[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.

                          ____________________