[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3215-H3219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE GOLDEN EAGLE AND VULTURE AWARDS ``COME SHOP WITH ME CAMPAIGN''
UPDATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Kaptur] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, a little over a year ago, our Jobs and Fair
Trade Caucus brought together a small coalition of working women,
consumer groups, and Members of Congress to launch what we have called
the come shop with me campaign, a campaign to educate the American
consumer about the link between the loss of U.S. jobs here at home,
high prices, static wages, sweatshop working conditions in the
developing world and even in some places here in this country and the
record profits being made by certain multinational companies which keep
U.S. prices high while relentlessly moving our jobs offshore.
We illustrated this link between loss of U.S. jobs and trade by
targeting specific corporations, going to stores and checking prices,
scouring annual reports and newspaper clippings, and most importantly,
talking to consumers and workers, getting their side of the story.
Mr. Speaker, today we embark on a golden eagle campaign to recognize
and reward fine U.S. companies that exemplify the best that is in us as
a nation. Simultaneously, we will identify those companies and chief
executive officers whose behavior is not exemplary and deserve to be
labeled only as corporate vultures.
The corporate vulture label will be given to American corporations
which are in need of vast improvement. These are the ones which exploit
our marketplace yet have downsized their work forces, which have
outsourced most of their production to foreign countries, which use
sweatshop labor abroad and then import these transshipped goods back to
the United States, keeping their prices high here at home and
maintaining a shell company in our country, even while enjoying all of
the benefits of being called an American company.
The vulture, a predator and a scavenger, is an appropriate symbol for
identifying U.S. corporations that exploit foreign workers while
getting fat on the backs of American consumers and giving back almost
nothing in return.
{time} 1515
But let us begin on the positive side of the ledger with our first
award, the Golden Eagle Award, and we will do one of these each month
between now and the end of this fiscal year. This very prestigious
Golden Eagle Award recognizes a U.S. firm and its chief executive
officer who exemplified the best in business behavior. We are proud of
them as citizens of this great country. The Golden Eagle Award will be
presented to a U.S. firm that treats its workers with dignity while
making decent profits, resists the tide of downsizing and outsourcing
production, contributes to the strengthening of our communities,
charges a reasonable price for its products, and remains and prospers
in the United States of America.
I am very pleased to present the first Golden Eagle Award on behalf
of our caucus, along with a new U.S. flag flown over our Capitol, to
Malden Mills in Methuen, MA, and more specifically I would like to
present the first Golden Eagle Award to Aaron Feuerstein, the 70-year-
old owner of Malden Mills whom the local press there has hailed as the
saint in New England.
On December 11 last year a major fire struck Malden Mills, the
company Mr. Feuerstein's grandfather founded in 1906, burning down 3 of
9 buildings and idling 1,800 employees, three-quarters of the work
force at that company. But instead of laying off his work force and
pulling up stakes for Mexico, as so many other textile and apparel
firms have done across this land, Mel Feuerstein promised he would pay
the workers their wages and, even more incredibly, their health care
benefits, for 30 days, and when it became obvious that more time was
needed, he extended the period to 60 days and then to 90 days.
When asked why he did it, Mr. Feuerstein replied simply, ``Because I
consider the employees standing in front of me as the most valuable
asset Malden Mills has. I don't consider them as just an expense which
can be cut.''
What makes Mr. Feuerstein's story all the more remarkable is that he
stayed in Methuen, MA, even in the face of adversity while most of his
much larger competitors, some of the names you will even recognize,
Sara Lee, Fruit of the Loom, continue to close plants in this country
and give pink slips to workers and move their production offshore.
Over the past 20 years 292,300 workers, mostly women, have lost their
jobs in our Nation in the textile and apparel industries. Forty percent
of that industry in our country is without a job. But Aaron Feuerstein,
and he is not a multinational, has tried to hold out, treated his
workers well and has continued to make a profit. He is a shining
example of what it means to be a good corporate citizen in the United
States and try to struggle uphill against the vultures of the mega
corporations that would like to snuff him out of business.
Mr. Feuerstein truly deserves our praise as a patriotic citizen.
Along with our first Golden Eagle Award, we will mail to him today this
brand new flag flown in his honor and his firm's honor over this
Capitol of the United States. Mr. Feuerstein, thank you, thank you for
your decency and for your leadership as a corporate citizen of this
Nation.
By contrast, we have chosen to designate the Nike Corp. as the first
recipient of our corporate vulture label. Nike has shut down all of its
production in this country. It does not even produce one athletic shoe
in the United States of America, even while it earns billions in
profits off this marketplace. In fact, their profits have quadrupled,
gone up over 4 times over the past 5 years, by aggressively marketing,
and I underline the word ``marketing,'' many of their shoe products and
marketing them to some of our most impressionable young people.
The company now commands over one-half, one-half of the men's
athletic shoe market in this country. Not a bad racket if you are Nike,
paying your women workers in Indonesia and China 12 cents an hour while
charging our kids and our families $135 to $150 a pair for shoes, but
not a good deal if you are a downsized American worker who used to make
those shoes in Maine or in California, or a consumer who has to pay
those high prices. Not a good deal for them. Or how about if you are an
anonymous Chinese woman worker whose government makes its money off the
sweat of your work? Not a good deal for you either.
Now Nike would like you to believe that they are a great American
company. In fact, they have been spending $250 million a year out of
the money they make off of you trying to convince you how good they
really are. They bought so much advertising it is hard to turn on
television without seeing it. Nike has virtually bought off the entire
American sporting world to delude the American consumer about what is
really going on here.
The truth of the matter is that all of Nike's 75,000 production
workers, mostly poverty-stricken women and hungry girls, are in
countries like Indonesia, Thailand, China, and South Korea, countries
which are notorious for their sweat shop working conditions and
bleeding all they can out of their people until they are finished with
them. Then they throw them out the door, and there is another million
people who are hungry, lined up to replace them to work for 10 cents an
hour.
Now here at home Nike threatens to tear up our communities with their
relentless marketing to our most vulnerable kids. You know what is
happening. In some places in this country our children are killing one
another for these shoes. As Phil Mushnick, a sports writer for the New
York Post, courageously pointed out when he refused to endorse Nike
shoes, he said, ``I saw the prices going from $40 to $90 to $100 and
then $150, and in full cognizance that people were dying for these
shoes, inner city kids, too, the kids that Nike was
[[Page H3216]]
targeting with their inner city role model marketing binge.''
For this our caucus can think of no other company more deserving of
the label ``corporate vulture'' than Nike Corp.
Now Mr. Philip Knight, the chairman of the board of that company and
its chief executive officer, took home compensation of over $1.5
million last year, not including his stock bonuses and other benefits
and perks. I often ask myself whether this type of individual has any
conscience left or if he ever had any, to profit personally off the
meager wages paid to Asian women and the U.S. workers he has sent to
the unemployment lines. Mr. Knight and Nike, for you our caucus
designates the ``vulture'' label.
Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to place in the Record this evening in our
battle, continuing battle for job creation in this country to give our
workers and our communities a fair shake in the international market,
some information on a bill moving through this Congress that Members
should know about. It concerns our patent laws, the very basis for our
collective intelligence as a people, the foundation of our new products
where the genius for America's future lies.
The U.S. patent system is under attack, and the United States,
without question, has the largest body of intellectual property in the
world, protected from the time of George Washington and created by the
first Congress of the United States. If this system is weakened, and
there are many who would like to see that it is, America's job creation
capacity will be even more seriously eroded.
Today I rise to point out that one of the bills moving in this
Congress is a grave threat to our traditional patent system; that bill
number, H.R. 2533, with a very innocuous title, ``The U.S. Intellectual
Property Organization Act of 1995.''
Why am I concerned about it? Because why should our Nation pass a law
that puts us at a greater competitive disadvantage with our trade
competitors around the world? H.R. 2533 is tantamount to selling off
our national heritage bit by bit. H.R. 2533 would subject our patent
examiners to undue pressure by special interests by removing their
current civil service status.
You know, there ought to be some things in this town not for sale.
H.R. 2533 would undermine the Constitution of this country by
removing the Patent Office as a core Federal function, and
congressional oversight in that bill becomes almost nil.
I ask my colleagues to pay attention to this bill, oppose H.R. 2533,
and support H.R. 359, which restores patent terms and gives our patent
and inventors, the geniuses of our country who are inventing our
future, the kind of protection and respect that the Government of the
United States and the people of the United States owe them.
Let me say to my colleagues, do not be fooled by the wolves at the
door, and let me say you might ask yourself the question, ``Well, who
would want to tamper with our patent system? In whose interests would
it be to weaken the protections we give to our inventors?''
There is an article I am going to be placing in the Record called the
National Security Report, lead article, ``American Patent System
Subject To Foreign Power Grab.'' There are plenty of powerful interests
around the world that would like to own the competitive genius of this
country, and they know the only way they can do that is by changing the
laws.
In fact, the Constitution of the United States, and I quote from the
article I am going to enter in the Record,
In the war for global economic dominance, the fiercest
battles today are over intellectual property. Where nations
once fought for control of trade routes and raw materials,
they now fight for exclusive rights to ideas, innovations and
inventions.
The article referred to is as follows:
[From the ROA National Security Report, Sept. 1995]
American Patent System Subject To Foreign Power Grab
(By Beverly Selby)
The recent book Patent Wars: The Battle To Own The World's
Technology, best describes the reason for the current
legislative struggle in the 104th Congress about intellectual
property. It states, ``In the war for global economic
dominance, the fiercest battles today are over intellectual
property. Where nations once fought for control of trade
routes and raw materials, they now fight for exclusive rights
to ideas, innovations and inventions.''
In 1947, intellectual property comprised just under 10
percent of all U.S. exports; today, the estimate is that
``intellectual property accounts for well over 50 percent of
all American exports.'' The United States is a major player
in the world community because it has the largest body of
intellectual property in the world. Job creation
opportunities are directly linked with the patent system
which has been the secret of America's job creation and
economic power for over 200 years.
Today, in the 104th Congress, the debate is about restoring
the patent term, and other issues which will radically change
the American patent system. Legislation has been introduced
to restore the patent term, publish patent applications
before a patent is issued, re-examine issued patents, and
create a government Patent and Trademark Corporation.
On one side of the argument are multinational companies and
foreign interests, and on the other are independent
inventors, small businessmen, venture capitalists and
universities. The major issue is the patent term. Several
concerns have been raised about pending legislation and its
effect on the American patent system.
Last year when Congress approved legislation implementing
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a
provision was included that dramatically changed the way
the U.S. patents will be issued. Historically, patents
have been awarded for a term of 17 years beginning when
the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) grants a patent to an
applicant. However, beginning on 8 June of this year, the
PTO will issue patents for a 20-year term beginning when
the application was filed with the PTO.
The net effect of this change is to dramatically shorten
the useful life of breakthrough patents held by emerging
companies, which have led to the creation of entire
industries. Patents of highly technical, cutting-edge
discoveries take years to issue. Under current law, such a
delay in inconsequential as the patent holder is assured a
minimum patent term of 17 years because the time does not
begin to tick until the patent is issued. Not so with the new
20 year standard, as it often takes the PTO eight to nine
years or even longer to issue a patent, leaving the patent
holder with only a few years of protection, if any.
Given the vast amount of capital needed to sustain many
high growth companies, retaining exclusive use of the
underlying intellectual property for a full 17 years is
imperative if any emerging company is to recover its costs
and provide a competitive rate of return to its venture
investors.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) has introduced
legislation that would cure the problem of a shortened patent
term. His bill, H.R. 359, would make U.S. patents valid for
17 years from date of issue, or 20 years from date of filing,
whichever period is longer. During the course of the GATT
debate last fall, United States Trade Representative Mickey
Kantor agreed the Administration would not oppose legislation
guaranteeing a minimum patent term of 17 years as it would
not constitute a violation of the GATT agreement.
Many changes to the American patent laws were proposed in
1994. The patent term limitation was passed because it was
piggybacked on the GATT-implementing legislation. This change
in the patent term weakens the American patent system and
penalizes the breakthrough patents. Also, these changes
facilitate widespread copying of the more important
inventions by foreign companies.
Three of these changes, when taken in combination,
establish a disastrous scenario that clarifies the reason for
the Japanese insistence that America adopt these changes.
These three changes are (a) a patent term measured from the
filing date (the GATT patent term), (b) publication in 18
months and (c) three party re-examination.
The scenario for important breakthrough (e.g. high-tech)
patent applications is disturbing. The breakthrough patent
application is filed and then it is published in 18 months.
Because of its importance, large multinational companies
rally to oppose the breakthrough patent by filing prior art,
and most likely by filing arguments opposing the issuance of
the breakthrough patent. Because of the significantly longer
pendency for important patents, the breakthrough patent is
far from issuing when the oppositions' are filed. The patent
examiner, who is reluctant to issue a breakthrough patent
having broad claims, enters new rejections based upon the
prior art submitted by the opposition. This further increases
the pendency time.
Currently, the patent officer permits the filing of
multiple re-examinations in sequence. Therefore, to be
consistent, the patent office will undoubtedly permit the
filing of multiple oppositions in sequence, opposition after
opposition, causing the examiner to enter new rejections as
new art is cited, further delaying the issuance of the
patent. Under the GATT patent term, the term of breakthrough
patent applications is further reduced by the long pendency.
Because of the 18 month publication requirement, companies
worldwide are able to copy and to develop the breakthrough
technology while the patent application is still pending. As
currently practiced in Japan, and as a direct result of the
publication,
[[Page H3217]]
competitive products begin to appear in the marketplace and
large companies ``flood'' the PTO with multitudes of
mundane improvement patents on the breakthrough
technology. As in Japan, these mundane improvement patents
are often issued before the breakthrough patent because of
the prosecution delays inherent with such a breakthrough
patent, and because delaying oppositions are not filed for
mundane improvement patents.
When and if the breakthrough patent finally issues, much of
the GATT patent term has expired, and its patent owner will
be competing with mature products in the marketplace and
``floods'' of mundane improvement patents based upon the
patent owner's originally published breakthrough technology.
However, this is far from the end of the ordeal for the
patent owner. Now the competitors file a sequence of re-
examinations, one after another. A re-examination is a post-
issuance opposition. The company behind the re-examination is
kept secret, and an attorney is usually named as the re-
examination requester. A re-examination can take more than
five years. After a re-examination is completed, another, and
another, and another, can be filed. A patent cannot be
realistically enforced while a re-examination is in progress.
Hence, a sequence of re-examinations further dissipates the
effective term of the patent.
Now, new legislation is in progress to make re-examinations
third party proceedings. Presently, a re-examination is
conducted by the patent examiner. The requester can file
initial papers but is not permitted to intervene in the re-
examination. The new legislation permits the requester to
participate in the re-examination. This will change a re-
examination into a form of litigation with a team of opposing
attorneys arguing issues, filing briefs, and performing many
other complex litigation activities. The PTO has trouble
hiring and training qualified patent examiners; now the PTO
will have to train patent examiners to be litigation judges.
Even worse, many breakthrough inventions come from small
companies and individual inventors with limited resources.
Matching up such a patent owner against a team of attorneys
from a large foreign company will usually end in devastation
of the breakthrough patent. Even if the patent owner
prevails, another re-examination will be requested by another
large company citing a different stack of prior art
references and the attack will start all over again.
In Japan the combination of conditions has resulted in
important technologies being exposed and unprotected: a
patent term measured from the filing date (the GATT patent
term), publication after 18 months, and third party
oppositions. This has resulted in Japan becoming a nation of
copiers. Now, those seeking to copy American technology are
demanding legislation to deprive America of its innovative
talents. America must stand firm behind its inventors, small
businesses, research universities, and entrepreneurs, and not
permit its intellectual property to be copied with impunity.
Research universities also share a longstanding interest
and an active involvement in intellectual property issues
that affect higher education. Since the passage of Public Law
96-517 (The Bayh-Dole Act) in 1980, research universities
have been actively engaged in establishing patent protection
for university-developed technology and subsequently
licensing their patents to industry and small business.
Innovations resulting from university research are deemed
largely responsible for the spectacular growth of the
biotechnology industry, and of significant importance to the
microelectronics, computer and health care industries. These
innovations are culled from the fundamental scientific
explorations of university faculty, students and research
scientists and, as a result, tend to be at the cutting edge
of scientific theory and practice. As a consequence, patent
applications on university inventions have historically spent
years in the PTO before ultimately issuing as patents.
University licensing programs are generally dependent upon
patent protection to induce mature companies as well as small
businesses and start-up company investors to take a financial
risk on backing the further development of new, and often
early-stage, technologies. Consequently, university
technology transfer managers were indeed concerned to find
that H.R. 5110, in implementing the GATT, had potentially
shortened the long-established patent term of 17 years from
date of patent issue, and had done so despite the fact that
such action was not required by the GATT.
Our interests in enhancing the successful transfer of
university technology, and in helping to keep the U.S. as a
front-runner in commercially exploiting new technologies, are
not well-served by potentially diminishing the useful life of
our patents in an effort to reap an unquantified benefit from
harmonization with potentially less innovative nations who
stand to gain from shorter patent terms.
These are but a few of the concerns of the independent
inventor, venture capitalists and universities who are
relying on their patents for income and to create new
industries. What must be remembered is the fact that the U.S.
system is unique and was created by the founding fathers as a
means of generating jobs and prosperity for the country. To
date, the United States is leading the world in fundamental
patents, which are most often cited in patent literature
worldwide.
These patents are the way to chart the prosperity and
future for a nation because the patent holder will derive
income over a period of time. From those patents spring new
industries. At stake in the legislation now before Congress
is whether the patent system should be used to benefit the
American taxpayer and voter, or the world at large. The
choice of the future is ours.--NSR
nsr focus
Experts warn that the current debate in Congress on patent
regulations can have a serious impact on the national
security of our nation. Critics of the new system, which
resulted from GATT negotiations and a deal cut with Japan
last year, contend that foreign firms will gain access to
American inventions, ultimately weakening the international
competitiveness of the United States.
Robert Rines, an inventor and prominent Boston lawyer,
claims that the new system is going to wreak havoc with
breakthrough inventions, which, historically, have come from
individual inventors or small firms, not from large
corporations.
The U.S. system awards patents to the original inventor,
not the first to file, as in other countries. Under the new
20-month publication provision, key concepts of an invention
become available to anyone before the inventor has a chance
to refile and win protection. That is why Japan, the
multinations and other big companies love it, and why,
according to Rines, ``the little guys are deathly afraid of
it.''
Beverly Selby's article is a fundamental document which
clearly details the fear and concerns of the small businesses
and American inventors, who, at the core of the U.S.
innovative process, are faced with new patent provisions that
fail to protect American technology and innovative small
business--AACG
Ms. KAPTUR. I ask my colleagues again to support H.R. 359 and oppose
H.R. 2533, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who I understand has some remarks that
he would like to make at this point.
{time} 1530
independence for the belarus republic
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak, if I could for a few minutes, on the
issue of independence for the Belarus Republic.
Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 1996, Belarusan President, Aleksandr
Lukashenka met with Russian President Boris Yeltsin to discuss a new
union state. The following day, Lukashenka met with Russian Prime
Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to discuss the plan, which would
politically, economically, and culturally tie Belarus with Russia.
The collapse of the Soviet Union humiliated and disgraced this former
global superpower. The Russian Duma has recently voted to declare void
the 1991 agreement dissolving the Soviet Union--a declaration which
America must clearly not recognize as having any validity. Now, in an
attempt to save face and regain some of the lost Soviet power,
President Yeltsin and President Lukashenka are acting to reintegrate
the independent Republic of Belarus with Russia. This new confederacy,
open to all of the former Soviet Republics, would place Russia at its
core. The two leaders discussed the possibility of one currency and a
single constitution.
Belarus' geographical location puts it in a particularly vulnerable
position for the reintegration plan. In addition, Belarusans were the
last to leave the Soviet Union, while its government has been the most
willing to rejoin forces with Russia.
According to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, the new union with Belarus
and Russia would ``be built from two individual countries that would
remain separate.''
In response to this new plan, last Sunday 15,000 members of the
Belarusan Popular Front marched in the Belarusan capital of Minsk in
opposition to the threat of reintegration. These marchers fear that
President Lukashenka will in fact relinquish Belarus' current
democratic sovereignty.
As a supporter of the American-Belarusan community, and of those
members of the Popular Front, I strongly believe that we must act to
prevent this new union of Russia and Belarus. Accordingly, I am
drafting a concurrent resolution that expresses the sense of Congress
that we recognize March 24 as the anniversary of the proclamation of
Belarusan independence, express our concern over the
[[Page H3218]]
Belarusan Governments' infringement on freedom of the press in direct
violation of the Helsinki accords and the constitution of the Republic
of Belarus, and state our misgivings about the proposed association
between Russia and Belarus.
Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important at this moment in history
that we proclaim our strong support for the Republic of Belarus and the
other Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. Events in
both Moscow and in Minsk itself raise serious concerns about the long-
term viability of an independent Belarus state and nation.
Last Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend a commemoration of the
establishment of the anniversary of the Belarusan Republic, sponsored
by the Belarusan American Association of New Jersey and held in New
Brunswick, NJ. How ironic that the very day on which Belarusan-
Americans were celebrating their heritage, Belarusans in Minsk were
protesting the new union between Russia and Belarus.
On June 23, 1994, Belarus held its first multiparty Presidential
elections since its independence, with a run-off election on July 10,
1994. The winner, Aleksandr Lukashanka, was a former Communist Party
official and former head of the parliament's Anti-Corruption Committee.
The Helsinki Commission, which observed the elections, proclaimed that
the elections were conducted in conformance with international
practices and that the results reflected the freely expressed will of
the electorate. Unfortunately, those results have left the country with
a President and government that has not shown the degree of commitment
to democratic values, nor the independence from Moscow, that Belarusan-
Americans and their friends had hoped for.
Last fall, Belarus suddenly made it to page 1 news when an American
hot-air balloon was shot down in what seemed like an event out of the
cold war. For an American public clearly not overly familiar with
Belarus, this incident clearly put the county in a very bad light.
Belarusan-Americans condemned this action, just as they have condemned
the anti-democratic excesses of the new government in Minsk.
Clearly, Belarus is at an important crossroads. The unique language
and culture of Belarus, which courageous Belarusans preserved during
the years of Soviet domination, is now under attack--from no less a
source than the Government of Belarus itself. While it is inevitable
that the people of Belarus should feel some cultural affinity with
their Russian neighbors, and seek to promote good relations in trade
and other areas, the overly pro-Moscow tendencies of President
Lukashanka should be questioned.
Meanwhile, the ongoing Russian military action in Chechnya raises
serious questions about the possibility of imperialistic designs by
Russia on former nations under its empire--whether Czarist or Soviet.
President Yeltsin, whose control over the situation seems to be less
than secure, has bowed to nationalist and militarist forces in Moscow
on the Chechnya question. Furthermore, President Yeltsin, whose health
and popularity are both failing, may well be replaced by the Communist/
Russian nationalist forces who have made no secret of their desire to
reunite the old Soviet Empire.
While the official status of Chechnya as a part of the Russian
Federation is different from the other independent former Soviet
Republics, such as Belarus, Russian actions there are creating a very
troubling precedent indicative of a desire by Moscow to reassert
control over what the Russians call the near-abroad.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has sought
to provide economic assistance to the Newly Independent States. Amid
the pressures that many of these states are now under because of
structural economic problems, ethnic tensions and the threat of Russian
imperialism, we must maintain a strong commitment to helping these
emerging nations achieve a democratic political system and a market
economy. For nearly half a century, we devoted considerable sums to
containing the Soviet threat. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed,
we have the opportunity, with much more modest levels of spending, to
invest in the long-term stability of these formerly captive nations.
Unfortunately, events are working against us. On the one hand, neo-
isolationist forces in Congress are trying to diminish the American
commitment to supporting freedom and economic reconstruction in the
former Soviet Empire. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that
finally became law earlier this year, after a long delay over an
unrelated issue, shows an obvious lessening of the enthusiasm for
American involvement in the former Soviet Union that seemed so intense
just a few years ago. On the other hand, the trends in Russia, Belarus
and elsewhere against reform and towards the election of former
Communists is giving our isolationist forces here strong ammunition.
March 25 is the actual date that Belarusans throughout the world
salute the sacrifices and bravery of the members of the Council of the
Belarusan Democratic Republic, who in 1918 liberated their country from
the harsh and oppressive Czarist and Soviet rule. Representatives of
the United Councils of the First Belarusan Convention, meeting in the
capital city of Miensk (Minsk), issued a proclamation of independence
of the Belarusan National Republic, adopted a national flag with three
horizontal stripes--white, red and white--and received widespread
international recognition. For the first time since 1795, the Belarusan
nation re-emerged as an independent state. Despite the hardships from
the First World War and the revolutionary turmoil in neighboring
Russia, the Belarusan language, culture and national identity
flourished.
Unfortunately, the freedom and independence of the Belarusan nation
did not last long. In 1921, Russia's Bolshevik regime invaded and
conquered the newly independent state and renamed it the Byelorussian
Soviet Socialist Republic. For the next 70 years, the Belarusan people
endured a totalitarian Communists regime, denied the most basic civil
and political rights. Millions of Belarusan nationals were
exterminated. Although the Byelorussian SSR was officially considered a
member of the United Nations since 1945, the country was in fact
politically and militarily dominated by Moscow, with the Belarusans'
aspirations for self-government and independence completed subverted.
The Belarusan Parliament initially declared its independence back in
July of 1990. Following the attempted coup against Soviet President
Gorbachev in August of 1991, the Speaker of the Belarusan Supreme
council, Stanislav Shuskevich invited Russian President Boris Yeltsin
and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk to Belarus in December 1991 to
finally bury the moribund Soviet Union. In its place was established
the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS] with Miensk as its
administrative seat. Although the Belarusan Parliament, as with many
other emerging East European democracies, was dominated by former
Communists, protections for Belarusan culture, as well as basic human
rights, were enacted.
Since my wife Sarah is part Belarusan, I have had the opportunity to
become particularly familiar with this proud people. The Sixth
Congressional District of New Jersey, which covers most of Middlesex
County, is home to a significant Belarusan-American community. Since
the fall of the Soviet Union, Americans in general have had the
opportunity to learn more about this distinct land and its culture. In
1994 President Clinton visited the Belarusan capital, and a variety of
United States public and private sector initiatives have been launched
in Belarus. Let us resolve to continue to improve the economic,
security and cultural ties between the great peoples of the United
States and the Republic of Belarus.
Mr. SPEAKER, I include for the Record the concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution referred to is as follows:
Whereas, the seedlings of an independent and democratic
Belarus, for which generations of Belarusan patriots had
fought and died, are now in danger of being swept away as a
result of the policies of Belarusan President Alaksandr
Lukashenka and the efforts of Russian nationalist leaders to
reunite the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet
Union;
Whereas, March 25 is the date that Belarusans throughout
the world salute the
[[Page H3219]]
sacrifices and bravery of the members of the Council of the
Belarusan Democratic Republic, who in 1918 liberated their
country from the harsh and oppressive Czarist and Soviet
rule. Representatives of the United Councils of the First
Belarusan Convention, meeting in Miensk (Minsk), on March 25,
1918, issued a proclamation of independence of the Belarusan
National Republic, adopted a national flag with three
horizontal stripes of white, red and white, and subsequently
received widespread international recognition
Whereas, the Russian Duma in March 1996 has voted to
declare void the 1991 agreement dissolving the Soviet Union;
Whereas, the Government of President Lukashenka has
monopolized the mass media, undermined the constitutional
foundation for the separation of powers, suppressed the
freedom of the press, defamed the national culture, narrowed
the educational basis for patriotic upbringing of youth,
maligned the Belarusan language, and undercut the ground for
all-Belarusan unity.
Now, therefore be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is the
Sense of the House of Representatives that, March 25 be
recognized as the anniversary of the declaration of an
Independent Belarusan State;
Be it further resolved, That the United States press the
Government of President Lukashenka to abide by the provisions
of the Helsinki Accords and the Constitution of the Republic
of Belarus and guarantee freedom of the press, allow for the
flowering of Belarusan culture and enforce the separation of
powers;
Be it further resolved, That the Congress of the United
States join with the people of Belarus and Belarusans
throughout the world in the defending the statehood and
democracy of Belarus, sustaining the country's Constitution
and preventing the loss by Belarus of its hard-won nationhood
and its opportunity to survive as an equal and full-fledged
member-state among the sovereign nations of the world.
____________________