[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 111 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8547-H8552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONGRATULATING LITHUANIA ON 1,000TH ANNIVERSARY

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 285) congratulating the people of the 
Republic of Lithuania on the 1000th anniversary of Lithuania and 
celebrating the rich history of Lithuania.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 285

       Whereas the name ``Lithuania'' first appeared in European 
     records in the year 1009, when it was mentioned in the German 
     manuscript ``Annals of Quedlinburg'';
       Whereas Duke Mindaugas united various Baltic tribes and 
     established the state of Lithuania during the period between 
     1236 and 1263;
       Whereas, by the end of the 14th century, Lithuania was the 
     largest country in Europe,

[[Page H8548]]

     encompassing territory from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea;
       Whereas Vilnius University was founded in 1579 and remained 
     the easternmost university in Europe for 200 years;
       Whereas the February 16, 1918, Act of Independence of 
     Lithuania led to the establishment of Lithuania as a 
     sovereign and democratic state;
       Whereas, under the cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on 
     June 17, 1940, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were forcibly 
     incorporated into the Soviet Union in violation of pre-
     existing peace treaties;
       Whereas, during 50 years of Soviet occupation of the Baltic 
     states, Congress strongly, consistently, and on a bipartisan 
     basis refused to legally recognize the incorporation of 
     Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania by the Soviet Union;
       Whereas, on March 11, 1990, the Republic of Lithuania was 
     restored and Lithuania became the first Soviet republic to 
     declare independence;
       Whereas, on September 2, 1991, the United States Government 
     formally recognized Lithuania as an independent and sovereign 
     nation;
       Whereas Lithuania has successfully developed into a free 
     and democratic country, with a free market economy and 
     respect for the rule of law;
       Whereas Lithuania is a full and responsible member of the 
     United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
     in Europe, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization;
       Whereas, in 2007, the United States Government and the 
     Government of Lithuania celebrated 85 years of continuous 
     diplomatic relations;
       Whereas the United States Government welcomes and 
     appreciates efforts by the Government of Lithuania to 
     maintain international peace and stability in Europe and 
     around the world by contributing to international civilian 
     and military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, 
     and Georgia; and
       Whereas Lithuania is a strong and loyal ally of the United 
     States, and the people of Lithuania share common values with 
     the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) congratulates the people of the Republic of Lithuania 
     on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of Lithuania;
       (2) commends the Government of Lithuania for its success in 
     implementing political and economic reforms, for establishing 
     political, religious and economic freedoms, and for its 
     commitment to human rights; and
       (3) recognizes the close and enduring relationship between 
     the United States Government and the Government of Lithuania.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Klein) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 285, 
which recognizes the 1,000-year anniversary of Lithuania, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  I wish to thank my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 
introducing this resolution. It allows the House to add its voice to 
the Senate's in congratulating the Lithuanian people on this momentous 
occasion.
  In the year 1009, the name Lithuania first appeared in European 
records when it was mentioned in a German manuscript. The gentleman 
from Illinois would note that a number of us, Democrats and 
Republicans, were in Lithuania earlier this year and had the 
opportunity to meet with the government and talk about the history. It 
was a great opportunity.
  Since that time, the country has had a long and distinguished 
history. The state of Lithuania was established by Duke Mindaugas in 
1236; yet his official coronation as King was on July 6, 1253, a date 
that is still celebrated as a national holiday in Lithuania.
  By the end of the 14th century, Lithuania had become the largest 
country in Europe. On February 16, 1918, Lithuania was established as a 
sovereign and democratic state.
  In June 1940, Lithuania, along with its Baltic neighbors, was 
forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union. On March 11, 1990, 
Lithuania became the first Soviet Republic to declare its independence.
  Lithuania has since become an active member of the national 
community, helping to strengthen Euro-Atlantic relations through its 
participation in NATO and the European Union.
  Lithuania has helped secure peace and stability through its many 
contributions to international and civilian military operations in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans.
  Lithuania has also been a strong ally of the United States, as our 
countries marked 85 years of continuous diplomatic relations in 2007.
  The subject of Lithuanian-American relations came up during our 
recent participation in the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue. 
Members of Congress felt it was important to urge Lithuania to enact 
property restitution laws in order to bring some sense of justice and 
closure to the families of victims of the Holocaust, and I look forward 
to working with our colleagues in Lithuania to resolve this issue. This 
will surely continue to strengthen our relationship.
  While we Americans celebrate our national independence on July 4th, 
the people of Lithuania commemorated their day of statehood on July 6. 
It is therefore appropriate, during this festive month, that the House 
passes a resolution to congratulate Lithuania on its 1,000th 
anniversary and reaffirm the close ties between our peoples and 
countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the author of the resolution, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Shimkus).
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor humbly as a fourth-
generation immigrant family of Lithuania. Of course, I, like many 
Americans today, are really a Heinz 57 mutt, also having German 
ancestry and Irish ancestry, and we think some American Indian 
ancestry. But ``Shimkus'' is ethnically Lithuanian.
  So I always kid and joke that it's only in Washington, D.C., that you 
automatically become an expert in a region of the world based upon the 
ethnicity of your last name. But it's a labor of love that I've taken, 
and, hence, I bring this resolution to the floor to place Lithuania in 
the spotlight.
  Before I do that, I want to read a letter from three friends and 
former leaders of the Baltic countries and 22 total leaders: Valdas 
Adamkus, a former President of the Republic of Lithuania; Vaira Vike-
Freiberga, former President of the Republic of Latvia; and Mart Laar, 
who is the former Prime Minister of Estonia.
  I'm not going to read the whole letter. I'm going to highlight a few 
sections, and then I'm going to transition to state why resolutions 
like this are important, because sometimes we go, Oh, why do we do 
these resolutions? I think the letter that they have written highlights 
the importance of us continuing to mention our friends and allies and 
talk about the strengths of the relationships.
  This letter is about three pages long, but I just highlight a few 
short snippets in each one. Again, these are 22 leaders of not just the 
Baltic areas, but the Central and Eastern European democracies. Most of 
these are now no longer in public service but are former leaders.
  They say, ``Twenty years after the end of the cold war, however, we 
see that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at the 
heart of American foreign policy.''
  ``Americans have largely stopped worrying about. . .'' Now, that's 
positive about some of our successes, but it also raises concerns.
  ``There is a growing sense of nervousness in the region.''
  ``NATO today seems weaker than when we joined.'' They also say, ``The 
region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome and should 
not necessarily lead to a weakening of the transatlantic 
relationship.''
  Also stated is ``there are fewer and fewer leaders who emerged from 
the revolutions of 1989 who experienced Washington's key role in 
securing our democratic transition and anchoring our countries in NATO 
and EU. A new

[[Page H8549]]

generation of leaders is emerging who do not have those memories and 
follow a more `realistic' policy.''
  I think that's important for us to understand. These countries fought 
for freedom, but the leaders who fought for freedom are now leaving 
power. And this new generation needs to be reminded of the strength of 
the U.S. relationship to the former captive nations from the Eastern 
European countries.
  They also, in here, talk about, ``We welcome the `reset' '' . . . 
``but there is also nervousness in our capitals.''
  ``Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to `realism' 
at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to 
fight for principle.'' And that's what I hope we continue to do.
  ``We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe need to 
reinvest in the transatlantic relationship.''
  So I appreciate the committee allowing the resolution to come to the 
floor because this is another way in which we can talk about the 
important relationship that we have.
  The resolution, itself, talks about the 1,000 years which they're 
celebrating in Lithuania, the 1,000 years when the name Lithuania first 
appeared in written documents. Lithuania was around before that, but 
that makes us look like little kids here in the United States; hence, 
the world is much older than our great Constitutional Republic.
  There's a lot of ``whereas'' in the resolution. Whereas, under the 
cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on June 17, 1940, Latvia, 
Estonia, and Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union 
in violation of preexisting peace treaties.
  Another whereas: Lithuania is a full and responsible member of the 
United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  Full partners--full voting partners and full participants in the 
defense organization known as NATO and the article 5 guarantee to both 
themselves and other NATO countries.
  Another whereas: As contributing to international civilian and 
military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Georgia, 
which are all important aspects that they have stepped up to the plate 
to be part of this commitment to securing democracy and freedom in the 
war on terror.
  So we, as a country, get a chance, through this resolution, to 
congratulate the people of the Republic of Lithuania for this 
historical timeframe. We commend the Government of Lithuania for their 
commitment to democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and being allies in 
the campaigns that we, in connection with our treaty obligations and 
the greatest organization that's kept peace and stability that the 
world has known, which is NATO, their role in that. And we want to 
continue to recognize that this relationship is strong now and we will 
do all we can in our part to make it strong in the future.
  I think my colleague from Florida mentioned, also, challenges that 
we've addressed, and we will continue to work on those so that our 
relationship becomes stronger in a world where democracy and freedom 
needs to flourish for people to live the lifestyles that they will grow 
and flourish individually.
  I thank the committee for allowing this to the floor, and I thank 
Congressman Smith for allowing me this time.

  An Open Letter to the Obama Administration From Central and Eastern 
                                 Europe

       We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern 
     European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care 
     deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as 
     well as the future quality of relations between the United 
     States and the countries of our region. We write in our 
     personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies 
     of the United States as well as committed Europeans.
       Our nations are deeply indebted to the United States. Many 
     of us know firsthand how important your support for our 
     freedom and independence was during the dark Cold War years. 
     U.S. engagement and support was essential for the success of 
     our democratic transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty 
     years ago. Without Washington's vision and leadership, it is 
     doubtful that we would be in NATO and even the EU today.
       We have worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a 
     two-way street. We are Atlanticist voices within NATO and the 
     EU. Our nations have been engaged alongside the United States 
     in the Balkans, Iraq, and today in Afghanistan. While our 
     contribution may at times seem modest compared to your own, 
     it is significant when measured as a percentage of our 
     population and GDP. Having benefited from your support for 
     liberal democracy and liberal values in the past, we have 
     been among your strongest supporters when it comes to 
     promoting democracy and human rights around the world.
       Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, however, we see 
     that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at 
     the heart of American foreign policy. As the new Obama 
     Administration sets its foreign-policy priorities, our region 
     is one part of the world that Americans have largely stopped 
     worrying about. Indeed, at times we have the impression that 
     U.S. policy was so successful that many American officials 
     have now concluded that our region is fixed once and for all 
     and that they could ``check the box'' and move on to other 
     more pressing strategic issues. Relations have been so close 
     that many on both sides assume that the region's 
     transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability and 
     prosperity, would last forever.
       That view is premature. All is not well either in our 
     region or in the transatlantic relationship. Central and 
     Eastern Europe is at a political crossroads and today there 
     is a growing sense of nervousness in the region. The global 
     economic crisis is impacting on our region and, as elsewhere, 
     runs the risk that our societies will look inward and be less 
     engaged with the outside world. At the same time, storm 
     clouds are starting to gather on the foreign policy horizon. 
     Like you, we await the results of the EU Commission's 
     investigation on the origins of the Russo-Georgian war. But 
     the political impact of that war on the region has already 
     been felt. Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the 
     Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core 
     principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, 
     and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member 
     of NATO's Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic 
     Partnership Council--all in the name of defending a sphere of 
     influence on its borders.
       Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new 
     members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many 
     of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant--
     and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question 
     whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense 
     in some future crises. Europe's dependence on Russian energy 
     also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance. 
     President Obama's remark at the recent NATO summit on the 
     need to provide credible defense plans for all Alliance 
     members was welcome, but not sufficient to allay fears about 
     the Alliance's defense readiness. Our ability to continue to 
     sustain public support at home for our contributions to 
     Alliance missions abroad also depends on us being able to 
     show that our own security concerns are being addressed in 
     NATO and close cooperation with the United States.
       We must also recognize that America's popularity and 
     influence have fallen in many of our countries as well. 
     Public opinions polls, including the German Marshall Fund's 
     own Transatlantic Trends survey, show that our region has not 
     been immune to the wave of criticism and anti-Americanism 
     that has swept Europe in recent years and which led to a 
     collapse in sympathy and support for the United States during 
     the Bush years. Some leaders in the region have paid a 
     political price for their support of the unpopular war in 
     Iraq. In the future they may be more careful in taking 
     political risks to support the United States. We believe that 
     the onset of a new Administration has created a new opening 
     to reverse this trend but it will take time and work on both 
     sides to make up for what we have lost.
       In many ways the EU has become the major factor and 
     institution in our lives. To many people it seems more 
     relevant and important today than the link to the United 
     States. To some degree it is a logical outcome of the 
     integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU. Our 
     leaders and officials spend much more time in EU meetings 
     than in consultations with Washington, where they often 
     struggle to attract attention or make our voices heard. The 
     region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome 
     and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the 
     transatlantic relationship. The hope was that integration of 
     Central and Eastern Europe into the EU would actually 
     strengthen the strategic cooperation between Europe and 
     America.
       However, there is a danger that instead of being a pro-
     Atlantic voice in the EU, support for a more global 
     partnership with Washington in the region might wane over 
     time. The region does not have the tradition of assuming a 
     more global role. Some items on the transatlantic agenda, 
     such as climate change, do not resonate in the Central and 
     Eastern European publics to the same extent as they do in 
     Western Europe.
       Leadership change is also coming in Central and Eastern 
     Europe. Next to those, there are fewer and fewer leaders who 
     emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced 
     Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition 
     and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation 
     of leaders is emerging who do not have these memories and 
     follow a more ``realistic'' policy. At the same time, the 
     former Communist elites, whose insistence on political and 
     economic power significantly contributed to the crises in 
     many CEE countries, gradually disappear from the political 
     scene.

[[Page H8550]]

     The current political and economic turmoil and the fallout 
     from the global economic crisis provide additional 
     opportunities for the forces of nationalism, extremism, 
     populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in 
     some our countries.
       This means that the United States is likely to lose many of 
     its traditional interlocutors in the region. The new elites 
     replacing them may not share the idealism--or have the same 
     relationship to the United States--as the generation who led 
     the democratic transition. They may be more calculating in 
     their support of the United States as well as more parochial 
     in their world view. And in Washington a similar transition 
     is taking place as many of the leaders and personalities we 
     have worked with and relied on are also leaving politics.
       And then there is the issue of how to deal with Russia, Our 
     hopes that relations with Russia would improve and that 
     Moscow would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty 
     and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been 
     fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a revisionist power 
     pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and 
     methods. At a global level, Russia has become, on most 
     issues, a status-quo power. But at a regional level and vis-
     a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a revisionist one. 
     It challenges our claims to our own historical experiences. 
     It asserts a privileged position in determining our security 
     choices. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, 
     ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated 
     investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to 
     advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic 
     orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.
       We welcome the ``reset'' of the American-Russian relations. 
     As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody 
     has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in 
     Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than 
     we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want 
     to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western 
     interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia. 
     Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and 
     the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for 
     a ``Concert of Powers'' to replace the continent's existing, 
     value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia's 
     creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region 
     could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the 
     region. There are differing views within the region when it 
     comes to Moscow's new policies. But there is a shared view 
     that the full engagement of the United States is needed.
       Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama 
     Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a 
     moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. 
     A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is 
     essential to our countries. We know from our own historical 
     experience the difference between when the United States 
     stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did 
     not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to 
     ``realism'' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States 
     used its power to fight for principle. That was critical 
     during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a 
     ``realist'' view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not 
     be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at 
     peace would be a distant dream.
       We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and 
     on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the 
     list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being 
     strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that 
     is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not 
     certain where our region will be in five or ten years time 
     given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face. 
     We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong 
     relationship between the United States and Central and 
     Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure.
       We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe 
     need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship. We also 
     believe this is a time when the United States and Central and 
     Eastern Europe must reconnect around a new and forward-
     looking agenda. While recognizing what has been achieved in 
     the twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is 
     time to set a new agenda for close cooperation for the next 
     twenty years across the Atlantic.
       Therefore, we propose the following steps:
       First, we are convinced that America needs Europe and that 
     Europe needs the United States as much today as in the past. 
     The United States should reaffirm its vocation as a European 
     power and make clear that it plans to stay fully engaged on 
     the continent even while it faces the pressing challenges in 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan, the wider Middle East, and Asia. 
     For our part we must work at home in our own countries and in 
     Europe more generally to convince our leaders and societies 
     to adopt a more global perspective and be prepared to 
     shoulder more responsibility in partnership with the United 
     States.
       Second, we need a renaissance of NATO as the most important 
     security link between the United States and Europe. It is the 
     only credible hard power security guarantee we have. NATO 
     must reconfirm its core function of collective defense even 
     while we adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. A key 
     factor in our ability to participate in NATO's expeditionary 
     missions overseas is the belief that we are secure at home. 
     We must therefore correct some self-inflicted wounds from the 
     past. It was a mistake not to commence with proper Article 5 
     defense planning for new members after NATO was enlarged. 
     NATO needs to make the Alliance's commitments credible and 
     provide strategic reassurance to all members. This should 
     include contingency planning, prepositioning of forces, 
     equipment, and supplies for reinforcement in our region in 
     case of crisis as originally envisioned in the NATO-Russia 
     Founding Act.
       We should also re-think the working of the NATO-Russia 
     Council and return to the practice where NATO member 
     countries enter into dialogue with Moscow with a coordinated 
     position. When it comes to Russia, our experience has been 
     that a more determined and principled policy toward Moscow 
     will not only strengthen the West's security but will 
     ultimately lead Moscow to follow a more cooperative policy as 
     well. Furthermore, the more secure we feel inside NATO, the 
     easier it will also be for our countries to reach out to 
     engage Moscow on issues of common interest. That is the dual 
     track approach we need and which should be reflected in the 
     new NATO strategic concept.
       Third, the thorniest issue may well be America's planned 
     missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different 
     views in the region, including among our publics which are 
     divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and 
     what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has 
     nevertheless also become--at least in some countries--a 
     symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region. 
     How it is handled could have a significant impact on their 
     future transatlantic orientation. The small number of 
     missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic 
     capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide 
     the future of the program as allies and based on the 
     strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and 
     political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the 
     issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. 
     Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too 
     deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic 
     can undermine the credibility of the United States across the 
     whole region.
       Fourth, we know that NATO alone is not enough. We also want 
     and need more Europe and a better and more strategic U.S.-EU 
     relationship as well. Increasingly our foreign policies are 
     carried out through the European Union--and we support that. 
     We also want a common European foreign and defense policy 
     that is open to close cooperation with the United States. We 
     are the advocates of such a line in the EU. But we need the 
     United States to rethink its attitude toward the EU and 
     engage it much more seriously as a strategic partner. We need 
     to bring NATO and the EU closer together and make them work 
     in tandem. We need common NATO and EU strategies not only 
     toward Russia but on a range of other new strategic 
     challenges.
       Fifth is energy security. The threat to energy supplies can 
     exert an immediate influence on our nations' political 
     sovereignty also as allies contributing to common decisions 
     in NATO. That is why it must also become a transatlantic 
     priority. Although most of the responsibility for energy 
     security lies within the realm of the EU, the United States 
     also has a role to play. Absent American support, the Baku-
     Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would never have been built. Energy 
     security must become an integral part of U.S.-European 
     strategic cooperation. Central and Eastern European countries 
     should lobby harder (and with more unity) inside Europe for 
     diversification of the energy mix, suppliers, and transit 
     routes, as well as for tough legal scrutiny of Russia's abuse 
     of its monopoly and cartel-like power inside the EU. But 
     American political support on this will play a crucial role. 
     Similarly, the United States can play an important role in 
     solidifying further its support for the Nabucco pipeline, 
     particularly in using its security relationship with the main 
     transit country, Turkey, as well as the North-South 
     interconnector of Central Europe and LNG terminals in our 
     region.
       Sixth, we must not neglect the human factor. Our next 
     generations need to get to know each other, too. We have to 
     cherish and protect the multitude of educational, 
     professional, and other networks and friendships that 
     underpin our friendship and alliance. The U.S. visa regime 
     remains an obstacle in this regard. It is absurd that Poland 
     and Romania--arguably the two biggest and most pro-American 
     states in the CEE region, which are making substantial 
     contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan--have not yet been 
     brought into the visa waiver program. It is incomprehensible 
     that a critic like the French anti-globalization activist 
     Jose Bove does not require a visa for the United States but 
     former Solidarity activist and Nobel Peace prizewinner Lech 
     Walesa does. This issue will be resolved only if it is made a 
     political priority by the President of the United States.
       The steps we made together since 1989 are not minor in 
     history. The common successes are the proper foundation for 
     the transatlantic renaissance we need today. This is why we 
     believe that we should also consider the creation of a Legacy 
     Fellowship for young leaders. Twenty years have passed since 
     the revolutions of 1989. That is a whole generation. We need 
     a new generation to renew the transatlantic partnership. A 
     new program should be launched to identify those young 
     leaders on both sides of the Atlantic

[[Page H8551]]

     who can carry forward the transatlantic project we have spent 
     the last two decades building in Central and Eastern Europe.
       In conclusion, the onset of a new Administration in the 
     United States has raised great hopes in our countries for a 
     transatlantic renewal. It is an opportunity we dare not miss. 
     We, the authors of this letter, know firsthand how important 
     the relationship with the United States has been. In the 
     1990s, a large part of getting Europe right was about getting 
     Central and Eastern Europe right. The engagement of the 
     United States was critical to locking in peace and stability 
     from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Today the goal must be to 
     keep Central and Eastern Europe right as a stable, activist, 
     and Atlanticist part of our broader community.
       That is the key to our success in bringing about the 
     renaissance in the Alliance the Obama Administration has 
     committed itself to work for and which we support. That will 
     require both sides recommitting to and investing in this 
     relationship. But if we do it right, the pay off down the 
     road can be very real. By taking the right steps now, we can 
     put it on new and solid footing for the future.
         Valdas Adamkus, Former President of the Republic of 
           Lithuania; Martin Butora, Former Ambassador of the 
           Slovak Republic to the United States; Emil 
           Constantinescu, Former President of the Republic of 
           Romania; Pavol Demes, Former Minister of International 
           Relations and Advisor to the President, Slovak 
           Republic; Lubos Dobrovsky, Former Minister of Defense 
           of Czechoslovakia, former Czech Ambassador to Russia; 
           Matyas Eorsi, Former Secretary of State of the 
           Hungarian MFA; Istvan Gyarmati, Ambassador, President 
           of the International Centre for Democratic Transition 
           in Budapest; Vaclav Havel, Former President of the 
           Czech Republic; Rastislav Kacer, Former Ambassador of 
           the Slovak Republic to the United States; Sandra 
           Kalniete, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Latvia; 
           Karel Schwarzenberg, Former Minister of Foreign 
           Affairs, Czech Republic; Michal Kovac, Former President 
           of the Slovak Republic; Ivan Krastev, Chairman of the 
           Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria; 
           Aleksander Kwasniewski, Former President of the 
           Republic of Poland; Mart Laar, Former Prime Minister of 
           Estonia; Kadri Liik, Director of the International 
           Centre for Defense Studies in Tallinn, Estonia; Janos 
           Martonyi, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hungary; 
           Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Former Vice-president of the 
           European Parliament, former Defense Minister, Poland; 
           Adam Rotfeld, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
           Poland; Alexandr Vondra, Former Minister of Foreign 
           Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Czech Republic; 
           Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Former President of the Republic 
           of Latvia; Lech Walesa, Former President of the 
           Republic of Poland.

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in strong support of my friend and colleague's resolution 
celebrating the rich history of Lithuania.
  I was recently back in Lithuania just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. 
Speaker, for the July meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and saw, once 
again, the beautiful city of Vilnius, a city with an historic history.
  But more importantly than the city and its physical attractiveness is 
the people themselves, the kindness, the generosity, and a goodness, 
innate goodness, which is truly remarkable.
  The Lithuanians, as we know, were occupied. They were often called a 
captive nation, one of the Baltic captive nations. In 1940, they were 
brought into the Soviet Union by force, a grave injustice that this 
Congress has never recognized and thankfully now, since 1990, they were 
the first of the so-called Soviet Republics to declare its 
independence.
  Since securing their independence from the Soviet Union, Lithuanians 
have won the world's admiration by making Lithuania a free country that 
truly respects fundamental human rights. The Lithuanian Government 
conducts democratic and fair elections, respects the rule of law, and 
the Lithuanian economy is free.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States owes Lithuania a debt of gratitude, 
but the United States has not freed Lithuania from Soviet domination--
they did that themselves. Lithuania has recognized the common values it 
shares with the United States and has deployed its soldiers to do duty 
alongside ours in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, as well as in 
Georgia.
  Let me also point out that back in the early 1990s, I was part of a 
delegation led by Steny Hoyer. When the Soviets looked like they were 
about to take over the Parliament and rush it with the black berets, 
several of us traveled to Vilnius to be there to be in solidarity with 
President Landsbergis, who was under siege. And the belief was that if 
sufficient numbers of parliamentarians were there as witnesses, it 
might have a chilling effect on Soviet ambitions and they might not 
storm that Parliament.
  What we found in Vilnius was people who were literally praying night 
and day, people outside the parliament saying rosaries, offering up 
prayers and, hopefully, acting as shields themselves to the Soviet 
aggression.

                              {time}  1730

  I will never forget visiting a TV tower that had been attacked by the 
Soviets. There were candles burning where people dropped as they were 
fired upon by Soviet troops; but they were still there in defiance, 
standing up to this world power that was seeking to crush them. One of 
the incidents I will never forget. Don Ritter, one of our Members of 
the House who was then the ranking member of the CSCE, stepped across 
the line, and there was a Soviet tank there at the TV tower which all 
of a sudden began turning its turret towards him. Several of us who 
were there said, Don, you'd better step across. This is truly a 
volatile situation. And nothing came of it. But again, the Lithuanians 
were there protesting against tyranny and the domination that was 
coming out of Moscow but did so with such class and such courage that 
it was truly inspiring.
  Our delegation was matched by delegations from Poland and other 
countries, recently emerging democracies; and they too were saying, 
We're not going to stand idly by and watch this great people conquered 
once again--conquered but never really conquered in their hearts and 
minds. So I, again, want to thank Mr. Shimkus for bringing this to the 
floor. I also thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for 
posting it for debate and consideration. Again, this says to the people 
of Lithuania, You are a tremendous people. We recognize and admire your 
goodness and your courage, because you certainly demonstrated it under 
fire.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 285, 
and urge its immediate adoption. This resolution, introduced by friend 
and home state colleague, Chair of the House Baltic Caucus, Congressman 
John Shimkus, congratulates the people of the Republic of Lithuania on 
the one thousandth anniversary of their country, celebrates the rich 
history of this nation and its people, and highlights the valuable 
relations Lithuania maintains with the United States.
  As Co-Chair of the Central and Eastern European Caucus, and 
representative of a large Lithuanian community, I have a special pride 
in being a cosponsor of this measure, and rising in its support. The 
Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture, which is a major player in 
Lithuanian cultural life and scholarship in the United States, is 
located in my district. And Chicago is home to more Lithuanians outside 
their native home than any other location.
  As few know, the name ``Lithuania'' first appeared in Europe in the 
year 1009--a historical timeline unfathomable to many Americans. The 
state of Lithuania was established as early as 1236, and became at 
times the largest country in Europe. The modern establishment of 
Lithuania as a sovereign and democratic state occurred in 1918.
  While Lithuania, along with Latvia and Estonia, were forcibly 
incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940, this did not diminish 
Lithuanians' national pride, their valor or spirit. Despite Soviet 
persecution and barbaric assaults on their freedoms, Lithuanians 
persisted, aided by the support and prayers of millions of Lithuanians 
in the United States and elsewhere.
  In 1990, after decades of oppression and occupation, Lithuania became 
the first Soviet-controlled republic to break away and declare its 
independence.
  Since that time, Lithuania has developed into a free and democratic 
society. Its free market economy has experienced strong growth, and has 
joined the United States in pursuing knowledge-driven opportunities, 
including biotechnology and other high-tech sectors.
  The United States has and continues to maintain a strong and positive 
relationship with Lithuania. Our nations have held 85 years of 
continuous diplomatic relations. Lithuania has supported international 
peace and security efforts, and has contributed to civilian and 
military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, and elsewhere, for 
which the United States government is highly appreciative.

[[Page H8552]]

  In that vein, I would like to extend the warmest congratulations to 
Ms. Dalia Grybauskaite, who was elected as the new President of 
Lithuania in May of this year with over two-thirds of the vote. The 
first female President of Lithuania, Ms. Grybauskaite was sworn in on 
July 11, 2009. A former European Union Budget Commissioner, finance 
commissioner in Lithuania and a diplomat in Lithuania's U.S. Embassy, I 
congratulate her and wish President Grybauskaite success in her new 
role.
  I look forward to joining my constituents and other Chicago-area 
Lithuanians in celebrating this 1000th anniversary in September. 
Lietuviu Dienos Chicago 2009, a community celebration led by Mr. Andrew 
Bucas--owner of Grand Duke's Lithuanian restaurant--and the Chicago 
Consul General of the Republic of Lithuania, will be held at Summit 
Park, in the Village of Summit located in my district, on September 20, 
2009. Prominent Lithuanian-American Joe Kulys has been instrumental in 
organizing this celebration and has been a key leader in the 
Lithuanian-American community.
  I wish Lithuanians and Lithuanian-Americans alike the best wishes and 
hearty congratulations in the celebration of 1000 years of Lithuanian 
history and progress.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. If there are no other speakers, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein) that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 285.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________