Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues concerns about the general prospects for democratization in Kazakstan, considering the disturbing news about the presidential elections in that country earlier this year. On January 10, 1999, Kazakstan held presidential elections, almost two years ahead of schedule. Incumbent President Nursultan Nazarbaev ran against three contenders, in the country's first nominally contested election. According to official results, Nazarbaev retained his office, garnering 81.7 percent of the vote. Communist Party leader Serokbolsyn Abdildin won 12 percent, Gani Kasymov 4.7 percent and Engels Gabbasov 0.7 percent. The Central Election Commission reported over 86 percent of eligible voters turned out to cast ballots. Behind these facts--and by the way, none of the officially announced figures should be taken at face value--is a sobering story. Nazarbaev's victory was no surprise: the entire election was carefully orchestrated and the only real issue was whether his official vote tally would be in the 90s--typical for post-Soviet Central Asia dictatorships--or lower, which would have signaled some sensitivity to Western and OSCE sensibilities. Any suspense the election might have offered vanished when the Supreme Court in November upheld a lower court ruling barring the candidacy of Nazarbaev's sole possible challenger, former Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, on whom many opposition activists have focused their hopes. The formal reason for his exclusion was both trivial and symptomatic: in October, Kazhegeldin had spoken at a meeting of an unregistered organization called ``For Free Elections.'' Addressing an unregistered organization is illegal in Kazakstan, and a presidential decree of May 1998 stipulated that individuals convicted of any crime or fined for administrative transgressions could not run for office for a year. Of course, the snap election and the presidential decree deprived any real or potential challengers of the opportunity to organize a campaign. More important, most observers saw the decision as an indication of Nazarbaev's concerns about Kazakhstan's economic decline and his fears of running for reelection in 2000, when the situation will presumably be even much worse. Another reason to hold elections now was anxiety about uncertainties in Russia, where a new president, with whom Nazarbaev does not have long-established relations, will be elected in 2000 and may adopt a more aggressive attitude towards Kazakhstan than has Boris Yeltsin. The exclusion of would-be candidates, along with the snap nature of the election, intimidation of voters, the ongoing attack on independent media and restrictions on freedom of assembly, moved the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to urge the election's postponement, as conditions for holding free and fair elections did not exist. Ultimately, ODIHR refused to send a full- fledged observer delegation, as it generally does, to monitor an election. Instead, ODIHR dispatched to Kazakhstan a small mission to follow and report on the process. The mission's assessment concluded that Kazakhstan's ``election process fell far short of the standards to which the Republic of Kazakhstan has committed itself as an OSCE participating State.'' That is an unusually strong statement for ODIHR. Until the mid-1900s, even though President Nazarbaev dissolved two parliaments, tailored constitutions to his liking and was single- mindedly accumulating power, Kazakhstan still seemed a relatively reformist country, where various political parties could function and the media enjoyed some freedom. Moreover, considering the even more authoritarian regimes of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the war and chaos in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan benefited by comparison. In the last few years, however, the nature of Nazarbaev's regime has become ever more apparent. He has over the last decade concentrated all power in his hands, subordinating to himself all other branches and institutions of government. His determination to remain in office indefinitely, which could have been inferred by his actions, became explicit during the campaign, when he told a crowd, ``I would like to remain your president for the rest of my life.'' Not coincidentally, a constitutional amendment passed in early October conveniently removed the age limit of 65. Moreover, since 1996, Kazakhstan's authorities have co-opted, bought or crushed any independent media, effectively restoring censorship in the country. A crackdown on political parties and movements has accompanied the assault on the media, bringing Kazakhstan's overall level of repression closer to that of Uzbekistan and severely damaging Nazarbaev's reputation. Despite significant U.S. strategic and economic interests in Kazakhstan, especially oil and pipeline issues, the State Department issued a series of critical statements after the announcement last October of pre-term elections. In fact, on November 23, Vice President Gore called President Nazarbaev to voice U.S. concerns about the election. The next day, the Supreme Court--which Nazarbaev controls completely--finally excluded Kazhegeldin. On January 12, the State Department echoed the ODIHR's harsh assessment of the election, adding that it had ``cast a shadow on bilateral relations.'' What's ahead? Probably more of the same. Parliamentary elections are expected in late 1999, although they may be held before schedule or put off another year. A new political party has been created as a vehicle for President Nazarbaev to tighten his grip on the legislature. Surprisingly, the Ministry of Justice on March 1 registered the Republican People's Party, headed by Akezhan Kazhegeldin, as well as another opposition party--probably in response to Western and especially American pressure. But even if they are allowed to compete for seats on an equal basis and even win some representation, parliament is sure to remain a very junior partner to the all-powerful executive. Mr. Speaker, Kazakhstan's relative liberalism in the early 1990s had induced Central Asia watchers to hope that Uzbek and Turkmen-style repression was not inevitable for all countries in the region. Alas, the trends in Kazakhstan point the other way: Nursultan Nazarbaev is heading in the direction of his dictatorial counterparts in Tashkent and Ashgabat. He is clearly resolved to be president for life, to prevent any institutions or individuals from challenging his grip on power and to make sure that the trappings of democracy he has permitted remain just that. The Helsinki Commission, which I chair, plans to hold hearings on the situation in Kazakhstan and Central Asia to discuss what options the United States has to convey the Congress' disappointment and to encourage developments in Kazakhstan and the region toward genuine democratization.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over recent setbacks in the return of expropriated properties to rightful owners in the Czech Republic. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have followed property restitution issues in Central and Eastern Europe over the past several years with an eye toward determining whether the restitution and compensation laws adopted in this region are being implemented according to the rule of law and whether American citizens' interests are protected under the laws. While restitution and compensation programs in several East-Central European countries have aspects of concern, today I want to bring attention to the status of restitution in the Czech Republic because of recent troubling developments there. Since the Velvet Revolution, the Czech Republic has adopted laws that provide for the return of private property confiscated by Nazi or communist regimes. When the actual return of property is not possible, these laws offer former owners the right to receive alternate compensation. Regrettably, the Czech laws limit these rights to those who had Czechoslovak citizenship when the restitution law was adopted or who acquired citizenship before the deadline for filing restitution claims. As a result, former Czechoslovak citizens who fled to the United States seeking refuge from fascism or communism earlier this century, and are now American citizens, have been precluded from making restitution claims unless they renounce their American citizenship. Ironically, had these same individuals fled to Canada, Israel, or any country other than the United States, they would not have lost their Czech citizenship and would today be eligible to receive restitution or compensation. This result stems from a treaty signed in 1928 by the United States and Czechoslovakia that automatically terminated a person's citizenship in the United States or Czechoslovakia if that person became a citizen of the other country. That treaty was terminated in 1997, but its impact remains: under Czech law, Czech Americans are not eligible for dual citizenship in the Czech Republic. Therefore, without abandoning the citizenship of the country that took them in during their time of need, the law denies them the right to receive restitution or compensation as others have. In other words, the citizenship requirement in the Czech property restitution laws discriminates against American citizens. Moreover, it is difficult for me to think that this discrimination was simply an unintended consequence. In the 105th Congress, the House adopted my resolution, H. Res. 562, that urges the formerly totalitarian countries in Central and Eastern Europe to restore wrongfully confiscated properties, and specifically calls on the Czech Republic to eliminate this discriminatory citizenship restriction. In this regard, the resolution echoes the view of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) which has concluded in two cases that these citizenship restrictions violate the anti-discrimination clause (art. 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I recently learned that the UNHRC has agreed to hear at least four more cases that challenge these restrictions. The persuasiveness of the UNHRC's reasoning, when it determined that the citizenship restriction in the restitution law is discriminatory, was compelling. Unfortunately, the Czech Parliament last month debated and rejected a proposed amendment to the law that would have eliminated Czech citizenship as a condition for property restitution claims. This approach was widely considered the most effective remedy to a serious problem. In rejecting the amendment, the parliament missed an excellent opportunity to resolve this long-standing and contentious issue between the Czech Republic and the United States. While I deeply regret the parliament's decision, I hope that the Czech Government will now seek alternative means to end the discrimination against Czech Americans. In January, several weeks before the parliament voted down the restitution amendment, Deputy Foreign Minister Martin Palous assured me that his government planned to propose a new citizenship law that would permit dual citizenship for Czech Americans. I was heartened to learn that last month the Czech Government introduced this amendment and it is my hope that its early passage will be followed by a reopening of the claims filing period for those individuals who, by virtue of acquiring dual citizenship, will become eligible for property restitution or compensation. Another disturbing situation involves the case of restitution to the ``double victims'' in the Czech Republic--those individuals, primarily Jews, whose properties were confiscated during World War II by Nazis and then again by the communists that swept the region in the postwar era. One case, for example, is that of Susan Benda who is seeking compensation for an expropriated house in the town of Liberec where her father and his brother grew up. Susan's grandparents were killed by the Nazis and her father and uncle fled their homeland in 1939. The family home was ``sold'' in 1940 to a German company in an transaction subsequently invalidated by a 1945 Czech presidential decree. In 1994, the Czech Parliament expanded its earlier restitution law to allow individuals whose property was originally confiscated by Nazis between the years 1938-45 to join those whose property was taken by communists in claiming restitution. Under the amended laws, Susan Benda is theoretically eligible to receive restitution of, or compensation for, the home in Liberec. Notwithstanding the Czech Government's purported intention to restore Jewish property seized by the Nazis, However, the Czech Ministry of Finance has arbitrarily imposed additional onerous and burdensome conditions for restitution that do not appear in the law and which, in fact, appear designed to defeat the intent of the law. Beyond the citizenship requirement in the law, the Ministry of Finance has declared that claimants must prove that they were entitled to file a claim under a postwar 1946 restitution law, that they did file a claim, and that the claim was not satisfied. Remarkably, Susan Benda found a record in the Liberec town hall which establishes that her uncle returned to Czechoslovakia and filed a restitution claim in 1947. Next, the Finance Ministry requires claimants to prove that a court expressly rejected the postwar claim. In a country that has endured the political and social turmoil of the Czech Republic over the past half- century, the notion that claimants in the 1990s must prove, not only that a court considered a certain case more than fifty years ago, but also must produce a record of the court's decision in the case, is outrageous. Susan Benda was able to produce a claim of title showing that the house was stolen by the Nazis in 1940, confiscated by the communist Czech Government in 1953 and purchased from the Czech Government in 1992 by its current owner-occupant. While Susan cannot produce a document showing that the court actually considered, and then rejected, her uncle's postwar claim, the chain of title and the witness testimony confirm that the Benda family never got the house back--in itself simple, dramatic proof that the postwar claim was not satisfied. Apparently, however, this proof was not sufficient for the Czech authorities and Susan Benda was forced to sue the Ministry of Finance. Last September, more than three years after filing the claim, Susan Benda was vindicated when a Czech court agreed with her assertion that the Finance Ministry should not have attached the extralegal requirements for restitution. The court ordered the Finance Ministry to pay the Benda family compensation for the value of the expropriated house. I wish Susan Benda's story could end here but it does not--the Czech Government has appealed the court decision apparently fearful that a precedent would be set for other claims--that is, out of a fear that property might actually be returned under this law. Thus, while the Czech Government proclaims its desire to address the wrongs of the pat, those who, like Susan Benda, seek the return of wrongfully confiscated property are painfully aware that the reality is much different. Another case that has come to my attention involves Peter Glaser's claim for a house in the town of Zatec. After the 1948 communist takeover in Czechoslovakia, Peter Glaser sought to emigrate to the United States. To obtain a passport, Mr. Glaser was forced to sign a statement renouncing any future claims to his home. In 1954, Mr. Glaser became an American citizen; in 1962, the communist Czech Government officially recorded the expropriation of Mr. Glaser's home in the land records. In 1982, the United States and Czechoslovakia signed an agreement that settled the property loss claims of all American citizens against Czechoslovakia. The U.S. Government agency charged with carrying out the settlement advised Mr. Glaser that, because he was a Czechoslovak citizen when his property was taken--according to the U.S. Government, this occurred in 1948 when Mr. Glaser was forced under duress to relinquish the rights to his house--he was not eligible to participate in the claims settlement program but must rather seek redress for his property loss under Czech laws. When the post-communist Czech Republic passed a property restitution law in 1991, Peter Glaser filed his claim. In a cruel irony, despite presenting documentation from the U.S. Government attesting to the fact that Mr. Glaser was not eligible to participate in the U.S.- Czechoslovakia claims settlement program, the Czech Courts have repeatedly rejected his claim on the grounds that he was an American citizen at the time his property was taken--which, according to the Czech Government, occurred in 1962. The Czech Government asserts that Mr. Glaser's claims were settled and should have been compensated under the 1982 agreement. In other words, the current Czech Government and courts have adopted the communist fiction that although Mr. Glaser's property was expropriated in 1948, somehow the confiscation did not count until 1962, when the communists got around to the nicety of recording the deed. This rationalization by Czech authorities looks like a back door attempt to avoid restitution. The reality of what happened to the property in Zatec is clear: Peter Glaser lost his home in 1948 when a totalitarian regime claimed the rights to his house in exchange for allowing him to leave the oppression and persecution of communist Czechoslovakia. As the Czech Government knows, communist expropriations--whether effectuated by sweeping land reform laws, as a condition or punishment for emigration, or under other circumstances-- frequently went unrecorded in land registries, but that did not make the loss any less real for the victims. For the Czech Government today to cling to technicalities, such as the date the communists officially recorded their confiscation in the land registry, as a means to avoid returning Peter Glaser's home is a sobering indication of the Czech Government's true commitment to rectifying the wrongs of its communist past. Mr. Speaker, the issue of property restitution is complex. No easy solutions exist to the many questions that restitution policies raise. Nonetheless, when a country chooses to institute a restitution or compensation program, international norms mandate that the process be just, fair and nondiscriminatory. The Czech Government has failed to live up to these standards in the cases I cited. The Czech Government must end the discrimination against Czech Americans in the restitution of private property. Moreover, the rule of law must be respected. I call on the Czech Government to reconsider its disposition in the Benda and Glaser cases. Czech officials often say that aggrieved property claimants can seek redress in the courts for unfavorable decisions. However, when claimants do just that, as did Peter Glaser and Susan Benda, the Czech Government asserts outrageous or technical defenses to thwart the rightful owner's claim or simply refuses to accept a decision in favor of the claimant. Fortunately, Mr. Glaser, Ms. Benda, and others like them, have pledged to fight on despite mounting costs and legal fees that they will never recoup. The passion and determination of Peter Glaser and Susan Benda, as of all victims of fascism and communism in Central and Eastern Europe, reveal that what may look to some as a battle for real estate is ultimately a search for justice and for peace with the past.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week a distinguished delegation from the Slovak parliament visited Washington to meet with congressional leaders and other officials. I regret that, because of a hearing on urgent developments in Kosovo, I was unable to meet with them. Nevertheless, the occasion of their visit prompts me to reflect on some of the developments in Slovakia since the elections there on September 25 and 26, 1998. Since a new government was installed on October 30, there has been a sea change in Slovak political life. They very fact that a peaceful transition of power occurred is something we could not have taken for granted, given the increasingly authoritarian rule of Vladimir Meciar manifested by, for example, the refusal of the parliament he controlled to seat two duly elected members. Today, the situation is very different. The formation of a new government has included key changes that were much needed and will foster greater confidence in Slovakia's renewed process of democratization. In particular, the appointment of a new head of the intelligence service, the resolution of competing claims to the position of chief of the armed forces, and the selection of a new general prosecutor help address many of the concerns that arose during Meciar's tenure. The new government's efforts to hold previous officials accountable for their violations of the rule of law and manipulation of parliamentary and constitutional democracy is also a positive sign. During local elections in the fall, non-governmental monitors were permitted to observe the counting of the vote, further fostering public and international confidence in Slovakia's democratic structures. Direct presidential elections are scheduled to be held in May, which will fill a constitutional lacuna. The decision to permit, once again, the issuance of bi-lingual report cards restores common sense to the discussion of issues of concern to the Hungarian minority. The government's stated intent to address the concerns of the Romani minority--concerns which have led many Slovak Roma to seek asylum in other countries--is a welcome step in the right direction. In short, Mr. Speaker, the new government is Slovakia has already undertaken important steps towards fulfilling the promises made when communism collapsed. Slovakia is now at a critical juncture, having succeeded by a slim electoral margin in peacefully removing Vladimir Meciar after 4 years of increasing authoritarian rule. The new government must struggle to restore Slovakia's good name, repair the economy, and get Slovakia back on track for NATO and EU membership. If Slovakia is to succeed in this effort, it is critical that the current coalition hold together long enough to implement real reforms. As it seeks to do so, the new government will be aided by a wellspring of credibility with the internationally community and certainly in Washington, where as the Meciar government, in the end, had none. That wellspring of credibility, however, is not bottomless and time is truly of the essence in Slovakia's reform process. I hope all of the parties participating in the ruling coalition will quickly address some of the issues that have been of special concern to the international community, including the adoption in the first half of this year of a minority language law. Such a step would be a concrete demonstration of the differences between this government and the last. Mr. Speaker, I wish this new coalition government of Slovakia every success in their resolve to make lasting reforms.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we have debated today the issue of American participation in any NATO peacekeeping effort in Kosovo, I urge my colleagues, regardless of their views on that matter, to focus on what is happening in Serbia itself. Slobodan Milosevic, President of an unrecognized Yugoslav state of which Serbia and Montenegro are part, is using Kosovo to perpetuate his regime, to rally Serbia's public opinion around him, and to label as ``traitors'' not only his opponents but anyone who thinks independently. Last year, Milosevic imposed draconian laws which curtailed the independence of journalists to report news freely, and threatened the academic community's ability to maintain its intellectual integrity. In response, the Helsinki Commission which I chair, held a hearing appropriately entitled: ``The Milosevic Regime Versus Serbian Democracy and Balkan Stability.'' As an example of what is happening right now in Serbia, I would note for the Record what has happened to three of the witnesses at the hearing. On December 28, 1998--less than three weeks after the hearing--Boris Karajcic, a leader in the university student movement ``Otpor'' (Resistance), was attacked and beaten on the street in front of his Belgrade home by masked thugs with bats. As they fled, their comments indicated the political nature of the attack. During the first week of February, Milan Panic, the Serb-American pharmaceutical executive who is a leader of the Alliance for Change, the main coalition of political opposition to Milosevic's ruling Socialist Party, has had his Serbian subsidiary company taken over by the authorities. The purpose was likely two-fold: to intimidate Panic and to gain hard-currency assets. On March 8, Slavko Curuvija, the chief editor of newspaper Dnevni Telegraf and the new magazine Evropljanin, was sentence along with two of his journalists to five months in prison by a Belgrade court for ``spreading false reports with an intention to endanger pubic order.'' They remain free on appeal. Mr. Speaker, these assaults on freedom demonstrate that Milosevic feels vulnerable to democratic forces which do, in fact, exist in Serbia, forces which may indeed be growing. Indeed, the Serbian Government undertook to make a paper prepared by the hearing witness from the United States Institute for Peace and openly circulated at that same hearing into an alleged confidential CIA document which showed, they alleged, that the U.S. Government was plotting to overthrow the Belgrade government. Despite his insecurity at home, Milosevic does feel sufficiently secure in a U.S. policy which seemingly needs his presence for implementation for the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia, and to get an agreement in France on Kosovo. Our dependence on him, he reckons, means we will not seek to undercut his dictatorial power. The clear lack of attention many senior Administration officials have paid to Serbia' democrats has only reinforced this feeling in Belgrade. Mr. Speaker, this must change. The actions against Karajcic, Panic, Curuvija and countless other advocates of a democratic Serbia must be condemned not with words alone. The United States must stop dealing with Milosevic directly. The United States must protest his assault on innocent civilians when they occur. The United States must encourage democratic change in Serbia, and assist those who promote this change from within, the true Serbian patriots. One way in which the Congress can help in this regard is to move quickly on the legislation I have just introduced, H.R. 1064, the Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999. This Act would ensure adequate attention is paid to democratic forces in Serbia and Montenegro by those allocating U.S. democratic assistance. The legislation has bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about developments in Serbia generally, and the incidents involving Helsinki Commission hearing witnesses in particular. As Chairman of the Commission, I am committed to making sure that the people in Serbia have the same rights and freedoms which so many other Europeans enjoy and take for granted, the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and defined in subsequent OSCE documents. The suppression of these rights in Serbia is unacceptable, it ultimately will prove untenable, and it must change sooner rather than later, not only for the sake of the people in Serbia but all people in south-central Europe.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution before us. Frankly, the administration, the Congress, our allies and the international community as a whole have no easy choices regarding Kosovo. Many of our colleagues agree that the United States has the responsibility to assert its leadership in the world. In asserting this leadership role, I believe that it is in the interest of the United States to include protection of human rights, especially the mitigation of atrocities and the cessation of slaughter, and this sometimes requires the prudent use of force. As we debate the deployment of American troops in Kosovo, however, those of us who had advocated last summer and in the fall that NATO should intervene, not as peacekeepers but peacemakers, to stop the Serbian offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo feel that we have lost some very significant ground. NATO has threatened to intervene time and time again and its credibility regrettably has been tarnished by inaction. Innocent lives have been lost as a result of indecision, and now one of the seemingly only alternatives is the deployment of NATO forces, including our own troops, in an environment in which one side or another may test NATO's resolve. Many of us felt the same frustration regarding the United States, policy towards Bosnia. The Dayton agreement of late 1995 was no substitute for action. Even just lifting the arms embargo might have made a significant difference in stopping that genocide in those early years. At yesterday's hearing in the Committee on International Relations regarding Kosovo, Senator Bob Dole and Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick made very convincing arguments for participation in a peacekeeping force. I have sympathy with those who take the side that Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made about not being involved in all of the conflicts around the world. We must, however, consider involvement where we can make a difference. Kosovo fits that category. I want to say very clearly, unambiguously, I respect everyone's position on this. This is one of the harder, more difficult issues that we have to decide, and we need to listen to all sides, obviously, as we work through this policy decision. I intend, Mr. Chairman, to vote for H. Con. Res. 42 as introduced. I think many of us do have some misgivings about our own Commander-in- Chief. It is very often not said but thought, but we need to factor in that fact. I do believe this is the right thing to do at this particular time. Failing to participate could mean a further slaughter, perhaps on a larger scale, of innocent civilians in the Balkans. Failing to participate could lead to a renewed Balkan conflict which could spread to neighboring Macedonia and elsewhere. Failing to do so will send a signal that the United States will not take the lead, even when matters of principle are being challenged, when people are being killed in droves, to the detriment of NATO and the other alliances we have around the world. This is a resolution that I think deserves support and I hope Members will consider doing so.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999, a bill which will target much needed assistance to democratic groups in Serbia and Montenegro. I am joined by Representatives Ben Gilman, Steny Hoyer, John Porter, Dan Burton, Eliot Engel, Dana Rohrabacher, Louise Slaughter and Jim Moran, all strong promoters of human rights worldwide and the original cosponsors of this Act. It is fitting that this important piece of legislation be introduced today, as a high-level envoy for the United States is in Belgrade to seek the blessing of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for a political settlement which hopefully will restore peace to the troubled region of Kosovo. We are dealing directly with the man most responsible for the conflict in Kosovo, not to mention Bosnia and Croatia. Milosevic has maintained his power from within Serbia throughout the 1990s at the cost of 300,000 lives and the displacement of 3 million people. He has relied on virulent Serbian nationalism to instigate conflict which will divide the people of the region for decades. The most fundamental flaw in U.S. policy toward the region is that it relies on getting Milosevic's agreement, when Milosevic simply should be forced to stop his assaults on innocent civilians. It relies on Milosevic's dictatorial powers to implement an agreement, undermining support for democratic alternatives. In short, U.S. policy perpetuates Milosevic's rule and ensures that more trouble will come to the Balkans. There can be no long-term stability in the Balkans without a democratic Serbia. Moreover, we need to be clear that the people of Serbia deserve the same rights and freedoms which other people in Europe enjoy today. They also deserve greater prosperity. Milosevic and his criminal thugs deny the same Serbian people they claim to defend these very rights, freedoms and economic opportunities. Independent media is repeatedly harassed, fined and sometimes just closed down. University professors are forced to take a ridiculous loyalty oath or are replaced by know- nothing party hacks. The regime goes after the political leadership of Montenegro, which is federated with Serbia in a new Yugoslav state but is undergoing democratic change itself. The regime goes after the successful Serb-American pharmaceutical executive Milan Panic, seizing his company's assets in Serbia to intimidate a potentially serious political rival and get its hands on the hard currency it desperately needs to sustain itself. The regime also goes after young students, like Boris Karajcic, who was beaten on the streets of Belgrade for his public advocacy of academic freedom and social tolerance. Building a democracy in Serbia will be difficult, and it is largely in the hands of those democratic forces within Serbia to do the job. However, given how the regime has stacked the situation against them,-- through endless propaganda, harassment and violence--they need help. This Act intends to do just that. It would allocate $41 million in various sectors of Serbian society where democratic forces can be strengthened, and to encourage further strengthening of these forces in neighboring Montenegro. It would ensure that this funding will, in fact, go to these areas, in contrast to the Administration's budget request which indicates that much of this funding could be siphoned off to implement a peace agreement in Kosovo. Another $350,000 would go to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, which could provide assistance on a multilateral basis and demonstrate that Serbia can rejoin Europe-- through the OSCE--once it moves in a democratic direction and ends its instigation of conflict. This Act also states what policy toward Serbia and Montenegro must be: to promote the development of democracy and to support those who are committed to the building of democratic institutions, defending human rights, promoting rule of law and fostering tolerance in society. This funding, authorized by the Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989, represents a tremendous increase for building democratic institutions in Sebia and Montenegro. This fiscal year, an anticipated $25 million will be spent, but most of that is going to Kosovo. The President's budget request for the next fiscal year is a welcome $55 million, but, with international attention focused on Kosovo, too much of that will likely go toward implementing a peace agreement. Make no mistake--I support strongly assistance for Kosovo. I simply view it as a mistake to get that assistance by diverting it from Serbia and Montenegro. We have spent billions of dollars in Bosnia and will likely spend at least hundreds of millions more in Kosovo, cleaning up the messes Milosevic has made. The least we can do is invest in democracy in Serbia, which can stop Milosevic from making more problems in the future. Building democracy in Serbia will be difficult, given all of the harm Milosevic has done to Serbian society. The opposition has traditionally been weak and divided, and sometimes compromised by Milosevic's political maneuvering. There are signs, however, the new Alliance for Change could make a difference, and there certainly is substantial social unrest in Serbia from which opposition can gain support. In addition, there are very good people working in human rights organizations, and very capable independent journalists and editors. The independent labor movement has serious potential to gain support, and the student and academic communities are organized to defend the integrity of the universities. Simply demonstrating our real support for the democratic movement in Serbia could convince more people to become involved. Finally, Montenegro's democratic changes in the last year place that republic in a difficult position. A federation in which one republic is becoming more free and open while the other, much larger republic remains repressive and controls federal institutions cannot last for long, yet Montenegrins know they could be the next victims of Milosevic. It would be a mistake to leave those building a democracy in Montenegro out on that limb. They need our support as well. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Serbia and Democracy Act of 1999 because I feel our country's policy in the Balkans has all too long been based on false assumptions about the region. Granted, social tensions, primarily based on ethnic issues, were bound to have plagued the former Yugoslavia, but it is an absolute fact that violence could have been avoided if Slobodan Milosevic did not play on those tensions to enhance his power. As we prepare debate the sending of American forces to Kosovo to keep a peace which does not yet exist, we must address the root cause of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 to today. This Act, Mr. Speaker, does just that, and I urge my colleagues to support its swift and overwhelming passage by the House. The Senate is working on similar legislation, and hopefully the Congress can help put U.S. policy back on the right track.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject matter of House Concurrent Resolution 28.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to decry the growing litany of repressive measures undertaken by the Government of Belarus against the opposition, especially against members of the opposition's Central Electoral Commission (CEC). Earlier this year, the legitimate Belarusian parliament--the 13th Supreme Soviet, disbanded by president Alexander Lukashenka after the illegal constitutional referendum which extended his term of office by two years to 2001--set a date for the next presidential elections for May 16 and set up a Central Election Commission to conduct these elections. According to the 1994 constitution, which most of the international community recognizes as legitimate, Lukashenka's term expires in July. Lukashenka has rejected calls for a presidential election and is clearly attempting to neutralize democratic opposition to his authoritarian rule. The most egregious crackdown in recent weeks was the sentencing of CEC chairman Viktor Hanchar, to 10 days ``administrative detention''. Hanchar suffered some injuries when he was detained and treated roughly by police. He was not given access to his lawyer, Hari Pahanyayla, and his wife was not permitted to see him. A few days earlier, on February 25, fifteen members of the CEC were arrested by police in a cafe where they were meeting and discussing reports from local election commissions. Special police did not have a warrant and prevented the videotaping of the arrest by Russian television. Five-day detentions or heavy fines were meted out to several CEC members, including Boris Gyunter, Anatoly Gurinovich, Sergei Obodovsky, Iosif Naumchik, Algimantas Dzyarginchus, Alexander Koktysh, Nikolay Pohabov, Valery Sidorenko and Leonid Zakurdayev. Additionally, warnings have been issued to several members of regional opposition elections committees, such as Iosif Naumchik in Vitebsk and Sergei Abadowski in Mogilev. According to Radio Liberty, in Zhodzina, Miensk region, local authorities have begun intimidating people who joined or elected opposition regional election commissions. In Gomel, several opposition activists have been summoned and questioned about their role in the organization of the May presidential elections scheduled by the opposition. Police had seized leaflets about these elections at the office of the Gomel branch of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee. The repression of the opposition's elections committees is part of a longstanding pattern of Lukashenka's assault on democratic institutions and his campaign to stifle dissent in Belarus. On February 14, 20 students were arrested by police in Miensk for violating street demonstration laws. Among them, Yevgeny Skochko was sentenced to 10 days in jail, Victor Antonov to 5 days in jail, and Kazimir Kuchun and Ilya Banel were fined. Other opposition activists in Gomel and Borisov have been tried for unsanctioned demonstrations over the last few months. Two young workers in Gomel, for instance, were sentenced to 3 days administrative detention for holding an unsanctioned march. According to Reuters, the men were returning from a disco late in the evening and waving banners, which they were bringing home to wash. Earlier in the month, on February 5, members of the human rights movement Charter '97 were attacked and beaten in Miensk by members of the fascist Russian National Unity party. Andrei Sannikov, the Charter's international coordinator and former deputy foreign minister of Belarus was beaten unconscious. According to the International League for Human Rights a few days later, President Lukashenka trivialized the incident on Belarusian television, saying: ``They say that some fascists have appeared in Miensk and have beaten somebody up. Do you know who they have beaten? Other fascists.'' On February 27, several thousand marchers participated in a peaceful anti-fascist demonstration in Miensk. Organizers of the demonstration, Ales Bilyatsky who was sentenced to 10 days administrative detention and Oleg Volchek who was given a stiff fine, were cited for committing administrative offenses. In late January, Lukashenka signed a decree ordering political parties, public organizations and trade unions to re-register during the period February 1 and July 1. The re-registration process includes a variety of onerous stipulations which would have the effect of weakening the NGOs and political parties. On February 17, the Lukashenka-controlled State Press Committee threatened six independent newspapers with closure if they continued to publish information about the opposition's presidential election plans in May, charging them with ``calling for the seizure of power in Belarus.'' On March 2, police searched the offices of one of the six independent newspapers, ``Pahonya'' in Hrodno, confiscating political cartoons and letters from readers. Clearly, political tensions are increasing in Belarus, and the divide between the authoritarian president and the democratic opposition is widening. Mr. Lukashenka and his minions should cease and desist their campaign to harass journalists, to drain and demoralize individuals and organizations in the opposition through administrative fines and detentions, and to forcefully squelch the right to the freedoms of expression and of assembly. Continued harassment of the oppositiion will only aggravate the current constitutional crisis in Belarus and most certainly will not serve to promote reconciliation between the government and opposition. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the international community continue to speak out on behalf of those whose rights are violated, and that we continue to support the restoration of democracy and rule of law in Belarus.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we have 6 additional minutes equally divided between us.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Speaker, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 28, the Gilman-Gephardt resolution which urges the United States to sponsor a human rights resolution regarding Chinese violations at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva and, equally important, to work vigorously for the resolution, not just to introduce it, but to work very hard with other member states to secure its passage. Mr. Speaker, on January 8, the Committee on International Relations held a hearing on the ongoing and very deplorable state of human rights in China today. Each of our witnesses was a prisoner of conscience who had recently managed to get out of China. All of them called for the United States to be far more forceful in responding to the human rights violations in China than we had been in recent years. The following week we heard from human rights organizations, and each and every one of them agreed that our policy of constructive engagement has been a failure. I would remind my colleagues that last year, and the year before, and the year before that, and even when the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) was chairman of the subcommittee that I now chair, we held hearing after hearing--matter of fact, in the last 4 years alone, about a dozen hearings--on the deplorable state of human rights in China. We heard from Harry Wu, that great leader who spent years in the laogai, who got out and actually went back to try to bear witness to the ongoing oppression that comes the way of religious and political prisoners in China. We heard from Wei Jingsheng, and many other political prisoners, who had been tortured, who had suffered unspeakable atrocities, both psychological and physical. And they said that we need to know the true nature of this regime; that it is oppressive. We have heard about Tibet, and we heard from the representatives of the Dalai Lama. Richard Gere came to one of our hearings on refugees and spoke very eloquently about how the Buddist nuns and priests are routinely tortured. I will never forget when we heard from survivors of the laogai, the gulag system. Six of them came before us: Catherine Ho, Palden Gyatso, and many others. Palden Gyatso, a Buddhist monk, came in with some of the implements routinely used to torture people. He could not even get through security downstairs in the Rayburn Building. We had to escort him through. And he told of the agony that is routinely visited upon these individuals. We heard from Mrs. Gao, a woman who used to run a forced abortion, forced sterilization program in Fujian Province. She got out, with the assistance of Harry Wu, and she told story after story about how women as late as in the ninth month of their pregnancy would be forcibly aborted. We heard from women who had escaped on the Golden Venture at another hearing, and how one woman, when 6 months into her pregnancy, was forcibly aborted by the dictatorship, to comply with the one child per couple policy. We heard from another woman who found a baby girl who had been abandoned, because very often girls are abandoned in China, when couples are only allowed one child. She scooped up that child, like the good samaritan that she was, only to have the family planning cadres come knocking at her door to say that now that she had her one child, she must be forcibly aborted and she needed to be sterilized. These are the every day realities of what goes on in the People's Republic of China: Religious persecution of the house church movement and the Catholic church. All of them suffer unbelievable cruelty at the hands of the Chinese dictatorship. Amnesty International recently issued a report card, and they made it known at our hearing on China. They listed a number of concrete benchmarks and said let us look at these areas and determine whether or not constructive engagement has indeed borne any fruit. In each one of those categories, they found total failure. For example, they spoke of the release of the Tiananmen Square prisoners and other prisoners of conscience. Their verdict: Total failure. Review all counterrevolutionary prison terms. Bottom line, total failure. Allow religious freedom. Their bottom line: Continued strong repression. Prevent coercive family planning and the harvesting of organs: They said, no improvement. Amnesty then went on to speak of the implementation of the so-called the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Chinese government milked for all it was worth. They have not even implemented it yet, as we all know. They signed it and got all these accolades in the west, including the United States, with perhaps no intention of following through on the rights that were enumerated in there. Let us be mindful of this flimflam game they play. They sign a scrap of paper here, an important treaty there, and then they do not follow through, and there is no implementation. Also, Amnesty International raised the issue of police and prison brutality. We know--and the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices clearly documents this, as do report after report from the human rights community--that torture is routinely used against dissidents and prisoners of conscience and religious individuals. Routinely. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is before us today urges the administration to do the very least it can do to try to rectify this egregious situation. Indeed, in 1994, when President Clinton delinked human rights from Most Favored Nation status for China, an annual resolution at Geneva was going to be, by his own reckoning, the centerpiece of what he would do to try to thwart the human rights violations in that country. As of today, the administration apparently still has not decided whether or not it will proceed with a resolution this year. The Human Rights Commission begins on March 22. And as we all know, the other body has already gone on record unanimously--my hope is we will as well--saying bring this resolution to Geneva, let us vote on it and, hopefully, let us prevail. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, which I chair, did add the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), at his request. And let me say there are many others that could be added as well. But that just underscores the extent of the Chinese government's barbaric behavior. Last week, for example, 10 Uighur political and religious prisoners were executed. We have heard from people who have talked about the Uighur minority and how they are discriminated against. Everywhere we look, the Tibetans, the Han Chinese themselves, and the Uighurs are all singled out whenever they have a different religion, because, obviously, China is an atheistic state, and those believers do not conform to the very, very carefully circumscribed limits of the officially recognized churches. Step across that line, and the full weight of the Chinese dictatorship will be brought to bear against you. Just so all Americans understand, one individual was given an 11-year prison sentence for giving an interview, an interview, to Radio Free Asia. He talked to the press. And for that he was yanked by the dictatorship, by their cronies, and thrown into prison. He is now serving an 11 year prison sentence. This barbaric behavior has to stop. The minimum we should do is to try to raise the issue rhetorically at the U.N. Human Rights Convention. Not to do that would be an outrage. I hope the Clinton administration will hear us, and I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 669, the bill just passed.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, racism, ethnic hatred, and xenophobia are the bane of any civilized society. Our own country has had to battle with these phenomena in the past and continues to do so today. In Europe, with the end of the Cold War, we have unfortunately seen a resurrection of racist attitudes and activities that had not been eradicated with the defeat of Nazism, just driven underground. In Russia, a nation whose past has seen terrible instances of anti- Semitism both in the Tsarist and Communist eras, anti-Semitism had seemingly been exiled to the pages of rabidly nationalistic newspapers catering only to the political fringes. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has now come in out of the cold into more comfortable confines-- specifically into the halls of the Russian State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. In fairness, I should say that anti-Semitism has found refuge in the ranks of one particular political party in the Duma--the Communist Party. Last October, at two public rallies, a Communist Party member of the Duma, Albert Makashov, threatened ``the Yids'' and other ``reformers and democrats'' with physical retribution for allegedly causing Russia's current problems. Incidentally, I have seen films of Mr. Makashov's performance. It is quite sobering. When conscientious members of the Duma attempted to censure Mr. Makashov, the Communist Party majority voted down the resolution, and substituted a watered down resolution condemning ethnic hatred in general. In early December, at hearings in the Duma, Communist Party member and chairman of the Defense Committee, Victor Ilyukhin blamed President Yeltsin's ``Jewish entourage'' for alleged ``genocide against the Russian people.'' In response to the public outcry, both in Russia and abroad, Communist Party chairman Zyuganov explained that the Party had nothing against ``Jews,'' just ``Zionism.'' Mr. Speaker, it would be hypocritical for me or any other member of this body to pretend that racism and anti-Semitism do not occasionally rear their ugly heads in our own political process. However, the leadership of the two major American political parties consistently rejects racist or anti-Semitic individuals as officeholders or candidates for office. For instance, the national Republican Party leadership has disassociated itself from a former member of the Ku Klux Klan running for office on the Republican Party ballot in Louisiana. Similarly, when a local Klan leader in California ran for Congress on the Democratic Party ticket a few years ago, the national party leadership repudiated his candidacy and refused to support him. That is why it is so disappointing to see the leadership of the Communist Party in Russia attempt to rationalize anti-Semitic statements made by its members. Incidentally, I should add that since these incidents Mr. Makashov and Mr. Ilyukhin have stated that in the next parliamentary elections they will run on a ticket separate from the Communist Party. In any event, I believe the Congress should unequivocally condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by members of the Russian Duma. With this in mind, today I am introducing, along with Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Wolf, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Porter, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Salmon, a resolution which condemns anti-Semitic statements made by members of the Russian Duma while commending actions taken by fair-minded members of the Duma to censure the purveyors of anti-Semitism within their ranks. In addition, this resolution commends President Yeltsin and other members of the Russian Government for their forceful rejection of such statements. Finally, this resolution reiterates the firm belief of the Congress that peace and justice cannot be achieved as long as governments and legislatures promote policies based upon anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join us in support of this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues disturbing news about the presidential elections in Kazakstan last month, and the general prospects for democratization in that country. On January 10, 1999, Kazakstan held presidential elections, almost two years ahead of schedule. Incumbent President Nursultan Nazarbaev ran against three contenders, in the country's first nominally contested election. According to official results, Nazarbaev retained his office, garnering 81.7 percent of the vote. Communist Party leader Serokbolsyn Abdildin won 12 percent, Gani Kasymov 4.7 percent and Engels Gabbasov 0.7 percent. The Central Election Commission reported that over 86 percent of eligible voters turned out to cast ballots. Behind these facts--and by the way, none of the officially announced figures should be taken at face value--is a sobering story. Nazarbaev's victory was no surprise: the entire election was carefully orchestrated and the only real issue was whether his official vote tally would be in the 90s--typical for post-Soviet Central Asian dictatorships--or the 80s, which would have signaled a bit of sensitivity to Western and OSCE sensibilities. Any suspense the election might have offered vanished when the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring the candidacy of Nazarbaev's sole plausible challenger, former Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, on whom many oppositions activists have focused their hopes. The formal reason for his exclusion was both trivial and symptomatic: in October, kazhegeldin had spoken at a meeting of an unregistered organization called ``For Free Elections.'' Addressing an unregistered organization is illegal in Kazakstan, and a presidential decree of May 1998 stipulated that individuals convicted of any crime or fined for administrative transgressions could not run for office for a year. Of course, the snap election and the presidential decree deprived any real or potential challengers of the opportunity to organize a campaign. More important, most observers saw the decision as an indication of Nazarbaev's concerns about Kazakstan's economic decline and fears of running for reelection in 2000, when the situation will presumably be even much worse. Another reason to hold elections now was anxiety about the uncertainties in Russia, where a new president, with whom Nazarbaev does not have long-established relations, will be elected in 2000 and may adopt a more aggressive attitude towards Kazakstan than has Boris Yeltsin. The exclusion of would-be candidates, along with the snap nature of the election, intimidation of voters, the ongoing attack on independent media and restrictions on freedom of assembly, moved the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to call in December for the election's postponement, as conditions for holding free and fair elections did not exist. Ultimately, ODIHR refused to send a full-fledged observer delegation, as it generally does, to monitor an election. Instead, ODIHR dispatched to Kazakstan a small mission to follow and report on the process. The mission's assessment concluded that Kazakstan's ``election process fell far short of the standards to which the Republic of Kazakstan has committed itself as an OSCE participating State.'' That is an unusually strong statement for ODIHR. Until the mid-1990s, even though President Nazarbaev dissolved two parliaments, tailored constitutions to his liking and was singlemindedly accumulating power, Kazakstan still seemed a relatively reformist country, where various political parties could function and the media enjoyed some freedom. Moreover, considering the even more authoritarian regimes of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the war and chaos in Tajikistan, Kazakstan benefited by comparison. In the last few years, however, the nature of Nazarbaev's regime has become ever more apparent. He has over the last decade concentrated all power in his hands, subordinating to himself all other branches and institutions of government. His apparent determination to remain in office indefinitely, which could have been inferred by his actions, became explicit during the campaign, when he told a crowd, ``I would like to remain your president for the rest of my life.'' Not coincidentally, a constitutional amendment passed in early October conveniently removed the age limit of 65 years. Moreover, since 1996- 97, Kazakstan's authorities have co-opted, bought or crushed any independent media, effectively restoring censorship in the country. A crackdown on political parties and movements has accompanied the assault on the media, bringing Kazakstan's overall level of repression closer to that of Uzbekistan and severely damaging Nazarbaev's reputation. Despite significant U.S. strategic and economic interests in Kazakstan, especially oil and pipeline issues, the State Department has issued a series of critical statements since the announcement last October of pre-term elections. These statements have not had any apparent effect. In fact, on November 23, Vice President Gore called President Nazarbaev to voice U.S. concerns about the election. Nazarbaev responded the next day, when the Supreme Court--which he controls completely--finally excluded Kazhegeldin. On January 12, the State Department echoed the ODIHR's harsh assessment of the election, adding that it had ``cast a shadow on bilateral relations.'' What's ahead? Probably more of the same. Parliamentary elections are slated for October 1999, although there are indications that they, too, may be held before schedule or put off another year. A new political party is emerging, which presumably will be President Nazarbaev's vehicle for controlling the legislature and monopolizing the political process. The Ministry of Justice on February 3 effectively turned down the request for registration by the Republican People's Party, headed by Akezhan Kazhegeldin, signaling Nazarbaev's resolve to bar his rival from legal political activity in Kazakstan. Other opposition parties which have applied for registration have not received any response from the Ministry. Mr. Speaker, the relative liberalism in Kazakstan had induced Central Asia watchers to hope that Uzbek and Turkmen-style repression was not inevitable for all countries in the region. Alas, all the trends in Kazakstan point the other way: Nursultan Nazarbaev is heading in the direction of his dictatorial counterparts in Tashkent and Ashgabat. He is clearly resolved to be president for life, to prevent any institutions or individuals from challenging his grip on power and to make sure that the trappings of democracy he has permitted remain just that. The Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, plans to hold hearings on the situation in Kazakstan and Central Asia to discuss what options the United States has to convey the Congress's disappointment and to encourage developments in Kazakstan and the region towards genuine democratization.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing legislation that would add a rare form of cancer, bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma, to the list of cancers that are presumed to be service-connected for veterans who were exposed to radiation, in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 100-321. The merits of adding bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma to the list of cancers that are presumed to be service-connected for veterans who were exposed to radiation during their military service were pointed out to me in 1986 when I became acquainted with Joan McCarthy, a constituent from New Jersey. Mrs. McCarthy has worked tirelessly for many years to locate other ``atomic veterans'' and their windows and she founded the New Jersey Association of Atomic Veterans. Joan's husband, Tom McCarthy, was a participant in Operation Wigwam, a nuclear test in May of 1995 which involved an underwater detonation of a 30-kiloton plutonium bomb in the Pacific Ocean, about 500 miles southwest of San Diego. Tom served as a navigator on the U.S.S. McKinley, one of the ships assigned to observe the Operation Wigwam test. The detonation of the nuclear weapon broke the surface of the water, creating a giant wave and bathing the area with a radioactive mist. Government reports indicate that the entire test area was awash with the airborne products of the detonation. The spray from the explosion was described in the official government reports as an ``insidious hazard which turned into an invisible radioactive aerosol.'' Tom spent 4 days in this environment while serving aboard the U.S.S. McKinley. In April of 1981, at the age of 44, Tom McCarthy died of a rare form of lung cancer, bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma. This illness is a nonsmoking related lung cancer which is remarkable given the fact that nearly 97 percent of all lung cancers are related to smoking. On his deathbed, Tom told Joan, his wife, about his involvement in Operation Wigwam and wondered about the fate of the other men who were also stationed on the U.S.S. McKinley and on other ships. Mr. Speaker, it has been well documented in medical literature that exposure to ionizing radiation can cause this particular type of lethal cancer. The National Research Council cited Department of Energy studies in the BEIR V (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) reports, stating that ``Bronchiolo-Alveolar Carcinoma is the most common cause of delayed death from inhaled plutonium 239.'' The BEIR V report notes that this cancer is caused by the inhalation and deposition of alpha-emitting plutonium particles in the lungs. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs has also acknowledged the clear linkage between this ailment and radiation exposure. In May of 1994, Secretary Jesse Brown wrote to then Chairman Sonny Montgomery of the Veterans' Affairs Committee regarding this issue. Secretary Brown stated as follows: The Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards considered the issue of the radiogenicity of bronchiolo- alveolar carcinoma and advised me that, in their opinion, this form of lung cancer may be associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. They commented that the association with exposure to ionizing radiation and lung cancer has been strengthened by such evidence as the 1988 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the 1990 report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (the BEIR V Report), and the 1991 report of the International Committee on Radiation Protection. The Advisory Committee went on to state that when it had recommended that lung cancer be accepted as a radiogenic cancer, it was intended to include most forms of lung cancer, including bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma. Back in 1995, I met with former Secretary Brown and he assured me that the VA would not oppose Congress taking action to add this disease to the presumptive list. Notwithstanding this fact, however, the VA has repeatedly denied Joan McCarthy's claims for survivor's benefits. The VA has claimed in the past that adjudication on a case-by-case basis is the appropriate means of resolving these claims. Unfortunately, the practical experiences of claimants reveal deep flaws in the process used by the VA. Mr. Speaker, I believe the widows of our servicemen who participated in these nuclear tests deserve better than this. They should not be required to meet an impossible standard of proof in order to receive DIC benefits, which CBO estimates will cost the government, on average, a mere $10 thousand a year for each affected widow. As many of my colleagues will remember, this legislation was passed on the floor of the House on October 14, 1998 by a vote of 400 to 0. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the Senate failed to take up this legislation before Congress' adjournment. During the 104th Congress, the House passed H.R. 368, identical legislation to the bill we are considering today. It too added bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma to the list of cancers that are presumed to be service-connected for veterans who were exposed to radiation. H.R. 368 was later included as part of H.R. 3673, an omnibus veterans' package which passed the House on July 16, 1996. Unfortunately, this provision was dropped from the final conference report. They say that the third time is the charm so I remain hopeful and determined that my introduction of this legislation today will result in its speedy consideration in the House and approval in the Senate. I would also like to thank my colleague, Congressman Lane Evans from Illinois, the ranking democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, who is joining me today as an original cosponsor of this legislation. His tireless work on behalf of ``atomic veterans,'' and those who have suffered as a result of exposure to radiation while serving our country is to be commended and I thank him for his support of my legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month, a Congress of Democratic Forces was held in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. The Congress demonstrated the resolve of the growing democratic opposition to authoritarian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka and the determination by the opposition to have free, democratic elections consistent with the legitimate 1994 constitution. Earlier last month, on January 10, members of the legitimate Belarusian parliament, disbanded by Lukashenka after the illegal 1996 constitutional referendum which extended his term of office by two years to 2001, set a date for the next presidential elections for May 16. According to the 1994 constitution, Lukashenka's term expires in July. Not surprisingly, Lukashenka rejects calls for a presidential election. Local elections are currently being planned for April, although many of the opposition plan not to participate, arguing that elections should be held only under free, fair and transparent conditions, which do not exist at the present time. Indeed, the law on local elections leaves much to be desired and does not provide for a genuinely free and fair electoral process. The local elections and opposition efforts to hold presidential elections must be viewed against the backdrop of a deteriorating economic situation. One of the resolutions adopted by the Congress of Democratic Forces accuses Lukashenka of driving the country to ``social tensions, international isolation and poverty.'' As an example of the heightening tensions, just last weekend, Andrei Sannikov, the former deputy minister of Belarus and a leader of the Charter '97 human rights group, was brutally assaulted by members of a Russian-based ultranationalist organization. Additionally, Lukashenka's moves to unite with Russia pose a threat to Belarus' very sovereignty. Thus, Mr. Speaker, this year promises to be a critical year for Belarus. Recently, a staff delegation of the (Helsinki) Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I chair, traveled to Belarus, raising human rights concerns with high-ranking officials, and meeting with leading members of the opposition, independent media and nongovernmental organizations. The staff report concludes that the Belarusian Government continues to violate its commitments under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) relating to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and that at the root of these violations lies the excessive power usurped by President Lukashenka since his election in 1994, especially following the illegitimate 1996 referendum. Although one can point to some limited areas of improvement, such as allowing some opposition demonstrations to occur relatively unhindered, overall OSCE compliance has not improved since the deployment of the OSCE's Advisory and Monitoring Group (AMG) almost one year ago. Freedoms of expression, association and assembly remain curtailed. The government hampers freedom of the media by tightly controlling the use of national TV and radio. Administrative and economic measures are used to cripple the independent media and NGOs. The political opposition has been targeted for repression, including imprisonment, detention, fines and harassment. The independence of the judiciary has been further eroded, and the President alone controls judicial appointments. Legislative power is decidedly concentrated in the executive branch of government. The Commission staff report makes a number of recommendations, which I would like to share with my colleagues. The United States and OSCE community should continue to call upon the Belarusian Government to live up to its OSCE commitments and, in an effort to reduce the climate of fear which has developed in Belarus, should specifically encourage the Belarusian Government, inter alia, to: (1) Immediately release Alyaksandr Shydlauski (sentenced in 1997 to 18 months imprisonment for allegedly spray painting anti-Lukashenka graffiti) and review the cases of those detained and imprisoned on politically motivated charges, particularly Andrei Klymov and Vladimir Koudinov; (2) cease and desist the harassment of opposition activists, NGOs and the independent media and permit them to function; (3) allow the opposition access to the electronic media and restore the constitutional right of the Belarusian people to free and impartial information; (4) create the conditions for free and fair elections in 1999, including a provision in the election regulations allowing party representation on the central and local election committees; and (5) strengthen the rule of law, beginning with the allowance for an independent judiciary and bar. With Lukashenka's term in office under the legitimate 1994 Constitution expiring in July 1999, the international community should make clear that the legitimacy of Lukashenka's presidency will be undermined unless free and fair elections are held by July 21. The United States and the international community, specifically the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, should continue to recognize only the legitimate parliament--the 13th Supreme Soviet--abolished by Lukashenka in 1996, and not the post-referendum, Lukashenka-installed, National Assembly. At the time, the United States--and our European allies and partners--denounced the 1996 referendum as illegitimate and extra-constitutional. The West needs to stand firm on this point, as the 13th Supreme Soviet and the 1994 Constitution are the only legal authorities. The democratically oriented opposition and NGOs deserve continued and enhanced moral and material assistance from the West. The United States must make support for those committed to genuine democracy a high priority in our civic development and NGO assistance. I applaud and want to encourage such entities as USIS, the Eurasia Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, ABA/CEELI and others in their efforts to encourage the development of a democratic political system, free market economy and the rule of law in Belarus. The United States and the international community should strongly encourage President Lukashenka and the 13th Supreme Soviet to begin a dialogue which could lead to a resolution of the current constitutional crisis and the holding of democratic elections. The OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group (AMG) could be a vehicle for facilitating such dialogue. The Belarusian Government should be encouraged in the strongest possible terms to cooperate with the OSCE AMG. There is a growing perception both within and outside Belarus that the Belarusian Government is disingenuous in its interaction with the AMG. The AMG has been working to promote these important objectives: an active dialogue between the government, the opposition and NGOs; free and fair elections, including a new election law that would provide for political party representation on electoral committees and domestic observers; unhindered opposition access to the state electronic media; a better functioning, independent court system and sound training of judges; and the examination and resolution of cases of politically motivated repression. Mr. Speaker, there is a growing divide between the government and opposition in Belarus--thanks to President Lukashenka's authoritarian practices, a divide that could produce unanticipated consequences. An already tense political situation is becoming increasingly more so. Furthermore, Lukashenka's efforts at political and economic integration with Russia could have serious potential consequences for neighboring states, especially Ukraine. Therefore, it is vital for the United States and the OSCE to continue to speak out in defense of human rights in Belarus, to promote free and democratic elections this year, and to encourage meaningful dialogue between the government and opposition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am re-introducing legislation that will provide $7.5 million to establish several centers of expertise in autism in an effort to quantify the incidence and prevalence of autism, as well as develop new ways to treat and prevent pervasive developmental disorders such as autism. My legislation--The Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research, and Epidemiology Act of 1999 (ASSURE)--will empower the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) in the fight against autism. This bill was crafted in close cooperation with the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), the developmental disabilities experts at CDC, as well as with service providers from New Jersey. It is a health care and medical research bill which is long overdue, and I urge all of my colleagues to lend it their support. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``autism is a serious life-long developmental disability characterized by impaired social interactions, an inability to communicate with others, and repetitive or restrictive behaviors.'' It is estimated that autism affects one out of every 500 children, although precise rates are unknown. There is also a general consensus that autism rates seem to be increasing, although it is not known whether these increases represent a better understanding of the developmental disability (i.e., better diagnosis), or an actual increase in developed cases of autism. Under the Smith ASSURE legislation, CDC will uncover and monitor the prevalence of autism at a national level by establishing between three and five ``Centers for Research in Autism Epidemiology'' across the country. These centers would conduct population-based surveillance and epidemiologic studies of autism. Periodic screenings of the population (5- to 7-year-old children) would be undertaken to examine prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal factors that contribute to autism development. These centers would combine data from multiple sites to gain a better understanding of how autism differs from other developmental disabilities and disorders. Because autism is suspected to be caused by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors, the ASSURE legislation would help CDC track the trends of autism and determine which factors are responsible for the apparent rise in autism cases nationwide. In short, the ASSURE legislation will build the research infrastructure critical to finding the cause or causes of autism. And once the cause or causes are identified, prevention strategies can be developed and a cure becomes more likely. The collaborative efforts by CDC and state health departments will help scientists better understand which environmental exposures, if any, are most likely to cause children to develop autism in the womb. In addition, each center established under this legislation would tend to develop a certain niche of autism expertise. Such areas could include: specific genetic markers; early prenatal maternal drug and other exposures; and other autism spectrum disorders. The story behind the creation of this legislation is in many ways illustrative of why we need to pass and enact the ASSURE act this year. For it was only after I had a meeting with a pair of courageous parents of autistic children in Brick Township that I realized the pressing need for better autism research. Mr. and Mrs. William Gallagher, the parents of two beautiful children with autism, met with me to share their concerns that Brick Township seemed to have an abnormally high number of children diagnosed with autism. After presenting me with preliminary data suggesting that as many as 27 children may have been diagnosed with autism in Brick over the last decade, I relayed their concerns personally to Len Fishman, Commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS). I asked him to initiate a preliminary inquiry to determine if an autism ``cluster'' investigation was warranted. Commissioner Fishman was very receptive to the concerns of the Brick parents, but after a few weeks of preliminary research by state officials, it became apparent that the current level of scientific knowledge in the United States about autism was inadequate to the task at hand. Quite simply, no one knew for certain what the national rate of autism was supposed to look like, and therefore no one could tell parents whether the rate of autism in their town was at, above, or below the national average. This news came as a surprise to me and to the parents of autistic children. Although there are rough estimates of autism rates from studies in foreign countries, CDC and the NJDHSS did not have enough information to determine if the alleged autism ``cluster'' in Brick was a real public health problem or an illusion of chance. And without knowing whether or not a problem exists, it makes it tough for public health officials to respond to a community's concerns because the cause of autism and how to prevent it remain shrouded in mystery. Mr. Speaker, the experience of Brick should serve as a wake-up call that more autism research is needed if the causes of the disorder and a cure are to be found anytime soon. As a first step, an intensive effort by CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is underway to try to derive national autism rates and to determine if an autism ``cluster'' exists in Brick. The study is one of the first of its kind ever undertaken in the United States, and the results of the investigation will prove invaluable for other communities that may be affected by similarly high numbers of autism cases. But we need to take the second step and enact this legislation if we are going to generate real progress in the fight to eliminate autism. Mr. Speaker, CDC has already established a pilot program--an autism epidemiology center--near Atlanta, Georgia. The limited but promising results from this initiative points to the fact that current understanding of autism is woefully inadequate and that better surveillance and monitoring of developmental disabilities like autism are critical to providing answers and hope for the nearly 500,000 autistic persons in America. Summary of Autism Statistics, Surveillance, Research, and Epidemiology Act of 1999 (ASSURE) $7.5 million in authorization for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create the National Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program. Authorizes CDC to create between three and five ``Centers of Excellence in Autism,'' which would: (1) monitor the prevalence of autism at the national level, (2) assist in development of state autism surveillance programs, (3) provide education and training for health professionals to improve treatment of autism, and (4) develop center-specific expertise in one or more areas of autism research. Establishes CDC as the nation's clearinghouse for autism research and policy development. Establishes an advisory committee and authorizes annual reports to Congress on the state of autism research.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am re-introducing the Long-Term Care Advancement Act to provide real assistance to families and jump-start debate over how to best prepare Americans for their long-term care needs. Although the worsening long-term care situation in this country does not get a lot of media attention, it is very real and millions of families will find themselves under tremendous emotional and financial pressures unless measures are adopted now to address it. The rapid expansion of the group of Americans defined by the Bureau of the Census as ``the oldest old''--those senior citizens aged 85 and above--is slated to double by the year 2030. In fact, the fastest growing demographic age group in the United States are the ``oldest old,'' and about half of such individuals will eventually require assistance with various activities of daily living (ADLs). The Long-Term Care Advancement Act of 1999 will assist Americans as they prepare for their future long-term care needs. To help families keep more of what they have earned over the years, my bill allows penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k) plans when the funds are used to pay for `qualified' long-term care (LTC) insurance premiums (as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). In addition, my legislation will enable a family to make an IRA/ 401(k) withdrawal to pay for an LTC insurance policy premium and a portion of the withdrawal will be excluded from their taxable income. Depending on one's tax bracket, age, and type of policy purchased, the savings on an LTC insurance policy under my bill are considerable. Lastly, the Long-Term Care Advancement Act will provide a refundable $500 tax credit for families caring for a dependent elderly spouse or parent in the home. This tax credit is important because most of the long-term care provided in America is provided by families in the home, and these families desperately need and deserve tax relief. In my view, families trying to take care of their loved ones should be rewarded by the tax code, not punished as they are now. The tax breaks contained in this legislation will help families provide the peace and security they want and need against the massive costs of professionally provided long-term care, including nursing home care, home health care, respite care, and adult day care services. Last year, this legislation secured the support of the 60 Plus Association, the American Health Care Association, and the Home Health Assembly of New Jersey. The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) has also supported the concept behind the bill. This year, I was very pleased to see the President Clinton has decided to join my colleagues and I in the long-term care debate by proposing a tax credit for elderly disabled persons as part of his fiscal year 2000 budget. Many will recall that the Republican ``Contract with America'' called for providing ``tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.'' They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so Republicans should be flattered that Mr. Clinton has decided to make a plank in of the ``Contract with America'' the centerpiece of his new domestic initiatives contained in his budget. However, in addition to providing a tax credit, I believe a vital part of any comprehensive proposal on long-term care must also be the promotion of private long-term care insurance. Although the number of persons insured under LTC policies has nearly doubled between 1992 and 1996, this growth is from a very low base. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Americans still do not have any private LTC insurance coverage at all. This needs to change, and soon. Unless it does, changing demographics will put an enormous strain on our nation's fragmented system of long-term care. Already, our Medicare and Medicaid programs have demonstrated their financial shortcomings when providing long-term care services to increasing numbers of the frail elderly. The Medicaid program already spends over $41 billion on nursing home care services for senior citizens. Medicaid expenditures are projected to double over the next 10 years, with nursing home care driving much of the growth. By encouraging more Americans to plan for their future care needs, I believe we can improve the medical, social, and financial well being of families, as well as provide substantial future savings to the Medicaid and Medicare programs. According to the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, there is a 48% chance of any given individual needing long term care in one's lifetime. And the costs of nursing home care for one year is approximately $40,000. If we can successfully encourage families to purchase LTC insurance, the potential for savings to American families, as well as the Medicaid and Medicare programs, is simply enormous. I look forward to working on and discussing long-term care issues with my colleagues throughout the 106th Congress, and urge all of my colleagues to support this important initiative. Section by Section Analysis of the Long-Term Care Advancement Act of 1999 Section 1: Short Title Section 2: Exclusion from income for retirement plan withdrawals used to purchase long-term care insurance Penalty taxes are waived on IRA/retirement plan withdrawals used to pay for LTC insurance policy premiums. IRA/retirement plan withdrawals will not be included as taxable income if the withdrawal is used to pay for ``qualified'' LTC insurance policy premiums. The amounts excludable from taxation are as follows (the amounts are identical to the LTC tax breaks contained in P.L. 104-193): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exclusion from income allowed on IRA/401(k) Age of LTC policyholder withdrawals for ``qualified'' policies under HR-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40 or less..................................... $200.00 41 to 50....................................... 375.00 51 to 60....................................... 750.00 61 to 70....................................... 2,000.00 71 and up...................................... 2,500.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ``Qualified'' LTC plans eligible for the incentives contained in this bill are defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, or P.L. 104-193). Double tax benefits are prohibited. For example, a taxpayer otherwise eligible to take a deduction for LTC premiums could either take the tax deduction allowed by P.L. 104-193, or make a tax-excludable withdrawal from their IRA or other retirement plan. They cannot do both. Only the amounts withdrawn to pay for actual LTC premiums are eligible to receive tax benefits under LTCAA. Amounts withdrawn in excess of those needed to pay LTC premiums would be subject to normal tax rules (including applicable penalties, if any). Provisions effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998. Section 3: Tax Credit for taxpayers caring for a dependent parent or spouse in the home A $500 tax credit (refundable) can be claimed for each chronically ill spouse/parent who cannot perform two or more activities of daily living (ADLs) due to a physical or mental impairment. Dependent spouse/parent must reside in the taxpayer's principal place of residence for more than half of the taxable year. `Elder-care' tax credit phased in over the next five years as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Applicable `elder-care' Calendar year tax credit amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1999........................................... $250 2000........................................... 350 2001........................................... 400 2002........................................... 450 2003........................................... 500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The tax credit is indexed for inflation after 2003. It will be indexed to the medical cost component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Income limits for `elder care' credit are identical to $500-per-child tax credit included in Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-34). Provisions effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4757, legislation renaming the North/South Center at the University of Miami after our former House colleague, the former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Honorable Dante B. Fascell. Dante Fascell served in the House of Representatives, from 1954-1992; I was privileged to serve with him on the Foreign Affairs Committee and witness, first-hand, his tireless efforts on behalf of the North/South Center. Given his commitment and his role as a driving force behind the creation and development of the North/South Center, H.R. 4757 is a fitting and long-overdue tribute for Dante Fascell's great work in this regard. Mr. Speaker, most of us know that the North/South Center is an independent research and educational organization that promotes policy initiatives aimed at resolving the most critical issues facing the nations of the Western Hemisphere. The Center's research, publications, and training efforts have focused on furthering freedom and democracy, and economic development. To date, the Center's programs have benefited citizens of the Western Hemisphere by supplying significant knowledge and expertise relevant to an inter-American agenda which has grown more complex and more critical each year. In its first eight years, the North/South Center has embraced and fostered the ideals that Dante Fascell outlined when he first envisioned the program, especially the importance of offering academic interchanges--the free exchange of views to promote understanding and cooperation--as a means to promote democracy. The Center has also proven that it is uniquely capable of assessing the increasing interdependence of the two hemispheres, the North and the South, and developing cross border policies that stress the similarities and also bridge the gaps of the countries of the Western Hemisphere. The academic and intellectual dialogues promoted by the Center have helped advance democratic ideals especially in those Western Hemisphere countries where democracy has not yet taken hold. The North/South Center at the University of Miami has lived up to Dante's hopes and dreams, becoming a major player in helping to determine the conduct of the U.S. in our public policy for the two hemispheres. It is well respected and provides an invaluable source of research, public outreach, cooperative study, and programs of education and training on a large variety of Western Hemisphere issues. Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the gentleman from Florida, Chairman Dante Fascell, put forth a democracy-promoting concept that today stands as a great tribute to his foresight, commitment and leadership. I am pleased to have had the privilege of serving with Mr. Fascell in this chamber and delighted to participate in honoring his accomplishments in this way. His alma mater, the University of Miami, is to be congratulated for its continued contributions through the North/South Center and for the recommendation to rename the North/South Center in Dante's behalf. It is a well-deserved recognition, and one which will make him, and all of us who served with him here in the House, very proud.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for yielding me this time. There is no one who has done more for veterans in this country. I appreciate his working to get this legislation to the floor today. I do want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his strong support for this legislation. Madam Speaker, H.R. 559 would do a very simple thing. It would add a rare form of cancer, bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma, to the list of cancers that are presumed to be service connected for veterans who were exposed to radiation, in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 100-321. In 1986, Madam Speaker, I became acquainted with Joan McCarthy, a constituent from New Jersey. Mrs. McCarthy has worked for many years to locate other atomic veterans and their widows and she founded the New Jersey Association of Atomic Veterans. Joan's husband, Tom McCarthy, was a participant in Operation Wigwam, a nuclear test in May of 1955 which involved an underwater detonation of a 30-kiloton plutonium bomb in the Pacific Ocean about 500 miles southwest of San Diego. Tom served as a navigator on the U.S.S. McKinley, one of the ships assigned to observe Operation Wigwam. The detonation of the nuclear weapon broke the surface of the water, creating a giant wave and bathing the area with a radioactive mist. Government reports indicate that the entire test area was awash with airborne particulates of the detonation. The spray from the explosion was described in the official government reports as, and I quote, an insidious hazard which turned into an invisible radioactive aerosol, close quote. Tom spent 4 days in this environment while serving aboard the U.S.S. McKinley. In April of 1981 at the age of 44, Tom McCarthy died of a rare form of lung cancer, bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma. This illness is a nonsmoking-related cancer. It is estimated that about 97 percent of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. On his deathbed Tom told his wife Joan about his involvement in Operation Wigwam and wondered about the fate of the other men who were stationed on the U.S.S. McKinley and other ships in the area. Madam Speaker, it has been well documented that exposure to ionizing radiation can cause this particular type of lethal cancer. The National Research Council cited Department of Energy studies in the BEIR V reports, stating that, and I quote, bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma is the most common cause of delayed death from inhaled plutonium 239. The BEIR V report notes that this cancer is caused by inhalation and deposition of alpha-emitting plutonium particles. Madam Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs has also acknowledged the clear linkage between this ailment and radiation exposure. I include that information for the Record at this point. The Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards considered the issue of the radiogenicity of bronchiolo- alveolar carcinoma and advised me that, in their opinion, this form of lung cancer may be associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. They commented that the association with exposure to ionizing radiation and lung cancer has been strengthened by such evidence as the 1988 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the 1990 report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (the BEIR V Report), and the 1991 report of the International Committee on Radiation Protection. The Advisory Committee went on to state that when it had recommended that lung cancer be accepted as a radiogenic cancer, it was intended to include most forms of lung cancer, including bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma. Back in 1985, Madam Speaker, I met with former Secretary Brown of the VA and he assured me that the VA would not oppose Congress taking action to add this disease to the presumptive list. Notwithstanding this fact, the VA continues to deny Joan McCarthy's claim for survivor's benefits, a clear outrage and I think a miscarriage of justice. Finally, just let me say that CBO estimates that this will cost the government on average about $10,000 a year for each affected widow. CBO estimates that the cost will be approximately $13.5 million over a 5- year period. I do hope that this legislation will get the full support of the body. While nothing can replace their loved ones, these widows deserve this very small compensation--it is the least we can do.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)