of the damage that we have done to Serbia, and clearly that country's ability to provide for its people and to cure its sick will be diminished and lives will be lost as a result of the huge scale of the economic destruction. Mr. Speaker, that was our visit to Albania. We then boarded military transport for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with its capital at Skopje. When we landed at Skopje Airport, it became apparent immediately that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYRO Macedonia, was a much more developed country than Albania with, for example, a much larger airport. We visit almost immediately from that airport, we went by bus just a few miles and after that trip we were a few miles away from the Kosovo border, which gives you an idea how close that airport and the capital of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is to the Serbian border, just a few miles away. When the buses stopped, they took us to the Stenkovec refugee camp, Stenkovec 1, and that is a camp that is visited by many of those dignitaries or visitors who visit refugee camps. In fact, just 2 days after we left, Tony Blair was at the same camp. What we saw at that refugee camp was, if anything, heartening. We went there expecting to see the worst. We saw, I think, the best we could have expected. The people there were well fed and there was a huge store of food visible for future consumption. There were smiles on the faces of almost everyone I talked to. Think of that. These people have lost everything and they smile and they joke, and there was even a little entertainment off to the side of the camp, not for our benefit but for theirs, where they sung, singing and smiling. I have friends, I myself feel this way, the market goes down by 50 points and we are in a bad mood. These people have lost everything and they smile. Perhaps the best symbolic moment was I visited one tent. They invited me in for some refreshment. This is a refugee camp where people have genuinely found refuge, but it is getting warm. They live in tents. They have been there for a month. There are more on the way. We have to recognize that while there may be smiles today, there could be the natural trouble of too many people and too little space with too little sanitation and too much heat in the coming weeks and months. That is why, as I will say it again, we must go forward and build more camps as quickly as possible to prevent the current camps from becoming overcrowded. Many of the families I visited, they had over 6, 7, sometimes 10 people in a single tent, 12 feet by 12 feet. The fact that this camp remains calm and the people smile is a testament to the goodwill of the Kosovars and to a level of resilience that is remarkable. I could go on about the camp, but there is one other thing I want to mention and that is I went there looking for verification of the stories of atrocities. I spent two hours at that camp. My colleagues, about 18 of them, spread out throughout the camp. Each was assigned our own translator, and I would say one out of 20 or 1 out of 40 or 50 of the residents of the camp spoke English at a sufficient level to communicate. So I went around the camp asking whether they could put me in touch or introduce me to a refugee who had personally seen rape or murder. We were not able to find, at least I was unable to find, a refugee with such a story, either one who spoke English or one who could speak to me through the translator. The story we heard instead, again and again and again, was that Serb paramilitary told people in this or that town or this or that neighborhood to get out and get out quickly, often on as little as 20 minutes notice, and the people decided to leave. Clearly, the stories of rape and murder from other towns and villages inspired such immediate compliance with such an outrageous order. I should point out that the refugees we met came chiefly from eastern Kosovo, and it is quite possible that in the more rural parts of western Kosovo, where naturally rural people are even more tied to the land, more reluctant to accept an order to evacuate not just their homes but the farms, the soil that they have lived on for generations and centuries, perhaps in those areas there are greater levels of atrocity. We then left Skopje for Aviano Air Force base in Italy, the most active base for our planes and other NATO planes to conduct this air campaign. There, we talked to more than one staff or general officer about the stories of collateral damage for just, I believe it was, 2 days ago a bus had allegedly been hit by U.S. bombs and scores of people, or a score of people, were killed allegedly. I use the word allegedly. We never hear the word allegedly on CNN or on any of the news networks, because what the Serbs do is they take western reporters out to a site, there is a crater, there is a destroyed vehicle, there are dead individuals in civilian clothing. It is reported as uncontroverted fact that that crater was created by a NATO bomb, that that vehicle was destroyed by that particular bomb and that those bodies are people who were in the vehicle at the time when it was hit by such a bomb, none of which is verified by forensic experts. I will say that our people in the military are justifiably skeptical of the Serb propaganda effort. While we are talking about a propaganda effort, I should say that we have been remiss in our own propaganda effort, and here I am simply echoing the views of my colleague and friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) who came with us on this trip. For years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has been trying to get Radio Free Europe and similar outlets controlled by the U.S. Government to broadcast in Serb into Serbia. Finally, finally, they have started broadcasting on radio only, but keep in mind over half the Serbs have television satellite dishes. We could, should, have not, and must listen to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) when he says that we need to be broadcasting our message on television, because this war is a war fought in the air but not just by military airplanes but also by television broadcast. This war may be decided by propaganda as much as it is decided by bombs. Then having been in four countries already that day, we flew at the end of Saturday to Brussels, Belgium, where we stayed overnight. We then proceeded to NATO headquarters, where we heard from General Clark, who is NATO's chief commander, and Secretary General Javier Solano, who is the chief officer, in a way the President, of NATO. There, every effort was made to convince us of three things: First, that we are winning, and I remain unconvinced. The most I am convinced of is that there is a possibility that after more bombing we will eventually achieve our stated goals, though this is hardly a humanitarian victory, and that there is even a greater likelihood that we cannot achieve NATO's stated goals through bombing alone. Second, each of the speakers tried to convince us that the European allies of NATO were doing their fair share. This is hardly the case. Eighty-five percent of the airplane flights, the sorties being put forward in this air war, are American. If we stretch the numbers as hard as we can, and being a CPA I have seen them stretched, but I am almost willing to give an honorary CPA certificate to those in NATO who have worked these numbers over very hard, we can argue that 50 percent of the total effort, refugee, military plane strikes and support military effort, that somehow maybe 50 percent is being borne by the Europeans. Even that is an outrageously small percentage. General Clark argued to us that, well, 50 percent of NATO's GDP is found in the United States, and 50 percent of the wealth of NATO is found in the other countries, the European countries of NATO. So if America is half of the economic strength of NATO, why should America do anything less than 50 percent of the total refugee and military effort? By this logic, America, with an equal GDP to Europe, or at least the European members of NATO, should do half of all of what needs to be done in Europe; ninety-nine percent of everything that needs to be done in the Americas, like taking out General Noriega out of Panama. We should do the overwhelming work of what is necessary in Asia, the vast majority of the work necessary in Africa, and bear virtually all the burden in the Middle East. For us to do half of what needs to be done in Europe is absurd unless the Europeans are willing to do half of what needs to be done outside of Europe. But the ability of Europe to do its fair share is limited, limited by small defense budgets, in which America has acquiesced, or rather, our State Department has acquiesced; furthermore limited by how those budgets are spent. In order to ensure that they have a large trade surplus with the United States, not as large as Japan and China, but a large one, nevertheless, European countries insist on not buying American military planes, not buying American electronic military technology, but building it in Europe, no matter how poorly it performs, no matter how little they will be able to do to defend our values, our shared values in Europe. So a desire to spend less and to spend it less efficiently has hobbled Europe's ability to participate in this war, a war that we are carrying on to end ethnic cleansing in Europe. Finally, at NATO they insisted upon reviewing again and again the five NATO points of negotiation. Basically, those points require the Serbs to completely surrender all of Kosovo to NATO. I think this is not exactly a compromise position. But I will point out that the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, has made comments that can be interpreted as setting forth an even more extreme objective, as he has called, somewhat obliquely, for the arrest and trial of Milosevic. Now, if that could be done with the wave of a wand, I would wave that wand immediately. No one, very few people on this planet, deserve a trial for war crimes more than Mr. Milosevic. The rhetoric gets so extreme that people say, how can we live in a world where murderers rule countries? It is time for America to get realistic in its rhetoric. Half the world is run by murderers. Let us recount just a few. The government of Sudan, which has killed 1.9 million of its own people, and has probably killed more people in a genocidal war against its own citizens in southern Sudan than all of the Kosovars total, 1.9 million; not to mention the well-known genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda; the recent killings on Borneo. But perhaps the best example of the fact that murderers run countries is the fact that we welcomed with open arms, not just as a negotiating partner but I think the administration called him a strategic partner, the prime minister of the People's Republic of China, pretending that that government does not include some old men still in power who played a role in the cultural revolution that killed millions; who were there to order the deaths and executions at Tiananmen Square; who were ordering the continued oppression and were there to order the death of millions of people in Tibet. The fact of the matter is that we are not powerful enough, and I do not have a magic wand, we are not powerful enough to arrest and try all of the murderers that run countries, so it is interesting to talk about some rambo-style effort to arrest Milosevic. But in reality, arresting him would require deploying NATO troops and fighting all the way to Belgrade, and then fighting to whatever mountain hideout Milosevic sought shelter in. We are talking at that point of thousands and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dead and wounded American and NATO troops. Those who talk glibly of arresting Milosevic should reflect on what is involved in that level of defeat, a level of defeat that we did not inflict upon Saddam Hussein. We, instead of trying to increase our objectives in this war, should seek the minimum objectives consistent with the real reason we are there: to stop the killing of the Kosovars, and to make sure that Kosovars have a place in Kosovo to live in security where they can build lives. We should demand no more and we should demand no less. This does not mean that Serbia has to surrender all of Kosovo to NATO. It does not mean that Milosevic must be turned over for trial, because, as wondrous as those results would be, the additional deaths not only of NATO troops, but every day this war goes on more people are killed, not in the refugee camps, where they are well taken care of, but in Kosovo itself. We have to stop the killing and reach a peace agreement, consistent with the real objectives of this campaign, as quickly as possible. In fact, the two sides' stated positions are not that far apart. We heard just before I began this long speech, and I apologize for its length, from our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon), who described a possible settlement to which Russian Duma members agreed and which we have reason to believe Milosevic will agree. That agreement calls for a multilateral force that will be there to protect the Kosovars. We should explore that opening instead of saying no, no matter what Milosevic proposes; that he has to accept our five points unilaterally, unconditionally, or we keep the bombing continuing. We ought to explore the possibility that there would be two separate peacekeeping forces. And I say that because the biggest sticking point between the parties is about who is going to be in the peacekeeping force. The Serbs propose that it be under a U.N. flag. America has indicated maybe the U.N. flag is acceptable. Both sides have agreed that the killing should stop. Both sides have even said the Kosovars should go home. The disagreement is over the makeup of the force. The Serbs want to see a lightly armed force of Russians, Greeks and others who have not waged war against them recently, and America and NATO insist on a NATO-led force that is heavily armed. One possibility is to have two peacekeeping forces patrolling two different separate peacekeeping regions within Kosovo. One region could be patrolled by Russians, Greeks, and others acceptable to the Serbs. And it could be said that the Kosovars would be reluctant to return to that region, and I will get to that in a bit, but that first region could include the areas of Kosovo which are most sacred to the Serbs and are the reason or the stated reason they are fighting so hard to retain that territory. That area, which I would think would be maybe 20 percent of Kosovo, could include the famous monasteries, or at least the most important famous monasteries. The City of Pec, where the Serbian Orthodox church began, could be included. We could negotiate, others could decide, whether the mines in northern Kosovo would be included, and of course the battlefield at Kosovo Polje, the famous battlefield where the Serbs were defeated by the Turks in the 14th Century, could all be included in an area where Serbs would feel they had not given up their rights, where the territory would be patrolled only by friends, or at least countries with whom they continue to have cordial relations. The other 80 percent of Kosovo should be patrolled by heavily armed, NATO-led, perhaps U.N.-flag-flying troops where Kosovars could feel very safe. This would allow them to return to Kosovo and, with some American and European economic aid, to rebuild their lives. If we insist on totally crushing all Serb claims to Kosovo, we insist that this war will go on until they are forced to give up. And I am not sure that is even 2 or 3 months away, and I am not sure that that does not involve ground troops over those Almadian mountains, and I am not sure that it can be done at a level of casualties that are acceptable to the NATO countries involved. Because keep in mind, if a multilateral NATO military ground force is deployed, perhaps a British unit suffers casualties or a German unit or an Italian unit or an American unit, and the country that sent those particular soldiers demands an end to hostilities, then we will have the domino effect as each NATO nation says, well, if one NATO nation is pulling out, the others must. So it is important that we try to set our objectives consistent with the real humanitarian reason for our being involved in the Balkans. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address an issue that has been addressed on this floor several times, and that is the role that Congress should play in making our foreign policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, our constitution clearly provides that it is Congress that can declare war. And I believe that once and if we declare war, at that point all Americans should support that war, and Congress at that point has signed the blank check and should butt out and let the Commander in Chief proceed. But unless that happens, we have a decision-making process. If we are not at war, if we have not declared war, if it is not an all-out war, then there is a decision- making process as to what level of hostilities should exist and what we should demand for peace. Mr. Speaker, I am told that dictatorship is efficient; that dictatorship is silent and secret and does not show its enemies what it is thinking. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not our government. Even decisions within the administration are subject to public input, public discussion and a press leak every day. But our Constitution does not vest all power in the administration. And contrary to popular belief, virtually every U.S. Supreme Court decision says that it is Congress, not the President, that has the primary role of determining what our foreign policy is, though not, of course, of determining how our troops should be deployed. So, Mr. Speaker, I know that there are those who have come to this floor and said that our enemies would tremble in fear if they thought that one man could deploy 100,000 American soldiers without the consent of this Congress. But, Mr. Speaker, I would tremble in fear, the founders of this Republic would tremble in fear, if they thought that one man could send 100,000 or more men and women into battle without the approval of the United States Congress. I call upon the President to modify his equivocal letter. There was a letter addressed to the Congress just a couple weeks ago saying, in essence, that ground troops would not be deployed without congressional approval. But those of us who looked very carefully at that letter realized that it did not say what it seemed to say at first reading, and that in fact the President had not promised what he should promise, and that is that before deploying American troops in a battle that may cost hundreds or thousands of lives, that he should come to this Congress and ask for approval. Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I have even other observations from my trip. This issue deserves a full debate. There is, believe it or not, even more to be said, but I notice that it is nearly midnight, it is time for this House to adjourn, and so I will yield back.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Florette Potkin, who is being honored for her dedicated service to the community. Florette and her family are residents of Northridge, California, and have been extremely generous to Temple Ner Maarav, our community, and many charitable causes. President Kennedy once said, ``For those to whom much is given, much is required.'' Temple Ner Maarav has recognized Florette for exemplifying leadership, volunteerism, and dedication. For over three decades, Florette has worked tirelessly to better the community as a whole. Through her love for the arts, Florette found her way to Temple Ner Tamid through her participation in a musical play. Thereafter, she became active through a variety of programs within the temple. While serving as Sisterhood President in 1974, she also helped to pave the way for women in religious functions when she became a Bat Mitzvah that same year. Florette and her husband, Perry, have served in leadership positions in both Temple Ner Tamid and Temple Maarev. Florette has also encouraged her four children to become active in the Jewish community. Florette has been unwavering in her efforts to work with members of the community through her generous contributions. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to Florette Potkin, who is truly a role model for the citizens of Los Angeles.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the subject that is on all of our minds is the fight in Kosovo, and I would like to focus on properly interpreting the votes of yesterday and looking to what our opportunities for solving this crisis might be tomorrow. Yesterday was a momentous day in the history of this House. First, we voted with an over 60 percent vote that the President should not send major ground forces into Kosovo without the approval of this House. Now it is fair to point out that there were those on the other side. They argued that Congress should not have a role in determining whether ground forces are deployed. They argued that our enemies would tremble in fear if they knew that one man, the President of the United States, without the approval of Congress, could deploy 100,000 American soldiers. Mr. Speaker, I would tremble in fear, and the founders of this republic would tremble in fear if it was thought that one man, without the approval of the representatives of the people, could send 100,000 of our men and women into battle. But the fact that Congress insists upon approving in advance any deployment of ground troops does not mean that Congress has prejudged the issue. Whether this country supports ground troops will depend, in my opinion, on what we discover is happening to the men of Kosovo. Because the refugees come out, the women, the children, the old men, but the younger men and the middle-aged men are left behind. They may join the KLA, and that is their right; they may be detained, and that is not something that would cause incredible outrage. But if we discover, as so many fear, that the men of Kosovo are being systematically slaughtered, then there will be an outcry throughout Europe and the United States, and it is possible that this House would authorize the use of ground troops. Second, and I think most telling, we voted 2-to-1, and that is very rare in this House, by a 2-to-1 majority against ending all hostilities. In doing so, we made it clear that America is not simply going to shrug our shoulders and walk away. This is the most important vote, and the vote that should be focused on by Belgrade. The third vote, and, unfortunately, the vote that is getting the press, was a vote of 213 to 213 as to whether this House would go on record authorizing the air strikes. Now, our own press is misinterpreting this vote, for it came just a few hours after, by a 2-to-1 majority, my colleagues and I voted not to stop what is going on now. We are not fools. What is going on now is an air campaign, and our decision not to stop it should have been read as a decision to go forward, at least for the present time. But our own press, let alone the people in Belgrade, misinterpret the last vote yesterday, because they fail to account for two groups that voted against the resolution. One was a group, unfortunately, of some of my Republican colleagues, who, while they support continuing the air campaign, oppose saying anything good about anything President Clinton has ever done. It is not a secret even in Belgrade that President Clinton is not popular in the Republican Caucus, but that does mean that this people or this Congress wants to stop action and let Milosevic have his way. Second, there were a group that I respect immensely who looked at some of the hidden possible legal implications of that resolution. They noticed that under the War Powers Act there may be a challenge to any attempt by the President to put in ground troops without the approval of this House, and that there is some judicial writing to the effect that if Congress authorizes any kind of force, that we are in no position to limit any other kind of force. Properly interpreted, the votes of yesterday are clear: We should proceed to work to put Kosovars back in their homes in security and peace, and I addressed the House earlier on some of the more creative ways to try to accomplish that.