Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the foreign operations appropriations bill, H.R, 1868. Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have expressed concern that the rule does not permit an amendment which would excise language in the conference report regarding assistance to refugees and displaced persons within Azerbaijan. When the House debated this issue on June 28, I made a very strong statement in support of the provision allowing assistance through the Azerbaijani Government and entitling it to the suffering refugees, and there are about 1 million of those refugees. I remain committed to the principle of refugee assistance. My subcommittee oversees that on the authorizing side, and I think this language is a very carefully crafted piece of workmanship. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to read the actual language that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] put in the bill. It is replete with caveats and its intention is beyond doubt. I quote: ``Assistance may be provided for the government of Azerbaijan for humanitarian purposes if the President determines that humanitarian assistance provided in Azerbaijan through NGO's is not adequately addressing the suffering of refugees and internally displaced persons.'' The conference report states further that the assistance would be for, and I quote again, ``for the exclusive use of refugees and displaced persons.'' My Armenian friends know well that I have fully supported provisions which address humanitarian concerns of their community. I was a prime sponsor of the Humanitarian Aid Corriders Act, offered it on the authorizing bill, and it passed, which is also included in this conference report offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss ]. The sole factors, in my view, are the women and the children and the refugees. Again, I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] has worked out a very carefully crafted compromise, and I do hope that Members will vote in favor of this conference report, in favor of the rule. Just very briefly on the issue raised by Mr. Obey, the language dealing with the United Nations Population Fund and the Mexico City Policy, which Mr. Callahan will offer shortly, are the two issues that we have voted on and debated several times in this House, both on the authorizing bill and on the appropriations bill. The issue has been divided in the past, and the votes are very similar, and I would hope that Members would see fit to continue to keep these joined together. The conferees felt it was necessary to have one vote, up or down, on these two important policies. We have divided it in the past, we had separate votes, and those votes were decidedly in favor of the pro-life provisions. So rather than wasting the time of this body, I would hope that we can have our argument on those two policies without the motion that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] would like to offer. So vote ``yes'' on the motion as well as ``yes'' on the rule itself.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, a little over 3 months ago the House voted overwhelmingly on two important pro-life policies, these anticoercion policies contained in the Callahan motion. First, we voted to condition our support for the U.N. Population Fund on an end to UNFPA support for the forced abortion policy of the People's Republic of China. In recent months, the government-imposed nightmare of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China has taken yet another turn for the worse. Mr. Speaker, the brutal one-child-per-couple policy has been around since 1979. This means quite literally that brothers and sisters are illegal. In February of this year, the government announced a new intensified campaign against women who attempt to have a child without explicit government permission. The arrogant leaders in Beijing have decreed children should not be born, so population control cadres march out in lockstep and they force abortions on these women throughout the country. Yet, and I beg to differ with my good friend from California, the UNFPA continues to laud this program as a totally voluntary program. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth. Dr. Sadik, from time and time again on national television and in various fora, is saying the Chinese program is voluntary. She is whitewashing, unfortunately, these heinous crimes against women and children. She has even recommended that the Chinese program be replicated and reproduced elsewhere around the world. Unfortunately, we should be lampooning and bringing scrutiny to these terrible human rights abuses, rather than giving money to organizations that act as cheerleaders. I was in Beijing, Mr. Speaker, when First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gave an excellent speech on forced abortion. Unfortunately, she did not mention China, but everybody knew about whom she was talking. We need to see the words matched with deeds. Unfortunately, rhetoric and condemnations are not enough. This kind of language, similar to what we had in effect during the Reagan and Bush years, will send a clear, unmistakable message that coercion has no place in family planning programs. The other program or policy is the Mexico City policy, which simply seeks to erect a wall of separation between abortion and family planning. Again, the other side has suggested this is antifamily planning. Not true. In effect since 1984, unfortunately repealed by Mr. Clinton, this program and policy sent money to groups, including International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates who would sign on the dotted line that they would not promote abortion as a method of family planning. If we are serious that these children who are killed by abortion have worth and are priceless and have value, it seems to me that we should be giving money only to those organizations that are truly committed to family planning and not those that have an agenda of promoting abortion globally as well as in this country. Mr. Speaker, let me say finally, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done an excellent job in crafting, as chairman of this subcommittee, language that is a compromise. We have given in on some points. The language before us, I think, should pass muster in the Senate, and we hope that the President--maybe not the first time, but sometime in the near future--will sign this into law, because it is right. Children have value. Family planning is not reduced by a dime. By this language, it is conditioned only to those that promote family planning and not those that promote abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, we are here this week to debate what some might call a simple medical question. Specifically, whether a certain procedure known as partial birth abortion should be left alone as good and permissible medicine, or legally banned as brutality, masquerading as medicine. This week the 22-year coverup of abortion methods is over. I applaud Chairman Canady for his courage in bringing this very thoughtful legislation to the floor and for exposing this particular abuse of little kids. For more than two decades the abortion industry has sanitized abortion methods by aggressively employing the shrewdest and most benign euphemisms market research can buy. They have engaged, without question, in coverup. Throughout the country there have been proposals at the State legislative level for informed consent legislation to provide, before the woman submits to abortion, a clear understanding of the child's humanity. Pictures, anatomically correct, about the child in utero. NARAL and the Abortion Rights lobby has opposed each and every one of those efforts to inform the woman about the humanity of the unborn child and about any possible deleterious effects that abortion could have on her life. Gov. Bob Casey recently told me that in Pennsylvania, where informed consent is the law, there has been a 13-percent drop in abortions, and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist himself, has said that if wombs had windows, women would run out of abortion clinics, because they would see that the child that they carry is a little baby. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a sea change regarding how abortion is addressed by this House. This week, in addition to the debates on whether or not the Federal Government should fund abortions, we will, for the first time, begin to debate whether or not a particular heinous method of abortion, partial birth abortions, should continue to be legal in our land. This is serious business, Madam Speaker. It is therefore especially fitting that this debate in particular should not be about philosophical abstractions like choice, the rights of women and privacy, all of them laudable when considered only in the abstract. This debate, if it is to shed any light on the serious question at hand, if it is to be honest and thereby worthy of this House, must be about the very behavior, the methods themselves, and that is why the descriptions of this type of abortion needs to go forward without being gagged. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] pointed out earlier, Dr. Martin Haskell, a medical doctor who unashamedly performs these methods of abortions by the hundreds, unashamedly does this kind of abuse to children, let him describe it in his own words as he told the National Abortion Federation's risk management seminar Abortion Federation's risk management seminar a couple of years ago. I quote him: The surgeon introduces a large, grasping forcep through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully toward the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon than applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus and pulls the extremity into the vagina. Dr. Haskell goes on to say: The surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the lower extremity, then the torso, then the shoulders, and then the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. The surgeon then takes a bear of blunt, curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact at the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient. Madam Speaker, that clinical description of child abuse is what is in the table and will be debated this week. Whether individuals should be permitted to pull a living child out of her mother's womb and stick a scissors through the back of her head and then suck her brains out until she is dead is the brunt and the crux of this legislation. Should that behavior be legal, or should it be criminal is what we must decide this week. This week, this legislation will, for the first time ever in this debate in this House or in the Senate, finally say whether or not we will approve or disapprove of legalized abortion, particularly in this method. It was mentioned earlier by my good friend, Mr. Canady, and also by some other Members during this special order, that one particular nurse saw this and got deathly sick from what she saw. She saw that living child, the heart beating, the feet kicking, the hands grasping and making little fists, and she walked out of there never to go back, and now she has turned State's evidence to bring a witness to the Congress and to the American people about partial birth abortions. It was pointed out earlier that the American Medical Association's legislative council saw fit to join in supporting this legislation, and shame on the American Medical Association when that recommendation came forward for not saying yes, we will stand for children as we have done so historically, going back to the 1860's and beyond, when they said that abortion takes the life of a baby. Unfortunately, politics intervened with its ugly head and unfortunately, they have now become ``neutral'' on this particular legislation. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is a great leader, and he is bringing this debate to this House, and I hope many people who call themselves pro choice will take a good, hard look at the reality of what abortion actually is. Madam Speaker, when you look at the methods of abortion, this is one of many that is a heinous act. If you look at D&C abortions where the baby is literally dismembered in utero, not so much different from this method. The suction methods which the other side likes to talk about with all kinds of euphemisms, suction curettage and all of those words they use, clinical words, to kill the baby, usually around the 12th week. Those methods, too, destroy a living growing developing little baby boy or little baby girl. This legislation is human rights legislation. I hope this whole House, and I know it is hoping against hope because some Members are under instructions from the abortion lobby to oppose it and to speak out against it, but in their heart of hearts, that small still voice will say, that is a crime. That is child abuse. We need to speak out loudly and clearly because we have an affirmative obligation to protect children from that kind of abuse. I applaud the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for his leadership. It is a good bill and deserves the support of every Member of this House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, instead of rolling out the red carpet this week for Slobodan Milosevic, the Clinton administration should hand over the Serbain President to international investigators for his alleged role in war crimes perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia. Having ignited the firestorm of extreme Serb nationalism which has consumed most of Bosnia and part of Croatia, Milosevic is now being enlisted as a member of the Clinton administration's fire brigade assembled to douse the smoldering ashes in its aftermath. Milosevic, who has earned the title ``Butcher of the Balkans,'' has reincarnated himself, in the eyes of the Clinton administration, as a peacemaker despite the fact that he was named a suspected war criminal by Secretary of State Eagleberger during the final days of the Bush administration, and that he heads a government being sued for genocide before the International Court of Justice. The Clinton administration views the Serbian leader as the one who can deliver the Bosnian Serbs in support of a United States-brokered peace plan which will effectively divide Bosnian-Herzegovian along ethnic lines. Is he really a new peacemaker or is he after something else? I fear the latter is true. Reeling under the devastating impact of economic sanctions imposed in 1992 by the U.N. on Serbia for its role in the wars in neighboring Croatia and Bosnia, Milosevic is keen to cut a deal which will pave the way for the sanctions to be lifted. I am not convinced he has given up on his dream of creating a ``Greater Serbia.'' The Clinton administration has embraced Milosevic as part of its full-court press to conclude a Bosnian peace accord, at almost any cost, as the presidential campaign season nears. Mr Speaker, I welcome the fact that the President has finally begun to focus on the crisis in Bosnia. At the same time, I have reservations about the conduct of the current negotiations and am vehemently opposed to allowing Mr. Milosevic into the United States. Despite the hype and new spins, one fact is abundantly clear-- Milosevic was the mastermind behind extreme Serb nationalism which spawned mayhem in Bosnia and Croatia and ultimately has led to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in these countries. Warren Zimmerman, the last United States Ambassador to Yugoslavia has observed ``nobody in Belgrade doubts that the war in Bosnia is being masterminded by Milosevic in collusion with his Bosnian Serb henchman, Radovan Karadzic.'' Zimmerman has characterized the Serbian President as a liar ``almost totally dominated by his dark [[Page E 2067]] side.'' The genocidal campaign unleashed by Milosevic has included the rape of tens of thousands of women, the destruction of thousands of mosques and Catholic churches, and the forcible expulsion of hundreds of thousands. Mr. Speaker, the Bosnian Serb political and military leaders, Karadzic and Mladic, wouldn't dare step foot on United States soil following their indictment as war criminals by the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, earlier this year. There is a cruel irony in the fact that, with his lieutenants largely out of the picture, Milosevic has returned to center stage as the perceived linchpin to peace in the Balkans following a 4-year war of armed aggression and genocide which he, himself, set in motion. In a speech launching a week-long commemoration at the University of Connecticut of the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, President Clinton solemnly declared ``there must be peace of justice to prevail, but there must be justice when peace prevails.'' Apparently, the Clinton administration is prepared to put justice aside in their quest for peace in Bosnia which it believes hinges on Milosevic. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that peace and justice can and should be pursued simultaneously. I agreed with President Clinton when he said, ``By successfully prosecuting war criminals in the former Yugoslavia * * * we send a strong signal for those who would use the cover of war to commit terrible atrocities, that they cannot escape the consequences of such actions.'' But what signal is the Clinton administration sending by welcoming Milosevic to the United States? Even those who accept Milosevic's participation in the current peace talks--for whatever reason--must acknowledge that the Serbian leader will garner a degree of credibility and prestige by being allowed to enter the United States. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by willingly admitting Milosevic, the Clinton administration calls into question its determination to see all war criminals, regardless of rank, brought to justice. Mr. Speaker, the arrival of Slobodan Milosevic in the United States is repugnant to American principles and is an affront to the memory of the tens of thousands of innocent victims of the Balkan war. For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I wish also to include a disturbing article which was published in the Christian Science Monitor on October 24, 1995. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 24, 1995] Serbia Held Responsible for Massacre of Bosnians (By David Rohde) Officers from Serbia participated in the attack on the UN- declared ``safe area'' of Srebrenica, according to credible eyewitness accounts obtained by the Monitor. And senior Western diplomats and UN officials say Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic is responsible for the attack and the subsequent executions of thousands of Muslim civilians. Muslim witnesses say that an officer from Serbia was directing the roundup of Muslim prisoners in the village of Konjevic Polje, and that a Serb officer captured by Muslim forces was following orders issued from the Serbian capital, Belgrade. ``The Serb officer said they were under orders from Belgrade not to allow any men to escape from Srebrenica,'' says Bosnian soldier Dzemal Malvic. ``All Muslim men were to be captured or killed,'' said Mr. Malovic, one of three Bosnian soldiers who say they spoke to and looked at identify papers of the captured Serbian captain. In a separate interview, a Muslim officer confirmed that the Serbian officer had been captured. The Serbian officer's whereabouts are unknown, and he may have been killed later by Muslim forces. Western diplomats have long suspected that the Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica in mid-July was approved by Belgrade, but the government of President Slobodan Milosevic has vehemently denied it. Mr. Milosevic's involvement would be an embarrassment for the Clinton administration, eager to portray Milosevic--who will be attending peace talks in Ohio next week--as a peacemaker in the Balkans, not a war criminal. ``Whether by commission or omission, [Milosevic] is responsible, no question,'' says a senior UN military official based in Zagreb, Croatia. ``He had plenty of sources on the ground there. He had to know what was happening, and either approved of it or did nothing to stop it.'' A senior Western diplomat in Zagreb also says Milosevic is responsible for what is quickly emerging as one of the darkest hours of Bosnia's 3\1/2\ year conflict. ``I have no doubt he directly approved or tacitly approved of the taking of Srebrenica,'' the diplomat says. ``Whether Milosenic knew [about the executions] or not, he knows what kind of man [Bosnian Serb Army commander Gen. Ratko] Mladic is and how he operates.'' reports of mass executions Over 2,000 Muslim men were executed by Bosnian Serb forces following the fall of Srebrenica, according to nine survivors interviewed by the Monitor last month. War-crimes investigators now have evidence that as many as 3,000 to 4,000 men were executed by the Bosnian Serbs, according to a senior UN official close to the investigation. ``Wait until everything comes out,'' he says. ``Then, people will understand how big this is.'' The UN official close to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague said mass graves ring the area around Srebrenica, and confirmed the existence of a new set of United States spy photos showing a new group of apparent mass graves near the village of Karakaj, as reported by the Boston Globe on Oct. 3. The photos confirm the accounts of five men interviewed by the Monitor who say over 2,000 Muslim prisoners were executed near the town of Karakaj on July 18. The photos may be the basis for new indictments against General Mladic expected to be issued by the Tribunal. Bosnian Serb officials have said that mass graves in the village of Nova Kasaba captured in US spy photos and visited by the Monitor in August contain the bodies of Muslim soldiers who were killed in combat and not executed. But the Karakaj site is too far from the route that Muslim men would have followed to escape from Srebrenica, according to the UN official. Mevludin Oric, a survivor of the Karakaj execution, said in an interview that one of the officers directing the roundup of prisoners in Konjevic Polje was a 40- to 45-year-old officer from Serbia. Mr. Oric is considered by war-crimes investigators to be one of their most credible witnesses. The Serbian officer was not present at the later execution, Oric added. Who gave the order to execute thousands of prisoners remains unknown. But evidence of Milosevic's involvement in Srebrenica has been mounting for months, and it is not known if Mladic would execute such a large number of men without at least the tacit approval of Serbian leaders in Belgrade. Mladic, who eyewitnesses interviewed by the Monitor said was at Karakaj and three other executions sites during or just before executions began, had been visiting Belgrade regularly for weeks prior to the attack. Dutch peacekeepers reported seeing members of paramilitary groups from Serbia, and Muslims say they saw Belgrade-based paramilitary leader Zeljko ``Arkan'' Raznjatovic in Srebrenica. The Washington Post reported seeing Muslim soldiers driving a jeep with Yugoslav Army license plates on July 17. The Muslims said they had captured the jeep from forces involved in the attack on Srebrenica. New York Newsday reported on Aug. 12 that Western intelligence officials captured radio intercepts of Yugoslav Army chief Gen. Momcilo Perisic, directing Mladic on how to attack Srebrenica during the offensive. Serb denials Yugoslav officials have strenuously denied the accounts, but the Yugoslav Army and Arkan are believed to be tightly controlled by Milosevic, who holds an iron grip over Serbia's military. Despite the growing evidence, Srebrenica survivors remain skeptical that Milosevic--whom the Clinton administration is depending on to force the Bosnian Serbs to agree to a peace deal--will be tied to or punished for Europe's worst massacre since World War II. ``It all depends on the politicians,'' Malovic says. ``They could punish them, or reward them, for doing this.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan resolution before the House which succinctly encapsulates the concerns of many in this Congress that deployment of United States troops to the former Yugoslavia is a presumed option in the quiver of United States negotiators. Before United States troops are committed to such a mission, the President must make his case to the American people and Congress. Last August, the President decided to launch a United States peace initiative which was prompted by the sudden shifts caused by the Croatian military gains and by NATO bombing. Let me remind my colleagues that it was not until Congress overwhelmingly and along bipartisan lines voted to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia that President Clinton finally began to engage on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Clinton vetoed that bill, depriving the Bosnians of the ability to defend themselves. In recent weeks this same administration which has vacillated for nearly 3 years over what United States interests were at stake in Bosnia is now prepared to send some 25,000 troops to a country to enforce the peace that has yet to be written. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly troubled by the comments by key members of the administration that all but promise that U.S. troops deployed to Bosnia would be home within a year. Such claims raise suspicions that the administration's full-court press for a peace settlement is indeed being driven by an electoral timetable. They also reveal the limits of the White House's commitment to its own plan even before it is fully negotiated. Assuming that the sides are able to reach a peace agreement, which is far from certain, the process of consolidating peace in Bosnia will take years, not months, to complete. This is not a partisan debate. There are skeptics on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the President to make a persuasive case to the American people and to Congress, which clearly defines the mission, mandate, and modalities for a force which would be placed in harm's way. Ambiguity, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has noted, is dangerous and, in the end, self-defeating. The deployment of American troops to Bosnia, as he correctly points out, is a fateful decision requiring a full national debate led by the President. ``As a first step, the administration must answer these threshold questions: What exactly is the peacekeeping force supposed to protect? And how do we measure success?'' Kissinger has asked. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 2550, which would prohibit the use of DOD funds for placing ground troops in Bosnia for peacekeeping or peace implementation. The President has not made his case for deployment. And, considering proximity talks and negotiations begin on Wednesday, the White House and Clinton's negotiators need to clearly understand that they must not presume the deployment of U.S. troops is politically sustainable. Prudence, Mr. Speaker, dictated deliberate and timely consideration of such fundamental points before a commitment of U.S. troops can or should be made. Thorough review and deliberation is prerequisite, rather than rushing into a decision that cannot be sustained over a period of time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 39 years ago yesterday, Hungarian students demanding reforms and democratization demonstrated in Budapest, touching off what has become known as the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. The 2 weeks that followed witnessed events that were truly incredible given the context of the times: following the initial demonstrations, Soviet troops and tanks entered Budapest; hundreds of peaceful marchers were killed at Parliament Square in Budapest; fighting spread across the country; a new Hungarian Government was formed and negotiations for Soviet troop withdrawals were begun; revolutionary workers' councils and local national committees rose to prominence and attention was given to political and economic demands, including calls for free elections, free speech, press, assembly, and worship. Hungary announced its withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and proclaimed itself neutral. In early November, Soviet forces attacked Budapest and took over strategic locations across Hungary. By mid- November, any hope of advancement was crushed by the ruthless Soviet military assault. Mr. Speaker, the short lived, but courageous struggle against communism and Soviet domination so brutally quelled by Soviet tanks vividly illustrated to the entire world the realities and intentions of Soviet imperialism and totalitarianism. The West offered no effective response, Mr. Speaker, and the bloody suppression of the Hungarian freedom fighters seemingly underscored the status quo of Soviet power and might. This led to a feeling of impotence in the West. The 1956 Revolution was, of course, a testament to the fortitude, heroism, and commitment to freedom of the Hungarian people. One could note that the uprising also signified the beginning of the end of Soviet rule. The famous Yugoslav dissident, Milovan Djilas, writing very shortly after the uprising, characterized the revolution in Hungary as ``the beginning of the end of communism generally,'' and observed that ``* * * the Hungarian fighters for freedom, struggling for their existence and country, may not have foreseen what an epochal deed they had initiated.'' Innocent lives were lost, hopes were dashed, much of the potential of the States under Soviet dominance was never allowed to blossom, and almost two generations knew nothing of basic freedoms. But, Mr. Speaker, as later events showed, Djilas proved to be prescient in his analysis. The Hungarian Revolution began to expose, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate futility of communism and the inherent weakness of the Soviet Union. Henry Kissinger, in his 1994 book ``Diplomacy,'' notes that: ``A generation later, latent Soviet weakness would cast the Hungarian uprising as a harbinger of the ultimate bankruptcy of the communist system.'' Mr. Speaker, perhaps this was the most important legacy of the Hungarian uprising, attesting that the blood shed by the Hungarian people in 1956 ultimately was not in vain.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2070 as introduced by our colleague, Mr. Moran. This legislation authorizes the distribution within the United States of a specific film, ``The Fragile Ring of Life'' produced by the U.S. Information Agency. This legislation is necessary because section 501 of the Smith Mundt Act of 1948 prevents the release within the United States of products commissioned by the U.S. Information Agency for 12 years. The intent of the Smith Mundt Act is to prevent the executive branch from using the U.S. Information Agency as a political tool within the United States. While this is a reasonable objective, over the years Congress has approved the early release of several films and videotape programs through legislative action. The decision to waive the Smith Mundt Act restriction on domestic dissemination is usually based on finding the material offers worthwhile educational or cultural information of interest or value to American citizens. The ``Fragile Ring of Life'' does meet these standards. The film discusses programs operating around the world that are focused on protecting sea life and coral reefs. In addition, it provides a useful summary of various efforts to establish environmentally sound practices within countries that rely upon the sea for food, commerce, or tourism. I urge support for H.R. 2070 so that this film may be made available to domestic viewers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do thank the gentleman for his kind words. It is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2070) to provide for the distribution within the United States of the U.S. Information Agency film entitled ``Fragile Ring of Life.''

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. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2353, legislation to extend eight needed expiring authorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including other important provisions. Before I summarize the bill I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the bipartisan effort and the outstanding work by those who brokered the compromises reflected in the bill. Through the efforts of Chairman Hutchinson and Chairman Stump, along with full committee ranking member Montgomery, and Chet Edwards, the ranking member of the subcommittee, we were able to reach a compromise that reflects not only the specific concerns of each of the members but also the needs of our veteran constituents. We were also, in the spirit of compromise, able to address the concerns of Mr. Nethercutt and the entire Washington State delegation to rename the Walla Walla VA Medical Center for a Great Washingtonian, Gen. Jonathan M. Wainwright. Under this bill, hospital and medical care services for Persian Gulf veterans will be extended for 3 years, until December 31, 1998. This bill also extends the following seven authorities: Contract authority for alcohol and drug abuse care through December 31, 1997; the nursing home care alternatives program through December 31, 1997 with an evaluation due to Congress March 31, 1997; The Health Scholarships program to December 31, 1997, with a report by a private contractor due to Congress March 31, 1997; enhanced-use lease of real property authority to December 31, 1997 with a report due to Congress March 31, 1997; the community-based residential care for homeless chronically mentally ill veterans to December 31, 1997; the demonstration program of compensated work therapy and therapeutic transitional housing to December 31, 1997; and the homeless veterans pilot program to December 31, 1998. Section 2 of the bill requires the VA to submit to Congress by March 1, 1997 a report on the advantages and disadvantages of consolidating the following programs: Alcohol and drug abuse contract care, community-based residential care to homeless chronically mentally ill veterans, and compensated work therapy and therapeutic transitional housing. Section 2 also includes a compromise provision which authorizes a report on the scientific evidence concerning the health consequences of military service in the Persian Gulf war. Section 3 of the bill repeals the authority of the VA to provide grants to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in the Philippines. Section 4 of the bill permits the daily display of the POW/MIA flag at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Section 5 authorizes contract authority for utilities at the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas. Finally, Section 6 authorizes the name change of the Walla Walla VA Medical Center to the Jonathan M. Wainwright Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a great American hero and son of the State of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is strongly supported by the Department, professional organizations representing the affected groups, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Both the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care and the full committee unanimously reported this measure. I strongly support passage of this legislation.

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 H.R. 2070, the bill just considered.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for two bills we are considering today, both of which were introduced by my good friend and colleague Representative Hutchinson. H.R. 1384 makes an important contribution to veterans health care by helping ensure that the VA health care system can retain the best health personnel. Unfortunately, existing VA regulations actually create a disincentive for many health care professionals to work in the VA health care system. By restricting nurses, physician assistants, and dental auxiliaries from obtaining additional work outside the VA, we are forcing these personnel to make a choice between remaining in the VA, or leaving the system altogether. Many of these employees feel that they must obtain income from secondary sources in order to support their families and make ends meet. They should be allowed to do so, while still serving the VA. We should not risk losing talented people in the VA health care system simply because of an outdated regulation that no longer serves a useful purpose. Mr. Speaker, I also want to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1536, which will extend the VA's authority to use local salary data to determine the salary levels of nurse anesthetists. This provision is necessary to ensure that nurse anesthetists are fairly compensated for their services, in the same manner that compensation for regular nurses is determined through the Veterans Affairs Nurse Pay Act of 1990. As a member of the Veterans' Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, I was pleased to support both of these bills at both the subcommittee and the full committee level. I want to thank Chairman Hutchinson for his diligent work on these legislative initiatives, and urge all my colleagues to give their full support to these two measures.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. This is a very, very difficult position, I think, for many of us on the pro-life side to be in. Let me make it very clear why many pro-life Members of Congress oppose this conference report. We do not contend that supporters of the report are necessarily pro-abortion. Indeed, the opposite is true: the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member are very pro-life. But sadly, the fact of the matter is that this is a pro-abortion bill. Mr. Speaker, the House voted to prohibit abortions in our military hospitals. The conference report will allow abortions in these hospitals for any reason whatsoever without limitation. Members of Congress who ordinarily vote against abortion can support this legislation if, and only if, they have not read the language carefully or, perhaps, if they have other priorities that come before the unborn child. How important are the lives of these children that would be put at risk if this conference report were to be enacted into law? If your life or mine, I say to my friends, if your life or mine were at risk or in jeopardy of being either chemically poisoned or killed by a dismemberment, or by a suction machine, would voting down this conference report be so difficult to do? I would suggest and submit that we all know that eventually a conference report will be passed, or perhaps as part of a CR we will fund the Department of Defense. It is a matter of when. It is not a matter of if. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to Members that the Dornan language is carried over in this bill, but then there is gutting language. One person referred to it as a ``caveat.'' It completely and totally negates the operative section of the Dornan language. Let me also remind Members that all of the pro-life groups--the Christian Coalition, the National Right to Life Committee--reluctantly but, nevertheless firmly, have come down and asked for a no vote on this DOD conference report. It is a very difficult situation for all of us to be in. I do not like it, nobody likes it, but if we want to save the unborn, if we want to save them from the cruelty of abortion, a no vote is the only way to go.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the ink had hardly dried on Russian President Boris Yeltsin's secret decrees authorizing military intervention in Chechnya last December when he arrived in Budapest for a summit meeting of the Conference, now Organization, on Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. Ironically, the summit agenda included adoption of a so-called Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security aimed at, among other things, promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Code also reiterated the sovereign right of participating States to join alliances, a contentious point which has had a chilling effect on United States-Russian relations as a growing number of European states seek to join NATO. At a Budapest news conference, Yeltsin decried eastward expansion, warning of the growing prospects for what he termed a ``cold peace'' and cautioning against creation of new lines of demarcation in Europe which would ``sow the seeds of mistrust.'' Mr. Speaker, Moscow's preoccupation with NATO expansion diverts attention away from the real threat to Russian security and stability-- the Kremlin's failure to resolve crises, such as the conflict in Chechnya, through peaceful means. President Yeltsin has, himself, sown the seeds of mistrust in the fertile killing fields of Chechnya. Veteran Russian human rights activist Sergei Kovalev, who appeared before the Helsinki Commission earlier this year, recently warned of an increasing militarization in Russia, resulting from the Chechen conflict, which could undermine moves toward democracy in his country. Last December, Yeltsin suggested it premature ``to bury democracy in Russia.'' Time will tell if Russian democracy can weather the turbulent storm brewing on the horizon as the country prepares for a new round of parliamentary elections later this year. ``If history teaches anything,'' President Reagan once observed, ``it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.'' Mr. Speaker, it appears that, at long last, the Clinton administration may be beginning to come to terms with present realities in Russia. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott stated last week that ``there is great uncertainty about the future in the East * * * and we have to be prepared for the worst even as we do everything we can to bring about the best.'' An expanded NATO, Talbott acknowledged, could protect Europe from possible turmoil in Russia. His remarks came after an official visit to Moscow. Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Perry, on a tour of capitals of several leading candidates for NATO membership, signaled a growing determination to proceed, albeit gradually, with NATO expansion. In a related development, NATO ambassadors in Brussels last week gave preliminary approval to criteria which could govern expansion of the Alliance beyond its current 16 members. To date, 25 countries, including Russia, have joined the Partnership For Peace Program. The expansion study, to be presented to interested countries on Thursday, will, I hope, provide much-needed impetus to [[Page E 1895]] the process of enlarging NATO. A number of countries, including Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine have already asked NATO to dispatch missions to their capitals in order to receive further details on the process. Russian reaction to these developments has been predictably sharp. Moscow's vocal opposition to NATO expansion could, ironically, further solidify support for membership in former Warsaw Pact countries and, perhaps, in some of the New Independent States. Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to resist firmly any attempt by Russia to veto NATO expansion, in general, or the admission of any state or states, in particular. President Clinton should clearly communicate this point to President Yeltsin when the two meet next month in New York. It is my view that every state should be given the same chance to pursue NATO membership, including the Baltic States and Ukraine. It is up to Russia to determine what, if any, relationship it is interested in pursuing with the Alliance. Mr. Speaker, the process of NATO expansion should not be further delayed as the Russians attempt to sort out their own affairs. Mr. Speaker, a democratic Russia has nothing to fear from the expansion of a voluntary defensive alliance founded upon democratic principles and norms of behavior. Russia has sown the seeds of mistrust through its brutal military campaign in Chechnya and it is up to the Russians to demonstrate that they can indeed be a reliable partner with the West.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over recent events in Slovakia. Since coming to office last winter, members of the current ruling coalition in that country have repeatedly sought to limit public discourse, control public debate, and quash public criticism of the government. They have portrayed those who disapprove of the government's policies as enemies of an independent Slovakia, and those who disagree with Prime Minister Meciar are depicted as ``anti- Slovak.'' The media and the right of free expression have been special targets of the current regime. A few weeks ago, I, along with the co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and the ranking Members, Representative Steny Hoyer and Senator Frank Lautenberg, sent a letter to Slovak Ambassador Lichardus to express our profound concern regarding this trend. Unfortunately, events since then raise even more questions about the authorities in Bratislava. I would like to mention three specific incidents to illustrate my point: In late August, the office of Bishop Rudolf Balaz was subjected to an unannounced police search, allegedly in connection with purported illegal antiquities trading. This intrusion came, not coincidentally, after the Bishops Conference described Prime Minister Meciar's efforts to oust President Michal Kovac as destabilizing. Shortly after that, the President's son, Michal Kovac, Jr. was kidnaped and literally dumped in Austria. Moreover, the investigator charged with looking into this case was removed from this inquiry after announcing that witnesses had been intimidated and there were possible links to the security forces. Last week, Frantisek Miklosko, the deputy chair of the Christian Democratic Party--who had been in Washington just a few months ago--was beaten up by three thugs in front of his home. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, as the ruling coalition continues to delay or even reverse the establishment of democratic institutions and market reforms in Slovakia, average Slovak citizens have shown an unprecedented degree of activism: tens of thousands of people have demonstrated in Bratislava this year, 100,000 have signed a petition calling for freedom of speech, and, after Bishop Balaz's office was searched, 3,000 clerics demonstrated to protest government intimidation of Catholic Church officials. Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians reconvene in Bratislava for the fall session and once again take up legislation that will define the pace and parameters of Slovakia's democratic transformation, they might do well to look at a chapter from recent Polish history: when 100,000 people--in a country of only 5 million--take to the streets to protest you policies, you should pay attention.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world in which the struggle against totalitarianism has not yet been won. Because of the proximity of Cuba to the United States and the historically close relationship between the peoples of our two nations, it is especially important that this victory come sooner rather than later. In evaluating all proposed legislation, administrative action, and diplomatic initiatives with respect to Cuba, it is important to keep several principles in mind: First, such actions must be calculated to emphasize the status of the Castro government as a rogue regime with whom the civilized nations of the world should have no dealings. The 1994 and 1995 Clinton-Castro immigration agreements, which represent the clearest manifestations of the Clinton Administration's policy toward the Castro regime, fail this test miserably. They have enhanced Castro's international prestige as well as his domestic power. Now we hear that some within the Administration would like to give this brutal regime an even longer lease on life by making further diplomatic overtures. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995 would restrict the ability of this administration or any other administration to make such a mistake. Second, our actions must be calculated to hurt the Castro government, not the Cuban people. Again, the 1994 anti-refugee agreement was a terrible mistake. It gave the Castro government just what it wanted: an end to the longstanding United States policy to accepting people who escape from Cuba. The agreement specified that Castro was to use ``mainly persuasive methods'' to keep people from fleeing Cuba. The United States thereby accepted moral responsibility for whatever forms of persuasion he should choose to employ. The harsh conditions now being imposed on the refugees in Guantanamo--especially the requirement that they can only apply for refugee or legal immigrant status if they first return to Castro's Cuba--are another victory for the Castro government. An economic embargo presents more complicated moral and practical problems. There is no question that an embargo imposes short-term economic hardship on innocent people. It is therefore justifiable only if it is genuinely calculated to bring a speedy end to the regime that is the real source of their suffering. An embargo is far more likely to have this effect if it is respected by as many nations as possible. Again, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act would help, by denying certain benefits to non-U.S. entities that evade the embargo. Finally, we should make it clear that Cuba will receive a warm welcome back into the family of free and democratic nations. The provisions of the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Act that provide for transitional support of a free democratic government during the immediate post-Castro period will help to send this message. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we remember just what kind of regime we are dealing with. I hope that my colleagues, in casting their votes on H.R. 927, will bear in mind that the Castro regime is the No. 1 violator of human rights in our hemisphere. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1994, ``Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel Castro,'' who ``exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life * * * .'' According to the Country Reports, among the more serious human rights violations by the Castro regime during 1994 were the following: The authorities were responsible for the extrajudicial killing of dozens of people. In two separate incidents, government vessels rammed and sank boats used by citizens to flee the country * * * . [O]n July 13, government vessels fired high-pressure water hoses at the tugboat Trece de Marzo * * * . They then rammed and sank the boat. * * * Approximately 40 [people], including children, drowned. [T]he Government continued to employ ``acts of repudiation,'' which are attacks by mobs organized by the Government but portrayed as spontaneous public rebukes, against dissident activity. The Government also metes out exceptionally harsh prison sentences to democracy and human rights advocates whom it considers a threat to its control. [P]olice and prison officials often used beatings, neglect, isolation, and other abuse against detainees and prisoners convicted of political crimes (including human rights advocates) or those who persisted in expressing their views. Gloria Bravo, a member of the Association of Mothers for Dignity, had scars on her neck, chest, and arms from deep gouges made by long fingernails and welts on her back from a whipping. In September Minister of Higher Education Fernando Vecino Alegret affirmed that commitment to the revolution, including a willingness to defend the revolution in the streets, was a condition for admission to the university. Citizens have no legal right to change their government or to advocate change. The Government does not allow criticism of the revolution or its leaders. * * * The Communist Party controls all media as a means to indoctrinate the public. [R]eligious persecution continues. The Government has ignored calls for democratic reform and labeled activists who proposed them ``worms'' and traitors. The decision on whether to embrace or isolate the Castro regime raises the question of what role human rights and basic decency are to play in our foreign policy. For American values and for the freedom of the Cuban people, please vote yes on H.R. 927.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, while this House was in recess, the world learned of a tragic loss. Fred Cuny, disaster relief expert, pioneer in modern humanitarian assistance, and American citizen, is now presumed by his family to have been murdered in Chechnya. He had vanished there some 5 months ago, along with a Russian translator, Galena Oleinik, and two Red Cross doctors, Andrei Sereda and Sergei Makarov, who had come with him. Their deaths are all the more tragic because they were in Chechnya not to help one side or another, but to assess the needs of innocent refugees, Chechen and Russian, driven from their homes by the conflict. The facts of this tragedy are not entirely clear. According to information received by the Cuny family, it appears that Fred Cuny and his associates were killed by a group of Chechens, but there is evidence that Russian authorities in Chechnya may have had a hand in the killings. During the course of an investigation into his death, the Cuny family took written and spoken testimony that Russian intelligence operatives had spread disinformation about the group, alleging that Cuny's team was anti-Chechen and associated with the Russian secret service. Whether this effort was intended to discredit the team, or had more sinister motives, is immaterial. If true, it is an example of the callous disregard Russia has shown toward the fat of noncombatants in Chechnya, including those who are trying to alleviate human suffering. Mr. Speaker, Fred Cuny cared passionately about human rights. After his first visit to Chechnya, he wrote an article entitled ``Killing Chechnya'' for the New York Review of Books, in which he documented the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of residential areas by the Russian Army, a barrage that left both Chechen and Russian civilians dead by the thousands and homeless by the tens of thousands. Just before he departed for his fateful second trip, he met with the staff of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which I have the honor to serve as chairman, recounting the willful disregard for human life that he had found in Chechnya. His words from that meeting about the innocent civilians caught up in the fighting--``they're dying like flies''--were marked by both frustration and compassion. I would add also that Fred Cuny also testified before the Commission earlier with regard to his humanitarian efforts in the former Yugoslavia and the human suffering in that corner of Europe. Fred Cuny's concern for human rights abuses carried him all over the world, often at the behest of his country's political and military leaders, who many times--most recently, during and after the gulf war, and in the former Yugoslavia--employed him as a consultant. The company he founded, Intertect Relief and Reconstruction Agency, was devoted to finding solutions to humanitarian disaster--solutions that set a new precedent for excellence and long-range planning in the field of disaster relief. He saved tens of thousands of lives, traveling to some of the most dangerous corners of the world, often at enormous personal risk. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken out strongly against the brutality of the war in Chechnya, and its corrosive and potentially destructive effect upon the prospect of Russian democracy. I have joined with the international community in calling for a cease-fire in Chechnya. One month ago, that call was answered. The efforts of the Russians and Chechens in establishing and holding to a cease-fire agreement should not be overlooked. But neither should the murders of Fred Cuny and his team, and neither should Russian and Chechen responsibility for the killings, if any exists. In his compassion, courage, and ingenuity, Fred Cuny embodied so much that we hold valuable in the American spirit. But the deaths of that relief team remind us that the horrors against which he had spent his life fighting--the slaughter of innocent civilians, the deprivation of even the most basic human rights, such as food and shelter, from an entire town, the persecution of humanitarian workers--are the tools of those who would rule by repression, force, and fear. Mr. Speaker, I offer my condolences to the Cuny family, and to the families of those who died with him. I hope that Fred Cuny will be remembered for his good work, immense courage, and for his honorable death. And, I call on both sides, Chechen and Russian, to use the current cease-fire to expose and bring to justice those responsible for this reprehensible act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. This vote poses two simple yet fundamental questions: First, when Congress encounters one of those rare questions on which the Federal judiciary has not mandated a proabortion policy, will we have the courage to stand for innocent human life? Second, is it consistent with the mission of our Armed Forces, a mission that is justifiable only insofar as it is designed to save and protect human lives, to be deeply involved in the enterprise of killing unborn children? Unfortunately, on January 22, 1993, our military hospitals were turned into abortion mills by the President of the United States when he reversed a well settled prolife policy. Since then, however, and I am glad to say, many of our courageous military obstetricians and nurses and anesthesiologists around the world have refused. I say again have refused to comply with that death order. They understand that their job is to be healers first and always. They regard it as inconsistent and hypocritical to heal innocent people in one room and kill them in the next. They know a house divided against itself will not stand. By adopting the Dornan language, this House will take its stand with these healers, these true health professionals, and bear witness to their courage and vision. DOD hospitals and health care facilities will once again be institutions exclusively dedicated to healing. The DeLauro amendment makes a false distinction based not on what happens in an abortion, not on who does the abortion, but on who provides the cash. This amendment says, in effect, that it is moral to tear a child limb from limb as long as somebody else is paying for it. It pretends that the United States is not really taking sides if it turns its hospitals into abortion mills, provided that they break even. This distinction is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what is at stake here, of what is at stake in every single abortion. Mr. Chairman, the law has a teaching function. It teaches by example. If the United States chooses to turn its military hospitals into abortion mills, it sends a powerful message to women and girls that abortion is not only a choice that they are allowed under the Supreme Court's decisions, but an acceptable choice. By taking its hospitals out of the abortion business, the United States can send the opposite message--a message of healing, of compassion, of justice for each person, born and unborn. Each of us is called upon today to take a stand one way or the other: For life or for death. The DeLauro amendment attempts to tell us that we can be neutral on this question, but this is not one of the questions on which we can remain neutral. I urge my colleagues to choose life. Please vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment and ``yes'' on the Dornan amendment. Vote ``yes'' on the Dornan amendment, ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this week the Congress spoke its mind on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we did so clearly and forcefully, just as the Senate did last week. By an overwhelming majority, we supported the right of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to defend themselves. The Congress, however, is not the only voice expressing outrage over the toleration of aggression and genocide. On Monday, 27 nongovernmental organizations released a joint statement on Bosnia. It is a powerful statement which I request be inserted into the Record, and which I commend to my colleagues. Let me quote from it: Bosnia is not a faraway land of no concern to our ``national interest.'' At stake is the global commitment to fundamental human values--the right not to be killed because of one's religion or ethnic heritage, and the right of civilians not to be targeted by combatants. The time has come for multilateral military action to end the massacre of innocent civilians in Bosnia. Nothing else has worked. Force must be used to stop genocide, not simply to retreat from it. American leadership, in particular, is required. These words, Mr. Speaker, come from a variety of American organizations. They include religious organizations, those dedicated to humanitarian causes, including the care of refugees; and groups dedicated to the rule of law. These are not organizations which one would assume support military options; the fact that they do says something about the gravity of what is happening in Bosnia. Moreover, some are Arab-American organizations, and some are Jewish-American organizations. The list represents a broad spectrum. Another statement on Bosnia has also been released recently--the letter of resignation by the U.N.'s rapporteur on human rights in the former Yugoslavia, former Polish Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. Mr. Mazowiecki is known as a thoughtful and principled man; his dedication to human rights is evident as much in his resignation as it was in his acceptance of this position 3 years ago. I would like to submit that statement for the Record as well, Mr. Speaker, and let me quote a few lines from it: One cannot speak about the protection of human rights with credibility when one is confronted with the lack of consistency and courage displayed by the international community and its leaders. The reality of the human rights situation today is illustrated by the tragedy of the people of Srebrenica and Zepa. . . Crimes have been committed with swiftness and brutality and by contrast the response of the international community has been slow and ineffectual. . . I would like to believe that the present moment will be a turning point in the relationship between Europe and the world toward Bosnia. The very stability of international order and the principle of civilization is at stake over the question of Bosnia. I am not convinced that the turning point hoped for will happen and cannot continue to participate in the pretense of the protection of human rights. These words, Mr. Speaker, reflect the frustration of many of us who see the conflict in Bosnia for what it is, and know what needs to be done to stop it. This is not a civil war based on ancient hatreds. This is not simply about Bosnia. This conflict is about aggression and genocide, and we must beware the massage which the international community is sending should give to those around the world willing to use force to achieve their political ends. In responding to crises and conflicts, we must remain objective, and attempt to see things as they really are, without bias. That means we must abandon an artificial neutrality. We must instead identify aggressor and stand with the victim of aggression. Just as these 27 nongovernmental organizations and Mr. Mazowiecki have taken that step, so must [[Page E 1620]] this Congress and this country, Mr. Speaker. We must take a stand. It's a matter of principle, and of lives. Joint Policy Statement on Bosnia The international community's half-measures and evasions have not ended three years of ethnic slaughter in Bosnia. It is time for leadership and action. Bosnia is not a faraway land of no concern to our ``national interest.'' At stake is the global commitment to fundamental human values--the right not to be killed because of one's religious or ethnic heritage, and the right of civilians not to be targeted by combatants. The U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the World Conference on Human Rights, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have all decried the slaughter in Bosnia as genocide, one of the most heinous crimes known to humanity. The international community has a moral and legal duty to prevent genocide (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. VIII) and to see that its instigators and those responsible for parallel war crimes and crimes against humanity are brought to justice. The time has come for multilateral military action to end the massacre of innocent civilians in Bosnia. Nothing else has worked. Force must be used to stop genocide, not simply to retreat from it. American leadership, in particular, is required. We represent 27 different human rights, humanitarian, religious and professional organizations. So far, our organizations have worked individually to end the atrocities in Bosnia. Today, in an effort to end the paralysis, we join together. We urgently call on President Clinton and the leaders of the other major powers to take the following steps: Protect civilians in all ``safe areas.'' The major powers, through their votes on the Security Council, established the six ``safe areas'' in Bosnia. Tens of thousands of Bosnians, many of whom had been driven from their homes elsewhere in the country, entrusted their lives to the international forces. Instead, in Srebrenica and Zepa, they have been abandoned. The major powers' recent vow to retaliate forcefully against Bosnian Serb forces if they advance on Gorazde is not enough. It should be extended to all remaining ``safe areas''--Bihac, Sarajevo and Tuzla, as well as Gorazde--and triggered not only if troops advance on those havens but also if their civilians are shelled. Any military action by intervening troops should comply strictly with international humanitarian law. Insist on immediate access to all detainees from Srebrenica and Zepa. Thousands of men who had taken refuge in Srebrenica and Zepa have now been detained by Bosnian Serb forces or face imminent detention. Reports of brutality in Srebrenica demonstrate that these detainees face an all-too-real threat of murder. To prevent further massive loss of life, the major powers should insist that international humanitarian organizations are given immediate access to all detainees and demand that their safety and well-being are ensured. Ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies to civilians in the ``safe areas.'' The major powers must ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the ``safe areas,'' if necessary by employing military force in response to the obstruction of those supplies. For instance, the major powers should secure the passage of supplies to Sarajevo over the Mt. Igman road and ensure the delivery of supplies by airdrop to enclaves that are not accessible by land. Deployment of the rapid reaction force on Mt. Igman has begun, but we remain concerned by the major powers' continuing unwillingness to insist on the right to deliver humanitarian supplies in the absence of Bosnian Serb assent. Stigmatize those who direct, assist and supply abusive troops. The major powers should publicly name the senior political and military leaders who are presiding over atrocities. Details of their crimes should be made public and provided to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The major powers, and particularly the U.S. government, should also disclose all available information, including intelligence, that implicates Serbia in supplying, assisting or directing Bosnian Serb troops. The major powers should also strengthen the regime for monitoring external support to Bosnian Serb forces. Do not lift, suspend or weaken sanctions against Belgrade until it cooperates fully with the investigation and extradition of suspected and indicted war criminals. The creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is an historic opportunity to demonstrate that genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot be committed with impunity--a message that was reaffirmed with last week's indictment of Bosnian Serb political and military leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. The Tribunal promises justice for victims, deterrence against further abuse, and a basis for eventual peace and reconciliation by substituting individualized guilt for the assumptions of collective ethnic guilt that now fuel the conflict. In recognition of the need for the Serbian government's active support to secure the presence of defendants for trial, the U.S. government had insisted throughout much of 1994 that sanctions against Belgrade would not be eased until it cooperated in the investigation and extradition of suspected and indicted war criminals. But to date, Belgrade has blocked Tribunal investigators and done nothing to secure custody of Bosnian Serbs under indictment. We are deeply disturbed that the major powers are nonetheless now offering Belgrade an opportunity to suspend sanctions in return for political concessions that have nothing to do with the Tribunal. That offer should be withdrawn, and Belgrade's active cooperation with the Tribunal should be made a prerequisite for any new suspension, lifting or easing of the sanctions. Signed by: The American Jewish Committee; The American Jewish Congress; American Nurses Association; Anti-Defamation League; Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee; B'nai B'rith; Center for Civil and Human Rights; Center for Constitutional Rights; Equality Now; Human Rights Watch; Institute for War and Peace Reporting; International League for Human Rights; International Human Rights Law Group; International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University, College of Law; Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights; Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School; Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights; National Association of Arab Americans; National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council; Physicians for Human Rights; Refugees International; Saferworld; Travelers and Immigrants Aid of Chicago; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Women's Refugee Project (Harvard Law School); World Vision (Andrew Natsios, Executive Director and Bob Seiple, President); U.S. Committee for Refugees. United Nations Office at Geneva, Centre for Human Rights, CH 1211 Geneve 10,July 27, 1995. His Excellency Tan Sri Dato Musa Hitam, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, Xuala Lumpur. Dear Mr. Chairman: Events in recent weeks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and above all the fact that the United Nations has allowed Srebrenica and Zepa to fall along with the horrendous tragedy which has beset the population of those ``safe havens'' guaranteed by international agreements, oblige me to state that I do not see any possibility of continuing the mandate or special rapporteur entrusted to me by the commission on human rights. On accepting the mandate which was given to me for the first time in August 1992, I declared unequivocally that my goal would not simply be writing reports but helping the people themselves. The creation of ``safe havens'' was from the very beginning a central recommendation in my reports. The recent decisions of the London conference which accepted the fall of Srebrenica and resigned itself to the fate of Zepa are unacceptable to me. Those decisions did not create the conditions necessary for the defense of all ``safe havens''. These events constitute a turning point in the development of the situation in Bosnia. At one and the same time, we are dealing with the struggle of a state, a member of the United Nations, for its survival and multi-ethnic character, and with the endeavour to protect principles of international order. One cannot speak about the protection of human rights with credibility when one is confronted with the lack of consistency and courage displayed by the international community and its leaders, the reality of the human rights situation today is illustrated by the tragedy of the people of Srebrenica and Zepa. Human rights violations continue blatantly. There are constant blockades of the delivery of humanitarian aid. The civilian population is shelled remorsely and the ``blue helmets'' and representatives of humanitarian organizations are dying. Crimes have been committed with swiftness and brutality and by contrast the response of the international community has been slow and ineffectual. The character of my mandate only allows me to further describe crimes and violations of human rights. But the present critical moment forces us to realize the true character of those crimes and the responsibility of Europe and the international community for their own helplessness in addressing them. We have been fighting in Poland against a totalitarian system with a vision for the Europe of tomorrow. How can we believe in a Europe of tomorrow created by children of people who are abandoned today? I would like to believe that the present moment will be a turning point in the relationship between Europe and the world towards Bosnia. The very stability of International order and the principle off civilisation is at stake over the question of Bosnia. I am not convinced that the turning point hoped for will happen and cannot continue to participate in the pretense of the protection of human rights. Mr. Chairman, please understand the motives behind my decision and convey them to the members of the Commission on Human Rights. I will submit my final eighteenth report based on my recent mission to Tuzla to the commission in the near future. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Tadeus, Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.