Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly delighted to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has been a leader on this issue for many years in the Congress.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend the gentlewoman from San Francisco, California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and many others. Mr. Speaker, it is important to take a moment to remember Tiananmen Square. Ten years ago on the 4th of June, thousands and thousands of democratically inclined students and citizens of China demonstrated peacefully. On that fateful day, the full force of the Chinese military and security apparatus came down on them with brutality and ferocity of incredible proportions. Thousands were killed. Tens of thousands were injured. Thousands were imprisoned. There came a dark night in China for all who were hoping for some measure of human rights. When we introduced this legislation to commemorate the 10th anniversary of this outrage against all standards of civilized conduct, we merely wanted to do just that, to call attention to the fact that 10 years ago, this outrage occurred. But there is an additional outrage that occurred just a few weeks ago which I believe is highly relevant to this resolution. When the United States, by mistake, bombed the Embassy of China in Belgrade, the Chinese Government engaged in a degree of cynical and hypocritical manipulation of both its own public opinion and global public opinion. They never told the Chinese people that NATO's air strikes were in response to the killing and mass rape and expulsion of over a million and a half ethnic Albanians. When this mistake occurred, for which the United States apologized at the highest levels, they claimed that the hit on the Embassy of China in Belgrade was not a mistake but a deliberate act of atrocity. This, Mr. Speaker, underscores the obvious fact. This Communist totalitarian dictatorship has not changed since that fateful day on June 4, 1989. It continues to lie, to fabricate to its own people and to the rest of the world. By this attempt, it tries to equate morally the deliberate killing of thousands of democracy-loving Chinese citizens at Tiananmen Square with the inadvertent killing of three innocent journalists at the embassy in Belgrade. The civilized world will not allow this attempt at moral equivalence to succeed. The Chinese Communist government stands self-condemned before the court of global public opinion, both for what it did at Tiananmen Square 10 years ago and what it has been doing the last few weeks, attempting to destroy the functioning Embassy of the United States in Beijing, encouraging mobs of Chinese to attack the embassy, to keep its staff and our ambassador captive, and to engage in the most cynical manipulation of its media and the media of the world. We are here to commemorate the fallen heroes of Tiananmen Square. When my colleagues come to my office, Mr. Speaker, in the entry hall there is that forever to be remembered poster of a single unarmed Chinese student facing down a column of tanks, the most poignant reminder of human courage and dignity against overwhelming odds. While that student may have been killed, as were thousands of others, the cause of freedom has not been extinguished in China. The future belongs to the students and citizens of China who, even under these impossible conditions, are insisting on freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, the right to make their own decisions about their own future. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Congress is always at its best when we speak with a bipartisan voice. There is no issue on which we speak with a stronger, clearer, more articulate bipartisan voice than the issue of human rights violations in China and in Tibet. All of my colleagues who have spoken and all who will vote for this resolution express our determination that we shall not rest until China becomes a free and open and democratic society. The Chinese people deserve no less, one of the most talented people with an incredible record in science, literature, music, art, in every aspect of human endeavor, who are suffering under the yoke of an unspeakable totalitarian communistic dictatorship. The day of the Chinese people will come. I call on all my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from Mr. John Stangl, Police Chief of the City of San Mateo, California, and the President of the San Mateo County Police Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association, informing me that ``without reservation, the membership of the San Mateo County Policy Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association voted to endorse and support H.R. 1428, the David Chetcuti Firearm Modification Act.'' Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1428, which I introduced earlier this year, would close the existing loop-hole which permits felons to have access to firearm components which they can use to assemble assault weapons. My legislation is simple and does not require any additional law enforcement effort than currently law requires. Quite simply, this legislation would extend the provisions of existing gun control legislation to those components which criminals can and do use to make assault weapons. H.R. 1428 is called the David Chetcuti Firearm Modification Act, Mr. Speaker, in honor and in recognition of Officer Chetcuti who was killed one year ago by a felon who legally could not purchase a gun, but who was able to purchase a series of firearm components which he then used to assemble the kind of gun that he could not purchase. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask that the letter of Police Chief John Stangl be placed in the Record. San Mateo County Police Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association, San Mateo, CA, May 6, 1999. Congressman Tom Lantos, San Mateo, CA. Dear Congressman Lantos: Without reservation, the membership of the San Mateo County Police Chiefs' and Sheriff Association voted to endorse and support H.R. 1428, the David Chetcuti Firearm Modification Act. In its unanimous decision, the association recognized the need to extend firearm laws to gun components and restrict the manner in which they can be acquired. The use of firearms to resolve conflict or perform an illegal act has become a daily part of our lives. While it can be debated that no amount of legislation will eliminate this tragic reality, it does not make sense to provide an open market for high powered, multi round weapons. It is obvious that the existing law must be amended to provide the protection to society that was originally intended. We thank you for your efforts and appreciate having the opportunity to work with you. Respectfully, John Stangl, Police Chief, City of San Mateo, President, San Mateo County Police Chiefs' And Sheriff's Association.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I participated in an extremely interesting and important symposium entitled ``Promoting Human Rights in the Pursuit of Peace: Assessing 20 Years of U.S. Human Rights Policy.'' This symposium was organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace to mark two decades since the creation of the Bureau of Human Rights at the Department of State. The conference focused on the implementation of human rights policies and ways in which the United States can improve its ability to promote the protection of human rights. This was just another example of the excellent work which the U.S. Institute of Peace under the outstanding leadership of Dick Solomon has done. Mr. Speaker, the keynote address at this symposium was given by Harold Hongju Koh, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. His remarks were insightful and provocative in discussing the problems we face in the fight for human rights in the international context of the post-Cold War World and the information age. Assistant Secretary Koh provided an excellent summary of the Administration's goals and objectives as well as the means it is using to pursue them. Among the participants at the conference were two other of our colleagues in the Congress: my fellow Californian, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and my fellow co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Congressman John Porter of Illinois. Others who participated in the symposium were the Hon. Morton Halperin of the Department of State, the Hon. Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., of the Central Asia-Caucus Institute, and the Hon. James Bishop of the American Council for Voluntary International Action. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that key excerpts of Assistant Secretary Koh's remarks be placed in the Congressional Record, and I invite my colleagues to give thoughtful attention to his excellent statement. Promoting Human Rights in the Pursuit of Peace: Assessing 20 Years of U.S. Human Rights Policy * * * * * * * * Human rights and democracy remain fundamental principles around which our world is now organized. Although much has changed in the 50 years since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaimed that all human beings are ``free and equal in dignity and rights,'' the fundamental fact is that the world today is more free than at any time in history. Ten years after the Cold War, we have seen not the end of history, but the beginning of a whole new set of challenges for human rights. From Bosnia to Burma, from Kosovo to Kigali, we are now witnessing the need for human rights policy, with national, intergovernmental, and transnational actors moving to adapt to changing developments and to try to stay one step ahead of the horror. To understand the challenges that are now facing us, * * * let us speak in two parts: first about what I would call the human rights paradigm has evolved in the past 50 years and then * * * the evolution of this human fights paradigm. I will refer temporarily from bureaucrat to pedant. And then, second, I would indicate how our government ought to respond to the current paradigm as I see it now in this, the turn of the century, how we address what you could call the human rights Y2K problem. In the early years of this half century, in the wake of World War II, the paradigmatic violation was genocide. To prevent future genocides, global human rights policy focused centrally on three key themes: first, accountability--as we saw at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals; second, standard- setting, through legal texts like the Universal Declaration and human rights covenants like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and third, institution-building, with the development of a network of intergovernmental organizations to deal with global and regional human rights problems. In the second phase, the paradigm shifted, and the focal point of global human rights concern became political dissidents and prisoners of conscience. We can think about this as the Amnesty-Sharansky period, where response mechanisms began to focus more insistently upon mechanisms of monitoring and advocacy, coalition-building to achieve effective advocacy, and focused on the dramatic growth of nongovernmental organizations. * * * In the third phase, which began roughly with the end of the Cold War, the focal point shifted again, to issues of group conflict and group dilemmas: ethnic struggles, massive refugee outflows, and a horrific renewal of genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda. The search for solutions began to turn toward questions of preventive diplomacy, and diplomacy backed by force, issues of humanitarian intervention, and development of transnational networks of national governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental actors, and what I have called in my academic work, transnational norm entrepreneurs: form Jimmy Carter to Vaclav Havel to Aung San Suu Kyi to Nelson Mandela, to Tom Lantos and John Porter to Mary Robinson, who have used their stature and governmental position, their international stature, to bring the message of human rights into the exercise of capacity-building with goal of creating a human rights response. Now in the current phase of modern human rights policy, what I would call the fourth phase, we now have a very complex picture in which all of the elements that I have described are now present. We live in a world where, unfortunately, the threat of genocide has not been dispelled, in which prisoners of conscience remain imprisoned, in which ethnic and group conflict continues to rage and expand, but in which we now have a complex and somewhat unwieldy response mechanism that involves transnational networks but also new tools of accountability, standard setting, monitoring, advocacy, and preventive diplomacy. They work with differing degrees of effectiveness. Witness, for example, the struggle that we face now to deal with the preventive issues in Kosovo. Well, if this is where the human rights paradigm stands at the end of this century, what are our challenges? Let me suggest three that have increasingly commanded my attention since I have assumed this position: what I call the challenge of globalization, the challenge of non-state actors, and the challenge of self-governance and democracy. It is commonplace, of course, to say that we stand in an era of globalization and integration. Today, states are engaging with each other in a growing range of activities that transcend national borders. National economies are becoming increasingly intertwined. Trade, the environment, security, and population issues have become powerful forces for integration. New technologies of communication and transportation--fax machines, satellite and cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet--are bringing people of different countries and cultures much closer together. Yet at the same time that we are moving closer together, we also are breaking down traditional vertical power structures. Breathtaking changes in technology are creating a world where information flows more and more freely. We are moving from a hierarchical, bi-directional model of authority to a non- hierarchical, multi-directional network model. The result of this, as Congressman Lantos suggested, is the erosion of the traditional power of governments over information, which has had tremendous implications for the relationship between individuals and authority. These trends, in my view, can only benefit the movement toward greater freedom. And here I think we need to emphasize both human rights information and human rights standards, both of which I think have become much more widely promulgated as a result of globalization. * * * * * At the same time that information has been expanding, this increasing global contact has created a renewed emphasis on universal human rights standards, particularly how the norms of the Universal Declaration and the International Bill of Rights can operate as a standard to guide conduct. It is surprising how far we have gone in conquering the debate over Asian values. As Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma has written, it is precisely because countries are coming into increasing contact that it is important for us to adhere to a common set of basic human rights standards in our dealings with other countries and in our own internal systems of government. Just as global Internet standards allow us to communicate with one another in the same language and computer code, the promulgation of universal human rights standards through global contacts allows us to communicate with one another in the language of rights. One of the most striking things I have seen in my extensive dealings with the Chinese is the extent to which there has been progress in the sense that they now speak the language of universal human rights. Of course, we differ dramatically on its application. But in the sense of saying that they once did not believe in these universal values, they now believe in these values. And moreover, they make reference to these linguistic terms. The question then becomes how to bring the terms and standards to bear on conduct. * * * * * Now these developments I also think have dramatic implications for our efforts at early warning and preventative diplomacy. And we have seen this at the State Department in regard to our efforts with regard to Kosovo. It is for this reason that we at the State Department are working with NGOs, intergovernmental entities, and national governments to hold a large conference of both public and private actors to begin developing a coordinated network on atrocities prevention and response, which will have the goal not just of collecting and sharing information, which is something that we sought to do through an announcement by the President on December 10 of the genocide early warning network, but also to develop coordinated mechanisms whereby this network can prevent and more effectively respond to crises as they evolve. A second challenge is the role of non-state actors, for even as nation-states proliferate, we are seeing more dramatically the increasing importance of nongovernmental actors as both human rights violators and human rights defenders. Multinational corporations and financial institutions, non-governmental organizations, labor unions, indigenous and ethnic groups, and transnational moral organizations such as organized religious groups, all now represent critical nodes on a network of influence in human rights that rivals and at times dwarfs the power of individual states. * * * * * With regard to non-state actors, I believe the central challenge will be how to mobilize private incentives to create a race to the top, not a race to the bottom, in the development of these human rights standards The third and perhaps most critical challenge we face at the millennium is the challenge of self-governance and democracy. Around the world, we are witnessing popular movements for independence and democracy. From Kosovo to East Timor, groups are demanding the right to determine their own future. But these developments are not necessarily coming at the cost of integration. Witness Europe, where entities such as Scotland and Catalonia have peacefully sought both greater autonomy and full participation in European institutions. The fundamental challenge facing policymakers is how to guide such movements away from the temptations of violence, separatism, and ethnic cleansing, and toward the promise of greater autonomy within a framework of democracy and human rights. * * * * * I think we need to recognize that the right to democracy is both a means and an end in the struggle for human rights. Freedom of conscience, expression, religion, and association are all bolstered in genuine democracies. In saying so, I think we have to acknowledge that the government of the people cannot be imposed from the outside. As Secretary Albright recently said, ``[D]emocracy must emerge from the desire of individuals to participate in the decisions that shape their lives. * * * Unlike dictatorship, democracy is never an imposition; it is always a choice.'' As we have learned through bitter experience, democracy also must be more than simply holding elections. The slow development of democracy over the past several years has demonstrated that our purpose is not just developing and holding elections but respect for human rights in a robust civil society characterized by the rule of law, healthy political institutions, constitutionalism, an independent judiciary with open and competitive economic structures, an independent media capable of engaging in informed debate with freedom of religion and belief, mechanism to safeguard minorities, and full respect for women's and worker rights. These principles--together with free and fair elections--form the basis for a culture of democracy. As my predecessor, John Shattuck, has said, building this culture is never easy, but the rewards make this effort profoundly worthwhile. * * * * * Well, if these are our challenges--globalization, non-state actors, and democracies--what should be our response? Here let me just mention four principles that I believe must guide our human rights policy into the next century. Those of you who have heard me speak since I have become Assistant Secretary have heard these principles before. I repeat them just to show that after four months, I still believe that they are the centerpieces of our policy. The first and most important task, I think, is to tell the truth about human rights conditions in our asylum profiles, in our investigations, in our country reports, in our monitoring. * * * * * * * * The second basic principle is that I believe we ought to stand up for principles, particularly in taking consistent positions with regard to past, present, and future abuses. With regard to past abuses, we try persistently to promote the principles of accountability. To stop ongoing abuses, we use an ``inside-outside'' approach that combines strategies of internal persuasion with tools of external sanction. To prevent further abuses, we promote the principles of early warning and preventive diplomacy. The atrocities prevention network I've just discussed is an example of how we try to achieve that goal. That brings me to my third basic principle: How do we continue to speak for fundamental freedoms? Let me mention four, which are going to be a central focus of our work over the next few years. The first, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration. Religious freedom is under attack around the world. We see it every day in the newspapers papers--in Indonesia, in China, in Sudan--against people of all faiths and beliefs. Yet here in the United States, I think too many people continue to view this as a partisan or ideological issue. I don't believe that this is something in which we should be selective in our advocacy. Having now met and talked to people of all faiths in many parts of the world who are experiencing violations of religious freedom, it is so core to the central notion of freedom of thought and consciousness that we must address these challenges, both with tools that we are given by the legislature and through other means, with the goal of combating all abuses of this fundamental freedom. A second arena in which we hope aggressively to contend is worker rights. Our bureau's tile is the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. And, of course, Article 23 of the Declaration states that ``everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions.'' Traditionally, U.S. policy has sought to promote this goal by supporting free trade unions, but I think what we now need to do is to focus on core labor standards, freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, freedom from forced or compulsory labor, freedom from abusive child labor, and non- discrimination in employment. The President in his State of the Union address and again in his speech in San Francisco identified ILO standards and the child labor struggle as one which he intends to devote a high degree of personal energy in the balance of his term. We at DRL are committed to trying to develop new approaches to replace what has become an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between labor, business, and human rights groups and to try to move toward a more cooperative model. And there are many of you who were involved in the discussions over the apparel industry partnership, who took a step in the right direction and one that we hope to build on with the goal of developing even stronger partnerships, private partnerships of non-state actors around core labor standards. Third, we must continue to promote the equal treatment of, and prevention of discrimination and violence against, women. Traditionally, we have sought to do this through a variety of means ranging from domestic legislation to international campaigns against trafficking, female genital mutilation, and to recognize that the women's rights issue cannot be ghettoized as a women's issue that is not of concern to the general human rights community. And our need here is again to heal gender divisions. And we are going to press as hard as we can in the next few years of this administration to bring about the long, delayed ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Fourth and finally, another area in which I believe we must move forward is the area of economic, social, and cultural rights, and to recognize, as we said in Vienna, that these rights are ``universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated.'' Martin Luther King, I think, understood this idea well when he said ``What good is it to have the right to sit at a lunch counter when you don't have enough money to buy anything to eat?'' He also said ``We must be `cognizant of the interrelatedness of all [things]. * * * Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.' '' We need to take freedom from poverty, for example, and treat it not just as an economic right, but as something connected deeply to political repression. We need to understand that the right to organize means little without the right to food. This brings me to my final principle, that no government working to promote human rights can work alone. We need to think of ourselves as members of a global human rights community that now extends beyond public and private lines, that now crosses national lines, that moves beyond institutional lines. Judges, executive branch officials, legislatures, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs are all parts of this community, of which I think all of us here are part. It is vital that we recognize and embrace its common commitment to truth, justice, freedom, and democratic partnership. If that sounds suspiciously like a commitment to truth, justice, and the American way, I plead guilty because I do believe that in the next century, the real divide among nations will not be ideological divides, or between North and South or East and West, but rather between those nations that respect human rights and those that do not. These are our challenges. These are the principles that ought to guide our response. These tasks are daunting, but I think that they are in slow, exacting measure attainable. I don't know how many of us thought that we could get as far as we have, even in the one lifetime that the human rights movement has lived. When I was in Belgrade in December, I gave an interview to B92, which, as many of you know, is an independent radio station. They were somewhat demoralized, as they should be, by the repression of the media in Yugoslavia. And they said to me, ``What can you say to us on the eve of Christmas that can give us some hope?'' There was a moment of silence, and then I said: Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. And she was exiled. Now she is Secretary of State. My family became political exiles from Korea. Now I am the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights. Now, both of our countries are free. A lot can change in one lifetime. In 20 years of human rights policy, we have made progress. Although we have a long way to go, for myself, for my Secretary, for my family, I can think of no higher honor than to carry the banner of democracy, human rights, and labor into the next century. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, recently I introduced in the House The Human Rights Information Act (H.R. 1625), and joining me as the principal cosponsor of this bill was Congresswoman Connie Morella, our distinguished Republican Colleague from the State of Maryland. Our legislation has already found strong bipartisan support with over 50 of our distinguished colleagues joining as original cosponsors of this bill. These men and women are leading voices in the defense of human rights throughout the world, and recently many of them joined me at a press conference announcing the introduction of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is similar to legislation which I introduced in the last Congress with the cosponsorship of Congresswoman Morella. Our bill--H.R. 2635 of the 105th Congress--was considered and favorably reported by the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform in the last Congress. I want to commend our colleague, Congressman Stephen Horn, who chairs that Subcommittee, for his thoughtful consideration of the legislation last year. I also want to thank Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who served as Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee in the last Congress, for his help in the consideration of the legislation last year. Mr. Speaker, three simple principles are at the heart of the Human Rights Information Act. First, it is a fundamental obligation of our government to support and protect human rights and democracy. This principle is central to our democratic system of government. The constitutional codification of our commitment to human rights, our Bill of Rights, not only has domestic implications for Americans, but it also has inspired and encouraged countries around the world in their own quest for freedom, democracy, and human rights. Successive American Administrations have recognized our nation's strong national commitment to human rights as a guiding principle and as one of the highest obligations of our nation's foreign policy. The United States has freely accepted our obligation to protect human rights under international law by signing and ratifying various international human rights treaties and covenants. It is also fundamental to any democratic system of government that the public be fully informed about policies directly affecting these most fundamental rights in order for the people to make meaningful decisions with regard to their government and to participate fully in the democratic process. The timely declassification of documents pertaining to human rights violations abroad, therefore, ought to be a paramount obligation of any U.S. government agency. Second, our nation's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and democracy around the world has led us to make tremendous diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to end systematic human rights violations abroad. The United States government's efforts are supported by numerous American and foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the promotion of human rights and democracy. These efforts would be in vain if we do not do all we can to uncover and legally prosecute those who commit human rights abuses with impunity. Only full investigation of human rights abuses in these areas can really bring about the full accountability needed to develop respect for human rights and to rebuild a peaceful and reconciled civil society after civil conflict. Third, democracy and human rights can flourish only where information is fully available, and information is essential to the rule of law. Without information and the rule of law, we will see human rights violations and the erosion of democracy. Even in countries where progress has been made, there is danger of regression if full information and the rule of law are not scrupulously enforced. A country currently facing this danger is Guatemala. As my colleagues may know, just a few weeks ago, three gunmen entered the house of Ronalth Ochaeta, the director of the Catholic Church's human rights office. They put a gun to the head of his 4-year old son and left a box with bricks behind. The bricks are an allusion to the assassination of Bishop Gerardi a year ago, who was killed by a brick only days after the Bishop issued his report on human right violations during the period of the Guatemalan Civil War. The investigation of the Bishop's death has not yet produced any results. In Guatemala recently, President Clinton gave his word that the United States will never forget its obligation to those people whose lives have been affected by our policies, and who are now rightfully seeking the most basic of all information which was not included in the recently released report by the Guatemalan Truth Commission--What happened to their relatives and loved ones, where are their bodies, and which individuals were responsible for the disappearances and deaths? Mr. Speaker, let me briefly outline the provisions of H.R. 1625: Our bill specifies that 120 days after enactment of the legislation, each U.S. government agency shall identify, review and organize all records and documents relating to human rights abuses in Guatemala and Honduras after 1944. The provisions of the legislation would also apply to human rights violations in other areas of the world, but because of the particularly serious problems of Guatemala and Honduras and the reconciliation efforts currently under way there, these two countries these are given particular focus in the bill. The legislation would apply the declassification procedures of the previously enacted JFK Assassination Records Act to human rights records. This will assure that legitimate National Security concerns are protected, but at the same time it will also assure that human rights documents are given special priority. In order the assure that records are not withheld for trival reasons, those records which agencies seek to withhold would be reviewed by the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (an organization which was established by Presidential Executive Order 12958) or any entity subsequently established which fulfills the same functions of the Appeals Panel. Our legislation would add two new members to the Appeals Panel (or the entity that replaces it). These two positions would be filled by the President with human rights experts who meet the security requirements for membership on the panel. The President would be required to invite recommendations for these positions from the human rights community. Mr. Speaker, our legislation is an effort to assure that human rights records and documents--which are essential for the identification and prosecution of individuals involved in gross human rights abuses--are made available to other countries in their pursuit and punishment of human rights violators. At the same time the legislation recognizes and carefully balances the national security and intelligence needs of the United States. I invite our colleagues in the House to join as cosponsors of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 13, Members of Congress joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, executive and judicial branch officials, and Holocaust survivors and their families to commemorate the National Days of Remembrance in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol. The ceremony coincided with the 60th anniversary of the voyage of the SS St. Louis, which set sail from Germany in April 1939, carrying more than 900 Jews away from Nazi terror. Denied entry to both Cuba and the United States, the St. Louis was forced to send its frightened passengers back to Europe just months before the onset of World War II. Many of them were eventually murdered in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and the other death camps of Hitler's Holocaust. The tragic fate of the SS St. Louis remains a symbol to all of us who believe that society must never close its eyes to the victims of genocide, torture, and other gross violations of human rights and international law. Had the United States government not ignored the plight of the St. Louis refugees sixty years ago, had it substituted compassion and empathy for bureaucracy and rigidity, the children of that ship might still be alive today. While we cannot rectify the wrongs of generations ago, we can apply the lesson of the St. Louis to the crises of today. In the Europe of 1999, innocent civilians are once again being deported, abused, raped and murdered. While the scale of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo does not approach the enormity of the Holocaust, the precedent that would be set by ignoring this ethnic cleansing cannot be tolerated. As Benjamin Meed, one of America's most prominent Holocaust survivors, noted at the Days of Remembrance ceremony: ``All of us must remain vigilant--always aware, always on guard against those who are determined to destroy innocent life for no other reason than birthright.'' Benjamin Meed was born in Warsaw, Poland. He worked as a slave laborer for the Nazis, survived in the Warsaw Ghetto, and was an active member of the Warsaw Underground with his wife, Vladka. A member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council since its inception, he chairs the Museum's Days of Remembrance Committee. He is President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and a leader of a number of other organizations. Mr. Meed founded the Benjamin and Vladka Meed Registry of Jewish Holocaust Survivors permanently housed at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of Mr. Meed's Days of Remembrance address to be placed in the Congressional Record: Refuge Denied: The Voyage of the SS St. Louis Members of the diplomatic corps, distinguished members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, distinguished guests, fellow survivors and dear friends, Welcome to the 20th national Days of Rememberance commemoration. For at least a decade, the magnificent flags that surround us now have been part of our annual observance here in the nation's Capitol. Every time the American flag and the flags of the United States Army that liberated the concentration camps are brought into this hall for this commemoration, a special pride as an American citizen sweeps over me, as I am sure it must for all Holocaust survivors. These pieces of red, white and blue cloth were the symbols of freedom and hope for those of us caught in the machinery of death. Discovery of the Nazi German concentration camps by the Allied armies began the process that restored our lives. Although we have many dates this month to remember, we recall with special gratitude the date of April 11, 1945, when American troops, in their march to end the war in Europe came across the Buchenwald concentration camp. We will always remain grateful to the soldiers for their bravery, kindness and generosity. We will always remember those young soldiers who sacrificed their lives to bring us to liberty. Many revelations over the last half-century have unveiled the Holocaust as a story of massive destruction and loss. It has been shown to be a story of an apathetic world--a world full of callous dispassion and moral insensitivity with a few individual exceptions. But more, it has been shown to be a tale of victory--victory of the human spirit, of extraordinary courage and of remarkable endurance. It is the story of a life that flourished before the Shoah, that struggled throughout its darkest hours, and that ultimately prevailed. After the Holocaust, as we rebuilt our lives, we also built a nation--the State of Israel. This was our answer to death and destruction--new life, both family and national life--and Remembrance. Minister Ben David, please convey to the people of Israel our solidarity with them as they, too. Remember on this Yom Hashoah. Today, our thoughts turn back sixty years. On May 13, 1939, the SS St. Louis sailed from Hamburg bound for Cuba with more than nine hundred passengers, most of them Jews fleeing Nazism. For these passengers it was a desperate bid for freedom that was doomed before it began. Politics, profit and public opinion were permitted to overshadow morality, compassion and common sense. It is so painful now to realize that not only Cuba but our own beloved country closed their doors and hearts to these People of the Book who could see the lights of Miami from the decks of the ship but were not permitted to disembark. This group of over nine hundred could have been saved, but instead the voyage became a round-trip passage to hell for many of them. Less than three months after the St. Louis docked at Antwerp, the world was at war. And, in less than three years, the ``Final Solution of the Jewish Problem'' in Europe was fully operational. Could this happened today? Hopefully, not. But we--all of us--must be vigilant--ever mindful that once such a course of destruction of a people has been chartered, it can be followed again, and again, and again. And what lessons did we derive from these horrible experiences? The most important lesson is obvious--it can happen again. The impossible is possible again. Ethnic cleansing, a genocide, is happening as I speak. It can happen to any one or to any group of people. Should there be another Holocaust, it may be on a cosmic scale. How can we prevent it? All of us must remain vigilant--always aware, always on guard against those who are determined to destroy innocent human life for no other reason than birthright. There are some passengers of the unfortunate voyage of the SS St. Louis who are with us here today. Like most of us Holocaust survivors, they are in the winter of their lives. Even so, all of us look toward the future, because we believe that, in sharing our experiences--by bearing witness--there is hope of protecting other generations who might be abandoned and forgotten, robbed and murdered. The telling and retelling of the stories of the Holocaust with their profound lessons for humanity must become a mission for all humankind. In this way, future generations--particularly future generations of Americans--can Remember and use the power of this knowledge to protect people everywhere. In these great halls of Congress, we see symbols of the ideals that this country represents. It was the collective rejection of these ideals by many nations that made the Holocaust possible. Today, let us promise to keep an ever- watchful eye for those who would deny and defy the principles of liberty, equality and justice and for those who would defy the rules of honorable and peaceful conduct between peoples and nations. Together, let us Remember. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 13, Members of Congress joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, executive and judicial branch officials, and Holocaust survivors and their families to commemorate the National Days of Remembrance in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol. The ceremony coincided with the 60th anniversary of the voyage of the SS St. Louis, which set sail from Germany in April 1939, carrying more than 900 Jews away from Nazi terror. Denied entry to both Cuba and the United States, the St. Louis was forced to send its frightened passengers back to Europe just months before the onset of World War II. Many of them were eventually murdered in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and the other death camps of Hitler's Holocaust. While we cannot rectify the wrongs of generations ago, we can apply the lesson of the St. Louis to the crises of today. In the Europe of 1999, innocent civilians are once again being deported, abused, raped and murdered. While the scale of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo does not approach the enormity of the Holocaust, the precedent that would be set by ignoring this ethnic cleansing cannot be tolerated. Ruth B. Mandel, the Vice Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, thoughtfully communicated the moral meaning of the St. Louis voyage at the Days of Remembrance ceremony: ``Today, tens of thousands of people in great distress stare at us from the front pages of newspapers and from television screens. Victims of humankind's evil impulses and behavior cry out at the last moment of the twentieth century. Their agonies testify to the continuation of a blind and vicious inhumanity we human beings visit on one another. Today, as we gather here to honor the dead, let us cherish the living.'' Ruth B. Mandel fled Nazi Germany with her parents, Mechel and Lea Blumenstock, in 1939 on the SS St. Louis. When the ship returned to Europe, the Blumenstock family was accepted by England. They arrived in the United States in 1947. Professor Mandel is now Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. From 1971 to 1994, she served as Director of the Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers, where she remains affiliated as a Senior Scholar. Professor Mandel was appointed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council in 1991, was named its Vice Chairperson in 1993, and was the founding Chairperson of its Committee on Conscience. Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of Professor Mandel's address at the Days of Remembrance ceremony to be placed in the Congressional Record. Days of Remembrance The occasion for a new exhibition which opened yesterday here in Washington at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is the 60th anniversary of the voyage of the German ship, the St. Louis, into the pages of a shameful history. Many people have heard about this ship carrying over 900 human beings whom no one wanted, or have seen newspaper photographs of the refugees crowding the ship's railings, peering across the short distance between exile on the high seas and rescue on the land. The land, within easy view, was entirely outside of reach. Denied entry by Cuba and shunned by the United States, the ship turned back toward Europe. In a humane and merciful moment, four countries agreed to open their doors. Unfortunately, those passengers who were taken in by Belgium, the Netherlands and France soon found themselves once more trapped under Nazi control. The luckier passengers who were sent to England managed to escape the Nazis and, in some instances, help to wage the war against them. Several weeks ago, I was taken to a work room behind the scenes at the Museum for an early glimpse of a few of the displays and artifacts being prepared for the new exhibition about this chapter from the Holocaust. I walked around the room looking at photographs of passengers and reading descriptive panels about the plight of over 900 Jewish men, women and children reviled by Germany, repulsed by Cuba, rejected by the United States. I came upon a piece of paper covered with signatures. Apparently this was a ``thank you'' page to Morris Troper, European director for the Joint Distribution Committee, who had devoted himself to saving the passengers and had negotiated their entry into Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. As a gesture of gratitude for his great efforts and his leadership on behalf of their plight, passengers had signed their names on a sheet of paper for him to keep. And there, right there on that page of signatures hanging on a wall in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, there was my mother's unmistakable handwriting. There was her name, Lea Blumenstock, written in exactly the way she had signed letters and checks, exactly as she signed my report cards from school, our medical insurance forms, her citizenship papers. I stood electrified in front of that name I had seen written hundreds of other times in my life. It was as familiar as her voice or her smile. All the stories about the past transformed themselves in that instant into the living reality of my mother's distinctive signature there among the rest. She was there on that ship, she signed that piece of paper. What was she thinking? What was she feeling? Was I, an infant, nearby in someone's arms while she signed, or being held by my father, or in the little stroller they had with them in the photograph of the three of us on the ship's deck? She signed that paper. My God, we really were there! Over the years, the St. Louis and its journey to nowhere have taken on qualities of a mythic tale. But for me and bout 100 others still able to bear witness (many here in this awesome room today), this story is especially poignant. Its characters and plot line are no fabled product of someone's heated imagination. WE are the characters, and the plot is the story of what happened to us. The voyage of the St Louis is my family's personal life experience. Its outcome determined our fate, shaping my parents' adult lives and my childhood. A recognition that the Holocaust itself in all its grotesque horror is about real people in real time--about victims and killers, bystanders and heroes, craven and indifferent observers, self deluded participants, every kind of human being we have encountered in life--this realization that the Holocaust is about real human beings in a civilized world is the reality to which the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum bears witness every day. The reality of the event is the Museum's central educational message: what you see here can happen. And it did happen. It is this reality to which the Museum has already, in six short years, exposed twelve million visitors here in Washington and many more in places where exhibits have traveled or educational materials have been distributed. Like the disrupted, shattered life histories of millions of Europe's Jews, my own large family's experience involved every kind of loss, humiliation and anguish survivors know as well from their Holocaust histories. But our immediate, small family--that is, my father, my mother and myself--we were ultimately much luckier than so many of our relatives. My childhood was supposed to have played out differently. I was supposed to have grown up as the daughter of a prosperous Viennese family. I was supposed to have had sisters and brothers, aunts, uncles and cousins, grandparents on both sides. It didn't work out that way. In the aftermath of Kristallnacht in 1938, my father was sent to Dachau, and his 24 year old wife was left with their infant daughter and a mission--to get him out however she could. First, she obtained his release with a single ticket to Shanghai, not wanting to leave for China without us, he attempted crossing into Belgium only to be caught at the border, finally, she found a way out--tickets to Havana, Cuba for all of us on a ship called the St. Louis. ``I am not a traveler'' is how my mother always described herself. No matter what the circumstances, motion disagreed with her. It was a family joke that she became ill on their honeymoon in Venice when she and my father took a romantic gondola ride. It is no surprise, therefore, that my mother spent most of the St. Louis voyage seasick in the cabin. Photographs on deck show my father on babysitting duty with me. Gaunt and strained from his months in Dachau, he manages a smile for the camera, holding me in his arms or on his lap, in one instance with my mother looking on, her sad, small, wan face also attempting a smile. After Cuba's betrayal and America's rejection, my parents and I were among those passengers blessed with the good fortune of being taken in by England as political refugees. After a brief stay in London, my parents were evacuated to the countryside, to a little town called Spalding, away from the bombing, although I remember well the sounds of sirens warning us of trouble coming, and I remember nights in air raid shelters. Later we moved to Leicester. At first my father worked in the fields--picking potatoes and tulips, I think--but then he was drafted into the British military, and he served throughout the war. He and my mother liked the British and were forever grateful to England for taking them in. Nonetheless, after the war, when my father's quota number came up (he had a longer wait than my mother because he had been born in Poland), we left England for the United States because family was always the central force in my mother's life and she wanted to be reunited with her parents and one of her brothers who had made it here. For most of my life, I could not have stood at a podium and spoken about the St. Louis. It was a subject for the privacy of our family, not material for exposure to public view. For many years, I would have refused an invitation to make a public statement about my family's personal history. It would have felt like a violation of the most sensitive, most private areas of our lives. My family had enough to do dealing with terrifying memories, with the murder of their relatives, the loss of their homes, and their businesses, their way of life, with the wandering to new lands, the relocation and the humiliation that came with boarding in the homes of strangers, the indignities they experienced in depending on the kindness of distant relatives, their struggles to speak, read and write in a new language, earn a living and begin everything all over, reconstruct their lives in foreign places. All of that was the essence of daily life inside my family. It was our struggle, our history, our wounds and adjustments, our lives behind the door of our apartment. Yet now I do speak in public. I talk to students who call with questions for their class essays and term papers. I answer journalists' queries. I do so because I have come to respect the power and cherish the value of memory, both individual and collective memory. I have come to believe in the importance of preserving memory, bearing witness, educating new generations about the events of history, and trying in whatever ways one can to bring the lessons of the past to enlighten present behavior. I do not know for sure that we learn from the past. I have my doubts that recalling evil can make people good. But at least we have to try. As an act of faith, we have to try. My own memory of the St. Louis is mediated memory, mediated through my parents as they talked for the rest of their lives about those days. The messages and themes I heard repeatedly became my St. Louis voyage. The hotel in Hamburg where we stayed before boarding the ship requested that Jewish guests refrain from entering the dining room, stay out of the lobby and hallways, remain in their rooms. The ship's captain treated us with dignity and respect; my parents always said he was a fine, decent man, an example of a good German. People on board were distraught, suicidal. Roosevelt would not let us in; it was incomprehensible, and a ``disgrace.'' England was good to us. And over and over again, etched in my brain was the message that others had not been so lucky, that we had survived and benefitted because chance was on our side. These days I often think about my mother and father in Vienna in the early years. I strain to imagine what it must have been like for them then, at that moment in their young lives. They had it all--love, strong families, health, economic success, and high hopes for the future. Life seemed to be promising them the best one could imagine, until history's nightmare overwhelmed and blotted out their private dreams. They spent the rest of their lives recovering from that nightmare and coping with its effects. And yet they were the lucky ones. They never forgot that. My mother had the strong, enduring belief that sheer good luck had saved us. Of course, many people with great power over us had much to do with determining our fate; but we had virtually no ability to influence them. We were a ship of homeless souls wandering the seas at the mercy of forces and powers that had no knowledge of us as individuals and whose interest in us was shaped by their own power dynamics, parochial pressures and prejudices. The voyage of the St. Louis took place after Kristallnacht (the Night of Broken Glass, when thousands of Jewish businesses, homes and synagogues were vandalized as people were terrorized), but before the onset of World War II. Nine hundred and thirty-seven people who thought they had escaped were sent back to encounter the War. Those who went to continental Europe experienced the Holocaust the way the rest of its victims did. For one brief moment they had seen the shores of America and glimpsed freedom. The clarity of hindsight tells us that at that moment people could have been saved, action could have made a difference. As a human community, how can we develop reliable foresight, the will to act, and the skill to move in the right direction, in the right way, at the right time? Today, tens of thousands of people in great distress stare at us from the front pages of newspapers and from television screens. Victims of humankind's evil impulses and behavior cry out at the last moment of this twentieth century. Their agonies testify to the continuation of a blind and vicious inhumanity we human beings visit on one another. Today, as we gather here to honor the dead, let us cherish the living. As we memorialize the victims of the Holocaust, let us call on the dictates of conscience and morality to find a better way to end this brutal millennium. The great challenge to the civilized world is to remember the past, to learn from it, and above all--above all else--to do better.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 13, Members of Congress joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, executive and judicial branch officials, and Holocaust survivors and their families to commemorate the National Days of Remembrance in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol. The ceremony coincided with the 60th anniversary of the voyage of the SS St. Louis, which set sail from Germany in April 1939, carrying more than 900 Jews away from Nazi terror. Denied entry to both Cuba and the United States, the St. Louis was forced to send its frightened passengers back to Europe just months before the onset of World War II. Many of them were eventually murdered in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and the other death camps of Hitler's Holocaust. While we cannot rectify the wrongs of generations ago, we can apply the lesson of the St. Louis to the crises of today. In the Europe of 1999, innocent civilians are once again being deported, abused, raped and murdered. While the scale of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo does not approach the enormity of the Holocaust, the precedent that would be set by ignoring this ethnic cleansing cannot be tolerated. Miles Lerman, the Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council since 1993, eloquently expressed the moral cost of inaction at the Days of Remembrance ceremony. ``As we remember the victims of the St. Louis and all of the eventual victims of the Holocaust, we have a better understanding why we are in Kosovo and why the free world cannot afford to stand with their hands folded while murder and mass atrocities run rampant. This is a lesson that the world has learned in the past and cannot afford to forget.'' In addition to his responsibilities with the Holocaust Memorial Council, Miles Lerman serves as a member of the Advisory Board of the President's Commission on the Holocaust. Prior to his appointment to lead the Council, Mr. Lerman directed its International Relations Committee and served as National Chairman of the Campaign to Remember. During the Holocaust, he fought as a partisan in the forests of southern Poland. He and his wife, Chris, a survivor of Auschwitz, rebuilt their lives in the United States. They have two children. Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of Mr. Lerman's address to the Days of Remembrance ceremony to be placed in the Congressional Record. Remarks by Miles Lerman, Days of Remembrance The greatness of the United States of America rests on the fact that America and its people have the courage to acknowledge its mistakes of the past and draw lessons for the future. This virtue is reflected in today's program. The theme of today's commemoration is to remember the St. Louis, a ship with more than 900 Jewish refugees who were promised safe harbor in Cuba but as the ship approached Havana, their entry visas were rejected. The desperate pleas of the passengers not to be sent back to Germany and to be granted temporary entry to the United States fell on deaf ears. When all pleas were exhausted, the St. Louis with its passengers had to return to Europe where many of them eventually perished in the Holocaust. Very few countries in the World would lend their national rotunda to recall a moment in their nation's history, which should have been different than it was. This is what makes America the great country that it is because it understands that nations must have the strength to come to terms with their own history. America clearly understands that if it is to be the world leader among nations, it must lead the way in acknowledging its own shortcomings. It must be the first among nations to acknowledge the fact that standing by idly while genocidal crimes are being committed, is tantamount to being a partner to these crimes. When we look back to the early years of Hitler's rise to power, it becomes clear that had the leaders of the Western nations of those days been more decisive in their actions, the outcome of history could have been quite different. These are facts that the world can never forget. Remembering the tragic lessons of the past can only have meaning if we apply these lessons to today and to the future. It is encouraging to know that our nation remembers the wrongs of yesteryear and is leading the way in finding solutions to injustices that have been lingering on for over 50 years. Last December, the State Department jointly with the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, co-chaired an International Conference on Holocaust-era assets. Forty-four nations participated in this Conference, which produced very encouraging results. These results can be attributed to the fact that the U.S. Government has set the tone by creating a Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. This Commission was charged by the President to explore whether all U.S. agencies have acted judiciously regarding the restitution of all Nazi- era assets to the rightful owners. This Presidential Commission is hard at work to ensure that just and legal procedures will be applied to all cases at hand and will not rest until a proper resolution is found. However, it is essential that we bear in mind that no matter how important it is to deal with the material issues and find a way to compensate the rightful owners for what is justly theirs, the last word on the Holocaust cannot be bank accounts or insurance policies. The last word on the Holocaust must be remembrance and an ongoing process of Holocaust education. We must create a global educational initiative--a process that will serve as a lesson and a warning to future generations to the dangers of racism, xenophobia and indifference. The Holocaust Memorial Museum and its Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies stands ready to lend its expertise in this field and we hope to be one of the leading factors in implementing a worldwide educational network on all levels, ranging from middle schools to graduate schools. So as America remembers the St. Louis, America is saying to the world, we too are not totally free of some guilt. In the early years, we had an opportunity to set examples, which we did not set. These are facts from which we must draw lessons for the future. We remember this unfortunate event of sixty years ago, not for the purpose of chastising ourselves but to learn from it. If we want a better world for tomorrow, we must look back and remember the past. Today, as we remember the victims of the St. Louis and all of the eventual victims of the Holocaust, we have a better understanding why we are in Kosovo and why the free world cannot afford to stand with their hands folded while murder and mass atrocities run rampant. This is a lesson that the world has learned in the past and cannot afford to forget.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 13, Members of Congress joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, executive and judicial branch officials, and Holocaust survivors and their families to commemorate the National Days of Remembrance in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol. The ceremony coincided with the 60th anniversary of the voyage of the SS St. Louis, which set sail from Germany in April 1939, carrying more than 900 Jews away from Nazi terror. Denied entry to both Cuba and the United States, the St. Louis was forced to send its frightened passengers back to Europe just months before the onset of World War II. Many of them were eventually murdered in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other death camps of Hitler's Holocaust. While we cannot rectify the wrongs of generations ago, we can apply the lesson of the St. Louis to the crises of today. In the Europe of 1999, innocent civilians are once again being deported, abused, raped and murdered. While the scale of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo does not approach the enormity of the Holocaust, the precedent that would be set by ignoring this ethnic cleansing cannot be tolerated. Lenny Ben-David, the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of Israel, reminded us of our moral responsibility at the Days of Remembrance ceremony. He quoted the sage advice of the late Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik: ``The function of the halachic (righteous) man is to redress the grievances of those who are abandoned and alone, to protect the dignity of the poor and to save the oppressed from his oppressor.'' Mr. Speaker, this is true now more than ever. Lenny Ben-David was appointed Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of Israel by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Ben-David served as an independent consultant on public and political affairs. He held senior posts in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for 25 years, opening and directing AIPAC's office in Israel for almost 15 years. Mr. Ben-David is a graduate of Yeshiva University in New York. He received a Masters degree in Political Science from the American University in Washington, D.C. He and his wife, Rochelle Black, have six children. Mr. Speaker, I submit the full text of Mr. Ben-David's address at the Days of Remembrance ceremony to be printed in the Congressional Record. Days of Remembrance Program, U.S. Capitol Rotunda, April 13, 1999 (Remarks by Lenny Ben-David, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Israel) Ever since I heard of today's theme (The S.S. St. Louis), I have been obsessed with the thoughts of ships. First, the St. Louis, with more than 900 Jews, including children. We are told that little children on board played a game: they formed a barricade from the deck chairs. Two children served as guards and other children sought permission to pass. ``Are you a Jew?'' asked the child guard. ``Yes,'' was the other child's reply. ``Jews are not allowed to pass,'' the guard responded. ``Oh please let me in. I am only a very little Jew.'' Little or big, Jews on that ship never disembarked in Cuba or America. A few years later, another ship was fitted up in the Baltimore harbor. Ultimately it became known as the Exodus. Loaded with 4,500 survivors, this boat could not deliver its human cargo to the shores of Eretz Yisrael in 1947. Like the passengers on the St. Louis, they too were forced to return to the countries from which they had fled. Thank God, for their sake, the Nazis had been defeated, but anti-Semitism was not. Jews could still not disembark from a sinking ghost ship called Europe. Pogroms were still taking place. Finally in May 1948, safe haven was secured when Israel was founded. I am reminded of another boat. Some 30 years later, another ship full of refugees was floundering in the China Sea. Vietnamese refugees, starving and thirsty, they were picked up by an Israeli ship. In his first official act in office, Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered that they be given haven in Israel. And other ships come to mind: Small boats smuggling the precious cargo of Jews from North Africa. Some never made it. Missile boats of the Israeli Navy quietly sailing up to the shores of Africa in the dead of night to take the Jews of Ethiopia home, a journey of hundreds of miles and hundreds of years of culture. Later, the air ships would fly the Ethiopians to Israel by the thousands as they did their Yemenite brothers and sisters 40 years earlier. Today, the ships of the air continue to fly, loaded with Jews from Moscow and Minsk, Bucharest and Bukhara, Kiev and St. Petersburg. In recent weeks, they have been arriving from Belgrade and Kosovo, too. As Israel has been a haven to Jews, so it has also been, in its small way, a haven to Moslem refugees from Bosnia and Kosovo. Ladies and gentlemen, I am reminded of one other boat. The ship's log is found in the Tanach, the Jewish Bible, ``The Lord then hurled a furious wind upon the sea; there was a heavy storm at sea, and the ship was about to be broken up. The sailors were frightened, each cried to his own god and they threw overboard the cargo that was in the ship in order to lighten it; but Jonah had gone down below deck and was lying fast asleep.'' Later, when they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah, the ship's crew turned to Jonah and asked, ``What have you done?! They knew that Jonah was running away from the Lord's presence.'' Friends, Jonah could not run away from his duties, and he realized after experiencing the dark and dank belly of the great fish, that you could try to run from your responsibilities even to the depths of the ocean, but you cannot hide. That is why the book of Jonah is traditionally read in synagogues on Yom Kippur. The late contemporary sage, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, would quote his grandfather, Rabbi Chaim of Brisk: ``The function of the halachic (righteous) man is to redress the grievances of those who are abandoned and alone, to protect the dignity of the poor and to save the oppressed from the hands of his oppressor.'' Yes, that is how we can and must avoid the moral shipwreck caused by apathy and indifference, and bring humankind to safe port. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Marcy Vacura Saunders, the first woman to serve as Labor Commissioner in the State of California. Ms. Saudners' much deserved appointment to this position is an important milestone for working people and to Californians, and a tribute to her remarkable career and lifelong commitment to organized labor. Ms. Saunders began her professional life as a flight attendant, and achieved the esteemed rank of Acting Chairperson of the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants. She led a successful National Boycott of Conscience against TWA's Carl Icahn. In 1987, Ms. Saunders joined the Building and Trades Council of San Mateo County. In 1993, she became the first and only woman in the United States to be elected Business Manager of a building trades council. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Saunders' tireless and unwavering efforts on behalf of the Council membership have assured the gainful employment of countless Californians and improved the quality of life of many Bay Area families. In 1994, under Ms. Saunders' leadership, the Building and Trades Council stimulated a stagnant economy in the City of East Palo Alto through the formation of the East Palo Alto Building & Trades Alliance. In 1996, she helped to obtain resolutions from 12 cities and the County of San Mateo supporting California's prevailing wage laws. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Saunders has demonstrated a tireless commitment to our community through her extraordinary volunteer service to organizations such as the United Way, the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau, the San Mateo County Exposition & Fair Association Board, the San Mateo County Commission on the Status of Women, the Redwood City Library Foundation, the San Mateo County/Redwood City Chamber of Commerce, the Soroptimist International, the San Mateo County Economic Vitality Partnership, the Shelter Network, LEADERSHIP San Mateo/Foster City/Burlingame/Hillsborough, START (San Mateo Recruitment and Training), and the Private Industry Council. Ms. Saunders has been recognized for her selfless service as the recipient of the Soroptimist International's Women Helping Women Award, the Woman Of Economic and Social Development Award, the San Mateo County Labor Council C.O.P.E. Award, the United Way Labor Leadership Outstanding Volunteer Award, and the Mary Moshey Outstanding Community Volunteer Award. In 1994, Ms. Saunders was inducted into the San Meteo County Women's Hall of Fame as a tribute to her extraordinary achievements. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Marcy Vacura Saunder's exemplary professional and personal accomplishments, Governor Gray Davis selected her as the Golden State's top advocate for working people. I commend and pledge my continued support to a most remarkable woman, whom I am honored to call my friend, and whom San Mateo County is proud to call its own--California State Labor Commissioner, Marcy Vacura Saunders.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the voices of appeasement and isolationism are reverberating in these halls. For 40 years NATO stood against the Soviet Union, the mighty superpower, and NATO apparently, in the view of some of our colleagues, cannot stand up to Slobodan Milosevic. This past weekend at the NATO summit, 19 nations stood together determined and united to see to it that the ethnic cleansing comes to an end, that the persecution, mass rape, mass murder of the Kosovars comes to a halt. And it is painful indeed to listen to some of my colleagues who forget that for the whole period since the end of the Second World War, NATO provided a shield behind which Europe could be safe and free and secure and prosperous. This is a historic moment. For the first time, Hitler's first victims, the Czechs, the Poles, the Danes, the Norweigans, the Dutch and the Belgians stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the newly democratic Germany and 11 other nations, including Canada and ourselves, in saying ``no'' to the perpetrators of genocide. This is not the time to cut and run. It is important for all of us to realize that when the dust settles, this will prove to be NATO's finest hour. We are in it not for oil, not for glory, not for territory, but for the principles on which this country was founded, the principles that NATO has succeeded in taking root throughout western Europe and now throughout central Europe. If anybody really believes that behind a new Iron Curtain in Yugoslavia there can be a dictatorship while the rest of Europe will be safe, stable and secure, it better wake up. We need to understand that if we allow Slobodan Milosevic to continue his evil deeds, he started the war against Slovenia, he lost it. He started the war against Croatia, he lost it. He started the war against Bosnia Herzegovina, he lost it. The last war he now starts, it is against the people of Kosovo. These people have done nothing, nothing to hurt the Yugoslav nation. They just want to live in peace and decency, and it is the responsibility of NATO to stand up as it has for half a century. I strongly urge rejection of the resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida would have heard a great deal about all of those outrages had he been active in the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The folks who cry crocodile tears for all these people who have been killed and tortured and murdered are nowhere to be seen when we are dealing with human rights issues. Mr. Speaker, the greatness of this country is measured by the moments when we act in a bipartisan fashion. It was the Marshall Plan, it was NATO, and it was all the bipartisan measures passed by our predecessors that created the great moments of American history in the 20th century. In the other body 16 of my colleagues' Republican colleagues, some of the most distinguished members of the Republican party, Senator John McCain, their most credible presidential candidate, Senator Lugar of Indiana, the foreign policy expert, Senator John Warner, head of the Armed Services Committee and 13 others voted for this identical resolution. They have risen to a high level of bipartisanship. Now I have some credentials along those lines. I stood up with President Bush 8 years ago and voted to support that President because I felt the national interest was at stake. It is no less at stake today. The blind hatred that is so apparent on the part of some of my colleagues towards this administration makes it impossible to make rational judgments. What we are asking for is to get our troops the feeling that the Congress is behind what they are doing day and night under the most difficult circumstances. That is all that this resolution calls for. And John McCain saw fit to vote for it, as did 15 other distinguished Republican senators. They have taken ownership, if I may borrow the phrase of the Republican whip, they have taken ownership of this measure because this is an American engagement. It is not a Republican or a Democratic engagement, just as the Marshall Plan was an American engagement and NATO was an American engagement. We are seeing a miracle unfold. Nineteen nations of the most disparate types are united, but our own House of Representatives has risen with division. Vote for this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, some of us stood in this chamber 8 years ago when President Bush called on the Congress to support his military plans in the Persian Gulf. I was one of those Democrats who strongly supported the President at that time. But I recall, Mr. Speaker, that we were given 16 hours of debate, 16 hours of debate, on one single resolution. Every Member of this body had full opportunity to speak his mind. We now have four conflicting, contradictory, mutually exclusive resolutions, with each of them given one hour of debate. With all due respect, I think this is an outrage. This will be one of the most significant issues this Congress will debate in this session or for many sessions to come, and I strongly call on my colleagues to defeat this rule. This is a rule which is giving us 30 minutes on each side to decide on war or peace, which is an absurdity, and it is not worthy of this body. This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, my distinguished Republican colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I represented this body at the NATO summit. Nineteen countries devoted 2 full days to discussing the plans for the future. It is unconscionable that the Congress of the United States should be denied the opportunity to seriously discuss issues of war and peace. The President has just asked for the call-up of some 33,000 reservists. We have a major military engagement, and this body and the country are entitled to a full airing of all of the issues involved in this. I trust that my colleagues will see fit to turn down this rule. It is poorly crafted. It is a gag rule. It allows not a single amendment, and it gives over 200 Republicans and over 200 Democrats 30 minutes to discuss each of these issues. This is simply unacceptable, and I earnestly call on the majority to rethink this restrictive, un-American rule.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is important to put this resolution by my good friend from California in proper perspective. When yesterday a deeply divided Committee on International Relations debated and then voted on this matter, we voted unanimously to reject this proposal. As a matter of fact, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), himself voted against his own resolution. So I think it is sort of important to realize that what we are dealing with here is an academic legalistic exercise, the purpose of which is to take this issue to the courts. No one seriously believes, fortunately, that the United States should declare war against Yugoslavia. Now there are many reasons why we should not do that. The first and perhaps the most important is that this is not an American engagement, this is a NATO engagement, and not one of the other of the 18 NATO countries has declared war on Yugoslavia. Were we to do so, this would be an Americanization of a war with all the negative consequence that implies. It would divide the alliance. It would indicate that we are determined, as we were during the Second World War, to move on until there is an unconditional surrender. Those are not our goals. Our goals are limited, clearly defined and specific. We wish to see the 700,000 individuals who were driven out of Kosovo to return there in peace and security. That is the goal we seek. Therefore, a declaration of war under these circumstances would be ill- advised, ill-timed and clearly contrary to U.S. national interests. I urge all of my colleagues to reject this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of our Colleagues an outstanding but deeply troubling report by Amnesty International which was released by Amnesty at a press conference earlier today sponsored by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The report--entitled ``People's Republic of China: Gross Violations of Human Rights in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region''--documents in an unprecedented fashion the outrageous human rights violations in this autonomous region of China, which borders several Central Asian countries. These egregious human rights violations are committed primarily against the Uighurs, the majority ethnic group among the predominantly Muslim local population. The appalling human rights violations, which are documented and verified for the first time by a leading international human rights organization, include a pattern of arbitrary and summary executions, torture, arbitrary detention and unjust political trials. For the first time, the Amnesty report was able to document 210 death sentences and 190 executions of political prisoners in this region. In addition, the report also documents the cases of 200 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who were arrested during the 1990s and are still believed to be imprisoned. Amnesty International further highlights the outrageous use of particular torture techniques which are sexual in nature, and not known to be used in other areas of the People's Republic. These forms of torture include the insertion of horsehair into the penis, as well as wires with small spikes. Mr. Speaker, this important report further documents the dismal human rights record of the People's Republic of China. On Friday, the international community has an opportunity to take a stand against these despicable human rights practices in China, when the U.S.- sponsored resolution condemning the PRC for its human rights violations comes up for a vote at the UN Human Rights Commission. In the face of such unspeakable atrocities which are documented in the Amnesty report, I urge nations who are friends and allies of the United States to support the strong and principled stand for human rights resolution which the United States had introduced. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the executive summary of the Amnesty International report on human rights violations in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues in the Congress to give thoughtful attention to its documentation of the deplorable human rights record of China. [From Amnesty International, April 1999] People's Republic of China--Gross Violations of Human Rights in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region In a new 92-page report, Amnesty International documents a pattern of gross violations of human rights in the Uighur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang (XUAR), one of the five autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China (RPC), which borders several Central Asian countries. These violations include arbitrary and summary executions, torture, arbitrary detention, and unfair political trials. The main victims of these abuses are the Uighurs, the majority ethnic group among the predominantly Muslim local population in the region. Thousands of people have been arbitrarily detained in the XUAR over the past few years and arbitrary arrests continue. Thousands of political prisoners, arrested at various times during the 1990s, are reported to remain imprisoned, some have been sentenced to long prison terms after unfair trials, others still detained without charge or trial after months or years in jail. Many of those detained are reported to have been tortured, some with particularly cruel methods which, to Amnesty International's knowledge, are not being used elsewhere in the PRC. Scores of Uighur political prisoners have been sentenced to death and executed in the past two years. Others are alleged to have been killed by the security forces in circumstances which appear to constitute extra- judicial executions. These gross violations of human rights are occurring amidst growing ethnic unrest. With a massive influx of ethnic Chinese (or Han) in the XUAR since 1949, the indigenous population has felt increasingly marginalised in what they regard as their ancestral land. Ethnic discontent has also been fuelled by government policies, unemployment, discrimination, unequal economic opportunities, and curbs on fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion. Over the past ten years the local ethnic population has witnessed a steady erosion of its social, economic and cultural rights. Economic development in the region has largely bypassed the local ethnic population and benefited mainly Han Chinese. Racial discrimination is reported to be common and unemployment is high among Uighurs. Despite that, the influx of Han migrant workers has considerably increased in recent years. These trends have exacerbated long-standing ethnic tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese in the region, and contributed to the escalation of violence. A growing number of violent incidents have been reported in the region in recent years, including attacks on government officials and offices, and the planting and detonation of bombs. Some of these incidents have been carried out by underground opposition groups seeking independence from China. Aspirations towards independence have their roots in both the distant past and recent history. During the 1930s and 1940s, two independent Republics of Eastern Turkestan were formed successively in Kashgar (1933) and IIi (1944) as attempts to resist Chinese rule. Both republics were short- lived, but they have continued to inspire nationalist oppositions since 1949, particularly among the Uighurs. Over the years, various opposition groups militating for Eastern Turkestan's independence were formed clandestinely in the XUAR--some reportedly supported by exiled nationalist groups established among the Uighur diaspora in various countries. Some of these groups have resorted to violence. Since 1990, the Chinese authorities' fears of organised political opposition in the XUAR appear to have been heightened by the emergence of independent Central Asian states which followed the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the rise of Islamic movements as well as protracted conflicts in other neighbouring countries. This has led to a reversal of the relatively liberal policies implemented in the region during the 1980s, notably concerning religion. While the ``open door'' policy led to a religious revival in the XUAR during the 1980s, since 1990 the government has reverted to restrictive policies amidst fears that Islam might provide a rallying point for ethnic nationalism and that Islamic movements abroad might inspire young Uighurs. Many mosques and Koranic schools have been closed down in the region and religious leaders who are deemed to be too independent or ``subversive'' have been dismissed or arrested. Muslims working in government offices and other official institutions are prohibited from practising their religion, failing which they lose their jobs. In the past few years, the Chinese government has responded with harsh repression to growing unrest in the region, blaming it on a ``small number'' of ``separatists'', ``terrorists'' and ``religious extremists'' accused of having links with ``foreign hostile forces'' whose aim is to ``split the motherland''. Since 1996, the government has launched an extensive campaign against ``ethnic separatists'', imposing new restrictions on religious and cultural rights, and resorting increasingly to executions, show trials and arbitrary detention to silence real and suspected opponents. Amnesty International recognizes the state's duty to take the measures necessary to maintain law and order, but even in situations of internal strife, this must be exercised within the limits set by international human rights law. Killings by members of armed opposition groups can never provide justification for government forces to deliberately kill defenceless people or torture prisoners in police custody. Furthermore, the official reports about ``separatists and terrorists'' in the XUAR obscure a more complex reality in which many people who are not involved in violence have become victims of human rights violations. Over the years, Uighurs' attempts to air their views or grievances and peacefully exercise their most fundamental human rights have been met with repression. Amnesty International is calling on the Chinese government to establish a special commission to investigate human rights violations and economic social and cultural needs in the region, to suggest remedial measures and provide a forum for individuals and groups to voice their grievances. It is also calling on the authorities to take immediate measures to stop the gross violations of human rights occurring in the region. Arbitrary detention and imprisonment Thousands of people have been arbitrarily detained in the XUAR over the past few years. Suspected Uighur ``separatists'', nationlist sympathisers and people taking part in Koranic classes or religious groups have been particularly targeted. Repression increased in 1997 following protests by Uighurs on 5 and 6 February that year in the city of Gulja (Yining), located near the border with Kazakstan in the west of the XUAR. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people are believed to have been detained in Gulja during the two weeks which followed the protests. Many of them were tortured. Some were released after being held without charge for weeks or months. Others have remained in detention. Arbitary arrests have continued since then, both in Gulja and elsewhere in the region. One of those detained for involvement in the February 97 protests in Gulja is Abdulhelil, a 28 year-old businessman in the city, married with three children. He was arrested on 5 February 1997 for taking part in a peaceful demonstration calling for religious freedom and equal treatment for Uighurs. Abdulhelil was the main leader of the ``meshreps'', a traditional form of social gathering revived by members of the Uighur community in Gulja in 1994 in order to tackle social problems, particularly drug addiction which had become widespread among unemployed young Uighurs. The meetings of the meshreps were tolerated by the authorities for a few months. They were popular and rapidly spread to other areas. As the number of participants grew, however, the authorities banned the meshreps in 1995. Abdulhelil was detained for a short period at that time. Following his re-arrest on 5 February 1997, he was reportedly severely tortured in detention. As of late 1998, his family had not received any official notification about the charges against him or his place of detention. He is not known to have been charged or tried. Amnesty International believes that Abdulhelil is arbitarily detained for the peaceful exercise of his fundamental human rights, in violation of international standards, and that he should be released immediately and unconditionally. Among many others arbirarily imprisoned in the XUAR is Abidjan Obulkasim, one of four students from Kashgar who were arrested in early 1995 and subsequently sentenced to prison terms ranging from 5 to 15 years for having discussed political issues among themselves. They were aged in their late teens or early 20s at the time of their arrest. Abidjan Obulkasim, now aged about 23, was a student at the Physics Department of the Kashgar Teacher's Training College at the time of his arrest. In mid-1995, he was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment after being convicted of forming a ``counter-revolutionary group'' and ``planning'' to engage in ``separatist'' activities. The sentence against him was reportedly increased by one year in appeal. Political prisoners and unfair trials Thousands of political prisoners are reported to be imprisoned in the XUAR. In its report, Amnesty International documents the cases of about 200 political prisoners arrested during the 1990s who are believed to be still detained or imprisoned. In the XUAR, as elsewhere in the PRC, political trials are a mere formality. The verdict is usually pre-determined and decided by or in consultation with the political authorities. Political prisoners are often held incommunicado for months or even years before they are tried, and torture is reported to be systematic. Few defendants have access to lawyers. According to some sources, some defendants in the XUAR are not given a formal trial hearing but are simply informed of their sentences after the court's adjudication committee deliberates on the case among themselves and decides on the verdict on the basis of files prepared by the police and procuracy. Many political prisoners have been sentenced to long prison terms after unfair trials. Some were convicted of politically-motivated crimes which usually involved the advocacy or the use of violence. In many cases, they were tried behind closed doors, often without defence lawyers. Some of them were taken to ``public sentencing rallies''-- show trials attended by hundreds or thousands of people-- during which their sentences were announced. In all cases, the prisoners are reported to have been tortured to force them to give incriminating information or to sign ``confessions.'' Amnesty International is concerned that they were convicted and sentenced after unfair trials and that some of them may be prisoners of conscience held for the peaceful exercise of fundamental human rights. One example is Abudkiram Abduveli, a 42-year-old Uighur from Kucha county in Aksu district, who was sentenced in May 1993 to 12 years' imprisonment and four years' deprivation of political rights of political charges. The court verdict against him by the Urumqi city Intermediate People's Court shows that Abdukiram Abduveli did not have an open trial and no lawyer to represent him. Abduveli was found guilty of ``organising a counter-revolutionary group'' for having allegedly planned with others in October 1990 to form a political party called the ``Islamic Reformist Party.'' Abduveli was arrested on 17 November 1990 before the group had undertaken any activities. He was also accused of ``carrying out counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation'' for taking part in religious activities to explain the Koran, during which he allegedly advocated violence. He was initially charged (on 24 July 1991--eight months after he was taken into police custody) with the second charge only. The charge of ``organizing a counter- revolutionary group'' was therefore added later. The addition of this second charge at a late stage raises strong doubts as to the nature of the evidence against him both on this count and on the other charge. Abdukiram Abduveli's current place of detention is not known. Torture Under international human rights law, the right not to be tortured can never be derogated from, even ``in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation''. This right applies whoever the detainee may be and whatever the crimes he or she is suspected of having committed. Although Chinese law explicitly prohibits ``torture to extract confessions'', and China has been a party to the UN Convention against Torture since 1988, torture remains widespread in the PRC. The XUAR is no exception. The reports received by Amnesty International from many sources indicate that torture and ill-treatment of prisoners are endemic in the region. Some prisoners are reported to have died in prison due to torture or combination of ill-treatment and neglect. This was the case with Nyzamidin Yusayin, a 70 year-old scholar from Urumqi and former journalist for the official newspaper Xinjiang Daily, who reportedly died in police custody due to torture on 7 April 1998. Particularly disturbing allegations have been made about the brutal treatment of people held in Gulja after the February 97 protests there. Some reportedly had to have their feet amputated, suffering severe frostbites after being hosed with icy cold water by the security forces. Severe torture of suspected political opponents is reported to have continued in that area since then. According to some sources, the extent of torture is such that many political detainees have been brought to court barely conscious and unable to walk. Various sources had also reported the use in the XUAR of some particularly cruel forms of torture which, to Amnesty International's knowledge, are not being used elsewhere in the PRC. This includes the insertion of horse hair into the penis, or a special wire with small spikes which fold flat when inserted into the penis but extend when the wire is pulled out. According to former political prisoners, such methods of sexual torture have been used in the XUAR for many years. While torture is reported to be widespread across the XUAR, some places of detention are particularly notorious for the extent of torture and harsh treatment inflicted on prisoners. This is notably the case at Liudaowan jail in Urumqi where many political prisoners are held. Testimonies and cases of torture are cited in the Amnesty International report. While Amnesty International is not in a position to verify the specific allegations made in individual testimonies and reports, it believes that the number and consistency of these allegations suggest a pattern which warrants immediate action by the authorities, including thorough and impartial investigations of all reports and complaints of torture. The authorities appear to have taken no action to curb torture in the region or to bring alleged perpetrators of torture in the XUAR. Amnesty International has not come across any such report in the regional media over the past two years. This contrast sharply with the Chinese provinces, where local newspapers and other media have often reported cases in which police officials have been prosecuted for torture. The absence of such reports in the XUAR suggests that the authorities either ignore or cover up the widespread practice of torture in the region, or may even sanction its use in the context of repression. Arbitrary and summary executions The XUR is the only region of the People's Republic of China where political prisoners are known to have been executed in recent years. As elsewhere in the PRC, the death penalty is also applicable for a very wide range of offenses, including many non violent offenses such as theft, economic and drug related crime. Since January 1997, Amnesty International has recorded at least 210 death sentences in the region, of which 190 were executed shortly after sentencing--the real figures are believed to be higher. Almost two thirds of the cases recorded were publicly reported by Chinese official sources. The vast majority of those sentenced to death and executed were Uighurs. These figures indicate that the ratio of death sentences to the population is several times higher in the XUAR than elsewhere in China. The execution rate vis a vis the number of death sentences appears also to be higher. Most of those sentenced to death and executed in the region are political prisoners. They have been accused of offenses related to clandestine opposition activities, street protests, violent clashes with the security forces, or terrorist incidents. Some of these cases have been publicly reported by the Chinese authorities, but others have not. When they are reported, official sources merely list the accusations against the defendants and do not provide any detail about the evidence against them or the trial proceedings. Political prisoners charged with such offenses are often tried in secret, under procedures which are reported to be summary. Trials are a mere formality, with the verdict usually decided by the authorities before the trial. Convictions are frequently based on forced confessions and statements extracted under torture. The families are often excluded from the trials and few defendants are known to have had the assistance of defense lawyers. Defendants who appeal against the verdict invariably see their appeal rejected. In many cases, the authorities have staged ``public sentencing rallies'' to publicly ``pronounce'' sentences imposed on alleged offenders. The defendants taken to such rallies have usually been tried behind closed doors beforehand, though in some cases it is unclear whether they have actually gone through any prior formal trial process. Official reports about such rallies show that the judicial process is a mere formality tailored for the purpose of these show trials. They also usually make clear that justice is dictated by political considerations. Defendants who are taken to public sentencing rallies are made to stand facing the audience with their hands tied behind their back and wearing a placard on their chest, on which their name and crime are written. They are usually forced to keep their head bowed by soldiers escorting them. In some cases, their feet are also chained and their mouth is gagged with a rope or wire tied tightly at their back to prevent them from speaking or shouting. These practices violate international standards on the treatment of prisoners, by which China has agreed to abide, and unnecessary add to the inherent cruelty of the death penalty. Prisoners sentenced to death at such rallies are invariably executed immediately after the rallies. There have been reports that some prisoners have been executed in public, notably in villages of IIi Prefecture in the west of the XUAR. It has also been reported that the authorities have refused to return the bodies of some executed prisoners to their family, thus preventing the families from burying their dead according to Muslim customs. This increases concern about reports that the prisoners were tortured to extract forced confessions. Often, the families of those sentenced to death have not been informed until the last minute about the fate of their imprisoned relatives. For example, the parents of 23 year-old Jappar Talet, one of those executed after a sentencing rally in Gulja on 22 July 1997, were reportedly informed of his execution just a few hours before it was carried out. They had no prior warning of what awaited their son. After his execution, they requested his body in order to give him a proper burial, but the authorities refused to return the body. Amnesty International is also concerned about reports alleging that civilians and, in some cases, prisoners have been killed by the security forces or prison guards in the XUAR in circumstances which appear to constitute extrad- judicial executions: deliberate and arbitrary killings by government forces acting outside the limits of the law. The Amnesty International reports describes incidents in which such killings allegedly occurred. International law provides that lethal force should only be used when absolutely necessary and in direct proportion to the legitimate objective it is intended to achieve. Amnesty International is calling on the Chinese government to take immediate measures to curb the gross violations of human rights occurring in the region, in particular executions and torture. These measures are described in the concluding section of the report. Amnesty International is also calling on the government to institute an impartial commission of enquiry to investigate reports of human rights violations in the region and provide a forum for individuals and groups to voice their grievances. Amnesty International believes this should be accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of the needs in education, health and the economic disparities in the region, particularly given China's signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1997.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, no issue affects the future of our democratic political system to a greater extent than does campaign finance reform. The infusion of unregulated dollars to political parties and officeholders has reached record levels in the past few years, making elections more and more the province of wealthy candidates and special interests. This development can only serve to increase cynicism and limit political participation among our nation's individual citizens. I strongly believe that we have a civic duty to take action to reverse this dangerous trend. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999. I have also signed the discharge petition now pending before the House, in order to bring this important legislation up for consideration despite the opposition of some of the leaders of this body. This legislation, known popularly as the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, unites a broad coalition of Democrats and Republicans who share the conviction that we must act firmly and swiftly to prevent elections from becoming out-of-control auctions. H.R. 417 would ban unregulated ``soft money'' contributions to national and state political parties, abolishing once and for all this unfortunate loophole. It would also impose restrictions on the broadcast of so-called ``independent expenditure'' issue ads by third- parties, add requirements for the full disclosure of campaign contributions, limit political party assistance to wealthy candidates who spend millions of dollars of their own personal fortunes on political campaigns, and institute several other vital improvements to our method of electing congressional officeholders. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and in signing the discharge petition that is necessary to bring it before the House of Representatives, On April 16, 1999, the highly-respected San Mateo County Times newspaper in San Mateo, California, published a thoughtful editorial on this important issue entitled ``Campaign Finance Reform Is Long Overdue.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this excellent editorial and consider the consequences of failing to defend the integrity of our system of campaigns and elections. I ask that this editorial be placed in the Record. [From the San Mateo County Times, Apr. 16, 1999] Campaign Finance Reform is Long Overdue The majority of Americans favors campaign finance reform, which remains a crucial issue even if its breathing often labored. Paradoxically, few legislators appear to like reform well enough to see it through to passage. And some large corporations, which endorse the need for reform, still play by the old rules. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., promised to work in a bipartisan manner on issue of concern to the average American, but he has told the press that campaign finance reform is not a legislative priority. The House will concentrate instead on what he calls the ``really important issues,'' including Social Security, health care, tax policy and education. These are undoubtedly key issues on the legislative agenda, but the back-burner approach to the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill is irritating the American public. ``The Washington influence money game will continue and will distort the legislative policy on these very issues,'' reports Common Cause, which lobbies for tighter campaign finance rules. ``The Speaker's failure to understand the need for reform as a prerequisite to congressional action on these important issues is to deny how Washington really works.'' The passage of Shays-Meehan would mean the end of the corrupt soft-money system that permits wealthy individuals, labor unions and corporations to give millions of dollars in unregulated campaign contributions to the political parties to buy influence and access in Congress and the White House. The bill would also require special-interest groups to pay for campaign advertisements masquerading as impartial ``issue discussions'' with money raised according to federal campaign finance laws. A federal economic panel--composed of businessmen--recently released a report recommending that soft money should be outlawed. ``The public cannot help but believe that these donors enjoy special influence and receive special favors,'' the report said. ``The suspicion of corruption deepens public cynicism and diminishes public confidence in government. ``More important, these activities raise the likelihood of actual corruption.'' The panel co-chairman, who is also the chairman and chief executive of his firm, concluded at a news conference. ``Bad government is bad business.'' He later told a reporter: ``Until I understood the depth of the problem, I was like a lot of Americans: I don't think I cared too much.'' This executive's accounting and consulting firm, as reported in The New York Times, was quick to repudiate its own leader by issuing a statement saying the chairman's opinions were ``his personal views and do not necessarily represent the views'' of his company. A review of Election Commission records shows that three large American corporations, which announced they would swear off soft money donations in 1997, have fallen off the wagon. Only the Monsanto Company, which donated $75,000 in 1995 and '96, has given no soft money since then. Speaker Hastert has failed to schedule Shays-Meehan for floor action this spiring despite the passage of an earlier bill in the House. A later filibuster in the Senate killed it. We urge prompt attention and passage of Shays-Meehan as we have urged in the past. A campaign finance reform law is needed right now. Why must the public always assume the obligation to wake up its own elected officials?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues about legislation that I am introducing in the House to honor the memory of a brave police officer who was killed in my congressional district less than a year ago, Officer David Chetcuti. Officer Chetcuti was a devoted husband and a loving father to his three sons. He was also a decorated 11-year veteran of the Millbrae police department. On April 25 of last year, after responding to a routine call from an officer in a neighboring jurisdiction, Officer Chetcuti was shot and killed by Marvin Sullivan, a convicted felon. Mr. Speaker, the weapon which Sullivan used to kill David Chetcuti was an assault rifle, a class of firearm that many of us thought we had succeeded in removing from our Nation's streets. Marvin Sullivan, who was not legally able to purchase the kind of firearm he used to kill Officer Chetcuti, assembled his weapon from a series of gun components which he was able to purchase without any of the restrictions which are imposed by law on the purchase of assault weapons. Through mail order catalogues, over the Internet, and at gun shops-- without any of the restrictions on the purchase of fully assembled firearms--Sullivan was able to purchase the components that he used to make his illegal weapon. That gun was created for the sole purpose of killing another human being. The weapon he built defied and circumvented all the firearm safeguards for which we have fought long and hard. The components were easy to procure, the assembly was simple, and the final product was devastatingly deadly. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduced today--H.R. 1428, The David Chetcuti Firearm Modification Act--would close the existing loophole which permits felons like Marvin Sullivan to have access to components which they can use to assemble these weapons. This is a simple proposal and does not require more enforcement effort than what currently exists. Quite simply, this legislation would extend the provisions of existing gun control legislation to those components which criminals, like Mr. Sullivan, can and do use to make assault weapons. The adoption of this legislation would prohibit the sale to convicted felons of large capacity ammunition clips or other firearm components which make it possible for them to maim and kill. This legislation would also require that the purchase of these components be carried out in person. Today there are literally hundreds of mail order operations and Internet sites which offer items such as military issue ammo clips, silencer-fitting threaded barrels, and pistol grips capable of turning a hunting rifle into an automatic killing machine. Mr. Speaker, the availability of these components is a public safety threat, already tragically felt by the Chetcuti family and by the law enforcement community in my congressional district. For the safety of our outgunned law enforcement officers and for the well-being of our communities, I urge my colleagues in the Congress to join me in working for the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, much has been said to honor the dedicated men and women who daily put their safety and their lives on the line to provide the citizens of our country with the security, safety, and peace essential for the maintenance of our civil society. These men and women of our law enforcement community are the ``thin blue line'' which stands between the decent and law-abiding citizens of this nation and the abyss of lawlessness, chaos, and anarchy. Our law enforcement professionals deserve the support and protection which this legislation will provide.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, few Americans more epitomize the nobility of America's moral strength than Dr. Elie Wiesel, the 1986 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and a survivor of the Holocaust. Elie has devoted his life to ensuring that the tragedy of his youth is never again repeated. His passionate and unyielding defense of human rights is a model to all of us. Last Monday night, Elie Wiesel spoke at the White House at a Millennium Evening Forum including President and Mrs. Clinton and an audience of distinguished guests. His speech--``The Perils of Indifference: Lessons Learned From A Violent Century''--eloquently describes the most lasting moral peril of the Holocaust nightmare: the apathy of those who sat silently while millions were slaughtered by Nazi Germany. As reports of Hitler's atrocities mounted during the late 1930's and early 1940's, corporations continued to conduct business with the Third Reich, refugees were denied admission to a host of nations, tragically including to the United States, and free peoples refused to act to stop Hitler's killing machine. Without such passive disregard for human life, many of the six million victims of the Holocaust might have lived. ``In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman,'' explained Dr. Wiesel, ``Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred.'' The reflections of Elie Wiesel are particularly significant given the ongoing war crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbian government against untold thousands of Kosovar Albanians. Elie acknowledged the undeniable moral character of NATO's military campaign against these outrageous human rights atrocities, and he pointed out the sharp contrast with the world's reaction during the Holocaust: ``This time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.'' Mr. Speaker, Elie Wiesel is right. America must remain committed to military campaign to help the suffering Albanian victims of Milosevic's brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosova. We must also maintain our commitment to fight against human rights abuses throughout the world. Dr. Elie Wiesel is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston University. In addition to the Nobel Peace Prize, he has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States Congressional God Medal, and the Medal of Liberty Award. Elie's talents as a teacher, author, and orator have enlightened generations of students and citizens for nearly five decades. Mr. Speaker, as we mark the Days of Remembrance this week, I urge my colleagues to read carefully the thoughtful reflections of Dr. Elie Wiesel. The Perils of Indifference: Lessons Learned From a Violent Century, Remarks at Millennium Evening, The White House, April 12 Mr. WIESEL. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends: Fifty- four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again. Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know--that they, too, would remember, and bear witness. And now, I stand before you, Mr. President--Commander-in- Chief of the army that freed me, and tens of thousands of others--and I am filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people. Gratitude is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary--or Mrs. Clinton--for what you said, and for what you are doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society. And I thank all of you for being here. We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations--Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin--bloodbaths in Cambodia and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence, so much indifference. What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means ``no difference.'' A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals? Of course, indifference can be tempting--more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction. Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the ``Muselmanner,'' as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who or where they were, strangers to their surroundings. They no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it. Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger; Man can live far from God--not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering. In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, have done something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own. Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil. In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: The killers, the victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of times inside the ghettoes and death camps--and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that we are now commemorating that event, that period, that we are now in the Days of Remembrance--but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did. And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies. If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once. And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a great leader--and I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today is exactly 54 years marking his death--Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April the 12th, 1945, so he is very much present to me and to us. No doubt, he was a great leader. He mobilized the American people and the world, going into battle, bringing hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave soldiers in America to fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the young people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in Jewish history--I must say it--his image in Jewish history is flawed. The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixty years ago, its human cargo--maybe 1,000 Jews--was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration camps. And that ship, which was already on the shores of the United States, was sent back. I don't understand. Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people--in America, a great country, the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don't understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims? But then, there were human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those non-Jews, those Christians, that we called the ``Righteous Gentiles,'' whose selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Why were they so few? Why was there a greater effort to save SS murderers after the war than to save their victims during the war? Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference? And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled with drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in this very place. I was here and I will never forget it. And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene. Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and far? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their parents be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands to do the same? What about the children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in the papers, and we do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably. When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces, their eyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony? Every minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine. Some of them--so many of them--could be saved. And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Nancy Jalonen of San Mateo, CA, the recipient of the 1999 Bravo! Award. The Bravo! Award is given each year by the Hillbarn Theatre League in honor of substantial contributions to the cultural life of the Peninsula area. Ms. Jalonen will receive this honor on tomorrow evening at a ceremony held in her honor at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Foster City. Nancy Jalonen has been absolutely vital to the arts community on the Peninsula for many years now. During her tenure as executive director from 1978 to 1984, she revolutionized the San Mateo Arts Council. She developed the Music in the Schools program, attracting professional musicians to local schools to give lectures and demonstrations, and she created the SWAP program, where artists ``swap'' teaching for studio space. When Ms. Jalonen left the Arts Council in 1984, it had been judged one of the top three councils in California for 2 years running. Since then, Ms. Jalonen has led the committee to renovate the San Mateo High School Auditorium and transform it into the San Mateo Performing Arts Center. She is on the Board of Directors of Ragazzi and Theatre-Works and is also a member of the committee to found City Arts of San Mateo, an organization geared to promote visual, literary, and performing arts in San Mateo. In 1996, Ms. Jalonen produced and hosted 21 television programs on the oral history of San Mateo County. This was not her first foray into the world of television. For 20 years at KCSM-TV, she produced and hosted over 150 television programs featuring performing and visual arts organizations throughout San Mateo County. She currently presents a monthly radio program on local theater for the Lighthouse for the Blind. Mr. Speaker, Nancy Johnson's work has been a remarkable and an important contribution to the cultural life of the Peninsula, and her efforts have enriched the lives of all of us in the Bay Area. I would like to ask my colleagues to join me and the Hillbarn Theatre League in lauding Ms. Nancy Lee Jalonen for her well-deserved honor.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1143, the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 1999. I support this bill because I have witnessed first-hand the uplifting effects of microcredit on the economic and humanitarian conditions of struggling nations around the world. I have closely monitored its enormously positive influence on women and ethnic minorities, those most likely to face discrimination in creating small businesses and establishing social support networks in their communities. H.R. 1143 would allow these essential developments to continue and expand, aiding the stability of new democracies and enabling all citizens a stake in their future directions. The microcredit program, more than any other government initiative, is founded on the free market ideals central to America's greatness. By providing small amounts of start-up capital to aspiring entrepreneurs, productive businesses can be established which, in a collective manner, change society for the better. For example, when a woman in a small African nation borrows a few dollars to set up a crafts shop, she does far more than better her family's financial situation. She may create employment opportunities for others in her small community, she may held to break generations of poverty in her town, she may generate income that will allow the creation of even more commerce, she may break down age-old stereotypes of women's social roles, and she may make it possible for untold numbers of women to realize the opportunities provided to her by the blessing of microcredit. As the distinguished Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), J. Brian Atwood, explained: ``Microenterprise is one of our most effective tools to foster bottom- up growth and to give women an opportunity to make a place for themselves in business and in their communities.'' For only a minimal investment--few loans exceed $300, and the return rate is nearly 100 percent--we can peacefully alter centuries of history, one entrepreneur at a time. H.R. 1143 will strengthen this much-needed program by authorizing increased funds ($152 million in FY 2000 and $167 million in FY 2001) and ensuring that at least 50 percent of microenterprise resources be used for poverty lending to the neediest participants in Third World economies. Furthermore, H.R. 1143 would permanently establish two new provisions in law to govern grants and loans, and it would create a loan facility inside USAID to help U.S.-sponsored microfinance institutions survive natural disasters, civil wars, and national financial crises. I applaud these reforms, and I commend International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman and Ranking Member Sam Gejdenson for their hard work in working out the provisions of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to recognize the extraordinary commitment of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to the microenterprise program. Since the earliest days of the Clinton Presidency, Mrs. Clinton has used her exceptional brilliance and influence to promote this initiative around the world. Long before other opinion leaders understood the importance of targeted microcredit investments, she was proclaiming the benefits of this program for women and families in a host of nations. I would also like to note the impressive contributions of Administrator Atwood in implementing this essential component of our foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1143.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleague to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of San Francisco State University. The university was established on March 22, 1899. For three decades I had the privilege of serving as a professor of economics at this august educational institution, possibly the most ethnically diverse university in America. Then, as now, it had a commitment to provide a first-rate education to those who could not easily achieve one elsewhere--first and second generation immigrants and the working class. My colleagues on the faculty of San Francisco State University are outstanding. They have received innumerable honors and awards over the years, including the Pulitzer Prize and the prestigious MacArthur ``genius'' grant. The all-round excellence of the faculty has created a curriculum renowned for its diversity. The creative writing, poetry, performing arts, film, and journalism departments are all nationally acclaimed. The masters program in biology was ranked first in the nation by the National Science Foundation for graduates who went on to earn doctorates. In the astronomy department, Professor Goeff Marcy and Paul Butler discovered two planets orbiting stars beyond our solar system in 1996, and they have discovered 10 more planets since then. Though the faculty's academic strengths and excellent research are obvious, at San Francisco State teaching comes first. This school, which began as a teacher's college, retains its dedication to educating its students. Academic appointments are competitive, and as a result San Francisco State has been able to hire the best. Professors are hired for their teaching ability and dedication, generally carrying a course load of four classes. Assigning teaching the number one priority has paid off in the classroom. Robert Corrigan, the excellent president of San Francisco State, says of the student experience: ``Students get a better education here. They are in a classroom with someone with a doctoral degree and 20 years of teaching experience, and there might be only 25 students in the class.'' During its century of service to the Bay Area, San Francisco State University has awarded 185,020 degrees. Its students have gone on to successful careers in every conceivable field, and even our current Mayor of San Francisco is a former student of the university. Graduates and faculty of San Francisco State have also served with us here in the Congress. For the past hundred years San Francisco State University has educated and enriched the Bay area, the state of California, and our nation. I am honored to have contributed to this outstanding educational institution, Mr. Speaker, and I am delighted on this auspicious anniversary to pay tribute to its tradition of diversity and excellence. San Francisco State is truly American in the best possible sense of the word--it provides the opportunity for anyone to excel. As an educator, as a member of the San Francisco State community, and as a Californian, I congratulate San Francisco State University on its first century.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, few people have suffered as much during the Second World War as did the people of Serbia. I am calling on Mr. Milosevic, who has brought so much anguish and hardship and trouble to his own people, to take these last moments before NATO is unleashing horrendous power and bringing further destruction to his people. All through the 1960s and 1970s, Yugoslavia was the freest and most prosperous country in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It is now a basket case. It is a police state. There is still some time for Milosevic to come to his senses and call off his madness. He cannot stand up to NATO. He can still call for a diplomatic solution, and we are ready to deal if he is. But the Serbian people and the people of Yugoslavia have suffered too long under his dictatorship.