Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Today, I reintroduced two important bills which will have a direct and substantial impact on women, children, and families nationwide. These bills--the Omnibus Adoption Act of 1995 and the Health Care and Housing for Women and Children Act--both promote the joining of needy children and caring families through the loving option of adoption. There is no doubt that there are children patiently and hopefully awaiting adoption. Over the past decade, between 50,000-60,000 children found adoptive homes each year. This figure is down from 89,000 in 1970; but that is not indicative of fewer needy children. In fact, over this same time period, the number of children in foster care increased to more than 407,000 and the number of children born out-of-wedlock increased three-fold to 1,165,000. The National Council for Adoption [NCFA] estimates that between one and two million individuals and couples want to adopt. But there are obstacles in their way. Some of these obstacles are financial; some are merely education; some are cultural. The Omnibus Adoption Act of 1995 takes aim at these hurdles with the intention of leveling them. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the benefits of adoption to birthmothers are overwhelmingly positive. In fact, some research indicates that those women who do choose to make an adoption plan for their children will be less likely to live in poverty, more likely to complete high school, and less likely to have additional unplanned pregnancies. We must provide Federal support to these pregnant women and all pregnant women who lack the means to pay for prenatal and maternal health care. The centerpiece of the Omnibus Adoption Act is the means tested $5000 tax credit. According to the NCFA, the average cost of an adoption is $14,000 and it is not uncommon for this figure to reach upwards of $25,000. Often this includes prenatal care for the birthmother and child, counseling for the adoptive family, and legal fees. For a middle-income family already on a tight budget, this one-time up-front cost can be prohibitive. The targeted tax credit would be available in full to families earning less than $60,000 and in part to families earning between $60,000 and $100,000. In this way, it is able to give as much help as possible to the families which need it the most. And while this tax credit has a limitless reward, it has a very modest cost. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee estimated last year that the adoption tax credit would cost $900 million over 5 years. You may recognize this provision from the Republican Contract with America as well. I am pleased that this aspect of my bill has been included in the Contract's Family Reinforcement Act [H.R. 11]. Other provisions of the Omnibus Adoption Act are equally valuable and popular. For instance, the bill establishes a national advisory council on adoption to monitor the progress of the various adoption related programs which exist and which the bill institutes. The bill also establishes a national adoption data collection system. These two provisions will work hand-in-hand to further advance adoption options. As does a section stating the sense of Congress that every State implement and enforce uniform adoption laws ranging from detailed home studies for prospective adoptive families to health benefits for birthmothers and adopted children. The Omnibus Adoption Act establishes a program of graduate study fellowships to encourage our best young minds to research and develop innovation in adoption programs. Additionally, the bill organizes a grant program within the Department of Education offering education programs. The Boston Globe, in a editorial highly supportive of this bill in general and the tax credit provision in particular, noted that this was an idea that deserves close study. Another provision in the Omnibus Adoption Act which the Globe thought worthy of closer study clarifies Federal and military employee adoption benefits. This would allow these families to use sick leave for adoption purposes. They would also be eligible for reimbursement through Federal health benefit plans for the prenatal and maternity care of the birthmother in their adoption plan. The bill specifically prohibits surrogate parenting arrangements with regard to this provision. The final two provisions of the Omnibus Adoption Act are so critical to the promotion of adoption and the health of birthmothers and their children that I have introduced them as a separate bill as well--the Health Care and Housing for Women and Children Act. These provisions establish material health certificates and grants for rehabilitation of housing for use as maternity homes. Maternal health certificates could be used by low-income pregnant women who seek assistance in carrying their child to term at maternity homes. Here they could get housing, medical care, educational and vocational training, adoption counseling, and other supportive services. To ensure that maternity homes are available to these women, a grant program would be established to give non-profit organizations aid in rehabilitating old housing for use as maternity homes. The American Enterprise in its January/February 1995 noted the central role which maternity homes once played in helping young, low- income women to carry their pregnancies to term and how that role has unfortunately diminished. Writer George Liebmann observed that: Current American welfare policy is plagued by an ideology of cash entitlement. What the poor really need today is not a check but a powerful set of rehabilitative social services. These should be offered by private community groups, without any illusion of moral neutrality. Rescuing an underclass is by definition a highly moralistic undertaking. This is the historical mission of the maternity home. They provide therapy and support through the grouping of several young women in similar circumstances under one roof. They provide rehabilitation through education, vocational training, health care, and counseling. Furthermore, they offer discipline and supervision to women who have often lived on streets and in neighborhoods devoid of such backbone. This is crucial to the health and welfare of both mother and child. And it can all be provided by community groups with a commitment to care. Over the past two sessions in which I have introduced these bills, they have enjoyed broad bipartisan support from more than one hundred Members. I encourage my colleagues to respond to the needs of homeless children and the families who long to help them by cosponsoring both the Omnibus Adoption Act and the Health Care and Housing for Women and Children Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the criticisms that have been leveled against section 501, I believe, are misplaced. The Committee on International Relations carefully considered the objection and amended the reimbursement formula in an effort to ensure that funds would be available for true peacekeeping operations even after the offsets. We have received preliminary estimates from GAO of the amount of unreimbursed incremental chapter 6 peacekeeping expenses from fiscal year 1994. These are the only true peacekeeping expenses and the only ones for which legislation, as amended, would strictly require and offset. The total amount of these expenses is about $227 million. This is some $300 million less than the administration's budget request for peacekeeping in fiscal year 1996, and about $800 million less than the peacekeeping budget for fiscal year 1995, including the supplemental appropriation. The remaining $1.5 billion in unreimbursed chapter 7 expenses for operations such as Desert Storm, Operation Deny Flight, and Uphold Democracy, which are more aptly described as peacemaking, would not require an offset provided that the President provided the necessary certification to Congress. In essence, this is a certification that the U.S. role in these operations was in its own strategic interest and not solely at the behest of the United Nations. As long as the United States remains prepared to contribute between $300 and $800 million per year to true international peacekeeping operations, it is inaccurate, and I would submit it is unfair, to say that we have removed peacekeeping as an option. The second way in which the administration's criticism misses the mark is that it incorrectly assumes that the President would be required to certify in advance that we would unilaterally undertake the action in order to exempt it from the offset requirements. The administration then argues that if other nations knew the United States would undertake an operation of its own, there would be no need for them to cooperate in such inaction. This argument simply misreads the bill. There is no requirement that we act unilaterally, or even that we certify after the fact that we did act unilaterally, in order to avoid the offset requirement. Rather, the President need only certify after the operation that it was the sort of operation that we would have undertaken in the strategic interest of the United States, even if we had been able to secure U.N. cooperation. This formula, Mr. Chairman, leaves the President the flexibility he needs to protect the U.S. interests wherever he can certify in good conscience that such interests are at stake. Provided only that he can make such a certification, he need not fear that the cost of an operation will be offset against next year's peacekeeping budget. Some of the proposed amendments would even go further, exempting practically everything from the offset, but that is something we did not have to deal with today. Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to vote against this amendment. I believe positively serve peacekeeping for the United States and our allies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, recent events in Somalia and elsewhere have raised serious questions about when, if ever, members of the United States Armed Forces should be commanded not by fellow Americans but by officials of the United Nations. The surrender of command and control may set a precedent for further diminution of American sovereignty, at a time when most Americans believe that too many decisions affecting their lives are already made by unaccountable institutions in faraway places. I share these concerns. They are reflected and addressed in sections 401 and 402 of the National Security Revitalization Act, relating to command and control of U.S. forces. Let us make some crucial distinctions. First, this legislation would not interfere with U.S. participation in multinational military efforts. Such efforts have a long and honorable history in U.S. foreign policy. For instance, in World War I some 2 million Americans served under the ultimate direction of a great French general, Marshall Ferdinand Foch. In World War II, American units worked under British commanders in Italy, in Normandy, and in the China-Burma-India theatre of operations. In the post-war era several multilateral peacekeeping operations, including some under United Nations auspices, have included U.S. Armed Forces under the temporary and limited operational control of foreign officers. It is a dramatically different matter however, to take the step that has been the subject of recent discussion: that the United States should contribute its soldiers to a standing U.N. army whose commanders, whatever their own national origins, are part of the command structure of the United Nations itself. It is important to note that sections 401 and 402 allow the President substantial flexibility to act in the national interest. They do not absolutely prohibit the President from placing U.S. forces under the command or control of foreign commanders in U.N. operations, or even under the command and control of the United Nations itself. Rather, they simply require the President to explain the necessity of such arrangements, and to assure the Congress that United States officers involved in the operation will retain sufficient authority to protect their forces and to prevent them from being used illegally or inconsistently with the terms of the by the President may be waived in an emergency. Finally, the requirements of sections 401 and 402 did not apply at all to specifically authorized by law. So, in effect, Congress can waive the reporting requirements of sections 401 and 402 whenever it discerns an emergency that makes this prudent. The role of U.S. troops in U.N. operations is steadily expanding. A year ago we had 15 troops in the post-Desert Storm U.N. peacekeeping operation in Iraq, 29 in the Western Sahara, 647 in former Yugoslavia, 33 in Cambodia, and almost 2,000 in Somalia. Some of these operations have prevented bloodshed. The Somalia operation, which began as a genuine peacekeeping effort, was somehow allowed to become a war. It then claimed the lives of 26 Americans. Sections 401 and 402 achieve a balance between the need to protect U.S. sovereignty and the need to give the President the necessary flexibility for handling international crises. Section (a) creates a presumption against the legality of placing any elements of our Armed Forces under the command or control of a foreign national acting on behalf of the United Nations. But this presumption is overcome if the President invokes the certification process that is announced in section (b), and for which section (d) gives the substantive requirements. The President is given 15 days before the start of the operation in question to certify to Congress that the operation is necessary to protect our national security interests, and that the arrangements of the operation are such that U.S. sovereignty will be protected. Furthermore, as I noted a moment ago, even this reasonable requirement does not apply when the operation in question is already authorized by law, or when the President certifies that he is acting in response to an emergency that precludes compliance with the 15-day rule just mentioned. In an emergency situation, the certification requirement detailed in section (d) is postponed until 48 hours after U.S. participation in the U.N. operations begins. Section 402 amends the United Nations Participation Act so that U.S. participation in Security Council ``special agreements,'' as set forth in chapters VI and VII of the U.N. Charter, is subject to the same certification requirements as in section 401. There must be clear rules governing the exposure of U.S. service personnel to mortal danger. Such exposure should be related to U.S. interests, and the extend and urgency of those interests should be determined by officials who are accountable to the people of the United States. This is not just the principle of sovereignty; it is also the principle of democracy. Sections 401 and 402 are designed to uphold these principles. They would prohibit commitments of U.S. troops only in cases where the President of the United States cannot or will not articulate to the Congress the justifications and the limitations of such commitments. At U.N. headquarters in New York City, the flags of all the member nations fly proudly over First Avenue. No national flag is higher than any other, signifying that despite diversities of power, wealth, and territory, the principle of sovereignty means that every nation may deal equally with every other under international law. One flag in front of the U.N. building does fly higher than the national flags: the flag of the United Nations itself. This signifies that in joining together to form the United Nations, the sovereign member states have recognized that the ideals of human rights, peace, and cooperation for which the United Nations stands may in some circumstances transcend national sovereignty itself. Even a limited surrender of sovereignty, however, is fraught with risks. One of those risks is that this great international body whose flag flies higher than the others may someday cease to be the instrument of its member nations and become instead master of their policies--and increasingly of their destinies. American participation in multinational military operations is, has been, and will remain a sound policy option for particular cases. But American participation in the standing armies of another power-- especially a power that claims to supersede that of the United States-- is an abdication of our sovereignty and a threat to the democratic values that our sovereignty ultimately protects.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, all sides including the administration, envision the eventual expansion of NATO. The problem is that the administration has been unwilling to spell out in clear terms what conditions candidates would have to meet. This ambiguity does not serve any good purpose and, in fact, plays into the hands of the Russians who want to block any expansion. Let me remind Members and assure Members the bill does not mandate that the countries listed or any others would be invited to even join NATO. There is a separate process for that. The process for expansion is qualified by article 10 of the NATO treaty. There is a specific process for that. We are talking about a program to assist in the transition. I urge Members to read on page 69 the kinds of things we are talking about that we would like to see happen: shared values and interests, democratic governments, free market economies, civilian control of the military, and so on and so forth. Let us not just be passive and reactive. I believe we need to be proactive for the sake of security for Europe and for the rest of the world.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. At a later date we will talk about it, but already we have $100 million for the fiscal year requested by the President in the Partnership For Peace.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, there is no cost figure stated in the legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I have the time, I will yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, perhaps we have had too many discussions on the floor about mandates because mandates seem to be on the brain. There is nothing in this bill that mandates that any country join NATO. That has to be made very clear. What we are doing is saying that the program that would assist nations like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia and other European nations means that these nations would be designated for transitional help. There is $100 million being requested for the President by the President for this kind of thing. We want to encourage expansion--that is what we are talking about. As I have said, we have had a lack of leadership with regard to this, and we are saying that Congress should speak up and say these countries are worth it. A window of opportunity exists and we do not want to see that window closed.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the underlying provisions of the legislation, namely title 6, which squarely addresses the issue of NATO expansion. At the outset, let me dispel the notion that this section would somehow hamstring the administration's foreign policy, assuming it has one. Nothing in the National Security Revitalization Act mandates NATO membership for any country or group of countries. Changes in the membership of NATO are determined on the basis of consensus among the alliance's member states as stipulated under article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, a point reaffirmed in the pending legislation and known to Members on both sides of the aisle. The crux of the matter is how best to consolidate and build upon the fundamental political changes which have occurred in many of the countries of Central Europe, the Baltics, and some of the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. On the security front, a veritable ``no-man's-land'' has emerged between Germany and Russia following the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and the ensuing moves toward democracy and market economy by many in the region. The Clinton administration, like the administration before it, the Bush administration, has been slow to move to fill this vacuum. Mr. Chairman, this has been a source of great consternation to the emerging democracies in the region who rightly view it as a source of potential instability. I think my colleagues would agree that the Partnership for Peace initiative launched a year ago has failed to fill this void. By making the program mandatory, as we do in title 6, we are ensuring that the job gets done. I would urge my colleagues to read the legislation. The legislation clearly states that the program is to assist in the transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and any other European country emerging from Communist domination that is designated by the President, and so on and so forth. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], making the transition optional would make this entire section a sense-of-the-Congress resolution. Mr. Chairman, title 7 of the National Security Revitalization Act I believe provides a reasonable framework for addressing the concerns consistent with U.S. interests in ensuring stability in Europe. Very clearly delineated in the bill is a list of criteria, such as respect for democratic principles and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, against which to evaluate the suitability of prospective candidates for NATO membership. In addition, it establishes a program to provide the emerging democracies with the necessary tools to facilitate their transition to full NATO membership, which, as I pointed out earlier, will ultimately be up to the members of NATO to decide. Given the broad range of our political, economic, and security interests in Europe, strengthening new free markets and democracies in that region benefits the United States. Interestingly two of the most prominent members of the foreign policy establishment, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, are ardent supporters of the timely expansion of NATO. Dr. Kissinger sees the existing vacuum as a threat, not only to NATO cohesion, but the very existence of NATO as a meaningful institution, and he writes, ``NATO expansion represents a balancing of two conflicting considerations the fear of alienating Russia against the danger of creating a vacuum in central Europe. A wise policy,'' he counsels, ``would proceed with the membership for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and to reject a Russian veto.'' Dr. Kissinger concludes, ``NATO cannot long survive if the borders it protects are not threatened while it refuses to protect the borders of adjoining countries that do feel threatened.'' declare its ``criteria for expansion and indicate which countries appear to meet them. This would end the counterproductive debates with Russia over whether NATO should expand. The longer this step is delayed, the more vociferous Moscow's objections are likely to be.'' Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the purpose of title 6 of the National Security Revitalization Act. Rather than dodging the issue of NATO expansion, as it has largely done to date, the Clinton administration, should move on the membership issue before more time is lost. But that requires leadership. We must seize upon today's opportunities which could be gone tomorrow. A steady and deliberate course of action is one thing, obfuscation, which has characterized the Clinton administration's approach to date is another. Russia, perhaps sensing a certain timidity within the administration, has sought to block NATO expansion. It is instructive to recall that the Soviet Union vehemently opposed German membership in NATO in 1955 and attempted to deny unified Germany continued participation in the Alliance. A democratic Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive alliance founded on democratic principles. It would be foolhardy and dangerous, as Henry Kissinger rightly pointed out, to give Russia a veto over NATO expansion, and, as Dr. Brzezinski observed, failure to act now will only make matters worse. Let's look at the earlier inclusion of new countries. As my colleagues know, when we look at countries that were included into NATO, Greece and Turkey were hardly stellar democracies when they joined in 1952. I remind Members that Portugal, one of the founding members of NATO, was under a dictatorship in 1949. In this bill we lay out clear markers which we think have to be achieved before this program goes forward. We are trying to promote and push these countries in the direction of democracy, free markets, respect for human rights. I believe title 6, as a mandatory program, goes much further to ensure those objectives, and, hopefully, a safer world, rather than making this title a sense-of-the-Congress resolution by amending it to an optional program.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the provisions of the pending legislation which squarely addresses the issue of NATO expansion. At the outset let me dispel the notion that this section would somehow hamstring the administration's foreign policy--assuming it has one. Nothing in the National Security Revitalization Act mandates NATO membership for any country or group of countries. Changes in the membership of NATO are determined on the basis of consensus among the Alliance's member states as stipulated under article X of the North Atlantic Treaty, a point reaffirmed in the pending legislation and known to Members on both sides of the aisle. The crux of the matter is how best to consolidate and build upon the fundamental political changes which have occurred in many of the countries of central Europe, the Baltics, and some of the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. On the security front, a veritable no-man's-land has emerged between Germany and Russia following the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and the ensuing moves toward democracy and market economy by many in the region. The Clinton administration, like the one before it, has been slow to move to fill this vacuum. Mr. Chairman, this has been a source of great consternation to the emerging democracies of the region, who rightly view it as a source of potential instability. I think my colleagues would agree that the Partnership for Peace initiative, launched by the administration a year ago, has failed to fill this void. The National Security Revitalization Act provides a reasonable framework for addressing these concerns consistent with U.S. interests in ensuring stability in Europe. It lists a variety of criteria, such as respect for democratic principles and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, against which to evaluate the suitability of prospective candidates for NATO membership. In addition, it establishes a program to provide the emerging democracies with the necessary tools to facilitate their transition to full NATO membership, which, as I pointed out earlier, will ultimately be up to the current members to decide. Given the broad range of our political, economic, and security interests in Europe, strengthening new free markets and democracies in that region benefits the United States. Two of the most prominent members of the foreign policy establishment, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, are ardent supporters of the timely expansion of NATO. only NATO cohesion but the very existence of NATO as a meaningful institution. ``NATO expansion,'' he observed, ``represents a balancing of two conflicting considerations: the fear of alienating Russia against the danger of creating a vacuum in central Europe * * *.'' ``A wise policy,'' he counsels, ``would proceed with membership for the Visegrad countries [Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia] and reject a Russian veto.'' Dr. Kissinger concluded, ``NATO cannot long survive if the borders it protects are not threatened while it refuses to protect the borders of adjoining countries that do feel threatened.'' Brzezinski recently urged NATO to formally declare its ``criteria for expansion and indicate which countries appear to meet them. This would end the counterproductive debates with Russia over whether NATO should expand. The longer this step is delayed, the more vociferous Moscow's objections are likely to be.'' Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the purpose of title VI of the National Security Revitalization Act. Rather than dodging the issue of NATO expansion, as it has largely done to date, the Clinton administration, should move on the membership issue before more time is lost. But that requires leadership. We must seize upon today's opportunities which could be gone tomorrow. A steady and deliberate course of action is one thing, obfuscation, which has characterized the Clinton administration's approach to date is another. Russia, perhaps sensing a certain timidity within the administration, has sought to block NATO expansion. It is instructive to recall that the Soviet Union vehemently opposed German membership in NATO in 1955 and attempted to deny unified Germany's continued participation in the Alliance. A democratic Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive alliance founded on democratic principles. It would be foolhardy and dangerous, as Henry Kissinger rightly pointed out, to give Russia a veto over NATO expansion. And, as Dr. Brzezinski observed, failure to act now will only make matters worse. Our approach to NATO expansion is steady and deliberate, not the sketchy and indecisive path proposed by some. Some are critical of the fact that four countries--Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia--are mentioned as leading candidates for NATO membership at some point in the near future. This reference is a testament to the great strides which these countries have, in fact, made since the fall of communism. It neither ensures their membership nor precludes others from joining. It does not, as some claim, arbitrarily lock in advantages from some countries. Instead of fostering complacency in these countries as some warn, the reference should serve as an incentive for continued progress as those named should be subjected to more, not less, scrutiny as they move toward membership in NATO. The reference is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that reform in the region is uneven. Rather than serving as a discouragement, this should spur others to redouble their efforts if they are seriously interested in pursuing NATO membership. Mr. Chairman, my endorsement of an expanded NATO should not be read as a failure to understand that each of the countries considered here has residual problems with its transition to democracy. On the contrary, I believe that NATO membership, and the integration and cooperation with Western countries it entails, increases the opportunities for addressing outstanding concerns. There are, in fact, specific areas where I believe the United States should weight in to seek further reform. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am very much aware of need for further progress in these and other countries in the region. I believe the Czech citizenship law, for example, is deeply flawed and should be amended; the newest Slovak government has signaled in word its commitment to continuing reform, but has yet to follow through in many specific areas where reform has been slow or altogether lacking thus far, and the Hungarian government would do well to lead by example in improving its relations with many of its neighbors. Mr. Chairman, nothing in the pending legislation diminished the fact that each candidate will be individually judged on its own merits on a case-by-case basis. It is also instructive to recall that this is not the first expansion of NATO. In 1952 Greece and Turkey acceded to the North Atlantic Treaty joining the 12 NATO countries in common security system. The Federal Republic of Germany joined the Alliance in 1955 and in 1982, Spain also became a member of NATO. Besides its contribution to collective security in Europe, NATO has served as an important vehicle for bolstering democracy among its members as these cases demonstrate. Finally, critics assert that the course we have proposed could lead to instability in Europe. Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear: continued ambiguity and foot-dragging will not enhance European security but will, as Kissinger and Brzezinski point out, be counterproductive. The National Security Revitalization Act, provides a much needed action plan for seizing new opportunities as NATO and its members face new challenges. Given the implications for our own national security, the future of NATO demands our immediate attention.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act. The facts and figures set forth in the legislative findings to H.R. 872 make it clear that the United States may well be on its way back to the hollow forces of the 1970's. But this is not the whole story. Even as we have committed less to the national defense, we have spent more and more of these precious resources on operations which are at best peripheral to the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. During the first 100 days of this Congress we can change this course and put America back on the road to peace through strength--the successful strategy of the Reagan years, which made the world both more peaceful and more free. Mr. Chairman, we need the things this bill will provide and encourages. We need to seriously pursue an anti-ballistic missile system, which is not only more practical but also more moral than a system of mutual assured destruction. Most Americans are woefully unaware of the fact that we have no defense against incoming missile attacks. We need to adapt NATO, which Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has described as the most successful collective security arrangement in modern history, to provide for the security of European nations which are newly free. We need a relationship with the United Nations that allows that organization to do the things it does best while also preserving the sovereignty and effectiveness of the United States. Mr. Chairman, nothing in this world is perfect. Many Americans would say that things designed by Congress are even more imperfect than other things. Members of the International Relations Committee, including this member, made suggestions for improving this bill. Our distinguished Chairman, Ben Gilman and members of the Committee staff encouraged these suggestions and worked hard to accommodate them. We amended the bill to meet many of the objections that are now being reiterated on the floor. Mr. Chairman, the National Security Revitalization Act as amended will go a long way toward the restoration of a strong America. This, in turn, will make for a safer and freer world. I hope we can move quickly to final enactment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The legislation is identical to the Dole-Simon bill, S. 230, which was introduced earlier this year in the Senate. The Humanitarian Air Corridor Act would prohibit U.S. assistance to any country which prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. The language may sound formal, but behind these abstract words are tired faces and gaunt bodies: the intended recipients of humanitarian aid are desperate people in need--men, women, and especially children, whose very existence hinges on the charity of outsiders. It is the moral obligation, and proud tradition, of the United States to be one of the world's main donors of food, clothing and medical supplies essential to keep them alive. Americans open their hearts to refugees and displaced persons in countries less fortunate than our own. That third countries should impede the delivery of such aid is unacceptable; it should be an obvious and unobjectionable principle of U.S. assistance that countries keeping U.S. humanitarian aid from reaching third countries should not receive U.S. aid. There may be times, however, when considerations of U.S. national security dictate that the United States should continue to provide aid even to obstructionist countries. For those instances, the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act mandates that the President can make such a determination and inform Congress of his decision. Mr. Speaker, though the language of the bill is not country specific, it is widely known that Armenia and Turkey would be affected by the legislation. According to official Armenian sources, there are over 300,000 refugees in the country, whom the United States Government has been providing with humanitarian aid. The most cost-effective and direct route for delivery of this assistance is through Turkey. Unfortunately, Turkey has refused to permit transshipment through its territory, which necessitates expensive, and not always reliable, rerouting through Georgia. Ankara has justified its refusal to allow transshipment of United States aid by pointing to the occupation of Azerbaijani territory by Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Turkey, however, is not a party to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There is no reason for Turkey, whatever its ties to Azerbaijan, to block the delivery of United States humanitarian aid to Armenia. As a member of the OSCE, Turkey should implement the commitment in the 1991 Moscow document to ``cooperate fully to enable humanitarian relief operations to be undertaken speedily and effectively; to take all necessary steps to facilitate speedy and unhindered access for such relief operations; [and to] make the necessary arrangements for those relief operations to be carried out.'' Furthermore, Turkey is a member of the OSCE's Minsk group, which is charged with arbitrating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The OSCE document adopted last December in Budapest requests the OSCE's Minsk group to further implement confidence-building measures, particularly in the humanitarian field, and to provide humanitarian aid to people in the region, especially refugees. Mr. Speaker, I am not blind to the plight of refugees in Azerbaijan. I am well aware that fully one out of every seven people in that country is a refugee. Though section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act prohibits United States Government aid to the Government of Azerbaijan, humanitarian aid is being given through non-governmental organizations. About $30 million in technical assistance, $30 million in food assistance, and $20 million in humanitarian aid has been obligated, and over $60 million has been expended as of December 31, 1994. The need, I know, is much greater, and I am open to considering enhanced aid to address this grave humanitarian situation. I am also conscious of the significance of Turkey to NATO, and Turkey's longstanding ties to Washington. Those relations are highly valued, and with good reason. It is not the intention of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to damage those relations or to exacerbate Turkey's already complicated domestic situation. The legislation has one purpose only: to expedite the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to people who need it, in the most economical and direct manner possible. I am convinced that the facilitated delivery of such aid will promote a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and will help bring peace to a region that has more than its share of war and refugees. I hope that Ankara, and other capitals that can, or would be, affected by the provisions of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, view the legislation as it is intended--as a means of helping people in need.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, every day inside abortion clinics throughout America, babies are dismembered and chemically poisoned and their mothers wounded emotionally and sometimes physically. Each and every day 4,000 children are killed by abortionists. I hate violence, Mr. Chairman, whether it be violence against unborn babies or the violence that is visited upon their mothers. Even though I detest what they do, I nonetheless deplore any violence against abortionists. Members might recall that I authored the FACE substitute last year that would have imposed very stiff Federal penalties against anyone who uses force or threatens to use force against abortionists, clinic personnel, or pro-lifers. But let me make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, abortion mills are not privileged entities. They are not privileged characters. The purposes that are delineated in H.R. 728 relate to police who will serve the entire community, schools that also provide a basic service to a larger community, drug courts and neighborhood watch programs. Abortion clinics, abortion mills, despicable as they are, are private facilities. 7-Eleven stores, grocery stores, and other private operations have a much greater exposure to violent activities than abortion mills. The statistics bear that out. My friend from Illinois and others have pointed this out during this debate. Abortion mills make millions of dollars. They don't necessarily need a huge Federal subsidy. Yet, and I want to make this very clear, under the terms of the amendment of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] which was adopted yesterday, local law enforcement officials could enhance security measures around any facility, including an abortion mill, if the proper outpatients deemed to have a special risk for incidents of crime. If we are not singling out banks with their very high risk and grocery stores and, as has been pointed out, even taxicab drivers for special protection, I would submit it is entirely inappropriate to single out abortion mills for this kind of treatment. Special risks are going to vary from community to community. It runs counter to the purpose of this legislation to start itemizing, having a higher order, a pecking order, if you will, and to say that some private facilities should receive public funding and others should not. That ought to be left to the local level. I urge defeat of the Schroeder amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, next week the United Nations begins another review of the budget needs for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. This tribunal has already faced numerous obstacles to its establishment and considerable bureaucratic and political barriers to its staffing; worse still, it continues to face opposition from those who would rather negotiate with war criminals than see them in jail. In spite of numerous political and procedural roadblocks, the tribunal issued its first indictment in early November, is proceeding with investigations, and is expected to bring cases to trial later this year. This progress by no means guarantees long-term success, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in an article published in the Washington Post, Tom Warrick, an attorney who assisted the head of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, points out that the results of a relatively obscure U.N. committee may determine ``whether those ultimately responsible for ethnic cleansing are ever to be brought to justice.'' And, as those who oppose this tribunal have learned, what they can't defeat openly through the political process, they may be able to gut in the United Nations closed-door budget negotiations. Nongovernmental experts have already suggested that the $28 million sought by tribunal officials may be too low, given the costs of gathering testimony from the thousands of victims of the extensive list of deplorable war crimes and in light of the on-site investigations that the effective prosecution of war criminals will require. Nevertheless, it appears that securing even these funds may be an uphill battle with the U.N. bureaucracy. Accordingly, I have written to the President, along with the Cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, Senator D'Amato, and Representative Steny Hoyer, the former chairman of and now ranking House minority member on the Commission, urging the President to instruct the U.S. delegation to the United Nations to press vigorously at these upcoming budget meetings to ensure adequate funding for the tribunal. The establishment of this body, against so many odds, is a credit to strong U.S. leadership. But, without proper funding, Mr. Speaker, the tribunal will never be able to execute the historic tasks that have been set for it. We have also indicated our support for an additional voluntary contribution to the tribunal by the United States of an amount not less than the $3 million cash contribution provided last year. Mr. Speaker, as the Bosnian Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, stated at the Helsinki Commission's hearing just 2 weeks ago, war crimes and genocide continue in Bosnia even now, during the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I cannot overstate my conviction that holding war criminals accountable for the heinous crimes they have committed in this conflict will be an essential element for any long- term resolution of this tragedy. If the United States, at this juncture, inexplicably reduces the level of financial support it has provided to the tribunal, it might send a regrettable signal of weakening U.S. resolve to see war criminals held truly accountable. We must not let that happen.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago today, Secretary of State Christopher unveiled the Clinton administration's Bosnia policy while lamenting the fact that the West had repeatedly missed earlier opportunities to effectively address the conflict and prevent it from deepening. During his presentation, Christopher outlined United States interests and strategic concerns at stake in Bosnia. ``Our conscience revolts at the idea of passively accepting such brutality,'' he said, and ``it tests our commitment to the nurturing of democracy * * *'' Recognizing the implications of the Bosnian crisis he warned, ``The world's response to the violence in the former Yugoslavia is an early and crucial test of how it will address the concerns of ethnic and religious minorities in the post-cold war world.'' One year ago, in the aftermath of the marketplace massacre in Sarajevo, President Clinton echoed this view when he said, ``This century teaches us that America cannot afford to ignore conflicts in Europe. And in this case, our Nation has distinct interests.'' He concluded, ``While the cold war may be over, the world is still full of dangers and the world still looks to America for leadership.'' President Clinton had it right when he vowed in his inaugural address that, ``When our vital interests are challenged or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act, with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.'' Mr. Speaker, our interests have been challenged. The will and conscience of the international community have been defied. Peaceful diplomacy has failed. And the world still looks to America for leadership * * *.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that today Iranians who hope for freedom and democracy in their own country stood at the Capitol Building of the United States--a symbol of democracy and freedom for millions of people all over the world--to remember that 16 years ago this Saturday the dreams and hopes for democracy and freedom in Iran were destroyed with the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since then Iran has unleashed a reign of terror from the streets of Tehran to nations all over the world. Through their support, encouragement and perpetuation of international terrorism the Islamic Republic of Iran has burdened, maimed and stolen the lives of innocent citizens of the world community. In the last 16 years, the Iranian Government has held hostage United States, British, French and other foreign nationals. The government continues to hold its own entire nation hostage with millions of people paralyzed due to fear of imprisonment, torture and death. The Iranian Government has one of the worst human rights records in the world. They have no desire to join the international community as nations move toward democratic reform and greater freedom and protection of human rights. In Iran today there is a complete disregard for the dignity of human life. We can see this clearly in the area of religious liberty. A Shari'a court has ruled that the members of the minority Bahai community are ``unprotected infidels,'' not worthy of legal protections. They are described as ``misguided'' and the Iranian Government persecutes them in an effort to ``purify'' Islam. The Christian minorities were shaken last year with the tragic deaths of Bishop Haik Mehr, Mehdi Dibaj, and Tateos Michaelian. All three were giants in Iran's small but vibrant Christian community. Eight converts from Islam were beaten and tortured in an effort to make them deny their Christian faith. United States resident Hassan Shahjamali, a Christian visiting his family in Iran, was detained by security police and held incommunicado for several days last May. Only after the international community loudly protested and called for his release did the Iranian Government finally release him and allow him to return to the United States. The Iranian Government's support of terrorism world wide has unleashed a wave of violence and fear. Each year thousands have died because of Iranian supported terrorist activities. Murders and bombings in Germany, Turkey, Switzerland, and Argentina; the direct attack on Americans on Pan Am Flight 103, at the United States Marine Barracks in Beirut and the bombing of the World Trade Center have all been traced to Teheran. Yet after 16 years of terror, and repression; after 16 years of brutality and systematic abuse, the spirit of the real Iranian people lives on. Thousands of Iranian believers have not given up their dream of freedom and democracy. They continue to raise their voices and they challenge us to do the same. Just days before his death last January Bishop Haik Mehr predicted his martyrdom. As he departed a conference in Pakistan in December he told Brother Andrew, the champion of religious freedom, justice, and tolerance that ``when they kill me it will not be because of my silence.'' On January 20, 1994 Bishop Haik's body was found. He had been tortured before he was killed. He knew the risks if he acted on his convictions--and he paid the price. Today we stand with Bishop Mehr and the thousands of others of all faiths and walks of life who have raised their voices for freedom and justice in Iran. We honor them by supporting freedom, democracy and justice. We, too, look to a day when Iran will be free. Only then will the world have an opportunity for peace and stability, free from the fear of terrorism and tyranny.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last October, a Helsinki Commission delegation met with Turkish officials and others in Ankara. With one exception, each and every official, including the Speaker of Parliament, produced a copy of the pro-Kurdish newspaper Ozgur Ulke and waved it in the air as proof that, despite what critics alleged, free expression was alive and well in Turkey. Last week, Mr. Speaker, Turkish officials decided that the costs of allowing the paper to air its pro-Kurdish sentiments outweighed its value as a token of free expression. On February 3, a Turkish court forced the paper to shut down. This blatant assault on free speech comes within a week of the decision to prosecute Turkey's most widely known author, Yasar Kemal, for publicly stating his thoughts on the government's handling of the Kurdish situation. He now faces charges of separatist propaganda, and now, even those who favor the government's uncompromising hardline towards the Kurds are beginning to question whether the government hasn't gone too far. Mr. Speaker, Ozgur Ulke's closure culminates an orchestrated campaign which began as soon as the newspaper appeared to fill the void left when a likeminded predecessor was forcibly closed. Censorship of the paper included violent attacks that left 20 reporters and distributors killed by unidentified death squads. At least four others have been kidnapped. The tortured, bullet-ridden body of one reporter was found weeks after he had disappeared. At least 35 journalists and workers of the newspaper have been imprisoned and 238 issues seized. The campaign against the newspaper went into high gear on November 30, 1994, when Prime Minister Ciller issued a secret decree, which was leaked and published, calling for the complete elimination of the newspaper. On December 3, 1994, its printing facility and headquarters in Istanbul and its Ankara bureau were bombed. One person was killed and 18 others were injured in the explosions. On January 6, 1995, policemen started to wait outside the printing plant to confiscate the paper as soon as it was printed. Copies were taken directly to a prosecutor who worked around the clock to determine which articles were undesirable. Often some three to four pages of the paper, mostly articles about security force abuses, were censored and reprinted as blank sections. Since December, five reporters, who were detained and later released, spoke of being tortured by police attempting to force confessions against the newspaper's editorial board. Mr. Speaker, last week, the State Department issued its annual human rights report, and only China had as many pages devoted to it as Turkey. While the report indicated that human rights conditions in Turkey had worsened significantly over the past year, the publication of Ozgur Ulke was cited as a positive example of press freedom. Responding to the report, an official spokesperson dismissed its report as biased and based on one-sided information. The spokesperson, repeating assertions made whenever Turkey is criticized for human rights violations, insisted that significant improvements had taken place and other important reforms were being undertaken. Given the countless times we have heard such assertions, it is a wonder that Turkey is not a model of freedom and democracy. Mr. Speaker, now that Turkish officials do not have copies of Ozgur Ulke to wave at visiting delegations, they will likely search for other props to convince skeptics of their good intentions. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that instead of tolerating certain types of expression in order to placate foreign observers, Turkish officials should take real steps to bring policies in line with stated human rights commitments. Free expression and other rights cannot be viewed simply as products of public relations campaigns. If Turkish officials are unwilling to work seriously towards implementing such rights to bring their laws into conformity with international standards, then they cannot expect their pronouncements on human rights to be viewed sympathetically. In this context, Turkish denunciations of the State Department human rights report are as puzzling as they are absurd.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly fitting that the first hearing of the new Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which was held last February 2, was for the purpose of receiving and beginning to analyze the 1994 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The subcommittee, which I chair, is an amalgamation of two Foreign Affairs subcommittees from the previous Congress. In addition to our substantial legislative responsibilities, including the crafting of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, last week's proceeding marked the beginning of an extensive series of hearings, briefings, and reports by the Subcommittee on Human Rights and humanitarian concerns around the globe. I am delighted to have my good friend Tom Lantos serving as ranking members of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. Previously, Tom had chaired the Subcommittee on National Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights and was eminently fair, consistent, and effective. During my 15 years in Congress, I have had the privilege to fight alongside Tom in numerous human rights battles from Romania to the former U.S.S.R. to the People's Republic of China. It is my intention and sincere hope to leave no stone unturned in the attempt to expose, scrutinize, and seek remedies for man's inhumanity to man, wherever and however it occurs. In like manner, our subcommittee will endeavor to recognize and encourage improvements in human rights practices. Above all, I will insist that objectivity, fairness, and the pursuit of trust be at the core of our work. In the weeks and months ahead, the subcommittee will explore policy options designed to mitigate the seemingly endless suffering and abuse endured by so many. In my view, the Country Reports are among the most important work the Department of State does. They allow the United States Government an opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, and also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign policy comports with these principles. Mr. Speaker, let me make some general observations about human rights. First, the very idea of human rights presupposes that certain rights are fundamental, universal, and inalienable: they are too important to be taken away or circumscribed by governments. Second, the United States has a commitment to human rights that is unique in the history of the world. It is no accident that the signers of our Declaration of Independence rested their resistance to tyranny not on tradition, self-interest, or the balance of power, but on the conviction that all human beings are ``endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' More recently, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that it is the destiny of the United States to be a ``shining city on a hill,'' a living monument to the idea of freedom. Human rights are indivisible, mutually reinforcing, and all- inclusive. Human rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, creed, gender, age, or condition of dependency. Inclusiveness means everyone, and perhaps especially the inconvenient: the unborn child, or the dissent, or the believer in another religious tradition. The right to life, religion, speech, assembly, and due process are the pillars of a free, sane, and compassionate society. The moral character and depth of soul of any society is measured not by its military might, technological prowess, athletic excellence or GDP, but on how well or poorly it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. It is particularly ironic that the subordination of human rights to other concerns, such as trade, immigration control, or congenial relations with other governments, is often justified on the ground that these are U.S. interests. This formulation misses the point: the most important U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and of decency. We are strong enough and prosperous enough that we have no need to accept blood money, or to send refugees back to persecution, or to seek our alliances among regimes that murder and torture their own people. Immediately prior to Thursday's hearing I received portions of the reports and had the opportunity to read the findings concerning about 10 countries. I have some reservations concerning certain portions of the reports, which I would like to state briefly. First, I hope that in the State Department's effort to keep pace with what it calls ``the changing nature of human rights problems,'' you do not lose sight of the fact that some rights are fundamental. Every year the reports seem to tell us more about the extent to which various societies have developed such institutions as collective bargaining and one-person-one-vote democracy. I do not mean to suggest that these things are not important. They are. They tell us much about a society. However, we must not allow their presence or absence to deflect attention from extrajudicial killing, torture, and imprisonment on account of religious or political beliefs. Second, and even more troubling, on some issues in some countries the 1994 reports seem to acknowledge, yet minimize, human rights abuses. In a few cases the reports seem almost to suggest excuses or justifications for such abuses. At least three instances of this forgiving approach involve cases in which the foreign policy of the present administration has also given too little attention to egregious and well-documented human rights abuses. I refer to the harsh measures taken by the Chinese Government against those, especially women, who resist its coercive population control program, and by both China and Cuba against people who try to escape from these countries. Finally, the reports raise deep concerns about the half-hearted and inconsistent human rights policy of the present administration. On ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the brutal killings in Chechnya, the reports fully state the extent of the human rights abuses. Unfortunately, the administration has not given sufficient weight to these abuses in formulating its policy toward the nations in question. Human rights appears not to have been the primary concern. china: forced abortion and sterilization The 1994 report acknowledges that forced abortions have been reported in China. Indeed, it acknowledges that ``most people still depend on their government-linked work unit for permission to have a child,'' and that the ``highly intrusive one child family planning policy * * * relies on * * * propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as more coercive measures including psychological pressure and economic penalties * * * [including] fines, withholding of social services, demotion, and other administrative punishments such as loss of employment * * *. The report also clearly states that ``penalties for excess births can be levied against local officials and the mothers' work units * * * providing multiple sources of pressure * * *.'' The report, however, then seems to accept blindly and uncritically the Chinese Government's oft-stated lie that ``physical compulsion to submit to abortion or sterilization is not authorized'' by the government. This is the same story the Chinese Government has been telling for years. The 1994 report also continues--as in past years--to suggest that the one-child policy is not even enforced in rural areas of the country. This ignores the 1991 country-wide tightening of enforcement of the coercive population control program. The pervasive use of forced abortion and sterilization, particularly since 1991, has been well documented by demographers, dissidents, journalists, and human rights activists. Most recently, a series of articles in the New York Times in April 1993 showed clearly that forced abortion in China is not rare, not limited to economic coercion or social pressure, not confined only to urban areas or to certain parts of the country, and definitely not unauthorized by those in power. The report, as in past years, also seems to excuse the excesses of the brutal People's Republic of China policy by pointing with alarm to the size of China's population and with evident approval to the general thrust of the regime's effort to minimize population growth. Forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war trials. Today it is employed with chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's Republic of China. Women in China are required to obtain a birth coupon before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by the population control police, and even their menstrual cycles are publicly monitored as one means of ensuring compliance. The 1993 New York Times articles pointed out that the People's Republic of China authorities, when they discover an unauthorized pregnancy--that is, an illegal child--normally apply a daily dose of threats and browbeating. They wear the woman down and eventually, if she does not succumb, she is physically forced to have the abortion. eugenics policy under which the People's Republic of China regime has undertaken to reduce the number of defective persons. In December 1993 the Chinese Government issued a draft law on eugenics that would nationalize discrimination against the handicapped. That law is now going into effect. This policy of forced abortions against handicapped children, and forced sterilization against parents who simply do not measure up in the eyes of the state, is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, the National Governors' Association passed an important resolution in support of congressional restoration of flow control authority to State and local governments. When the Supreme Court rejected such authority in its May 1994 decision in Carbone versus Clarkstown, New York, it struck a devastating blow to the financial stability of thousands of communities nationwide. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reminded Congress of its part in developing these circumstances. You see, although Congress had implied that States and localities had the authority to use flow control; Congress had never granted the authority explicitly. We now have not only the opportunity, but the responsibility to finish what we started. It is imperative that we do so with all due speed because communities nationwide have amassed an outstanding debt of more than $10 billion purely by meeting its traditional responsibilities of picking up the trash. Congress held hearings and markups and debates on this issue throughout 1994. The divergent interests of local governments, the private sector waste companies, and Wall Street came together through months of intense negotiations. The product of these efforts was a compromise proposal which passed the House by unanimous consent on October 7, and nearly passed through the Senate before it adjourned the next day. On January 4, I reintroduced this exact text as the Community Solvency Act (H.R. 24) with a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I encourage my colleagues to read the persuasive and well-reasoned arguments of the Governors' resolution and to join them in their fight to meet the public health and safety needs of our constituents in a cost-effective and environmentally sound way. In short, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 24. National Governors Association Resolution 3.4.1 Each State, Alone or in Cooperation with Other States, Should Manage the Waste Produced Within Its Borders in an Environmentally Sound Manner. This goal requires states to take responsibility for the treatment and disposal of solid waste created within their borders to eventually eliminate the transportation of unwanted waste sent over state lines for treatment or disposal. It should be the national policy for each state to promote self-sufficiency in the management of solid waste. States should be allowed to use reasonable methods to achieve their goal of self-sufficiency, including the use of waste flow control. Self-sufficiency is a reliable, cost-effective, long-term path and generally reflects the principle that the citizens ultimately are responsible for the wastes they create. As states phase in programs to ensure self-sufficiency, Congress should require the federal government to pursue aggressively packaging and product composition initiatives and to identify and foster creation of markets for recyclable or recycled goods. Federal assistance in these waste reduction endeavors is critical to developing national waste reduction and recycling programs to achieve self-sufficiency. Similarly, the federal government must mandate national minimum performance standards for municipal solid waste disposal facilities. Otherwise, some states may resolve capacity crises brought about by export limitations by keeping open landfills that otherwise should be closed. Also, the lack of minimum standards may encourage exports, because it might be cheaper, even taking into consideration transportation costs, for a community in a state with stringent regulations to ship to nearby states that do not have the same requirements. The development of solid waste management plans should be the primary responsibility of the states and local governments, and the Governors urge EPA to assist states in the development of comprehensive and integrated planning and regulatory programs through financial and technical assistance. Such plans should include a ten-year planning horizon and should be updated at least every five years. These plans should include a description of the following: The waste management hierarchy that maximizes cost- effective source reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials; The planning period; The waste inventory; The relationship between state and local governments; Municipal solid waste reduction and recycling programs; A waste capacity analysis for municipal solid waste (which in no way should resemble a capacity assurance requirement similar to Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA); The state's regulatory program; The process for citizen participation; and Self-certification that the state has necessary authority to implement these program elements. EPA review of plans should be limited to a check for completeness based on elements specified in this policy and raised by EPA during the public comment period of the draft plan. EPA does not have the ability or the resources to take on the solid waste planning and management responsibilities that fall under the historical and rightful domain of state and local governments. Moreover, EPA's intrusion into the planning process (in a manner similar to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA) would frustrate and impede the planning process already underway in many states. States should retain authority to implement and enforce Subtitle D programs upon passage of legislation reauthorizing RCRA, and new program elements in this legislation should be automatically delegated to states. Should a state fail to submit a complete plan, EPA should assume responsibility for the permitting and enforcement portion of a state solid waste management program after the state is given the opportunity to appeal and correct any deficiencies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduced legislation addressing one of the central problems in the Superfund Program--municipal liability. I have introduced this legislation in the past two sessions and was pleased that it was included in principle in the comprehensive Superfund reform which was supported by a wide coalition and nearly gained congressional approval last year. The Toxic Pollution Responsibility Act and the Municipal Liability Cap Act would free local governments from the costly entanglements of third party lawsuits generated by parties eager to share the costs of Superfund cleanup. Far too often, potentially responsible parties [PRP's] with obligations to contribute to cleanup costs initiate third party lawsuits against communities which had disposed simple municipal solid waste as sties which later found their way onto the National Priorities List [NPL]. Sometimes, these legal actions are predicated on serious, but erroneous, intentions of shifting cleanup costs to municipalities and taxpayers. Sometimes, however, they are just dilatory tactics meant to postpone final payments and cleanup. The success of these tactics is obvious. In the 15 years of the program, only 5 percent of the 1,245 sites on the NPL have been completely cleaned up. And for that small accomplishment, an estimated $20 billion in combined Federal, State, and private funds has been spent. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the average site clean up takes 11 years and between $25 and $40 million. This is a far cry from the original EPA estimates of 5 to 8 years and $7 million. To linger in negotiations and courts for years on end is very costly. A November 1993 Rand Corp. study of Superfund-related expenditures for 108 companies indicates that 32 percent of these combined expenses went to legal fees. There are few municipalities--particularly small communities--which can afford such exorbitant prices. To meet these costs, implicated towns would have little recourse other than tax hikes and/or reduced local services. And beyond this, these lawsuits have averted the main principle of the Superfund law--to make the polluter pay. Municipalities are not the hazardous waste polluters. They disposed simple everyday waste at these sites--coffee beans, toilet paper tubes, and banana peels--and not the industrial hazardous waste which transformed simple landfills into Superfund sites. There is no equating one with the other. And the law must reflect this distinction. Furthermore, communities performed this duty not only to fulfill their traditional local responsibilities, but at the behest of the U.S. Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. In passing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 [RCRA], Congress specifically noted that ``the collection and disposal of solid wastes should continue to be primarily the function of State, regional, and local agencies.'' Congress was clear in RCRA that local governments should hold the primary responsibilities in solid waste management within their jurisdiction. Are we to punish them now for complying so efficiently?. The two bills which I have introduced today recognize the innocence of these actions. The provisions of the bills apply to transporters and generators of municipal solid waste which have not been named by the EPA as PRP's. The first of my bills--the Toxic Pollution Responsibility Act--would entirely exempt these parties from the threat of third party suits. The second of my bills--the Municipal Liability Cap Act--would cap the total municipal liability obligation at 4 percent for each site. This cap was first advocated in 1992 by an internal EPA review board. This principle was also incorporated into last year's comprehensive Superfund reform proposal as a 10-percent cap on municipal liability. The overwhelmingly decisive passage of unfunded mandates legislation by the House demonstrates our commitment to providing overburdened local governments with long overdue relief. These are our partners in governance and serve the same citizens we serve. We owe them this much. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor one or both of these initiatives and I encourage the House Committee on Commerce to consider this important proposal for inclusion once again in a comprehensive Superfund reform package.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, convened its third hearing to hear from Dr. Haris Silajdzic, the Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1992 and 1993, Dr. Silajdzic testified in his previous position as Foreign Minister, describing the horrors taking place in his country and, knowing they could have been prevented, urgently asking for help. The hearing reviewed the tragic situation that still exists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the continued relevance of policy options that should have been taken by the international community long ago. Having to do that was frustrating to me, and I cannot begin to imagine how it must frustrate the Prime Minister. We must not, though, accept the unacceptable. That is exactly what the Serb militants want us to do. It is clear that the people of Bosnia, despite their endurance of a third winter of war, are not prepared to abandon the defense of their homes, their families, their country. Indeed, Bosnia and Herzegovina seems motivated to defend international principles, even if they must do so almost completely alone. In contrast, much to my dismay, the international community has been beaten back by the Serb militants in what has become a game of bluff. The Serb militants clearly escalate the violence, because they know we are unwilling to escalate in response. Our threats against them lack any credibility. Officials directing United Nations and NATO efforts have failed not only to stop vicious Serb aggression, but also to enforce their own Security Council resolutions. Instead, they have resorted to mutual recriminations, twisted explanations, and even blaming the victims for their fate. Last summer, the so-called Contact Group--comprising the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany--offered the Bosnian Government and the Serb militants a plan on a take-it-or-leave- it basis, with a deadline for an unconditional answer and warnings of repercussions for any side rejecting it. Sarajevo accepted it, in time and without condition. The militants effectively rejected it. As sanctions were then eased on Serbia in response, the deadline for Bosnian Serb acceptance was extended indefinitely. Earlier this month, U.S. officials presented this plan as simply a starting point for negotiations, and met with the Bosnian Serb leaders in their stronghold, Pale. To my dismay, the Secretary of State concluded that the ``Bosnian crisis is about Bosnia, but the NATO alliance is far more enduring, far more important than the Bosnian crisis.'' I was amazed and appalled. Let's keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary's comment refers to what is, in fact, a well-documented genocide, and these diplomatic gestures were made toward those who orchestrated it. Through all the complexities of the Balkans that we must consider, one generic fact remains--you reward the aggressor, and you get more aggression. It is as simple as that. The Helsinki Commission, through the leadership of the previous cochairs of the Helsinki Commission, noted that calls for a negotiated settlement, however correct, are meaningless if accompanied by an artificial neutrality and not by severe repercussions for those who operate outside acceptable parameters and seek what they want through the use of force. Collective partnerships, however desirable, will erode if partners allow one of their own to be carved into ethnic pieces. Enunciating international principles, however promising, is empty if countries abandon them for historical affinities and big-power politics. Commemorations of the end of World War II a half century ago, however appropriate, ring somewhat hollow when genocidal acts that stir memories of the Holocaust are allowed to occur. The world's commitment to human collective consciences are unaffected by the horrors that continue to be reported from Bosnia and Herzegovina today. At the hearing, Prime Minister Silajdzic expressed his gratitude to the U.S. Congress for its strong and consistent support for Bosnia and Herzegovina through this terrible period. He noted that, 50 years after Auschwitz, concentration camps again appeared in Europe, this time in Bosnia, and this time the images are brought into our homes directly, especially through television. Rather than responding on the basis of principle, justice, and order, however, he described realpolitik and pragmatism as the order of the day. When a forceful response is eliminated, he concluded, the Bosnian Serb militants and their supporters in Belgrade are the only ones who benefit. Given the current dynamics, the Prime Minister presented a reasonable course of action, specifically that the Contact Group meet at the ministerial level and set a deadline for a definite and final answer from the Serb militants. If the Serbs accept the plan in time, changes to the map could be made within 30 days, as long as these changes maintain the 51/49 percentage formula and are adopted by consensus. Negotiations on constitutional arrangements, international guarantees and other items would follow. If, on the other hand, the Serbs reject the plan, the response adopted last July by the Contact Group foreign ministers should be reaffirmed, specifically the tightening of sanctions, the expansion and better protection of designated safe havens, including the use of air strikes, and lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the latter, he added that recognition of the right to self-defense is the minimum that must be granted to the victims of this aggression. I told the Prime Minister that the Helsinki Commission is dedicated not necessarily to the defense of his country, but to the promotion of principles adopted in Helsinki almost 20 years ago. In reality, however, these two different goals have come to mean the same thing. In this new Congress, the Commission will remain true to that goal and I, therefore, support his suggestions. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress will debate the current policy options. As we do consider policy options, I would like to repeat a remark made at the hearing by fellow Helsinki Commissioner, Mr. Steny Hoyer. He argued that one of the reasons we have allowed aggression and genocide to proceed in Bosnia is that some have convinced themselves that the conflict there is a civil war--an internal ethnic conflict-- the inevitable result of age-old hatreds. To correct the picture, Mr. Hoyer quoted from a recent book, ``Bosnia, a Short History,'' by Noel Malcolm, the introduction to which states: Paradoxically, the most important reason for studying Bosnia's history is that it enables one to see that the history of Bosnia itself does not explain the origins of this war. Of course, the war could not have happened if Bosnia had not been the peculiar thing that it was, which made it the object of special ambitions and interests. But those ambitions were directed at Bosnia from outside Bosnia's borders. The biggest obstacle to all understanding of the conflict is the assumption that what has happened in that country is the product--natural, spontaneous, and at the same time necessary--of forces lying within Bosnia's own internal history. That is the myth which was carefully propagated by those who caused the conflict, who wanted the world to believe that what they and their gunmen were doing was done not by them, but by impersonal and inevitable historical forces beyond anyone's control. * * * And the world believed them.'' Why the world believed them, I do not know. Perhaps naive assumptions about what was happening as Yugoslavia disintegrated; perhaps a cynical realpolitik that cares little about human suffering. Regardless, we cannot allow the resulting disaster to continue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, over the years the Helsinki Commission has closely monitored human rights developments to Turkey. I have supported Commission efforts and have joined my colleagues in speaking out about suppression of free speech, torture, and fundamental human rights questions concerning Turkey's Kurdish citizens. As the new Chairman of the Commission, I will continue to speak out on these and other such developments. I rise today to protest the arrest of seven leaders of the Human Rights Association of Turkey's Diyarbakir branch. Prosecutors want to jail these individuals for no less than 10 years on charges that a publication they produced which documented human rights cases constitutes ``separatist propaganda.'' One of those detained, Neymetullah Gunduz, an attorney and association leader, had met with members of a Helsinki Commission delegation last October. Just weeks ago, several other human rights leaders were acquitted of similar charges. Mr. Speaker, international scrutiny has and should continue to focus on these draconian speech restrictions and other human rights problems which continue to tarnish Turkey's democratic credentials. For years now, Human Rights Association members throughout Turkey, but especially in the southeast, have been harassed, gunned down, and have had their offices forcibly closed. The Diyarbakir branch was the last allowed by authorities to function in the region, and now, it too has been silenced. Mr. Speaker, the deteriorating human rights situation facing residents of southeast Turkey can only be described in terms of fear and violence. The freedoms and liberties of all citizens have been stripped in an effort to fight terrorism, and residents are victimized by both terrorist and security forces. Mr. Speaker, Turkish leaders have expressed dismay at efforts to slow Turkey's integration into the European Union, and yet that Government has continued to pursue policies contrary to accepted international human rights norms. Their protests about congressional conditioning of U.S. aid on human rights performance ring equally hollow given the flagrant disregard for Turkey's stated human rights commitments, including those undertaken with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government of Turkey to immediately drop its case against the seven activists and to release all those political prisoners who presently languish in Turkish prisons simply for expressing their opinions.