Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim and Ellyne Warsaw who have spent over 20 years building and nurturing their marriage, and family, as well as their strong sense of Jewish community in the Orange County area. 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, innovative volunteers actively participate in delivering tremendous support, selflessly dedicating their time and energy to enriching our community. Jim Warsaw, has shown his dedication as the Honorary Chair of Project TBY 2000 Building Fund Campaign, as Past President of the American Friends of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and as a board member of numerous organizations including the Regional Board of the Anti- Defamation League, the National New Leadership board of Israel Bonds, and an active member of the Board of Directors of the National Parkinson's Foundation Alliance and the Lobby for Parkinson's Action Network. Ellyne Warsaw has shown her dedication to Temple Bat Yahm as Past President of the Early Education PFO, Chairperson for the Annual PFO Fashion Show and Holiday Boutique, Trustee as the Vice-President of the Temple Bat Yahm Early Education Program, and as a supporter and contribute for the Annual Canvas of Hope fundraiser for a local chapter supporting Parkinson's Disease. In addition to their caring for the needs of the Jewish community, Jim and Ellyne Warsaw are symbols of commitment, integrity, and devotion to their children--Bryan, Zakary, and Kyle. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to Jim and Ellyne Warsaw. They are both deserving of our utmost respect and praise.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, then, perhaps brevity is called for, and I thank the gentleman. I did not realize the imposition involved. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I stated that we have to reflect on the votes of yesterday, where by a 2-to-1 majority we voted against a unilateral withdrawal. But this was not a ringing endorsement of our current military or diplomatic strategy with regard to Yugoslavia nor is it a call for the introduction of NATO ground troops; rather, it is important that we come up with additional options. I have a few that I believe deserve to be considered, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for giving me the opportunity to present them to this House. The first of these involves training, though not necessarily arming the Albanians, both those who are citizens of Albania and wish to fight for their brethren and the Kosovar refugees who have escaped from Kosovo. Now, there are objections to this strategy. They point out that there is an arms embargo with regard to the nation of Yugoslavia. But this arms embargo would not be violated if we simply provided training while Americans retained custody of the weapons. Second, the idea of just arming the Kosovars with the idea that we would just open up a box and distribute rifles does not create an army capable of defeating Milosevic. In fact, the KLA already has plenty of rifles from a variety of sources. Now, I am not saying that the time has come to turn over custody of artillery and tanks to the Albanians. But if Milosevic knew that we were training an Albanian force to use heavy weapons, then he would know that he was up against not only the NATO air armada, not only a ragtag band of lightly armed KLA guerillas, but would also know that soon we would be able to unleash a force of heavily armed Albanians. Second, I think it is important that we look at our diplomatic strategy and posturing. At this point we seem too tied to the intense vilification of Milosevic. And it is indeed tempting, for he is indeed evil. But let us keep in mind that we have to do business with evil men. The Government of China sent its emissary to this Capitol just a few weeks ago. That government is responsible for more deaths than all the Albanians that have ever been alive anywhere since the days of the ancient Eridians. Saddam Hussein, a man with much blood on his hands, has not been deposed by the United States and we have had to reach an accommodation with him. Those who say that our objective should be to remove Milosevic should contemplate the casualties involved in sending American ground troops not only into Kosovo but into Serbia. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon), is leading a group to Vienna, and we should praise those efforts, because he is going to reach out to members of the Russian Duma in an effort to enlist Russian support for a negotiated peace. We should remember that negotiation involves give and take. All too often we focus on the results of World War II. Glorious as they were, they are not typical. In fact, only one of our foreign wars ended with the unconditional surrender of our adversary. And for us to expect an unconditional surrender of Serbia, whether it is the unconditional surrender of its Kosovo province and all parts of it, or whether it is the surrender of that government and the occupation of all of Serbia, this should not be the expected result nor is it the necessary result. I would suggest, and I have suggested this not only to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) but several others who are traveling with him, that we propose to the Russians that there be two zones in Kosovo and two separate peacekeeping forces. One zone would be along the border between Kosovo and Serbia and Kosovo and Montenegro and would be patrolled exclusively by Russian peacekeepers. This area Serbia would know they would retain rights with regard to. And this area should include the ancient battlefield of Kosovo Polyea, the famous monastery to the south of Pristina, the City of Pec, which was the original site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and other lands of critical significance to the Serb nation. The remaining, I would suspect 70 to 80 percent of Kosovo, would be subject to NATO occupation, a NATO peacekeeping force, and in this area the Albanian Kosovars would live in security and could return from their refugee status. If we propose this, Milosevic then has a reason to deal. Because instead of proposing that he lose all rights in Kosovo, we are proposing that he retains rights that he might otherwise lose if he continues to battle us and our Albanian allies in the year to come. At the same time, we should work toward any acceptable peace. And an acceptable peace is one that is workable, and where the Kosovars are able to return to Kosovo, or any reasonable part thereof, to live in peace and security and, knowing the generosity of the American and European people, with the aid and trade concessions they need to live prosperous as well as secure lives.

Mr. SHERMAN. If I can inquire of the Chair, is it necessary that Mr. Berry remain standing through my speech or can that be waived through unanimous consent?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I addressed the House earlier. I had about 15 minutes of things to say and lacked the conciseness and brevity to put it into a 5-minute speech. I guess the next thing to the capacity to brevity is to have a good friend who is willing to yield time. If I may inquire as to the level of generosity of my friend, how much time is remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. And should any court interpret it as a congressional authorization to use any other kind of force?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to further clarification.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some general comments about our position in Kosovo, and then focus on the resolutions that are before us today. Some think that this is a stark choice, that we must either ignore the refugees of Kosovo and ignore the fact that America's credibility and NATO's credibility is on the line, or we must, instead, commit ground forces and incur hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American casualties. I think we do need to focus on other options. One of those is to train, though not necessarily arm, a force of Albanians perhaps independent of the KLA. Then when Milosevic reviews the situation, he will see that he is up not only against the most powerful air armada ever assembled, not only against a ragtag band of lightly armed KLA guerrillas, but also will soon be up against a force of heavily armed Albanians with tanks and heavy artillery willing to take casualties. We need to enlist the Russians in negotiating a settlement. I would suggest that that settlement would provide that 20 percent or so of Kosovo would be patrolled by a Russian peacekeeping force, and that some 80 percent would be patrolled by a NATO peacekeeping force. The ultimate resolution of Kosovo could be decided later. I see that my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), has returned to the Chamber, and I discussed with him earlier the meaning of his own resolution, which I know he intends, or is at least allowed by the rule, to introduce later today. I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman, because it has been argued that the legal effect of his resolution, as interpreted by a court, his resolution is an authorization by Congress to send a large ground force into Kosovo or as waiving any of Congress' rights with regard to such a deployment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I note with regret that the President, who once pledged to the world that no American ground troops would be deployed, now refuses to pledge to seek congressional approval before such a massive deployment. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because the last paragraph of it nullifies the War Powers Act until the end of this century, and the War Powers Act is a tool we may need to influence policy. There are those who argue against any congressional involvement in the grave decision that lies ahead. They say that our enemies will tremble in fear if one man, without congressional approval, can deploy 100,000 American soldiers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I tremble in fear and the Founders of this Republic would tremble in fear if they thought that one man, without congressional approval, could send 100,000 of our men and women into battle.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this has been a momentous day. And it is important that the Nation, and especially the leaders in Belgrade, do not misinterpret what happened here. America will continue the air war, and that air war has the support of this House. America demands the resettlement of the Kosovars in safety in Kosovo, and that has overwhelming support. And that is all indicated by our rejection of the resolution to withdraw all military efforts from the Yugoslav theater. We also voted clearly, and the White House should not misconstrue this, that before massive ground forces are deployed, Congress must be consulted. And finally, in what I fear will be a confusing vote, and I use this speech to avoid such confusion, we voted 213-213 on a resolution that seemed restricted to the air war, but those who understand our legal system will recognize that the reason we voted that way was to make sure our own courts did not misinterpret that vote as a vote in favor of a carte blanche to the President. We support the air war by a large vote in this House.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing this issue to a head. We have cast and will cast momentous votes for today. I think it is important that we clarify the record. We voted for the Goodling-Fowler bill. I should point out that distributed to virtually every Member of this House by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) was a statement in writing that should be part of the record, that says in part that this bill does not prevent the use of Apache helicopters and does not preclude the introduction of small numbers of personnel for intelligence or targeting functions. I think that our adoption of that resolution, at least by this House, made sense. I know there are those who argue that Congress should not be involved in the momentous decision that lies ahead, but as I have said before, those who say that our enemies should tremble in fear because one man should be allowed to deploy 100,000 American soldiers, should be answered that Americans should tremble in fear if one man without congressional approval can deploy 100,000 men and women into battle. I should point out that the President of the United States distributed to all Members of Congress today a letter stating, in part, that he would ask for congressional support before introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo, into a nonpermissive environment. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) will be bringing up a matter later today. It has been interpreted by some as more than a mere authorization of the air campaign but it states, and I interpret it, as providing only support for the air campaign and not a legal authorization for more. I would hope that any wise court would look at the record today. A letter from the President saying he will not put in ground troops, a vote by this House not to put in ground troops. Under those circumstances, a wise court should interpret the Gejdenson resolution as nothing more than what it states.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Eitan Teitler, program chairman of the annual Festival of Hope and Peace, which celebrates Israel's independence. 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, innovative volunteers such as Eitan actively participate in delivering tremendous support, selflessly dedicating their time and energy to enriching our community. I can think of no better tribute to Eitan. After being raised in Israel and completing his formal education, Eitan began his career through distinguished service in the Israeli army followed by 5 years of higher education in the Hebrew University School of Medicine. Currently, Eitan serves on the board of B'nai B'rith/Shalom Lodge. He also serves as a board member of the Council of Israeli Organizations. In addition to his service to the community, Eitan has worked in the construction business in Israel, Nigeria, Cameroon, and now in Los Angeles. Eitan has been happily married for 28 years to Erella, and is the father of three children who live on a kibbutz in Israel. His son, Nir, is now serving in the Israeli army. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Eitan Teitler for his ongoing service to the Jewish community and the community at large.

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know I am the last Speaker before the staff goes home, and they will be gratified to know that I will use roughly half the allotted time. Even with half the allotted time, 30 minutes is quite long, perhaps too long to devote to a single subject, and that is why I wish to give, in effect, three separate speeches. The first speech I would like to give is in commemoration of the remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. April 24 is the day when Armenians and those of good conscience around the world remember the genocide that took place at the beginning of this century. Because it was on April 24 that 200 Armenian religious, political, intellectual leaders were rounded up in Constantinople, taken into the interior and executed. This was a seminal day in a pattern of oppression that began in the 1890s, and at a level of oppression which between 1915 and 1923 caused the death of 1.5 million Armenians in mass executions in forced marches, through disease, and through starvation, thus eliminating virtually the entire Armenian population of Anatolia and Western Armenia. There were many contemporaries who were there to see this first genocide. Perhaps no one speaks with the authority of our own ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Ambassador Henry Morgantheau. I will probably mispronounce our ambassador's name, so I will simply refer to him as our ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. He recounts in his statement, ``When the Turkish authorities gave orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race. They understood this well, and in their conversations with me made no particular attempt to conceal this fact.'' In the poignant passage in his book, Black Dog of Faith, Peter Balakian relates the story of a genocide survivor. After seeing the massacre of Armenians in her own village, her father beheaded and crucified on the door of their home on one morning, the Armenian woman was forced to dance in the village square while being brutalized and set on fire, as their children clapped, and other images too horrific to describe. The death march and the Euphrates so filled with blood and corpses that no reasonable person could see it and not be sick. The first genocide of this century laid the foundation for the Holocaust, the largest genocide and the most horrific of this or any century. It was interesting that our ambassador to the Ottoman Empire happened to be an American Jew who was told by Turkish authorities, ``These people, these Armenians, are Christians. Since you are a Jew, why don't you let us do with the Christians as we please?'' Well, whether it is in Anatolia or in Europe or anywhere in the world, we cannot countenance genocide simply by saying the victims are not of our religion or ethnic group. No wonder 30 years later Adolf Hitler uttered his infamous statement about the Armenian Genocide. Eight days before the invasion of Poland, which would place 3 million Jews under his control and which allowed Hitler to send them to their deaths, he told those in his inner circle who thought that the world might question this policy, ``Who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?'' Clearly, the impunity that the Turkish government felt that they had in annihilating the Armenians emboldened Hitler before the worst of the Holocaust. And that is why those of us of Jewish faith, Armenians, and everyone of good conscience must say, ``never again.'' The last act of a genocide is genocide denial. Because those who have committed it wish to blot out even the memory of those who they have killed. And it is, in fact, unfortunate that the Turkish Government continues its genocide denial, a genocide denial that is not just passive, not just intransigent, but takes the form of trying to erase from the history books of others that which happened at the beginning of this century. Today I was honored to meet with the new chancellor of UCLA, my alma mater. And I am proud of UCLA. I was a Bruin when Walton was on the basketball court. And I was proud to meet our new chancellor, who described what is happening at UCLA. But the proudest day for UCLA was when it rejected a gift of over a million dollars from the Turkish Government, rejected a gift of over a million dollars. It is not in the nature of universities to reject gifts, but this gift came with strings attached. It was to fund a chair in Ottoman history with various strings and provisos that virtually ensured that the Turkish Government would control who sat in that chair. It would not have been a chair for legitimate inquiry into historical facts but rather a chair in genocide denial. And UCLA stood firm and rejected that gift and said that the academic integrity of my alma mater and the academic integrity of all American universities is not for sale. It is time for the American State Department to show this same level of courage and determination. It is time for the State Department and the U.S. executive branch of Government not just to remember the day April 24 but to use the word that describes what that day remembers. The word is ``genocide.'' And it is time for the State Department to recognize what happened. Clearly, at a time when the State Department is trying to rally our support to prevent mass murders in the Balkans, they should be honest as to what happened in Anatolia some 80-plus years ago. Plan Needed to Provide Directional Signs at U.S. Capitol Complex

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address a completely different subject and one that is not nearly so grave. I had a chance to meet with the Architect of the United States Capitol, the man who keeps the facilities here running, to talk to him about some of the ways we could make this institution work better as a physical plant. Mr. Speaker, we get four to five million tourists every year. Now, that does not cause us to rival Disneyland, although there are those who assert that the U.S. Congress rivals Disneyland in other respects, but it is indeed a large number of people to accommodate. And yet, I will just illustrate the problem with a story that happened last year. Some constituents of mine came and visited the gallery, right up there. And after watching their fill of Congressional pontificating, they decided to walk back to my office in the Longworth building through the tunnels. For it was winter and the tunnels were warm. And, as everyone knows, there are a network of tunnels that connect the Capitol with the House office buildings. Well, they walked down into the tunnels and they have not been heard from since. For that labyrinth, that maze, lacks almost any sign to tell them where they are going. Now, as a serious matter, the absence of signage so far has not been responsible for somebody being lost to the point where they were never heard from again, but it does imperil the efficiency not only of this House's business, the efficiency of those who come here to persuade us on various issues, but it also impairs the efficiency of the Capitol Police that are here to protect us. And last year the importance of that protection was illustrated. If we talk to any Capitol policeman or Capitol police woman, if we talk to them for a while and ask them to let down their guard a little bit, they will tell us they spend less than a third but close to a third of their time giving directions. Well, that is not surprising. There are four to five million tourists here each year not to mention a few freshmen and sophomore Members of Congress who ourselves do not always know the best way to get from one place to another. We need a plan to provide signs throughout the Capitol complex. I am happy to report to the House that the architect has already signed a consulting contract, half of that contract is completed, for a plan to put signs virtually everywhere, literally thousands of new directional signs so that people who visit us will know where they are and how to get to where they are going. I was told once, if we want to influence what happens in Washington, we need to hire an expensive lobbyist who knows his way around the Capitol. I thought that meant understanding parliamentary procedure. But parliamentary procedure is simple compared to the labyrinth of tunnels underneath this building, and knowing our way around Washington may very well mean simply knowing how to get from one building to the other. Thousands of directional signs throughout the buildings and tunnels will make it easier for people to do business whether they are here for a day or whether they are just coming to Congress as freshmen or new staffers. I will simply point out that the way they test the intelligence of rodents is they put them in a maze of tunnels and see how quickly they can figure out their way around. I personally am not going to go one-on-one against the more intelligence white rats because, if my own experience in the tunnels is any indication, I am not certain that I would prevail. We need these directional signs. And I am also happy to report to those who protect the entrance at the southeast corner of the Longworth building that I have the assurance of the Architect that a new series of signs will be put up there very soon so that they can do their job instead of telling people that they are in the Longworth Building and where the Rayburn Building is and where the Cannon Building is. There is one other step that we could take. It has been analyzed by the consultants. I believe the consultants have not embraced it, but it deserves some additional attention. And that is the idea of putting colored striping not in the beautiful buildings but in the I will use the term ``ugly'' tunnels that are underneath this building. I think my colleagues are well aware that those tunnels are not in any way aesthetic. They have open pipes and dangling wires, and certainly colored stripes on the ground would do nothing to decrease their aesthetic appeal. But those colored lines could direct people from one building to the other effectively and direct them to the Capitol building effectively. There is perhaps a plan to make those tunnels a little bit more aesthetically consistent with the rest of the Capitol; and if that is the case, I would well understand why colored lines on the ground are inconsistent with that. But if the tunnels are going to remain the functional-only tunnels that they are today, then nothing should be ruled out as far as making them more usable and providing some direction to those who use them. A second issue I would like to raise would perhaps make it easier on Americans by not requiring them to even come to Washington at all, although it is beautiful and I urge Americans to come here to see their Government in action, and that is an idea that has been used in the California capitol in Sacramento for over 20 years. Each of the hearing rooms for each of the committees here in Congress has a microphone system and anywhere in that room we can hear whoever is speaking, and that means their voice is going through a wire to the loudspeakers. But, unfortunately, that wire only goes to loudspeakers in that hearing room. As has been remarked on many occasions, Congress in committee is Congress at work. What goes on in committee is every bit as important as what goes on on this floor. And if my speech lasts as long as it might, perhaps many would argue that what goes on in committee is far more interesting than what is going on on the floor. But, in any case, what goes on in committee, whether it is a subcommittee or full committee, is of critical importance. And yet in Sacramento, if we are anywhere in the capitol complex, they have at their desk a box and they can simply turn a 1970s technology dial on that box and listen through a speaker to what is happening in committee hearing room number 1 or number 2 or number 15 or number 22, so that every legislative assistant in Sacramento can hear what is going on in their Ways and Means Committee while at the same time being able to prepare their member for what is going to go on in their Appropriations Committee. Just as C-SPAN plays what is going on on the House floor, which is of occasional interest to the legislative assistants, they could instead listen to what is going on in an appropriations subcommittee of direct relevance to the district that their Member represents. So I think that we can also rig up a system at virtually minimal cost so that each of us in each office here in the Capitol could listen on a box to what is going on in the committee hearing room of our choice, listening perhaps on one hour to what is going on in the International Relations hearing room and then turning a dial to listen to what is going on in Ways and Means. But we do not have to stop at 1970s technology. We could work our way up to 1980s technology. We could take those same 20 or 30 audio choices and put them on an 800 number. Or if we wanted to be cheap, we could put them on a 900 number. But either way, we can allow people all over the country to dial in and hear what is going on in this or that committee of the House of Representatives. Today there their only alternative is to hire some expensive lobbyist to come monitor a committee or, alternatively, to fly to Washington so that they could be there for a committee hearing. Now, I know that C-SPAN covers what seems to be an interminable number of committee hearings. But, in fact, only two or three percent of the committee hearings are carried live and those interested in what is going on in committee and subcommittee have to be physically in the room to hear what is going on. We could, through 1980s technology, provide that to every American everywhere in the country. And I know there are people who watch this floor on C-SPAN who would prefer to know what is going on in the committee that is relevant to them. But we do not even have to stop at 1980s technology. As we approach the new century, we could even think of 1990s technology. At virtually no cost, we could put that same audio signal on the Internet and anyone with a computer and a modem and 10 or 20 bucks to provide their Internet service provider could listen anywhere in the country to what is going on in any committee room here in the House of Representatives. This is the people's House, but the people should not have to fly to Washington to hear what is going on. Now, I realize that the system will not be perfect. They will not necessarily be certain who is speaking when listening on a squawk box or listening on the Internet. But certainly this is an option that we should provide. And those who listen carefully will hear who the chairman or chair woman of a committee has recognized and will be able to remember who is speaking. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to give my third speech. And while I said that I would use only half of the allotted hour, I fear that I may use perhaps two-thirds of it. And I apologize to those staff members who are extremely anxious to leave. The Conflict in the Balkans But the third issue that I would like to address is the one that is on all of our minds, and that is the conflict in the Balkans, and I have a few basic observations before I would like to give a more organized and cogent presentation. The first observation is that we are about to play host to the NATO ministers. They are coming here to celebrate 50 years of NATO, but I fear that what they are here to celebrate is 50 years of us spending on our defense budget enough money to protect them and the peace of their continent while Europe fails to spend enough on its own defense. Now when NATO was born 50 years ago, the European economies were in shambles, and the concept of burden sharing was perhaps not applicable. But today, as the alliance engages in military affairs in the Balkans, the most that can be said is the Europeans are helping us. Europe is the richest continent on the planet. Its gross domestic product exceeds that of the United States. We are told that the reason we are focusing on Kosovo is that this is destabilizing to the most powerful continent on the planet, Europe, and yet somehow the most this great colossus can provide is some assistance while a North American country is required to do the work. And we are even told that we should be grateful that they are assisting our efforts to protect their continent. Now is not the time for restructuring the military relationships, but clearly the time has come to end American acquiescence as the Europeans slash their own defense budgets far below what they proved they could afford during the 1980's. If there is a peace dividend, it should be paid to the American taxpayers who bore the lion's share of the economic burden of winning the Cold War. It should not be reaped by a European continent which demanded through its own inaction American protection. If we look at what is happening in the Balkans, we see that America is now required to mobilize its reserves. Certainly all of the European air forces should have mobilized all of their reserves before Europe asked us or NATO asked us to mobilize ours, and the importance of stopping the mass murder in the Balkans may exceed these concerns for now. But 6 months from now, a year from now, we must make it clear to the Europeans that dialing 911 and reaching the Pentagon is not a substitute for spending their own money for their own defense forces. The second observation I would like to make is that the vilification of Slobodan Milosevic is justified but may impede our efforts because I do not think, and I will get to this later, that we can be certain of such total battlefield dominance that we can just send a telegram or a fax to Belgrade instructing them what to do. Instead, I suspect that we will have to negotiate a compromise or a settlement with Mr. Milosevic, and while he is a mass murderer, the people of this country must be aware that Saddam Hussein is an even worse mass murderer and we had to negotiate with Saddam, and the government in Beijing has killed millions of Chinese, and we just welcomed their prime minister. Why must America do this? Why does America do this? Why do we deal with mass murderers? Why must we deal with Milosevic? I would put forward that if we want to hide from the truth, we could try to convince ourselves that Milosevic is the only malignancy on this planet and that everywhere else governments are free, people are safe, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Half of the people of this world are ruled by governments that have committed mass murder, and as long as the world is as it is rather than as we would like to pretend it is, like to deceive our children and even our voting age citizens into believing it is, as long as half the world is governed by governments guilty of mass murder, we will have to deal with those governments. Third, I would like to observe an unfortunate tendency in the rhetoric surrounding Kosovo, both rhetoric of our own State Department and rhetoric in London and in other European capitals. That rhetoric is to increase the objectives that we demand that we reach in Kosovo while at the same time, frankly, our military campaign is not working out as we planned. To increase the objective while not achieving any of your objectives on the battlefield, or any of your major objectives, is folly and sets us up for defeat. We must instead recognize that we did not begin these hostilities for the purpose of sending American troops into Belgrade with an arrest warrant for Slobodan Milosevic and the British did not begin their effort alongside us for that purpose either, and while those who are watching action thrillers out of Hollywood may believe that you can land one Jean Claude Van Dam and maybe a Schwartzenegger or two, and rush into the Presidential Palace in Belgrade, extract Milosevic and fly him to the Hague for trial, in fact the overthrow of Milosevic is probably not going to occur, and to enter Belgrade means either you enter us with a small force, which would probably be completely extinguished, and I will point to our lack of success in sending a small force into Tehran to rescue our hostages. Perhaps we should thank God that that force never actually reached Tehran because I am not sure that it would have been successful had it reached that city. In fact, it was not successful in even reaching the capital of Iran. So, sending in a small force risks the annihilation of that force. Sending into Belgrade, that means all the way through Serbia, a force capable of exercising dominion over that city would probably involve a military campaign involving thousands and thousands of American casualties. So while it is glorious to beat our chests and to say that the world must rid itself of Milosevic, and perhaps some day that will come, to make that an objective of our current campaign is to doom that campaign to failure and perhaps to ensnarl us in a ground campaign that would have very high casualties. I do want to point out that our actions in Kosovo are motivated by the highest level of idealism, that we are willing to spend our treasure and, more importantly, to risk the lives of our men and women to prevent atrocities and to assure the Albanian Kosovars of a chance to live in peace, security and autonomy. Perhaps there is no more moral statement that can be made about America than that we are willing to do that. But in any such great idealistic undertaking there is a risk that the idealism that motivates the action will cloud your judgment and have idealism cloud the effort to develop a realistic strategy. Realism requires us to remember some unpleasant facts. The first of these is that Kosovo is not the only place of mass murder, of tragedy and atrocity. It is not a place where we can spend our entire willingness to work for humanitarian ideals, because in fact there are other victims of mass murder, perhaps also that would be just as just for us to try to help as the Kosovars. I will point out that 800,000 members of the Tutsi tribe were killed in Rwanda, but that is pretty much passed, but today there is massive tragedy, death and atrocity in the Congo, in Myanmar, in East Timor, and especially in southern Sudan where 2 million people have been killed, and the killing goes on every year. There are those that say we cannot stand by and watch atrocities in the Balkans. We should not watch, but we have demonstrated our capacity to watch atrocity because for 10 years we have ignored the atrocities in southern Sudan where 2 million people have been killed and where America has done almost nothing to help them. I would hope that our actions in Kosovo are so successful that we are emboldened to provide some limited level of assistance, and I am not proposing sending American Armed Forces, but some limited level of assistance to those in southern Sudan who are trying to protect their lives from a government more guilty of mass murder than the government in Belgrade. A second fact that we are perhaps unwilling or at least reluctant to recognize is that our goal creating a multi-ethnic, autonomous Kosovo, multiethnic and harmonious may be beyond reach. Realistically it is unlikely that Albanians and Serbs will live in Kosovo in harmony and peace in the absence of an outside force. We should remember that it is not just the Serbs who have committed massive atrocities, but the KLA that has committed atrocities on a smaller scale as they have killed Serb civilians, and we may have to settle for a Kosovo in which part is inhabited by Albanians, the lion's share, and part is inhabited by Serbs. The goal of them living side by side is a noble and idealistic goal, but one that a realist might say cannot be achieved any time soon. Finally, or another important fact to point out, one that we are clouded in our judgment for not realizing, is that this is not a battle between pure good and pure evil. Yes, in an idealistic melodrama there is pure good and pure evil, yet that is not the case here. I have already mentioned that the KLA has engaged in atrocities to try to expel Serbs from Kosovo, far smaller in number, far less heinous a policy, but murder is murder, and the KLA, who are fighting more or less on our side, fighting for the Kosovars, is an organization with some ties to Iran, an organization that Osama Bin Laden has tried to assist and we are not certain of whether those entreaties and offers of assistance have been honored and an organization with ties to drug dealers. Until a few months ago, the official policy of our State Department was to call the KLA a terrorist organization. Likewise, the Serbs are not just victimizers, but also victims. 180,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia just a few years ago, forced at the point of bayonet and gun to leave homes they had lived in for centuries. I would point out that during that ethnic cleansing, where Serbs were the victims, America did almost nothing. It is true, while there were a few murders they did not reach the level of mass murder that has been achieved in Kosovo, but still some murders and 180,000 to 200,000 people ethnically cleansed, this was an atrocity. Yet at the time, the Croatians who were committing this atrocity were our allies with regard to bringing the Bosnian conflict to a conclusion so America said virtually nothing and did absolutely nothing. Finally, blind idealism would say that we should be increasing our objectives to reach pure justice for our cause, and I have mentioned this earlier, adding on to our objectives the idea that not only Kosovo but all of it would be liberated and under total NATO domination but that Milosevic would be taken prisoner, et cetera, et cetera. In fact, given the situation, militarily it would be wise for the United States to define a more realistic objective. We should not give up on the idea that the Albanian Kosovars need a place to live in Kosovo where they are safe and where they can succeed with our aid in building a prosperous homeland, but this does not necessarily need to be 100 percent of Kosovo in multiethnic harmony, which is our stated objective. Let me talk for a moment about some of the strategies that we should at least explore to go along with those that we are using. Today I had the opportunity in hearings to hear from and question our Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Mr. Speaker, if anyone saw me running into this hall it was so that I could make it here on time because we had a meeting, with several of my colleagues, with Sandy Berger, who is the President's national security advisor. The administration remains welded to its existing policies. They are optimistic that continued bombing will lead to a collapse of the Milosevic capacity to resist. If they are right, we will find out because nothing this Congress does, nothing the people of this country do, will prevent a continued bombing campaign for at least several weeks, perhaps a month, before there is even the possibility that anyone other than the administration would cause in any way a change in policy. If during those weeks there are not signs and far greater signs than we have seen so far of success, we do need to look at other strategies. One of those strategies is being embraced by the administration but only to a limited extent, and that is to involve Russia in the peacemaking process. Russia is critical because Russia can persuade the Milosevic government to do things and to make concessions they would not make on their own. Russia is important because they can provide a fig leaf or political cover so that Milosevic can make any concessions that he decides are in his interest to make but he needs a political excuse to make. Finally, Russia is important to the Balkans because Russia could provide an essential part of the peacekeeping force, and I will get to some of the possibilities for a makeup of a peacekeeping force later. Involving Russia in the Balkans may be more important than anything that is happening in the Balkans. Ten years from now Kosovo may be somewhat forgotten but Russia will remain a critical nuclear arms state, and if we do not treat Russia with respect now the Russian people and the Russian leadership will remember that in the future. By way of historical footnote, I should mention that 85 years ago Russia mobilized its Army in support of Serbia, and that led directly to World War I. It is not surprising that the Russians, mindful of their own history, mindful of the sacrifices of World War I, believe that they have a definite stake in what happens to Serbia. So we can and should involve Russia, and if Russia gets the credit for peace that is two good things. It is peace and it is a Russian Government that can hold its head high against the ultranationalists in Moscow and elsewhere. Second, and this is controversial, we need to signal that we are not demanding that Rambouillet, that the Rambouillet agreement, apply to all of Kosovo's territory but, rather, that it apply to only the lion's share of that territory. No one doubts that the Serbs, like the Albanian Kosovars, have rights in Kosovo. The Serbs represent 10 percent of the population, the Kosovars a little over 80 percent. Kosovo has been part of Serbia for hundreds of years, and Kosovo is the religious and cultural birthplace of the Serbian nation. In fact, even the Rambouillet agreement recognizes Serb rights in Kosovo by stating that Kosovo should remain part of Serbia. We should imagine an agreement that does not involve one peacekeeping force but, rather, two geographically separate peacekeeping forces. One of those forces should occupy 70, 80 percent of Kosovo and should be led by NATO. This force will provide the security necessary so that Albanian refugees feel free to return, and on that 80 percent of the territory they will build lives more prosperous than the lives they had before this conflict because they will enjoy not only American aid but, with a little common sense, we will allocate to them all of the former Yugoslavia's textile quota and other trade concessions, aid and trade. This would leave another 20 percent of Kosovo that would be patrolled exclusively by Russian peacekeepers. The final status of Kosovo could wait, but in this area Serbia would feel secure. In this area, the Serb population would feel very secure and, frankly, in this area I am not certain that refugees would choose to return. This would allow the Serbs to notice that their friends, the Russians, were the force occupying the ancient site and origin of the Serbian orthodox church, the important monastery lands, at least those that are contiguous, and the battlefield of Kosovo Polje, where the Serbs fought the Turks in the 14th century. By letting the Serbs know that there will be no NATO occupation of this section of Kosovo, we leave them with a reason to bargain. Otherwise, they lose not one more square inch of territory by losing this war than they would if they agreed to our bargaining position. Giving them security in 20 percent of Kosovo gives them a reason to make concessions other than ending the bombing, and clearly ending the bombing has not imperiled them to reach a compromise with us so far. It is true that the Serbs claim to have monasteries virtually all over Kosovo, but I am confident that they would regard it as a compromise rather than a total defeat if they were allowed to see the Russians, rather than NATO, who is bombing them, occupy the most important sites, particularly in the far west and the far east of Kosovo. Finally, we need to look at other mechanisms to either defeat the Serbs or perhaps more importantly to let the Serbs know that they may be defeated. Milosevic, I believe, is convinced that he can continue to occupy Kosovo because we will never send in ground troops. His tanks will be there as long as they hide among civilians or dig in so that they cannot be destroyed by our Apache helicopters. What Apache helicopter is going to fire at a tank if they put 10 or 20 unwilling Albanians on top of it? So he can keep his tanks and his heavy armor and his artillery in Kosovo unless a ground force, with tanks and with heavy armor and willing to take casualties, can be deployed against him. When he sees us training an army of Albanians to use American tanks and American artillery and American heavy weapons, then he will know that such an Army may soon be deployed against him. At that point, a Russian brokered compromise will begin to look far more appealing. We do not have to let the Albanians take control of these weapons. They can train on them during the day and American soldiers can retain them at night. Therefore, we are not even technically violating any of the rules against providing weapons to any of the residents or citizens of the former Yugoslavia since we are not giving them any weapons; we are just giving them training. If at some point in the future we decide to unleash them, we can give them the custody of those weapons and heavy armored divisions of Albanians with America's best armored weapons can move in to Kosovo along with the lightly armed KLA. That is what it would take to dislodge Milosevic, a ground army with both heavy weapons and lightly armed mobile soldiers and an army willing to take casualties. I want to talk a little bit about the other alternative, and that is sending in NATO ground troops. One alternative is to send in NATO ground troops behind an Albanian Army, in support of it. Under those circumstances, NATO might take only slight casualties, but if instead NATO has to defeat by itself the Serbian Army deployed in Kosovo, then NATO will take casualties and then the danger is this: What if those casualties are too much for Americans to endure? What if those casualties are too much for the French to endure or the British or the Germans? The first NATO nation that cries uncle and demands that its soldiers be withdrawn or even moved to the rear will cause the other NATO countries to demand the same level of safety for their soldiers. If all of the NATO troops need to be put at the rear, then our efforts against Milosevic will be over. If that happens, then every tyrant and mass murderer in the world will feel that he can act with impunity. The Vietnam syndrome and the Somalia syndrome will return. That is why we need at our disposal not only the KLA, and they are operating independently and they will get light weapons with or without us, but also another well-armed Albanian force. In conclusion, the American people have shown their willingness to commit their treasure and more importantly the lives of our sons and daughters to preventing atrocity, ameliorating tragedy. If we realistically define our objectives and if we prepare to use all of the tools at our disposal, we may secure a reasonable life for the Kosovars, and just as important we may inspire the American people to use limited realistic efforts to try to stop the ongoing atrocities in Sudan and Myanmar, in the Congo and East Timor and elsewhere. If instead we fail, if we devote inadequate resources to a pristine, perfect, no-compromise objective and fail to achieve it, then this is going to be a tragedy; first for those servicemen and women who die in an unsuccessful American effort. More importantly perhaps even than that, it will be a tragedy for the Kosovars who will be told that well, we tried, but we did not use all of the options and we are too idealistic to make compromises, and so you will live your life here in a refugee camp. Finally, if we use inadequate resources to try to achieve the absolute objective, it will be a tragedy for victims of atrocities around the world, both today and whatever atrocities are committed in the decades to come, by tyrants who at that time would know that America had tried in Kosovo unsuccessfully. It will be a while before the administration is looking for new alternatives. They are convinced that the current strategy will be successful, and I hope that whatever comes out, it is good enough so that the administration can claim that it is a total victory and not a compromise. But we must begin to look at other alternatives, and if, in a few weeks, we recognize that the current strategy has not been successful, we must have the courage to use them.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Berman, Mr. Waxman, and I rise today to remember the Honorable Tom Bane who died last Saturday, April 10, 1999. Tom was not only a great legislator and politician, but also a mentor and friend. Tom represented the San Fernando Valley in the California Legislature for 24 years, during which time he authored ground breaking legislation that improved the lives of all Californians--fighting to protect the environment, the poor, the elderly, and also working to enhance public education. Perhaps Tom's best known legislative victory was a 1988 law mandating heavy punishment for hate crimes committed in California--the first Hate Crimes legislation passed in the United States. Tom also authored legislation that prohibited the ``cop killer'' Teflon bullet; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; and significant banking and savings and loan legislation. He also worked with his colleagues to co-author California's first Lemon Law, Seat-Belt Law and the Paramedic Bill. Whether it be on the floor of the Assembly or walking through his district talking with constituents, Tom exemplified democracy at its finest. He took great pride in his friendships with members from both sides of the aisle, and played a significant leadership role as the Chairman of the powerful Assembly Rules Committee. And even late in his political career, Tom often walked his district during campaigns instead of relying on focus groups and advertisements to rally support--that type of grass roots accessibility is the way democracy is supposed to work. Tom's vision, leadership and tenacity were an inspiration to all who knew him. He dedicated his career to enriching every aspect of our lives and our communities--making our streets safer from criminals, improving the quality of education received by our children, and ensuring that as a society we would not tolerate crimes committee because of race, religion or gender. Our thoughts are with Tom's wife Marlene, their children Bruce, Lisa and Neil; and grandchildren Ryan, Eric, Shai, Dean, Ziv, Evan, Paul and Adriadne. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join us in remembering a great friend and outstanding man, a true mensch, Tom Bane.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, like the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) who spoke before me, and like the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lois Capps) who will speak after me, I rise to express sorrow at the tragic death and to commemorate the short but inspirational life of Joyce Chiang. On January 9, Joyce was last seen in Dupont Circle, and she was not seen thereafter. A body was discovered on April 1, and yesterday that body was positively identified as being Joyce. Joyce lived a life of public service and public involvement, starting with her involvement with the student body government at Smith College, where she served as student body president, continuing here in the House of Representatives on the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and continuing to her service at the INS, where she spearheaded the implementation of the 1996 immigration bill. Joyce never stopped contributing, never stopped involvement in public life. And Joyce was an incredible human being to all who knew her. As everyone who I have talked to says, and we all say the same thing, she lit up a room every time she walked in. Those who knew Joyce were not surprised at what was an incredible and unprecedented outpouring from her friends when she became missing. I participated in the first of many vigils for Joyce held at Dupont Circle, and hundreds showed up to express their concern and their love of Joyce. And almost immediately, posters of Joyce appeared all over the City of Washington, urging people to contact authorities if they had any knowledge of her whereabouts. Not only her friends, but also and especially her family missed and worried about Joyce. Her family endured with courage and religious faith the unendurable 3 months knowing that their sister, their daughter was missing. Our heart goes out to her brother Robert, in Texas, and her brother Roger, who lives here in the District of Columbia and who spent so much time publicizing Joyce's absence in the hope that someone would be able to identify Joyce's whereabouts, hopefully to help us find her, help the authorities find her during her life. And I am proud to represent and my heart goes out to two residents of the San Fernando Valley, her mother Judy, who has spent so long and prayed so hard for Joyce, and especially to my very close friend, my successor in State government and Joyce's brother, John, who has lived through with his family what I just cannot imagine living through, 3 months of Joyce's absence. Joyce will be remembered by so many. She was an inspiration to so many, and she will be missed by so many. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SHERMAN

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman before me who stood before this House, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, I rise to address this House regarding the crisis in Kosovo, and my speech will echo some of the themes that he addressed, particularly at the end of his presentation. Mr. Speaker, our actions in Kosovo are motivated by the highest level of idealism. We are willing to spend our treasure and, much more importantly, risk the lives of our men and women, to prevent atrocities and to assure that the Albanian Kosovars will be able to live in peace and with autonomy. In some foreign capitals, they simply cannot believe this level of idealism. They are scurrying to find some ulterior motive. But those who understand America know that we are in Kosovo motivated by that idealism and certainly not motivated out of a desire to have some interest in some mineral resources less valuable than a single B-2 bomber. We who understand America and understand American idealism, know that that idealism will be expressed through our government. Yet even in such a great idealistic undertaking, we must establish a realistic strategy. We must make sure that our idealistic motivations do not cloud our judgment. And here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to contrast realism with blinding idealism. In a more ideal world, Kosovo would be the only place of tragedy and atrocity. But realistically we should note that the government of Sudan has killed 2 million of its African citizens, and that killing continues tonight; that 800,000 Tutsis were killed in Rwanda; and there are continuing mass murders on an enormous scale in the Congo, Myanmar and elsewhere. In an ideal world, we could hope to easily restore Kosovo as a multiethnic, semiautonomous region. Realistically it is unlikely that Albanians and Serbs will live in harmony in the absence of an outside force. And it is just as unlikely that the Kosovars will renounce their goal of independence. A blind idealist might see the world as pure good versus pure evil. Yet the Serbs, who we vilify today, were just a few years ago themselves victims of ethnic cleansing. Some 180,000 Serbs who had lived for centuries in Croatia were expelled from that country--while America said nothing, and did nothing. And the Kosovar Albanians, who are pictured today as the embodiment of all ideal virtue--we must remember that they are tragic victims of present circumstance--but they are represented in large part by the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army, an organization that the United States Government has described as terrorist, an organization that may have alliances with Iran, with Osama Bin Laden, and even with drug dealers. Blind idealism would cause us to demand the maximum possible objective and believe that we could achieve that objective with the minimum force. Yet realism requires us to adopt perhaps more limited objectives consistent with the future safety of the Albanian Kosovars. And realism demands that we marshal the substantial force which may be necessary to achieve any realistic objective. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should take three steps. The first echoes the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I believe that we should involve Russia in the diplomatic efforts to the maximum possible degree. Russia may be able to pull the Serbs to a negotiating position that is more realistic, and more just, than the position that Milosevic insists upon taking at the present time. Russian involvement in both diplomacy and in peacekeeping offers a face-saving method for Milosevic to make major concessions. Now, I know that there are those who will stand before this House and who will say we should not be negotiating with Milosevic, we should be seeking to dispose of him. But I would point out that we are still waiting for someone to dispose of Saddam Hussein. And in a realistic world, we must try to bring an end to the mass murder as quickly as possible. Involving Russia is important beyond the events at hand. Ten years from now, Kosovo may be nearly forgotten if we are successful in bringing peace today, but Russia will continue to be a critical nuclear-armed state, and treating Russia with respect now will be important in our relationship with Russia in the future. And we should remember that 85 years ago, Russia mobilized its army in support of Serbia in events that led immediately to World War I. Tomorrow, Secretary Albright will meet with Igor Ivanov, the Foreign Minister of Russia. That meeting will take place in Oslo. Hopefully this is the first step toward the maximum possible involvement of Russia in bringing peace to Kosovo. Second, we should signal now that we are willing to reach peace on the basis that the Rambouillet agreement would apply to roughly 80 percent of Kosovo territory rather than all of Kosovo. No one denies that the Serbs have rights in Kosovo. They represented over 10 percent of the Kosovo population even today. When I say ``today,'' I mean before the tragic recent events. Kosovo has been part of Serbia for centuries, and Kosovo is the religious and cultural birthplace of the Serbian nation. In fact, the Rambouillet agreement itself seeks to recognize Serb rights by stating that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia. By leaving Serbs in control of the historically and religiously significant sites, including the original seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the most important of the monastery lands, and the battlefield of Kosovo Polje, on which the Serbs fought the Turks in the 14th century, we can make an offer that the Serbs can accept. Or, rather, Russia can make an offer that both sides can accept. In contrast, no Serb government, even one without Milosevic, even after 20 days of bombing, could accept the current Rambouillet agreement which the Serbs, and many other observers, believe would end all Serbian rights in all of Kosovo. Certainly the Kosovar Albanians who represent roughly 85 percent of the population before the recent tragedy could live far better in roughly 80 percent of Kosovo's territory, protected by NATO troops as compared to asking those same people to live in refugee camps. Third, we should begin training an army of Kosovar Albanians. This army should be independent of the KLA, and for now U.S. troops should control custody of the weapons while the training proceeds. Milosevic may not believe that bombing will compel his departure from Kosovo, and he may not believe that NATO troops are willing to risk casualties in ground combat. But if there is an Albanian army being trained, then even Milosevic will know that there will be a ground force willing to absorb combat casualties which could be deployed in a matter of months. This will hopefully impel him to negotiate now. The administration asserts that bombing alone will bring Milosevic to his knees. If this is true, then we can cease the training operation and retain custody of the weapons without affecting the long term future of the Balkans. There are those who insist that we try to achieve the maximum objective, Rambouillet applied to all of Kosovo with the minimum involvement of the Kosovars themselves. They advise deploying NATO troops while not even training the Kosovars. This approach is not only dangerous for our service men and women, it is also dangerous for our foreign policy. If we deploy NATO troops into hostilities, and if casualties rise to the point where the American public, or the German public, or the French public, or the British public demand the withdrawal of their Nation's soldiers, then the NATO alliance will be broken and Milosevic may prevail. If that occurs, then every tyrant and mass murderer in the world will feel that he can act with impunity. The Vietnam syndrome and the Somalia syndrome will return. Mr. Speaker, we need the option, sometime in the near future, of being able to deploy a well-trained, well-armed force of Albanians--a force willing to take casualties because they are fighting for their own homes. Hopefully, by negotiating from strength we can achieve an agreement that will eliminate the need to deploy any combatant ground troops, NATO or Kosovar. In conclusion, the American people have shown a willingness to commit their treasure, and more importantly the lives of their sons and daughters, to preventing atrocities and ameliorating tragedies. If we realistically define our objectives and if we prepare to use all of the tools at our disposal, we will secure a reasonable life for the Kosovars, and we will inspire the American people to support limited, realistic efforts to stopping atrocities in Sudan, Myanmar, the Congo and elsewhere. If instead we devote inadequate resources to an effort to achieve an absolute idealistic objective, we may fail, and that would be a tragedy for those service men and women who die in such an effort. It will be a tragedy for the Kosovars, and it would be a tragedy for the victims of atrocities around the world.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Jacob H. ``Bud'' Blitzer. Bud was a man of integrity and tremendous resilience, who used his creativity, intelligence, humor, and a sense of fairness to navigate through a life of great challenges. A victim of polio at age 27, Bud--never one for self-pity--became a successful businessman, consultant, educator, mentor, and all around mensch. Most important to him were the relationships he cultivated with family, friends, the I Have a Dream Foundation, and the many people fortunate enough to know him. But, with his brother-in-law Len Milner, founded Integrated Ceilings, Inc., specializing in innovative architectural custom ceiling designs. He held many patents for designs which have enhanced numerous office buildings, retail stores, and homes. These innovations inspired an entire industry of ceiling design. He ran his company with the highest standards of honesty, quality, and excellence. This commitment was reflected by the employees of the company who were loyal and proud of their product and most of whom remained with the company throughout the entire time that Bud was its president and CEO. But did not limit himself to his company. He also served as a mentor for many young entrepreneurs as they began their businesses as well as many people who were struggling with the challenges of life. One notable example was Tom Greene of the T.A. Greene Co., of whom Bud was known to have said, ``I started out helping Tom, but in the end, it was he who helped me.'' Bud was a jazz drummer in his youth, served as an officer in the Army Air Corps, and was founder and president of the Lightrend Co., prior to founding Integrated Ceilings, Inc. An avid sailor and a jazz enthusiast, a conversationalist par excellence, Bud's greatest gift was to make each person he spoke with feel special. Our thoughts are with Bud's family: his wife Dalia; children Jamie and Rob, along with his wife Donna; sisters Barbara and Susan and their husbands George and Len; grandchildren Rebecca and Erica; two great grandchildren; nieces and nephews and many friends who were part of the extended family. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in remembering a great friend and outstanding individual, Jacob ``Bud'' Blitzer.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, most Americans have lived their entire lives under the threat of nuclear Armageddon. At the conclusion of the Cold War, many hoped that threat would subside. But today rogue states are developing ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. China has at least 18 ICBMs capable of hitting the United States and is stealing our nuclear secrets. Russia has thousands of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, and that society is fraying at the edges in its ability to control each military unit that possesses nuclear weapons and to control each of its scientific institutes is not assured. Further, in addition to the risk of ICBMs, smuggling things into the United States is demonstrably easy. A nuclear weapon is smaller in many cases than a child. And one could only imagine a Saddam Hussein holding a press conference in Los Angeles where one of his agents unveils that they have snuck into my city a dummy nuclear weapon while, God forbid, holding a press conference in Baghdad displaying a real nuclear weapon. Missile defense can be one element of our security, and this bill is broad enough to encompass a cost-effective approach toward missile security. But it is also broad enough so that it could be interpreted as spending all of our available security resources on missile defense. We instead must devote some of those to diplomatic efforts to ensure international support of nonproliferation. We must spend resources on counterintelligence. We must spend resources on domestic security so we are confident that biological poisons cannot be surrepetitiously entered into our water supply. We must spend funds on border security so that the chance that a nuclear weapon that is sought to be smuggled into America is caught in that process is at least as good as the possibility that an ICBM aimed at America would be destroyed. We must cooperate with Russia as well. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the adoption of this resolution and its reasonable interpretation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week a number of my colleagues in the New Democratic Coalition have come before the House to talk about a very important tax issue, and that is the need to make the R&D tax credit a permanent part of our tax law. I would like to join with them in urging all of our colleagues to support taking a credit that has been a consistent part of our tax law but is always designed to be eliminated and then at the last minute is extended, to instead make that a permanent part of our tax law. I have three major points, the first of which is the importance of research and development for all Americans. I think Americans are acutely aware that we live a life that is more wealthy, that we are in better financial position than 90 percent of the world. And most Americans, if asked what is the single greatest reason why Americans live so much better than those in Bangladesh or Honduras would say that it is because of our high levels of education and technology. We must do everything possible to advance our technology further and to advance the education of our workforce. Perhaps the best example of the importance of research technology and science is illustrated by this chart which focuses on just one industry, an industry that barely existed a decade ago, that did not have a name 2 years ago, and that is the information technology industry. As this chart illustrates, over a third of all of the economic growth in this country came in that one industry, and we now sit at the beginning of a new century, a new century that will be, I think, marked as the Information Age, yet even before we begin this new century over a third of our economic growth is dependent upon an information technology industry that exists in large part because of the research and development conducted by American corporations. The second point I wish to make is that not everything that is good and desirable is necessarily worthy of a tax credit, but tax credits are particularly appropriate where an activity engaged in by one company or individual provides benefits not only for those who are footing the bill, but benefits to society at large. A company that does research and development benefits not only itself, but our entire society and the world as a whole. Yes, a portion of the benefits of that technology will be reaped by the company that conducts it for they will seek a patent to defend their intellectual property. But many advances in technology achieved by our research projects are not patentable, and even those that are will become owned by the people of the world as a whole when the patent expires. Furthermore, research project not only leads to a particular patent or a particular technology, it increases the general level of scientific education of those engaged in the project and increases the level of science in our society as a whole. Most economists would agree that where an activity provides such major external benefits, beneficial externalities to use the economics term, it is deserving of societal help, encouragement and, in this case, a tax credit. Finally, there is the issue of whether we should continue to renew the credit on a yearly or several-years-at-a-time basis or make it a permanent part of our Tax Code. Keep in mind that the purpose of this tax credit is to encourage companies to do more research than they would otherwise. As a CPA and a tax lawyer in private practice for many years, I was witness to the strange process by which a provision in our tax law leads to a change in corporate behavior. Some day sociologists and anthropologists will study this process. It is a process in which a tax expert has to explain to the others in the company what the tax law provision provides and what benefits would be reaped on the tax return from engaging in a particular project, in this case a research project. There are two types of research and development that are eligible for the credit. The first is the kind of research project that would be done any way. Often research is done and the company is not even aware of the R&D tax credit until the next March or April 15th when they complete their tax return. The other type of research is that research that is conducted because the company is counting on getting the credit. It is that second area where the R&D tax credit actually achieves its purpose. Yet I repeat my words. The company is counting on getting the credit. How can a company count on getting a tax credit for a multiyear large research and development project if by its very terms the R&D credit is supposed to expire at the end of this year or the end of next year? The R&D tax credit can achieve its purpose, and that purpose is to expand the amount of research done in our country only if companies can count on it. Now no provision of our tax law is guaranteed to be there forever. But certainly a provision which by its own terms is going to expire in a year or two is particularly ephemeral. If instead we make the R&D tax credit a permanent part of our laws, then companies will rely upon it, their R&D budgets will reflect not only the possibility that the credit might be there in the many years that the R&D project continues, but the extreme likelihood that it will continue to be there since it is a permanent part of our tax law. Mr. Speaker, I look forward especially in this year when we are enjoying for the first time the fruits of the fiscal discipline that this Congress has exercised, I look forward in this year of surplus to take this step of making the R&D tax credit a permanent part of our law.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the delegates to the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) to Washington, DC, where on March 16-19, 1999, the IASC is holding its first Board meeting that is open to public observation. The International Accounting Standards Committee was formed in 1973 through an agreement made by professional accountancy bodies from nine countries, including the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). At present, 142 accounting organizations in 103 countries are IASC members. These organizations represent over 2,000,000 accountants worldwide. The IASC works closely with the national standards-setting bodies, such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board in the United States; intergovernmental organizations such as the European Commission, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations; and development agencies such as the World Bank. The objectives of the IASC are: (1) To formulate and publish, in the public interest, accounting standards to be observed in the presentation of financial statements and to promote their worldwide acceptance and observance; and (2) To work generally for the improvement and harmonization of regulations, accounting standards and procedures relating to the presentation of financial statements. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and spirit of public interest that characterize the participants in this meeting and to extend my best wishes to the IASC for continued success.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 37 on March 10, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 36 on March 10, 1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''