E 980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 9, 1995

THE METAMORPHOSIS OF CZECH

SOCIETY

HON. BARBARA B. KENNELLY OF CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, the Center

for Democracy last Wednesday honored the

Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Vaclav

Klaus, by awarding him its prestigious International Democracy Medal for 1995.

The Center for Democracy is a nonpartisan,

nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting

the democratic process throughout the world.

In previous years, the center has honored

Presidents Raul Alfonsin, Corazon Aquino,

Oscar Arias, Patricio Aylwin, Violeta

Chamorro, Arpad Goncz, and Boris Yeltsin.

I was fortunate to be at the dinner award

ceremony and hear Prime Minister Klaus’ acceptance address. His comments on the democratization process are profound, and I am

including the text at this point in the RECORD.

THE METAMORPHOSIS OF CZECH SOCIETY

It is a great honor for me to be awarded

the International Democracy Medal from

your distinguished society. And it is extremely intellectually stimulating to have

the unique opportunity to speak here today

and share with you some of my ideas about

the fundamental systemic change which has

been going on in the Czech Republic for the

last five years.

As well known, the Czech Republic suffered

for many decades under an oppressive, undemocratic and totally inefficient communist political, social and economic system. It was a system irresponsive to human

wants and desires. It is over now. I have to

admit that I do not feel enough motivated

these days to discuss at length the intrinsic

logic as well as peculiarities of the functioning of such a system although I am convinced that the standard ‘‘sovietologist’s’’

paradigm of explaining it needs substantial

rewriting and though communism is not an

unrepeatable, singular event which can never

happen. But we are already on the other side

of the Rubicon.

The task of our time has been positive—to

replace such a system with a free, democratic society, based on political pluralism

and the rule of law, with a well-functioning,

efficient market economy, based on private

property, private initiative and limited government.

I will try to argue here tonight that the

Czech Republic has already introduced basic

elements of such a system and by having

done so, the country has entered what we

call the early posttransformation stage.

In all our effort during the last few years

to dismantle communism and institute free

society and market economy the central

idea was that of democracy. Several years

ago I coined the phrase ‘‘market economy

without any adjectives’’ in an attempt to reject all forms of ‘‘third ways’’ of economic

organization and it seems to me now that I

can say as well ‘‘democracy without adjectives’’ because it contains the same message.

We do not want to make the term fuzzy,

therefore, we don’t like people’s democracy,

socialist or social democracy, christian democracy, etc. Whether this is really understood or not is exactly what distinguishes

successful from unsuccessful approaches to

the transformation of the postcommunist

countries.

Talking about the metamorphosis of Czech

society (and those of other Central and East

European countries), the most important

thing now is to avoid falling into the dangerous reform trap of half-measures and useless political and social concessions, and not

to give up the fight against an already

emerging ‘‘re`forme fatigue’’. The transformation has nonzero ‘‘transformation’’

costs and our task is to minimize them. This

cannot be achieved only by spontaneous evolution of social institutions. The profound

systemic change can be successful only if it

is based on a clear and transparent vision of

the future, the ability of politicians to sell

such a vision to the citizens of the country

and a pragmatic, and rational (and definitely

not simple) transformation strategy.

To structure the logic of the whole process,

to differentiate between the intentional and

the unintentional the organized and the

spontaneous parts of it, it is helpful to distinguish between passive and active transformation measures.

The passive (nonconstructivistic and

noninterventionist) side coincides with deregulation and liberalization. The political

transformation was fully based on this, i.e.

on creating preconditions for a free entry

into the political market. We realized very

soon that this was sufficient and that no direct measures were indispensable (it was almost not necessary to prohibit anything).

This is not a trivial conclusion. The free political space was very soon filled with new

political entities and by now, in my country

at least, the standard political structure—

characterized by ideologically well-defined

political parties—has been developed. The

political structure is more European than

American, with more than two political parties, which results in a coalition government

and standard pressures between the cabinet

and parliament.

The economic transformation was, of

course, based on liberalization as well. It has

been proved that liberalization of markets,

that is of prices, foreign trade and private

entrepreneurship, is necessary for the fundamental change of the system, but we realized that this is not sufficient. As I said before, the passive transformation plus waiting

for evolutionary emergence of efficient markets and strong economic agents would last

too long and be too costly. It was, therefore,

supplemented with positive, more or less active transformation measures.

As—I am sure—you expect, the most important shift at the microeconomic level was

achieved by privatization. In our country we

managed to effect the fastest and most extensive transfer of property rights, at least

in this direction. As you know, it is much

easier to nationalize than to privatize, it is

more difficult to build than to destroy. The

job required a very special mix of standard

and nonstandard privatization methods, and

the innovative Czech voucher privatization,

which involved millions of our citizens,

proved to be a catalyst of the economic

transformation. Now, five years after the

Velvet Revolution and four years after the

beginning of privatization, the massive,

‘‘wholesale’’ privatization is practically

over. We have to settle some residual cases,

but these are already part of our

posttransformation tasks and challenges.

Speaking of the posttransformation stage,

we have to complete the process of liberalization, deregulate the few still regulated

prices (though the list of regulated prices in

the Czech Republic is not longer than in the

Western countries) and institute full convertibility of the currency; complete the privatization process, which is anyway coming

to its close.

This kind of institutional refinement is the

posttransformation task of the government.

In addition, we need to deepen the markets

and to strengthen the health of participating

economic agents. This is, however, already a

part of the Hayekian evolutionary process,

in which the role of government is marginal.

But it is connected with another important

challenge which is no more an integral part

of our original transformation task. That is

the need to safeguard economic freedom and

resist the temptations for the government

(magnified by strong lobbyist pressures) to

introduce the same forms of regulation, control, licensing, etc. as we can see in some

Western countries these days.

I know you have your own experience in

this respect in your country, you have your

own prophets of a limited or expanding government, and I can assure you that we followed your domestic political debates with

great interest before our Velvet Revolution

and we do with enormous interest now.

Let me make a few comments about how I

see it from Prague. The ideological conflict

over communism is over and it makes us

very happy. There are new conflicts and new

dubious, but attractive and fashionable ideas

which must be discussed and their pitfalls

and unintended consequences must be exposed. I have in mind the protectionist arguments for the so-called fair trade (I always

try to relate the dispute between free and

fair trade to the difference between free and

fair speech); competition constraining arguments based on the criticism of the alleged

social and ecological dumping; collectivistic

features of communitarianism and the ideology of civil society; environmental extremism and overkill, etc.

The protectionist blueprint is an illusion,

based on fear. In the end, it will not protect

jobs but destroy them. The accusations of

‘‘dumping’’ neglect the law of comparative

advantage, different levels of productivity of

labor and wages (and related working conditions), as well as the connection between

wealth and externalities.

Communitarianism, instead of advocating

the importance of voluntary associations

and naturally emerging intermediating

structures, preaches nostalgic reminiscences

about a past that never existed and criticizes

modern society. Environmentalism with its

distinctly Calvinistic flavour and an obvious

biblical quality is based on widespread misinformation, myths, sensationalism and promotes a collectivist, redistributionist political agenda.

Our experience gives us special sensitivity

to all that and we see the similarities of arguments used in our country in the past and

now in the sophisticated debates in your

country and elsewhere. It is our duty to remind of that. We all have to watch our own

policies and institutions. There is always the

danger of creeping etatism and stronger government powers. And it is our duty not to let

it destroy our fragile free and democratic society.

MEMORIAL DAY 1995

fHON. BOB STUMP OF ARIZONA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, sacrifice. It’s a

word we all know. All of us have made some

sacrifices in our lives. We make sacrifices for

our family, for our close friends, even for our

neighbors and coworkers. Persons in the

Armed Forces make many sacrifices, and over

one million Americans have given their lives,

the ultimate sacrifice, while serving in our Nation’s armed forces. Throughout history, members of the Armed Forces have risked their

lives not merely for their family or their coworkers, but for a cause represented by the
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 981

American flag, and the freedom to choose and

the liberty to succeed which it embodies.

Some Americans are too young to remember; others have too quickly forgotten. How

important, therefore, that we honor our veterans, that we learn from them, and that we

teach others about history, about war, about

sacrifice. We are still reminded about Korea,

Vietnam, and more recent encounters. We

should not, however, allow the memory, the

lessons, and the sacrifices of our terrible world

wars to fade. Proud veterans of those wars

are among us today. Their presence bears

witness to sacrifice.

Fifty years ago this month, our Nation was

beginning to absorb the meaning of victory in

Europe, to realize what the final tally was in

terms of lives lost or shattered as the result of

the awful conflict in Europe and North Africa.

In April of 1945, President Roosevelt had died

of a cerebral hemorrhage at Warm Springs,

GA. The battle in the Pacific still raged as scientists neared completion of the first atomic

bomb. The sacrifices would continue for 4

more months, and then the bloodiest of all

wars would be over.

Veterans of World War I saw staggering

losses in bitter trench warfare and history’s

first use of such horrible tactics as gas warfare. Fewer than 20,000 veterans of that brutal

conflict are still alive today.

Cemeteries in two small towns in northwest

Maryland contain the dead from the bloodiest

day of the Civil War. The United States and

the world learned of the awful toll of war when

two of Mathew Brady’s assistants photographed the dead of the 1-day battle at Antietam. The pictures brought home the shocking

toll of war and its accompanying sacrifice

when they were first displayed in 1862, and

they are no less shocking today. Each Memorial Day, the 2,100 graves of the Union dead

are decorated with small American flags, a

scene which stirs the conscience, but which

only hints at the sacrifices which took place on

the day of the battle. The nearby cemetery

containing 2,400 Confederate dead, no less

valiant, is undecorated on most Memorial

Days, because there are not sufficient funds to

remember the sacrifice of these equally selfless men and boys.

Battlefields and cemeteries remind us of the

terrible sacrifices and loss of life in war. But

many of us or our family members remember

all too directly the experience of war. The first

half of this century saw two world wars. These

were the ‘‘wars to end all wars’’. How wrong

we were to think the experience of war was

behind us! Consider Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama. The Persian

Gulf, Somalia, and Haiti. We have asked

much of our fighting men and women.

Although many members of our Armed

Forces are buried on foreign soils, there are

cemeteries throughout this country which contain the remains of the very best that America

had to offer. Remembering is what Memorial

Day is for, and what gives it meaning is how

each one of us remembers the great sacrifices

which have made possible the blessings we

share as Americans today.

LOS ANGELES STUDENTS RECEIVING THE ‘‘TOOLS FOR SUCCESS’’

HON. ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize the Miller Brewing Company and

the Los Angeles Trade Technical College

(LATTC) for establishing the ‘‘Tools for Success’ Scholarship Program.

Since it began 4 years ago, the scholarship

program has built a nationwide reputation and

expanded into six more cities. Instead of

awarding students with scholarship funds,

‘‘Tools for Success’’ provides graduates with

the actual tools they will need to excel in their

profession. Whether it is automotive repair or

fashion design, students embarking on a career will have both the skills and the implements to compete in the marketplace.

The top two graduates from 16 selected

trade professions at Los Angeles Trade Technical College are honored annually. Each of

the 32 honorees will receive a complete set of

tools to help them begin their career. Since

Miller Brewing started the Tools for Success

Program more than 100 graduates have benefitted. Each honoree receives a set of tools

donated by Snap-On Tools, valued between

$1,500 and $2,000. Southern California Edison is also a partner in making this nationwide

program a reality. Each of the scholarship

sponsors deserves credit for developing a

well-trained workforce that will stand ready to

face the challenges of the 21st century.

Unfortunately, congressional duties will prevent me from attending the fourth annual

awards ceremony. I say this partly because

the College’s renowed culinary arts students

will prepare the awards luncheon.

The program is the brainchild of Victor Franco, Public Relations Manager, Miller Brewing

Company at the Irwindale Brewery. Victor realized that vocational students have often been

shortchanged at the scholarship table. Ninety

percent of vocational graduates are required

to have their own tools before they are hired.

Often students cannot afford to make the large

investment. By putting the tools in their hand,

the students are well on their way to finding a

job and honing their skills in the working

world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me

in honoring their year’s Tools for Success

scholarship awardees and to all of the individuals who have made this program thrive.

AN AMENDMENT ADDRESSING THE

DEFINITION OF A SMALL BUSIfNESS IN SECTION 322

HON. SPENCER BACHUS OF ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, under Chairman

Shuster’s bill, H.R. 961—Clean Water Act

Amendments of 1995, general and site-specific permits are required unless the entity can

prove that its activities do not pose a significant risk to health and the environment, in

which case, a permit would be required. However, an exemption is provided for small businesses that meet the definition of ‘‘small business’’ as promulgated by the EPA. Under the

provisions of the committee bill, a small business is exempt from general and site-specific

permits unless the State finds that, without

permits, stormwater discharges would have a

significant adverse effect on water quality. In

this case, a permit would be required regardless of whether the entity was a small business or not.

While the reformed permitting process is a

tremendous positive step in the right direction,

the bill leaves it to the discretion of the EPA

to define ‘‘small business.’’ We fear that EPA

will attempt to circumvent the clear intent of

the bill and define ‘‘small business’’ so narrowly that it has no practical application.

The amendment which I plan to offer, a

copy of which follows, uses similar language

from section 507 of the Clean Air Act as it relates to defining ‘‘small business’’ based on

number of employees. Under the Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environment Compliance Assistance Program,

small business is defined as having 100 or

fewer employees. Our amendment as written

would still allow EPA to define ‘‘small business,’’ but any definition would have to include

language to define ‘‘small business’’ as having

100 or fewer employees.

Even if this amendment is adopted, a State

would still maintain authority to require permits

by certain small businesses if it found that the

stormwater discharges from the business

would have a significant adverse effect on

water quality. The amendment is intended to

reduce the cost and paper-work that literally

thousands of small business would be burdened with if they were not initially excluded

from the permitting process.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 961, AS REPORTED

OFFERED BY MR. BACHUS OF ALABAMA

Page 146, line 21, after the period insert the

following:

At a minimum, the term ‘‘small business’’

shall include a corporation, partnership, unincorporated business, and sole proprietorship employing 100 or fewer full time employees.

AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLVE THE

TACOMA DECISION

f

HON. BILL EMERSON OF MISSOURI

HON. BILL K. BREWSTER OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the purpose

of this amendment is to resolve the friction

and conflict that the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 1994 Tacoma decision, is creating with the Federal

Power Act. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Clean Water Act, in particular section 401 of the Act, so broadly as to effectively

supersede the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s licensing authority over hydropower projects under the Federal Power Act.

This amendment would rectify that situation by

exempting hydropower projects from regulation under the Clean Water Act.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

already conducts a comprehensive review of

proposed new hydropower projects when first