Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me make clear to the gentleman that our embassy confirmed this story. I want to go back to something I said earlier on. The Refugee Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights has so blasted the process of screening they have changed international standards. The credibility is one where they are viewed with unbelievable skepticism before they even open their mouths. It is a flawed process. We are saying that the President should certify, and if it is not a flawed process, then the money is okay, but if he can certify these people are being voluntarily repatriated, that is a different story.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think it needs to be reiterated that human rights groups have reported several instances of people being hurt upon their return, jailing, interrogation about anticommunist political activities in the camps, discrimination in employment and housing, and in Loas the disappearance and the probable killing of Hmong leader Vue Mai. The American Legion again, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], brought the American Legion, relying on their own contacts with former Vietnamese comrades in arms who corroborate these accounts. One reason that the United Nations cannot find any persecution is that they have only eight monitors for all of Vietnam and only two for Laos. I wanted to remind the membership we are talking about people that are going out with a support staff that has been hired through the Vietnamese and the Laotion Government. This is a situation where the person that is with the repatriation monitor is reporting to a government, and the government is hostile in many instances to these individuals. Who can blame them for not speaking openly after being forcibly repatriated in the first place? I do think there is underreporting as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, so the CPA soon ran out of volunteers. They then began selecting people to volunteer and imprisoning them when they refused. Sometimes they just dragged them into airplanes, sometimes literally kicking and screaming. If they know someone is going to resist, they may tranquilize him or her before putting them on the plane. So the CPA has become a looking glass world in which refugees are not refugees and voluntary repatriation is not voluntary. Yet the United States has given over $150 million during the last 6 years. The language now in section 2104 that has been put there by myself and my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of our committee, and other members of our subcommittee, would cut further funding to the CPA unless the United Nations and other countries involved agree to fix the program, to provide resettlement opportunities for a limited number of high-risk refugees, again the old soldiers, the nuns and others with compelling cases, within existing refugee allotments. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is a perfecting amendment to meet the objections raised by some, making it absolutely clear that this language in the bill would not mean the admission of large numbers of immigrants or even refugees. It provides explicitly that the provision should not be construed either to require or to permit an expansion of the numerical limitation on refugees beyond the number that it was allocated for 1995. It gives the State Department more flexibility in its refugee budget by eliminating separate authorization of funds for resettlement of people. The State Department has been lobbying very hard against this provision. But after my perfecting amendment, the only thing to say to the State Department is take a hard look at these people in high-risk categories. If they are refugees under U.S. law, we should not hide behind an inadequate third country screening to pay for them to be forced back to persecution; second, no more money for the repatriation program until you can certify that it has been fixed and everyone has been given a fair screening and everyone that should be resettled has been resettled. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that Members will support the Smith amendment to the Bereuter amendment. It has the support of a number of organizations in the refugee communities who are adamantly opposed to the Bereuter amendment and have come out as such within the last couple of days, the list of which I will talk about further.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this amendment perfects the language of section 2104, which protects certain high-risk refugees from forced repatriation to Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. This bill, as it currently stands, contains important language that will prevent United States tax dollars from being spent for the forcible repatriation to Vietnam and Laos of people who fought side by side with American forces. Under current U.S. law, these people are refugees, and they are also our friends. They should not be forced back to the places where they were persecuted, but, at the very least, U.S. tax dollars should not be spent to force them back. Thousands of people who served on our side in the war and were later persecuted by the Communists on account of such service are now being detained in camps throughout Southeast Asia. The camps also hold Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists punished for religious observance, and others who served time in reeducation camps or new economic zones for their anti-communist views or activities. Despite the strength of their claim to refugee status, almost all of these people are scheduled for repatriation to Vietnam and Laos within the next few months under a scheme known as the comprehensive plan of action. I suppose the comprehensive plan of action [CPA] was intended as a sincere effort to deal humanely with the Vietnamese boat people. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be just the opposite. First, the responsibility for deciding who is and who is not a refugee, which used to be done by United States and U.N. refugee interviewers, was transferred to local immigration officials who had no real experience or training. Big mistake. Some of the interviewers were not only incompetent but also corrupt. There are well-documented instances of local officials demanding money and sexual favors from refugees as a condition of favorable screening. And to the surprise of no one, almost nobody now is a refugee. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights visited and did in-depth analysis of the refugee process in Hong Kong. Their conclusion, after looking over several hundred cases, was the following: The entire screening process and review procedures remain seriously flawed. The process remains hostile to genuine refugees. Several international standards were ignored. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Vietnamese refugees have been wrongly rejected. Because of unfair screening and defective screening, Mr. Chairman, our tax dollars are about to pay to send back soldiers who served for years in reeducation camps. They are going to send back anti- Communists, writers and poets, members of the underground resistance movement, and even people who work for the CIA. They are going to send back Buddhist monks whose temples were shut down because they would not join the official church and Catholic nuns whose convents were violated. That is what U.S. taxpayers will pay for if the underlying amendment is adopted. Mr. Chairman, a core provision of the CPA, the comprehensive plan of action, that has been deep-sixed, was that repatriation to Vietnam and Laos was to be strictly voluntary. The idea was that the United Nations would work with governments of these countries to make sure that it was safe, and then would work to convince the people in the camps that it was safe for them to return. Unfortunately, some of the people who returned were persecuted. In Laos some were even killed. The U.N. monitoring program consists of only eight monitors for all of Vietnam and two for the country of Laos, along with support staff that has been hired through the Communist governments of these countries. So they have been unable to check up on most of the people who were returned. Wonders of wonders, with government people interacting as translators and being there as part of this process, they never seemed to have discovered a single instance of persecution. I would ask my friends if you were in the situation of having been sent back against your will, and a so-called observer comes in, or repatriation monitor, to talk to you, and with that person happens to be a translator hired by the government, are you going to talk about harassment, knowing when they walk out the door you are going to be probably mistreated? It reminds me of the visits to the POW camps during the Vietnam war when people would go over there to Vietnam, Hanoi, and elsewhere, and would meet with our prisoners. They would be told stories that there is no torture. Of course, those prisoners, our [[Page H5534]] POW's would not talk of torture. They would only go back to even more torture had they spoken the truth. One of our POW's, you might recall, ingenuously with his eyes flashed out ``torture'' in Morse Code, getting the word out that indeed they were using torture against these people. Mr. Chairman, somehow the people in the camp with this situation just do not believe there has not been a single instance of persecution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This is the whole story, if the gentleman will yield further. These people, we wonder why there may be people who may react, and I do not condone the violence, but when people come in in riot gear to tell these people ``It is time for you to be voluntarily repatriated,'' they react with an attitude.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this is part of the problem. If they do not sign the voluntary agreement, they are put in jail, in many instances. In Thailand six Hmong leaders, all of whom were screened in as refugees, but scheduled for voluntary repatriation to Laos anyway, were jailed because they were actively resisting voluntary repatriation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues how they would think they would feel if they, their loves ones, including families and friends, were forced to live in a land where brothers and sisters were officially declared illegal; where only one child per couple is permitted; where children, if not explicitly authorized by a birth quota system, engineered by the Government, are literally stolen from their moms and killed with poison by population [[Page H5500]] control fanatics; where, as we talk, a new policy of eugenics reminiscent of the Nazis has just gone into effect across the country, and then to know that the United Nations Population Fund is there whitewashing these crimes against humanity in all kinds of international fora where apologists will stand up and say, ``But our money is not going to do that.'' We all know money is fungible. The Morella amendment allows the FPA to take the United States donation, put it in their right pocket, and it frees up other money that they would send to China where this terrible crime and exploitation of women is daily practiced. Remember, too, that the U.N. FPA Executive Director has said that this is a totally voluntary program. That is a big lie, Mr. Chairman. It is not true. It is a terrible crime against women. She has always said we need to export the experience of the Chinese Government. God forbid. We would never allow it to happen here. If we were told that women had to be forcibly aborted, there would be rioting in the streets. Defeat the Morella amendment. I urge Members to support the underlying amendment, the Smith amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my friends that on the Child Survival Program, I take a back seat to nobody. In the mid-1980's, I authored the continuation of that program and made sure that money for immunization and oral rehydration and the like was available. This language comports, I am not talking about the Morella language, the Smith language, with that whole idea that children born and unborn are precious and valuable. When the Mexico City policy was in effect during the Reagan and Bush years, child survival was not hurt. Family planning organizations had agreed to put a wall of separation between abortion, and family planning got their money. Only the crusaders for abortion disqualified themselves by not agreeing to the walls.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, these kinds of statements make a mockery of human rights and the idea that the UNFPA says over and over again that the Chinese program is voluntary does not comport with reality. It is a whitewash of very, very, serious crimes. A police state, I would submit, could not ask for a better front. If the U.N. Population Fund was fronting for international terrorists or perhaps a drug cartel, we would not hesitate for a moment in redirecting U.S. taxpayer funds to more worthy recipients, which is exactly what Presidents Reagan and Bush had done when they were in office. They, like me and like many Members of Congress, believe that fronting for crimes against women and children is unconscionable. Mr. Chairman, just let me remind Members, and Mr. Mosher and others have pointed this out--and again, he is the one who broke the story back in the early 1980's--in China today women who have an unauthorized birth, because again the government tells you when and if you can have that child. And you are only allowed one, they tell you when and if, and if you fight that, women are arrested, they are taken to abortion clinics in handcuffs, and they are tied up and they are forcibly aborted. Pregnant women are routinely incarcerated, embarrassed until they acquiesce and make the voluntary decision because they have nowhere else to turn. It is not voluntary, it is coercion. They are forced to attend study sessions away from their families until they agree to have abortions. They are forced to carry out sterilizations without their consent. Infants' skulls are crushed, very often late in the term of the pregnancy as a routine. Often when children are being born to a woman who has an unauthorized child she is carrying. Can you imagine it, a country where children are illegal? And here we have--often have the injecting of iodine, alcohol, or formaldehyde into the cranium of the child as the child is emerging from the womb. Also, Amnesty International just came to us with a chilling report on refuse to comply, and their homes have been bulldozed, their women have been raped, and there has been torture to get compliance with forced abortions and with the one-child-per-couple policy. There is also the issue of missing girls, a whole generation of girls, and you are only allowed one. Particularly in the Chinese culture, very often boys are the preference, and that is just the way they do it, but girls are screened out by way of an ultrasound or some other way, and they are killed because they are only allowed one, and the families say if they are only allowed one it is going to be a boy. There is a whole missing generation of girls. Infanticide is on the rise in China. We are poised, if the Morella amendment were to pass--and unfortunately in the first 2 years of the Clinton administration we are giving money to the group that is out there providing tangible assistance, people on the ground to help and assist these Chinese population-control zealots. Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members as well that UNFPA, in addition to providing cover and tangible assistance, has pumped over $100 million into this heinous program, and it is the kind of program that only a Nazi could be proud of. Mr. Chairman, let me also say that the language that I am offering today also would restore longstanding policy as it relates to the so- called Mexico City policy, which erected a wall of separation between family planning and abortion. I remember when President Reagan first announced that back in 1984, Members said no one will accept those clauses. Well, most of the family planning organizations said we want to provide family planning, not abortion, so they accepted it and they and their subcontractees decided to get out of the abortion business. This is especially important in light of the fact that most of the countries of the world protect their unborn children. Between 95 and 100 nations, virtually all of Central and South America, have laws on their books that protect their unborn children. We are out of the mainstream of human rights when we put those children at such grave risk and allow them to be killed. But let us not export it. Again, family planning money during the Reagan and Bush years flowed uninterrupted. Only groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation of London, a London-based organization, and PPF of America, their foreign-based organizations, would not accept it, and I say this noting that a number of IPPF affiliates did accept it. They countered what the national office was doing and they said we want to provide family planning and we want to get out of the abortion business. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that this amendment is pro-life. It is backed by all of the pro-life organizations. The amendment of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] I like Connie Morella, she is a good friend and colleague--is opposed by all of the pro-life organizations. It is form without substance. It repeats some of the current law and tries to substitute that with the substantive language that we are offering today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, while the pro-life anti- abortion policies I seek to reinstate in our foreign aid population control programs are not new, recent experience suggests that these pro-life provisions are needed now more than ever before. In recent months, the Government-imposed nightmare of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in the People's Republic of China has taken yet another turn for the worse. In February of this year the Government announced a new intensified campaign against women who attempt to have a child without explicit government permission. According to Steven Mosher, the Director of the Asian Studies Center, Claremont Institute, ``China's population control policy, which is without question the most coercive in the world, is about to become more so.'' Mr. Mosher explains on February 14 the Chinese Government announced a new campaign designed to ensure what Mr. Mosher termed as the most rigorous enforcement of its 16-year-old one child per couple policy. By now I think, Mr. Chairman, most people are aware of the fact that brothers and sisters are illegal in China, and the one child per couple policy instituted in 1979 relies heavily on forced abortion and forced sterilizations to achieve its results. Forced abortion, Mr. Chairman, is a crime against humanity. This House has gone on record on two occasions to condemn it as a crime against humanity, and we recognized in those resolutions that just as in the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals forced abortion against Polish women was construed to be a crime against humanity, forced abortions in China likewise is such a crime, and sadly it is on the rise in China and sadly as well the U.N. Population Fund is supporting the program to the hilt. Arrogant leaders, Mr. Chairman, in Beijing have decreed that children should not be born, and the population control cadres march off in lockstep to ensure that millions of women every year are shamelessly violated and their children are poisoned and dismembered. Last week the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights which I chair heard expert testimony from Dr. John Aird, the former research specialist on China at the United States Census Bureau. Dr. Aird, who is an advocate of abortion rights, who does not support my view on the right to life, nevertheless testified that the brutal, and I quote, ``1991 crackdown is continuing.'' And he also pointed out that it took a turn for the worse in February, and I quote that, ``contrary to the claims of some apologists for the Chinese program, it continues to rely on coercive measures to achieve its objective.'' He also pointed out in his testimony that the Clinton administration's resumption of funding for the U.N. Population Fund was seen by the Chinese Government as a ``retreat on the coercion issue and indeed that is what it was.'' Mr. Chairman, a retreat on coercion is a retreat on human rights. It is a retreat and abandonment of women who are exploited by their government with international organizations joining in and it is a retreat from the protection and the advocacy of children. The language in the bill now, Mr. Chairman, and the substitute that will be offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], would codify that retreat by paying lipservice to concerns about coercion, all the while facilitating U.S. taxpayer funds to the U.N. Population Fund, which unapologetically applauds the Chinese program. Make no mistake about it, the substitute will allow the money to get there and adds some language that looks good. It is form without substance. Let me remind Members that the U.N. Population Fund cannot say enough good things about the Chinese program. In 1989, even when many abortion advocates in Congress had come to recognize the widespread coercion in China, Dr. Sadig, the executive director of UNFPA, continued to defend the programs as she does today, but she said at that time, ``the UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the Government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program.'' She also said that China has--and she gushed with this--``has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy, and control of its population.'' ``Now the country,'' she goes on to say, ``could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.'' God forbid that that happen, that the Chinese policy, which has pervasive use of forced abortion and forced sterilizations, be exported to other countries to impose that kind of exploitation on women.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the deteriorating conditions in the region of Banja Luka in northern Bosnia. It seems the latest atrocities committed by Bosnian Serb militants, who control the area, are directed at Catholic Church leaders and Catholic believers, who are primarily Croats. These attacks come on the heels of Croatia's efforts to regain control over some of its territory occupied by the Croatian Serb militants since 1991. Around 40,000 Croats still live in northern Bosnia despite significant ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. An estimated 50,000 Croats and hundreds of thousands of Moslems have been expelled from this region alone during the past 3 years. In one recent incident in Banja Luka, a priest and nun were reportedly doused with gasoline and set on fire in the parish rectory as militants blew up the parish church building next door. This tragic act of barbarity is part of a larger campaign directed against the Catholic community in the diocese of Banja Luka. On May 4, militants forcibly expelled nuns from two convents in the region. Since that time, a total of five churches and one monastery have been destroyed. In all, since the beginning of the war, 40 churches in the diocese have been completely destroyed and another 25 have sustained heavy damage. The bishop of Banja Luka, Franjo Komarcia, has repeatedly called upon the Bosnian Serb leadership to stop the attacks. These pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Bishop Komarica, in an open appeal, described the current situation in his diocese: ``Fear and panic, for their lives, has overcome the Catholics remaining in the area because they are totally unprotected from the local and newly arrived Serbian extremists. They are virtually [sic] hostages and are faced with the real threat of immediate catastrophe or widespread banishment.'' Bishop Komarica began a hunger strike recently to draw attention to the gravity of the situation faced by the Catholic community in Banja Luka. Late last week, an urgent appeal was sent to the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church urging his intervention to ensure the protection of Catholics in the Serb stronghold. The senseless attacks in Banja Luka have been roundly condemned by Pope John Paul II. Mr. Speaker, these tragic developments are but the latest examples of the campaign of death and destruction directed against innocent civilians by the Bosnian Serb militants in Banja Luka and elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. I want to say at the outset how very happy many of us are for the tremendous job the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, has done on this piece of legislation. It has been very, very difficult. There has been a give and take by many Members, and he has done a fine job in crafting this. I also want to thank the members of my subcommittee. We had a portion of this bill which is now section B or division B that worked through our subcommittee and we went through a markup. We had legislation dealing or provisions dealing with peacekeeping, arms control, and other vital areas, and I am very pleased that that legislation is now incorporated in the Gilman bill. H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act, has attracted widespread publicity for its consolidation of government agencies and its sharp spending cuts in foreign aid and other programs. Amid the discussion of these issues, however, some of the most important aspects of H.R. 1561 have gone almost unnoticed. Specifically, despite the need to cut spending and consolidate programs, the bill as reported by the House International Relations Committee manages to hold harmless--or even enhance--important programs that support freedom, build democracy, and save lives. Mr. Chairman, in considering H.R. 1561 I hope we will carefully consider the following provisions: Those provisions dealing with child survival and related programs have been included in the bill. Although the overall development assistance authorization was cut by about a third, the committee accepted an amendment to set aside $280 million for child survival programs, $25 million for micronu- trient and Vitamin A programs, and $15 million for the UNDP/WHO Tropical Disease Program. This is a modest increase over estimated fiscal year 1995 have saved literally millions of lives, most of them children in the developing nations of the world. Now they will save millions more. When cuts must be made, they must be made in ways that will not cause children to die or to suffer. The refugee provisions of H.R. 1561, Mr. Chairman, likewise will prevent United States tax dollars from being used to forcibly return Vietnamese and Laotians back to those countries, and we are talking about people who worked and fought side by side with American forces. These provisions will also protect people who can show that they are fleeing forced abortions or forced sterilizations or they have actually been subjected to such pressures, such as the 13 women who are now being held in Bakersfield, CA, most of them victims of forced abortion or forced sterilizations, all of them about to be forced back to the People's Republic of China. H.R. 1561 would also require periodic reports to Congress on what Fidel Castro is doing to enforce his end of the Clinton-Castro immigration deal of 1994, and on how people are treated who are returned to Cuba pursuant to the second Clinton-Castro immigration deal of May 1995. Finally, the bill provides an important structural reform--the consolidation of human rights advocacy and refugee protection under a single State Department official reporting directly to the Secretary-- that will guarantee these decisions a place at the table when important decisions are made. Mr. Chairman, despite the need for cuts in international broadcasting and other public diplomacy programs, H.R. 1561 holds harmless from such cuts our freedom broadcasting programs--such as Radio Free Asia, Radio/ TV Marti, and the Voice of America Farsi Service--at prior levels. Similarly, funds for the National Endowment for Democracy are authorized at current levels. The bill also creates a pilot project for freedom broadcasting to Asia, to provide pro-democracy and pro-freedom broadcasts to Asian countries whose people do not enjoy freedom of expression during the months or years it will take to establish Radio Free Asia. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I do hope Members will support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the latest Serbian onslaught directed against innocent civilians in Sarajevo, an UN-designated safe-haven. The events of the past 24 hours underscore the fact that the besieged city of Sarajevo remains in a virtual stranglehold by well-armed Serb militants. UN sources confirmed that at least 1,000 shells were fired on Sarajevo. The heavy shelling of the Bosnian capital, the worst in over a year, resulted in a score of injuries and deaths. Sporadic shelling continues today. Some have had the audacity to argue that both sides are equally to blame for the attack, a pretext later used to deny the Bosnian Government's urgent request for protection of Sarajevo. Attempts to equate the forces of the sovereign Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina with the marauding bandits led by Radovan Karadzic, a mastermind of genocidal aggression in Bosnia, are an affront which must be resoundingly rejected. Karadzic, along with Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic and former police chief Mico Stanisic, are under active investigation by the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for their respective roles in the war launched by the Serbs in 1992. For 3 years now, international negotiators have traveled a well-worn path to Pale, the Bosnian Serb headquarters. Nearly a year has passed since the Contact Group presented its peace plan on a take-it-or-leave- it-basis. The Bosnian Government accepted the proposal within the 2 week deadline. The plan has been repeatedly rejected by the Bosnian Serbs with relative impunity despite threats by the Contract Group that rejection would carry severe consequences. Further negotiations at this time can only be expected to bring further concessions to meet Karadzic's demands. [[Page E1064]] Yesterday's attack on Sarajevo highlights the pathetic state of affairs and utter impotence of the international community which has effectively abrogated its responsibility for enforcing Security Council resolutions in Bosnia. The shelling occurs at a time when the United Nations is reviewing its mission in Bosnia--a mission which, in my opinion, has been seriously undermine since UN forces began negotiating with the militants shortly after UNPROFOR's deployment. Further delay in deciding what, if any, role the UN can or should play in Bosnia will only make the withdrawal of UNPROFOR that much more difficult and potentially dangerous should such a determination ultimately be reached. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that measures taken by the Security Council to date have failed to maintain international peace and security as it relates to Bosnia-Herzegovina. This being the case, it is unconscionable that that country continues to be denied its right to self-defense, in clear violation of article 51 of the UN Charter. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1172, legistion which lift the arms embargo against Bosnia-Herzegovina. This bill enjoys considerable bipartisan support as evidenced by the growing list of cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, I urge colleagues to support the lifting of the arms embargo, an action fully in keeping with Bosnia's inherent right to self- defense.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 14, Belarus will be holding its first parliamentary elections since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Some 2,400 registered candidates are running for 240 seats. Concerns have been raised about actions of the Belarusian Government during the pre-election period. These concerns center primarily on restrictions on the press and the assault last month on 19 parliamentarians conducting a hunger strike in the parliamentary chambers. Nearly 100 paratroopers, armed with submachine guns or wearing black masks entered the parliament, accosted the parliamentarians, beat them and dragged them into the street. The parliamentarians were protesting President Alyaksandr Lukashenka's initiative to hold a referendum that they felt would violate the Belarusian Constitution. Restrictions on the press in Belarus, Mr. Speaker, also appear to be growing. On April 25, President Lukashenka fired the editor of a youth newspaper--the fourth editor of a nationwide newspaper he has fired since the Presidential election last July. Earlier, on March 17, Lukashenka dismissed the editor of the Belarusian parliament's daily Narodnaja Hazeta, for publishing a letter criticizing the President's pro-Russian policies. Critics are understandably distressed about this and other attempts to reign in the more independent voices within the state-subsidized press, especially since the independent press remains relatively weak. In addition, according to the newspaper Segodnya, the Belarusian media have refrained from reporting on the election campaign so as not to anger the President. Mr. Speaker, until recent months, Belarus appeared to be making slow but steady progress on human rights and democracy. Last year, Belarus held presidential elections that were generally free and fair, and Mr. Lukashenka defeated an entrenched incumbent by a large and unexpected margin. I have become increasingly concerned, though, about the apparent backsliding in the democratic process in this strategic country on the eve of parliamentary elections. It would be unfortunate if Mr. Lukashenka should turn around and use pressure tactics to hinder free and fair elections to the legislative branch. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I urge the Belarusian Government to respect its international human rights commitments, but most importantly, respect its commitments to the people of Belarus through the guarantee of unhindered, open elections.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak out for religious freedom. The worldwide religion known as the Baha'i Faith is one of the most peace-loving groups in the world--and yet one of the most consistently persecuted. The Baha'i Faith began in Persia in the 1840's, and spread rapidly through the Mideast, where Islam has historically been dominant. Though the Baha'i Faith now has adherents all around the world, including all 50 States of the United States, its historic links to the Mideast have helped bring it repeatedly into conflict with Islam. Islam, like most other world religions, teaches certain truths that its adherents take to be absolute. Baha'is take a different approach, seeing all religions as successive revelations, each with a partial truth. These questions are faced, one way or another, by all men and women of conscience. And it is inevitable that many of us will come out differently on these questions. In decent societies--in free societies--we respect each other's freedom of conscience. If we seek to persuade one another, we do it in friendship, and with respect. But in some parts of the world, force is still used to settle religious issues. In Iran, with its extremist regime, the fact that the Baha'is question Islam's claim to represent God's full and final revelation makes them a target of unceasing persecution. The fact that the Baha'i Faith arose on territory in which Islam has been dominant for some 1,400 years, and among ethnic groups with a long Islamic heritage, seems to be an unbearable irritant to the Iranian regime. They view the Baha'is as worse than mere adherents of another religion--which, in their eyes, is quite bad enough. They view them as something worse: as heretics, as conscious destroyers of Islam. For those of us who have met Baha'i believers--even those of us who come from a religious perspective quite different from theirs--the notion that they would be destroyers of anything is simply absurd. Yet Baha'is in Iran have no legal rights, despite being the largest religious minority in that country. More than 200 Iranian Baha'is, including women and teenage girls, have been executed for their faith since 1979. Thousands have faced torture and imprisonment for refusing to convert to Islam. Tens of thousands have lost their jobs, and been forced to repay past salaries or pensions. All Baha'i students were expelled from Iranian universities by 1982. President Clinton has placed Iran's treatment of its Baha'i minority on a par with ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Given the professed intention of the Iranian regime to block the progress and development of the Baha'i Faith. I would have to agree with the President on this. I salute my colleagues for sponsoring this exhibition on the persecution of the Baha'i Faith community. I hope it will inspire all who see it to stand up for religious freedom. Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the Armenian genocide, which began 80 years ago, when the Ottoman Empire launched the first of this century's campaigns against an entire people. It has become traditional for friends of Armenia to mark this awful April anniversary with them, to demonstrate our solidarity and to express the determination never again to allow such a horror to take place. Though April 24 is the date singled out to mark the catastrophe, the actual process of genocide took place over a period of years. During that nightmarish era, which lasted from 1915 to 1923, some 1.5 million Armenians were brutalized, tortured, massacred, starved, deported, and force-marched to death. But, the Armenian spirit survived intact this ruthless assault. Steeled by adversity, many of the survivors came to the United States, where they could nurse their physical and emotional wounds, and begin their lives anew. The community of new arrivals prospered in America, contributing to our cultural development, enhancing our diversity, and influencing our political process. American-Armenians never forgot their origins, or the horrific circumstances of the flight and exile from their native lands. The Armenian Apostolic Church has nurtured the spiritual growth and national consciousness of its flock. Armenian-Americans resolved to mark the atrocities and exile every year, to keep the memory of their relatives alive, not to let the world forget. And, they have consistently preached the message that what happened to the Armenians must never be permitted to happen again to anyone else. With this universal message, I--and other Members of this body--have often expressed our solidarity. I do so again today, in sorrow and in pride, with a strengthened sense of dedication, as I think about independent Armenia. In commemorating the Armenian genocide, we mourn the dead and recall the suffering and sacrifice of the victims. Yet, we also reflect upon the heroic, moving odyssey of the Armenian people in modern times. During the 20th century, the Armenians have lived through their worst moment--the genocide--and their best, most exhilarating moment as well: the restoration of an independent Armenian state, after centuries of dreaming and struggle on behalf of that cause. The people of independent Armenia have gone through very difficult times, coping with the consequences of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as a wrenching transition from Communist misrule to pluralism and a market economy. But throughout, the Armenian people have demonstrated the sturdiness of character and perseverance that have become their hallmark. Their spirit remains strong, despite the deprivations they have endured; their commitment to democracy, and to Armenian nationhood and statehood, has not faltered. Thankfully, a ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been in place since May 1994. We all hope the ongoing multilateral talks in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will soon lead to a peaceful conference and a negotiated settlement. The survivors of the 1915 horror and their descendants could enjoy no better gift, all the more treasured for having been so hard-won, than peace and prosperity for a rejuvenated Armenia that will surely stun the world with its enterprise and success. Nor could the memories of the victims of 1915- 1923 be better honored, a worthy goal for all of us to strive for, as we note this solemn anniversary.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we reach the end of the first 100 days of the session, it is fitting that the grand finale of the Contract With America honors our senior citizens by easing the burdens older Americans now face. For instance, the comprehensive tax bill, which we approved by a substantial margin yesterday evening, includes a substantial reduction in the Social Security earnings test, which unfairly penalizes seniors for working to supplement their Social Security benefits. If the November elections taught us anything it was that the American people want to see their fellow citizens begin to take more responsibility for their personal circumstances. Many seniors want to do just that, but have been hindered from doing so by the Social Security earnings test. The earnings test was instituted during the Great Depression when the Federal Government wanted to encourage older Americans from remaining in the national work force and occupying much-needed jobs. Despite the fact that this provision is clearly obsolete, it continues to be an unfair penalty to industrious seniors. Essentially, seniors who earn more than $11,280 a year face a supplemental tax of 33 percent on that income. This is in addition to the 7.65-percent FICA withholding tax and a 15-percent Federal income tax, bringing a hard-working, low-income senior's tax burden up to nearly 56 percent. How many times have we all heard from constituents who acknowledge that they cannot survive on the meager Social Security benefits they are due? We cannot earnestly encourage these people to work to supplement these benefits while simultaneously taxing them at a highly unfair rate. Furthermore, the earnings test deprives the American workplace of the talents and knowledge of our most experienced laborers. The Contract With America, through H.R. 1215, increases the threshold at which the earnings test kicks in to $30,000 in annual income over a 5-year period. While this does not represent perfect resolution on this issue, it is a step toward equity in the workforce. In fact, I would encourage my colleagues to continue to work toward a full repeal of the earnings test, such as that represented by Representative Howard Coble's H.R. 201, of which I am a cosponsor. In addition, the tax relief bill includes a full repeal of the 1993 Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits over a 5-year transitional period. In the mid-eighties, Congress instituted a tax on 50 percent of the Social Security benefits received by seniors earning $25,000 as individuals or $32,000 as couples. Many of you voted against this tax--as I did--recognizing it as a double taxation on seniors who had taken the initiative to plan and save for their retirement. However, instead of repealing this unfair and counter-productive tax, President Clinton pushed through Congress in the first months of his administration--and over the vote of every House and Senate Republican, I might add--an increase in this tax. The Clinton tax package allowed 85 percent of the Social Security benefits received by seniors making only $34,000 per year to be counted as taxable income. This runs entirely contrary to the pact between the Federal Government and seniors which the Social Security program is supposed to represent. Seniors involuntarily turned over portions of their hard-earned paychecks to the Federal Government as a safety net for their retirement. They should not be taxed on this meager nest egg when they most need it and when many of them are living on fixed incomes. I immediately introduced legislation to repeal the Clinton Social Security tax, but it was unfortunately stonewalled. I am very pleased that the Republican Contract With America includes a full repeal of President Clinton's unfair tax and that we have had the opportunity to relieve seniors of this burden. The tax cut bill also makes great strides toward improving the provision of long-term care for seniors. Specifically, the bill provides a $500 non-refundable eldercare tax credit to families caring for a dependent senior in their home. Currently, 12.5 percent of our Nation's population is aged 65 and older. By the year 2030, when baby boomers peak in their golden years, fully one-fifth of our population will be in this age bracket. Already, American families nationwide have been faced with the difficult decision of how to best care for an aging parent or relative within their financial means. As society ages, more and more families will face this dilemma. Many aging adults, particularly those suffering from Alzheimer's and other dementia, cannot lead a quality life without assistance and constant care. Often the full-time attention and individualized care these men and women require can only be found in a nursing home facility or in the privacy of their family home. Providing the care at home can be costly and time-consuming. However, this sort of personalized care is preferable to many families, especially since it affords a terrific opportunity to solidify the family unit. Children can learn so much from the knowledge and experiences of their grandparents. And having a loving family around does a world of good for an ailing senior. Last year, the Alzheimer's Association reported that more than one- half of all working Americans have either provided long-term care for their friends or relatives or believe that it is likely in the near- future. The Contract With America's eldercare tax credit will go a long way to help these well-intentioned people meet the needs of their loved ones. The tax cut bill includes other improvements in the long-term care market as well to make it easier for seniors and their families to purchase long-term care insurance. In 1990, seniors aged 65 and older faced a 43 percent lifetime risk of requiring nursing home care. By 1992, the cost of such care was approximately $30,000 per year. Too frequently, seniors are caught between a rock and a hard place as they get older and need this more constant medical attention. Private long-term care insurance as it currently exists is often too costly to be comfortably within reach and Medicaid assistance is only available if they spend down their savings. This measure provides seniors and their families with the financial incentives they need to save for quality long-term care. For instance, it: First, gives long-term care insurance the same preferable tax treatment as accident and health insurance, second, excludes up to $200 per day in long-term care benefits from taxable income, third, excludes employer-provided long-term care coverage from taxable income, fourth, allows long-term care expenses to be treated equal to medical expenses as an itemized tax deduction, fifth, excludes withdrawals from IRAs and other pension plans for the purchase of long-term care accelerated payment of death benefits from life insurance for the terminally or chronically ill to be paid tax-free. These are common-sense approaches to a problem faced by more and more families every day and they are long overdue. Finally, the tax relief bill increases the current estate and gift tax exemption over a 3-year period of time from $600,000 to $750,000. Through this modest change, seniors will be able to pass along their family business or family farm to their children and grandchildren without passing along an unmanageable tax burden as well. In addition to these pro-senior provisions in the tax cut bill, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 660--which I am cosponsoring--to ensure that seniors will not be unfairly discriminated against for living in senior housing communities. These communities allow seniors to live amongst their peers and often provide access to services of particular need to seniors--such as periodic blood pressure screenings by local medical personnel. Despite their increasing popularity amongst the senior population, vague language in the Fair Housing Act has left these communities vulnerable to litigation claiming that they discriminate against younger families. Furthermore, proposed HUD interpretations of this language have placed an insurmountable financial burden on these communities, requiring extravagant services and facilities to quality for Fair Housing Act exemptions. The language of H.R. 600 clarifies the definition of an ``adult- only'' housing community as a residential area consisting of a population of at least 80 percent seniors aged 55 and older. With this clarification, seniors will be able to form neighborhoods which conform to the unique needs of their retirement years without fear of unfair litigation or retribution. I am proud to have supported each of these measures over my tenure in Congress and to have cosponsored them as part of the Contract With America as well. It is a credit to these past 100 days that we have soundly approved these proposals as the crowning achievement of the contract. America's seniors deserve no less.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, people from the Balkans are often characterized according to their ethnic background, and the assumption is made that each person--from the villager to the leader in society--looks out for the interests of only their own people. In Bosnia, that can be a very mistaken assumption. Three years of aggression in Bosnia have admittedly sharpened the priority given to ethnic identity by all sides, Bosnian, Muslim, Croat and Serb, which is shaped largely by religious background. However, there remains a large number of individuals more committed than ever to the concept of a multiethnic Bosnian society in a unified state, where all are equal before the law, where all tolerate each other and respect their cultural differences. Few, if any, symbolize this true Bosnian spirit, with which Americans find so much affinity, more than the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sarajevo, Vinko Cardinal Puljic, who recently visited Washington. During his visit, he expressed a sense of optimism about the ability of the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina to urgency about the current plight of the Roman Catholic community. He also expressed a sense of frankness about the troublemakers that continue to exist among his fellow Bosnian Croats. Finally, he expressed a sense of outrage about the abandonment of Bosnia-- Herzegovina by the international community. On the latter point, I would like to quote an appeal for a just peace which the Cardinal released on March 30, prior to departing Washington. He said: I, like so many in Bosnia-Herzegovina, am astonished and bewildered, almost to the point of despair, at the international community's indifferent, half-hearted, inconsistent and ineffectual response to aggression and ethnic cleansing. Not only has the international community not acted decisively, it has even contributed to the ethnic division of Bosnia and has legitimized aggression by failing to uphold basic moral and legal norms. * * * In Bosnia, the international community's tepid response has only encouraged those who would respond to extremism with extremism, to intolerance with intolerance, to aggression with aggression, and to ethnic cleansing with ethnic cleansing. I ask that the full text of the Cardinal's appeal be printed in the Record, and I ask my colleagues to read it. While the politician, the diplomat or the soldier can bring about an end to hostilities in Bosnia Herzegovina, it will take people like Cardinal Puljic to bring about a real peace, a lasting peace through reconciliation and outspoken opposition to the evil forces of exclusivity that permeate his society. I applaud his efforts. An Appeal for a Just Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina I come to Washington, D.C. to offer another heartfelt plea that the United States, in conjunction with the international community, will take more decisive steps to support those of us in Bosnia-Herzegovina who are struggling to bring about a just peace, based on equal respect and equal rights for all ethnic and religious identities in my country. 1. The facts of Bosnia's tragedy are well known, but they bear repeating. In three years, I have seen the Catholic population of my archdiocese reduced from 520,000 to about 125,000 people, most of whom live in small enclaves. Less than a third of the parishes are still functioning. The situation is even worse in the Banja Luka Diocese, where more than 80% of the Catholics have been forced out by ``ethnic cleansing.'' Overall, of the 830,000 Catholics who lived in Bosnia before the war, only half remain. If the war continues, Catholics risk being exterminated from large parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite thirteen centuries of our organized presence there. The Catholic community does not have a monopoly on suffering in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I cite these statistics simply to remind Americans of the magnitude of the suffering that is being inflicted upon the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2. Despite obvious obstacles, there can be no alternative to pursuing a just peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Time is running out but it is still not too late. A just peace requires respect for the territorial boundaries of Bosnia-Herzegovina and its multi-ethnic and multi-religious character. The international community must support us in our efforts to rebuild a country in which ethnic Bosnian Muslims, Serbs and Croats can cultivate their respective identities at the same time that they respect the equal rights and equal legitimacy of the ethnic and religious identities of other citizens. Therefore, it is imperative that the Bosnian Federation receive the support it needs to succeed, but it would be a tragedy if the Federation and international peace plans were used to partition Bosnia along ethnic lines. A peace which does not correct injustices, which rewards aggression, which does not permit refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes, and which is based on ethnic division can be neither a just nor a permanent one. 3. I, like so many in Bosnia-Herzegovina, am astonished and bewildered, almost to the point of despair, at the international community's indifferent, half-hearted, inconsistent and ineffectual response to aggression and ``ethnic cleansing.'' Not only has the international community not acted decisively, it has even contributed to the ethnic division of Bosnia and has legitimized aggression by failing to uphold basic moral and legal norms. If the principles of peace and international justice are buried in the soil of the Balkans, Western civilization will be threatened. In Bosnia, the international community's tepid response has only encouraged those who would respond to extremism with extremism, to intolerance with intolerance, to aggression with aggression, and to ``ethnic cleansing'' with ``ethnic cleansing.'' I am convinced that there are moral means to thwart immoral aggression. The international community must have the will to use the means available to it to protect threatened populations, to encourage demilitarization, and to establish other conditions necessary for progress towards peace. The solution can not be simply to give up and withdraw. If the United Nations and the international community do not now have effective means to respond to the humanitarian crises in Bosnia and elsewhere--and it is clear that they do not--then nations have the responsibility to take the steps necessary to develop more effective international structures. 4. This is not a religious conflict, but some would misuse religion in support of ethnic division and extreme nationalism. Therefore, as a religious leader, I believe I have a special responsibility to stand beside those who are victims of injustice and aggression, regardless of their religious, ethnic, or national identity. I also believe that, even though a just peace seems far off, religious and other leaders must not wait for an end to war to begin the daunting task of reconciling deeply divided communities. We must promote a moral and spiritual renewal that can heal the hatred, despair and division which this war has brought. Only by rebuilding the spiritual life of our people can we ensure that the horrors we have lived through for the last three years will not be repeated. With God's grace, we will succeed. 5. Amidst the great suffering we have been forced to endure, we have found the grace to persevere in hope, for we know that this war is not our destiny. We have also found hope in the prayers and moral and financial support we have received from the Catholic Bishops Conference and its aid agencies, and countless individuals and organizations in the United States. For these generous acts of solidarity, we are deeply grateful. I conclude where I began. The ordinary people of my archdiocese and my country are tired of war; they yearn to be allowed to live together in peace. But we cannot do it alone. We need more decisive action by the international community. I implore you: Do not continue to abandon us! Do not continue to acquiesce in the practical victory of injustice and war! Help us to realize the justice, peace and reconciliation for which we so ardently pray and struggle! There are many forces fueling this conflict, some of them coming from within my own Croatian community. This is not, however, a religious conflict, nor is it simply a consequence of the resurgence of ``ancient hatreds'' between different religious, ethnic, and national groups who cannot live together in peace. Ethnic, religious differences certainly do exist, and, regrettably, they have been depended by the war. But they cannot explain adequately what is happening in my country. The main cause of the conflict and suffering in Bosnia-Herzegovina is an attempt by extreme nationalists and others who fear democracy to create an ethnically pure Greater Servia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week marked the third anniversary of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. At this time, in 1992, Serb militants in the hills surrounding Sarajevo began their shelling of the people of the cosmopolitan and culturally rich Bosnian capital. On the one hand, it seems like this war--with the constant, almost daily reports of the senseless slaughter of innocent people--has been going on forever. On the other hand, when the war began, no one would have imagined that it would get as bad as it subsequently did, or that we would allow it to continue that way for so long. This week, the Helsinki Commission, of which I am chairman, held two hearings to note Bosnia's 3-year agony. At the first hearing, we heard witnesses explain that this may not even be classified as a war. Yes, there are opposing sides, but, instead of direct, military engagements, most of the violence can be characterized as a heavily armed group of Serb thugs committing genocide against those in Bosnia, and particularly the Moslem population. Yes, Mr. Speaker, genocide. Our hearing on Tuesday focused on the extent to which ethnic cleansing, the destruction of cultural sites, and associated war crimes and crimes against humanity constitute genocide in Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia. Our witnesses included Cherif Bassiouni, a law professor at DePaul University who chaired the U.N. War Crimes Commission, who discussed the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in the former Yugoslavia, and Bosnia- Herzegovina in particular. Andras Riedlmayer, a bibliographer at Harvard University, followed with a fascinating slide presentation of how the reminders of Bosnian Moslem culture--mosques, libraries, and historic sites--have been targeted for destruction in an attempt to deny the earlier existence of those who were David Reiff presented us with first-hand accounts of what happened in Bosnia beginning in 1992. We learned at the hearing that the atrocities appear to follow such a similar pattern, from region to region, that one simply has to conclude that they were carried out systematically. These crimes, as they were being committed, were at least known to, and perhaps ordered by, the Bosnian Serbs and maybe even Serbia's political and military leadership. A prime example--the eastern Bosnian town of Foca, with its slight Moslem majority, was seized by Serb paramilitaries early in the conflict under the direction of three of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic's close associated, Velibor Ostojic, Vojislav Maksimovic, and Petar Cancar. The sports hall, located right next to the police station, was a rape camp for about 2 months soon thereafter. About 50 women were subjected to multiple and gang rape night after night. An isolated incident, out of the view of Bosnian Serb authorities? Do not count on it. There is, however, no real smoking gun--like the files left by the Nazis documenting the Holocaust--what has happened. The Bosnian Serb leadership, and their leaders in Belgrade, made sure there was what Professor Bassiouni called ``plausible deniability.'' But, what has happened in Bosnia is genocide, without a doubt. The systematic way the Bosnian genocide has been carried out, and the openness with which concentration and rape camps have operated, leave no question of its orchestrated nature. We also learned that the genocide extended into Croatia. Each victim has a dramatic and tragic account to relate, but the dry statistics--200,000 killed, 800 prison camps with at least 500,000 prisoners, over 50,000 torture victims, 151 mass graves, and over 20,000 rape victims--where sobering in themselves. As a result of the hearing, the Helsinki Commission will help ensure that all evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity held by the United States Government are made available to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, based in The Hague. We will also seek to increase U.S. financial support for the tribunal and the prosecutor's office, so that justice is not forfeited due to a lack of resources. Genocide is directed toward people in a collective sense, but the gruesome acts are committed against individuals, moms, dads, sons, and daughters, friends and colleagues. I have tried to imagine daily life for Bosnians, being forced out of their homes, being publicly and repeatedly raped, being tortured in a camp, facing execution in the next second, or--perhaps worst of all--watching these things happen to loved ones. It is hard for us to imagine what has been the reality for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina for these last 3 years. One year before that, people in Croatia faced the same thing. There is also the question of who is guilty of these crimes, and who is innocent. A recently released CIA report confirmed that Serb militants have been responsible for nearly 90 percent of the atrocities committed during Yugoslavia's violent breakup. There crimes also were most likely to have been orchestrated, in order to carry out a policy directed from above. This does not translate into the popular notion that the Serbs are an evil people. Indeed, in previous decades, others were infected by the same evil intentions, and innocent Serbs were at times the victims. Similarly, deeds of Serbian political and military leaders, as carried out by their militant minions, do not make Serbs collectively guilty. I made this point at the hearing for two reasons. First, should we engage in the now popular Serb-bashing, we ignore the vulnerability of all peoples in this world to fall into the trap of racist ideology that has ensnared so many Serbs today. Second, Serbs in the former Yugoslavia and around the world, including in the United States, can do no more to defend their national heritage than to face squarely what their militant brethren have done, to condemn them for actions which cannot be justified by history or anything else, and to seek a reconciliation between Serbs and their neighbors in the former Yugoslavia. They should place the guilt squarely on the Serbian leadership, not share the guilt with those leaders. Indeed, the hearing noted examples of Serbs of conscience. Professor Bassiouni relayed a story of a Bosnian Serb commander who, upon taking a new position, released several women being held captive. As his men approached the women, hoping to have their last chance to rape them, the commander stood in front of the door, with machine gun in hand, and warned his own soldiers he would shoot any who dared touch these women again. Roy Gutman quoted a recent article in Nasa Borba, a Belgrade- based Serbian opposition paper, calling the war a senseless and ``unoriginal product of the unbridled Serb view of things,'' and bemoaned that Serbs ``are obviously still far away from realizing that they have to take certain moral responsibility for evil deeds committed by their compatriots in this war.'' Andras Riedlmayer informed the Commission of a Serbian architect and former Belgrade mayor who condemned the destruction of beautiful cities like Osijek, Vukovar, and Dubrovnik simply because that they were not Serbian. Mr. Speaker, this hearing on genocide was of critical importance. We on the outside have become fatigued by the daily developments there, and the endless discussion of policy options. It is perhaps human nature that explains why, in the end, we look at Bosnia in terms of percentage of territory lost and casualty figures. Similarly, our desire is to bring those fighting together--at the negotiating table-- to work out a mutually acceptable compromise. In the meantime, we work to get a humanitarian aid convoy to this town or that town, or to deploy U.N. peacekeepers here or there, with this or that mandate. As admirable as these efforts may be, they miss the central fact that what we are confronting here is something inherently evil, a racist force so irrational that it cannot be satisfied by a positive gesture. Genocide must be condemned, confronted and stopped, not tolerated and appeased. Until then, we will continue to see more fighting, more death, and more destruction in the Balkans. That brings me to the second hearing, which focused on policy questions regarding the former Yugoslavia, and specifically issues surrounding the international presence there. U.N. peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Macedonia, and NATO assistance to U.N. efforts are of utmost importance, but efforts of other organizations merit attention as well. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke appeared before the Commission to present the current views of the Clinton administration on these missions and the realistic prospects for a just peace. I told the Ambassador that one thing the Helsinki Commission has learned at its 16 hearings on the former Yugoslavia, since the conflict began there in 1991, is that the conflict could have been stopped. Witness after witness, with experience on the ground, has told the Helsinki Commission that credible military threats continually caused the Serb militants to back off and be more cooperative. Had they faced international resolve, during the Bush or the early Clinton administration, we would not have needed these hearings this week. Opportunities were lost, one after another, as our ultimatums were revealed only as political bluffs. The Commission does not say this only after the fact, as the Monday morning quarterback. From the beginning, we called for strong action to get humanitarian aid convoys through the lines, no matter what, to stop the bombardment of large, vulnerable civilian centers--to stop the war. We always met opposition. And now, our Government and those of Europe, seem to suggest that damage perpetrated against Bosnia has been so great that the reestablishment of a unified, multiethnic state is, at best, a dream. Even a 51/49 split, as proposed by the contact group, is out of reach. Military options are now riskier. What concerns me is the fact that the same officials who now find it too late to act, had other excuses when it was not too late. One can conclude that at least some of them simply never had the courage to act in the first place, or the foresight to see how American interests were affected by all of this. To be clear, Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose finding solutions to problems at a negotiating table, but the parties involved should be given no choice but to find solutions at the table, and not from the hills surrounding defenseless Bosnian towns and cities. No parameters for acceptable behavior were established and upheld, and negotiations continue to be a dismal failure. And what frustrates me most is that governments, and European governments in particular, are unwilling to acknowledge their incredible error, and to change course. It was with some regret that I had to express these views before Ambassador Holbrooke, who, since becoming Assistant Secretary last August, has shown a personal interest in getting something done in the Balkans. I highlighted, in particular, the seriousness with which he has pursued the development of the Bosnian Federation, which perhaps, along with the Sarajevo ultimatum of February 1994, is the most innovative and positive effort undertaken by the Clinton administration in Bosnia. While I question the viability of the federation absent a real response to Serb aggression, I see no choice but to move forward with the federation as best we can. Ambassador Holbrooke reported that international efforts leading to a new peacekeeping mandate in Croatia ``have helped prevent, at least for the moment, the wider war we all diplomacy has been unable to prevent the likely resumption of the tragic conflict in Bosnia. ``I bring you no optimism on Bosnia.'' Following Holbrooke, two expert witnesses--John Lampe of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, and Steve Walker of the Action Council for Peace in the Balkans--presented views on various policy options. While they disagreed on what to do, they both expressed dismay that a full and fair settlement remains so elusive.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week we will have the opportunity to reduce the Social Security earnings test and bring parity to America's work force. This obsolete tax punishes senior citizens simply because they take the initiative to work in their retirement years to supplement their Social Security income. Furthermore, the earnings test is detrimental to America's workplace. It deprives the work force of the talents of our most experienced laborers. The earnings test stands as a monument to the decline of the work ethic upon which this Nation was founded. At a time when we are asking Americans to take more responsibility for their personal welfare, we cannot allow this Depression-era tax to continue to exist. The mechanics of the earnings test are simple, but it is founded upon no sound principle. The Federal Government instructs men and women between 65 and 69 years of age that if they earn more than $11,280 in a year, they will face an additional 33-percent tax. When combined with the 7.65-percent FICA withholding tax and a 15-percent Federal income tax, hard-working, low-income seniors are burdened with an effective marginal tax rate of 55.65 percent. The earnings test is wrong, counterproductive, and should be abolished. A key element to H.R. 1215 is the incremental increase of the earnings test threshold to $30,000 per year over a 5-year period. While it does not eliminate the earnings test, H.R. 1215 is a positive step toward ending this substantiated bias against working seniors and I encourage my colleagues to support it. I would also encourage my colleagues to work toward a full repeal of the earnings test, such as that introduced by Representative Howard Coble in H.R. 201. Both the reduction of the earnings test and its full repeal are important elements in our covenant with America's seniors.