Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first identify myself with the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the subcommittee, and my good friend and colleague from American Samoa. The purpose of my rising is to commend the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), not only for his leadership on this issue, but on a wide range of issues in the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The gentleman has not restricted his expertise to this most important region. His contributions to the work of our committee have extended across the globe. But I think it is particularly appropriate that the gentleman has taken the lead on this issue. His idea of holding a summit at the East- West Center following the APEC meeting at Wellington, New Zealand, is an excellent one, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I also call on the administration to take the necessary steps to implement the gentleman's idea.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all of those who communicated with me today following my comments yesterday about Russia, indicating that they share my concern that we focus on some critical issues unfolding on this planet, and not be mesmerized and preoccupied exclusively with topic number 1. Today's New York Times has a headline which I will take as my text: ``The Kremlin Brings Gorbachev's Economies Back.'' Now, this statement reminds me of a Soviet era story, Mr. Speaker, when on May Day, the tremendous might of the Soviet Union was displayed on Red Square. Vast columns of artillery and tanks and missiles rolled by, and then suddenly, a half a dozen crumbled, not very well dressed, middle-aged men shuffled by. And as the visiting dignitaries were standing atop Lenin's mausoleum, Fidel Castro asked, how did these men get into this parade of power and might? And the Soviet leader responded, they are our economists, and you have no idea how much damage they can cause. That is what we are seeing today. The new Russian leader Primakov is bringing back the discredited Soviet era, Stalin-era economists for high-ranking positions in this new government. The man who was in charge of central planning in the Soviet Union is now the number 1 economic power in the new Russia. The former head of the central bank is the new head of the central bank, and what we can expect to see is the beginning of the operation of the printing presses, hyperinflation, the continuing deterioration of the Russian economy with devastating consequences for the Russian people. Now, the question might be asked, Mr. Speaker, why is that important to us? Well, I suggest it is important to us for 2 reasons. Russia still has thousands of nuclear weapons, and as the authority of the central government erodes, as the various provinces are striking out on their own, the likelihood of these nuclear weapons falling into hands unfriendly to the United States increases geometrically. But we have a second reason to be concerned about the galloping deterioration of conditions in Russia. Not too many decades ago, in the bemired Republic of Germany, as hyperinflation took hold, fascism followed, and so did the Second World War. It is in our prime policy interests to attempt to stabilize the Russian economy, and I suspect it will be one of the serious and substantive debates of this body during the course of coming months to see how we can work with Mr. Primakov to stabilize the Russian economy which, at the moment, is in a free-fall. Goods are disappearing from the stores. People have no access to their bank accounts. Most banks are, in fact, closed. Unemployment is rising. Imports are declining because Russia has no foreign exchange. This gigantic society, Mr. Speaker, of 150 million people and covering 11 time zones has in its central bank $12 billion in foreign exchange reserves. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. Tax collections, which were bad enough last year, are down by 40 percent, and as the central government in Moscow is unable to collect taxes, the tendency of the regions to break away will accelerate. Of the 89 provinces of Russia, some 75 have been receiving subsidies from Moscow. These subsidies are declining, in many cases disappearing, and the danger of Russia becoming a chaotic society has enormous ramifications for our own safety and security. Mr. Speaker, I will continue this dialogue with my colleagues and with the American people tomorrow evening.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the memory of Kirk O'Donnell, who passed away last week at the age of fifty-two. Throughout his three decades in public service, both as an aide to Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill Jr. and Boston Mayor Kevin White and as an advisor to some of our nation's most influential officials, Kirk served his country with an abundance of dignity and integrity that could be matched only by the fullness of his patriotism. In sharp contrast to many of today's political ``spin doctors'' who nurture cynicism in exchange for votes, Kirk's wisdom rested in his ability to communicate his principled desire for a better America, a moral society with opportunity for all and poverty for none. His contributions toward achieving this end were immeasurable. Kirk was also a very dear personal friend, Mr. Speaker. I worked closely with him when he served as counselor to Speaker O'Neill, but our friendship continued, and even grew warmer, after he left public service when Tip O'Neill retired. He was committed to decency and fairness, and I had great respect for his compassion for the less fortunate. Mr. Speaker, Boston Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant wrote an eloquent tribute to Kirk O'Donnell that eloquently articulates the outstanding character traits that I and so many others admired in him. I submit Mr. Oliphant's column to be placed in the Record. I invite my colleagues to join me in remembering the life of Kirk O'Donnell and extending our heartfelt condolences to his wife of 26 years. Kathryn Holland O'Donnell, and his two children, Holly and Brendan. [From the Boston Globe, Sept. 10, 1998] He Stood For Politics at Its Best (By Thomas Oliphant) Washington.--He was arguably the best mayor Boston never had, among a handful of people who mattered most to the turbulent city of the 1970s. No one did more for the House of Representatives over the last generation who was never elected to it; no history of national affairs in the 1980s is complete without his large thumbprint. The last four presidents have known all about his special gifts and felt their impact; the two Democrats (the completely different Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) had more than one occasion to depend on them big time. On an average day he could get your brother a fair shot at the police force, help repair Social Security, broker the biggest tax bill of modern times, keep the Big Dig's cash coming, and still make it home for supper. All across the intersections where politics and government meet in the interests of real people, the shock and pain at Kirk O'Donnell's death over the Labor Day weekend is the only recent event to unite Republicans, congressional Democrats, and Clintonites in this season of shame and ugliness. You'd think all this emotion concerned a senior statesman passing on after a long lifetime of service, the occasion for a proud-sad moment to celebrate a life lived magnificently. But the shock and pain arrived like a rusty blade in the gut because O'Donnell was only 52; he did things in his 30s and 40s that big shots in their 60s never accomplish. But the best was still ahead of him, and the sky was the limit; if the Democrats ever elect another president, a Cabinet post or chief of the White House staff would have been lateral movements for him. This is the kind of death that shakes your faith, making it all the more important to reaffirm it. And the fact is this blend of Dorchester and D.C., of Boston Latin and Brown was a walking reaffirmation of faith in the potential of public service, a shining example of the silent majority who don't broker votes for cash, check their principles at the front desk, ignore their families, welsh on their commitments, indulge their whims and their urges, lie, and shirk. His life demonstrates that at the end only two things matter--whether your word's any good and how you treat others. Two stories: Kevin Hagen White gets the credit for discovering him in the early years of decentralized innovation and leadership and hope for the racially polarized town. By 1975, the young political junkie who could explain Boston by precinct or by parish was entrusted with White's third-term reelection campaign. It was the roughest, ugliest, closest fight in modern Boston times. The people involved, despite all they've done since, still get together to tell the old stories and refight the old shouting matches. The one reputation that was enhanced by the bruising experience was O'Donnell's, for focusing like a laser beam on organizing the White vote and focusing on Joe Timilty's lack of a clear alternative. After it was over and he was down in Washington with Tip O'Neill, it was increasingly clear that his former boss had lost his fastball. Again and again, from the shadows of the speaker's rooms in the Capitol, O'Donnell saw to Boston's interests. He would happily recount to me the stories of program formulas rejiggered to benefit the cities, of special items in appropriations bills (worth billions of dollars over time) as long as I understood that if I used his name in public he would rip my lungs out. Just for the record, O'Donnell was more than enough of a city lover and urban scholar to know about subway analogies in politics. But he was the guy, in 1981, who called Social Security the third rail of American politics; few lines have been ripped off more. But he did it to make a point--that Ronald Reagan had touched it by reaching beyond his mandate to try to slash future benefits in a partisan initiative. With the help of the worst recession in 60 years, he and Speaker O'Neill pounced on that goof to effectively end the Reagan Revolution. But that same skill was then put to use on the speaker's behalf to help broker a bipartisan repair job that has lasted 15 years and made the next stage of generational common sense possible. He was to Congress in the 1980s what Jim Baker was to the Reagan White House. He was a big guy, with a big voice he rarely used except to laugh. Everyone trusted him. There are tears being shed today in saloons and salons, in boardrooms and in back rooms. Kirk O'Donnell's life demonstrates the power of the haunting challenge made famous by the Kennedys, that all of us can make a difference and that each of us should try.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let me commend our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), chairman and ranking member respectively of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations, for crafting this most important resolution. I strongly support this resolution. The resolution calls for our government to lend support to free media in Africa through a number of avenues, including the creation of a Voice of America project adopting a comprehensive assistance strategy to have free media in Africa. At the present time, Madam Speaker, VOA broadcasts 87\1/2\ hours weekly to Africa in 10 different languages. This measure calls to expand this program both in terms of its quantity and its coverage. My expectation is that as a result of this effort, media freedom will be strengthened in a number of countries in Africa. We need to assist the countries of Africa to develop mechanisms and institutions that protect the independence of journalists and discourage laws and government policies that inhibit the freedom of the press, which unfortunately is the state of affairs in far too many countries of that continent. The Voice of America historically has played a significant role in bringing news and information, free and unbiased to the African continent. I particularly commend the authors' foresight in calling on the United States Government to support efforts by the people of Africa to build their own free and independent African media and to assist them in their efforts to promote democracy, human rights, economic development and good government. I urge the adoption of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 254, calling on the government of Cuba to return to the United States convicted felon Joanne Chesimard and all other individuals who fled the United States to avoid prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses and who are currently living freely in Cuba. Providing a safe haven for fugitives from prosecution in the United States is one of the many concerns that we had with the government of Cuba. The case of Joanne Chisemard is particularly egregious and we are right to call this body's attention to it. Chesimard was sentenced to life for the murder of a New Jersey State trooper. She escaped from prison, fled to Cuba where she is currently living. I strongly urge the adoption of this resolution, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to join in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important we provide some background as to how the Congress got to the point where we are now considering declaring the President of Yugoslavia a war criminal. This process took many years. It was years ago, visiting the Province of Kosovo, that I met time and time again with a frail, peace-loving scholar of enormous capabilities and deep convictions, Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, who was and continues to be the leader of the ethnic Albanian community in Kosovo. This was at a time when the problems of Kosovo could have been worked out peacefully without bloodshed, without the vast numbers of innocent victims, without the hundreds of thousands of refugees. But, Slobodan Milosevic's ruthless, reckless, irresponsible behavior brought us to the point of a bloodbath in Bosnia and now a bloodbath in Kosovo. Fairness compels us, Mr. Speaker, to state categorically that Slobodan Milosevic is not the only person guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. There is plenty of guilt to go around and some leaders of all of the ethnic groups qualify for that designation. But today we are dealing with Slobodan Milosevic, the Yugoslav communist dictator who richly deserves to be branded a war criminal by the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my personal appreciation to former Senator Bob Dole for having visited this region just within the last week or so, demonstrating his continued commitment to human rights and the creation of democratic societies in the Balkans. The United States, in this resolution, publicly declares that there is reason to believe that Slobodan Milosevic, President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These, unfortunately, are incontrovertible facts, and I join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in expressing the hope that this body will approve this resolution unanimously.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first commend the sponsors of this bill, our colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), for their leadership in offering this very worthy piece of legislation. H.R. 4083 would authorize the United States Information Agency to make available to the Ukrainian Museum and Archives in Cleveland and the Slavics Collection at Indiana University copies of a video program, ``Window on America'', that has been broadcast by satellite into the Ukraine. Without specific authorization by the Congress, Madam Speaker, the Smith-Mundt Act would normally prohibit USIA from providing domestic institutions those materials that are produced for overseas audiences. This bill ensures that the program will not be rebroadcast and that USIA will be fully reimbursed for the expenses of making this program available. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) worked closely with USIA in crafting this bill, and our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), has seen to it that the University of Indiana will benefit from its provisions. The administration has no objections to this legislation, and I strongly urge support of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, along with millions of other Americans, I was inundated with the media's preoccupation with recent developments involving the White House. Since everything has been said on this subject, my contribution will be not to add to this cacophony. I am announcing that beginning tonight, with every day we are in legislative session, I will be devoting a segment of time each evening to an important international event or issue which is of relevance to the security and safety of the American people. The world has not come to a standstill. People across the globe are not as mesmerized by ``Topic Number One'' as the media seem to be here in the United States. From Southeast Asia to South America, from Bosnia to Brazil, from Russia to Rwanda, crises abound and are mounting. It is critical we deal with them, and I intend to do so.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, early this morning I announced that, between now and the end of this legislative session, I shall take some time at the end of each legislative day's business to discuss the foreign policy issue. I am one of those who is overdosed on topic number one, which seems to mesmerize the media and some of the public. I am of the opinion that the rest of the world has not come to a stop, that things are going on in Russia and Indonesia and the Balkans and in Brazil. We as elected Representatives have to deal with these issues. Today I would like to begin a dialogue on Russia, the current chaos and crisis in Russia. I am inviting all of my colleagues across the political spectrum to join me in this dialogue. I wish we had spent 10 percent as much on the ramifications of the Russian crisis for American security in the years ahead as we spent on topic number one during the course of this past weekend. Russia, Mr. Speaker, is in deep trouble. Gone are the great hopes of the early 1990s when the collapse of the Soviet Union gave all of us the dream that we will be able to cooperate with a democratic, increasingly prosperous Russia becoming a part of the family of nations and the partner and ally of the United States. There is a great deal of blame that goes around. My purpose here is not to find fault with leaders here and abroad who make mistakes. My purpose is to deal with the Russia as we find her in mid September 1998 and ask some policy questions as to how we might be able to assist them to turn around the very dangerous course on which they have embarked. Let me begin with the new Prime Minister of Russia, Mr. Primakov. From our point of view, no worse choice could have been possible. Primakov served loyally every Communist leader from Brezhnev on. He was head of the Russian International Spy Service. He is a close personal friend of Saddam Hussein and a close personal friend of Slobodan Milosevic who on this very floor a few minutes ago we declared a war criminal. He is strongly anti-American. His appeal to the Russian Duma to a very large extent stems from his anti-American policies which he has pursued faithfully and with perseverance since becoming Foreign Minister of Russia. So I do not have very high hopes for Mr. Primakov. But let me say, compared to the chaos, compared to the confusion, compared to the disintegration in Russia that we have seen in recent weeks, he may be the best momentary alternative. The Duma has voted him in. He is likely to enjoy the support of the Duma for some time to come. The question for us to ask is how can we work with Primakov and this new Russian government in the very difficult days and weeks that lie ahead. Let me say first a word about the economic crisis. Every week, millions of additional Russians are falling below the poverty level of Russia. The Russian poverty level is a very low level. Just in the first week of September, Mr. Speaker, prices in Russia increased by 36 percent. Russia has defaulted on its foreign debt obligations. The hope that Russia can be transformed into a democratic market economy in the short run is gone. It is self-evident that, under this new government, there will be retrograde policies introduced. The printing presses will begin. Wages will be paid to people who have not been paid for months and months, but the following inflation will bring about further social dislocation and deterioration. The regions of Russia are beginning to feel their new found power. There is a distinct possibility that Russia will break up into its constituent regions. Tomorrow evening, with the Speaker's permission, I would like to continue with this discussion by focusing upon the regions of Russia, many of whom are determined to strike out for independence and to reject the central authority of Moscow.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first thank my friend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for his comments. Let me also thank my good friend and distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), cochair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus who joined me as the principal Republican cosponsor of this bill. I also want to thank my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) the distinguished chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for his strong leadership on this issue. There are in fact scores of colleagues across the political spectrum who joined us in introducing this resolution. Fifty years is a long time, Madam Speaker, and it is most appropriate for us to recommit ourselves and this body and our Nation to this vital document. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most monumental events in the history of human rights. It is the accepted international definition of human rights, and the declaration continues to serve as the basis for subsequent international human rights law and treaties. And it is the critical starting point for future international agreements on human rights. Now, I am not naive, Madam Speaker, and I understand that in scores of countries, this Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not observed. But that painful fact makes it all the more important that we recommit ourselves in a solemn way to the principles embodied in this document. The drafters of the Universal Declaration were not concerned with inventing new political concepts and rights which would be granted or extended to people around the world; but, rather, they were concerned with defining the fundamental rights that are at the root of our human nature, rights that are the essence of our humanity. The purpose of the Universal Declaration was to enumerate these rights and to establish the standards that all nations should observe. The nations which founded the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, the city I have the honor to represent in this body with my friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), came to the conclusion that new tools and international mechanisms are needed to protect the basic rights of all human beings. They directly responded to the atrocities of World War II committed by Nazi Germany and others where fundamental rights were violated in an unprecedented and systematic attack which produced inconceivable levels of human suffering. In 1946, Madam Speaker, the United Nations established the Commission on Human Rights, the principal decision-making body charged with the global defense of human rights. The first Chair of the Human Rights Commission was Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Under her inspired leadership, this Commission took it upon itself to develop a comprehensive and universal catalogue of human rights definitions, which could serve as the basis for future legal codifications in the defense of human rights. After almost 1,400 rounds of voting on practically every word in the draft declaration, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, in Paris at the Palais de Chaillot. Hence, we annually celebrate December 10 as International Human Rights Day. Subsequently some 60 human rights treaties and declarations were negotiated at the United Nations on the basis of the Universal Declaration. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, many of the rights enunciated in the Universal Declaration are under attack across the globe. I urge my colleagues to join me and continue our fight for all human rights for all human beings, even if that means from time to time making some unpopular decisions. As the sole remaining superpower, we have a special global obligation to the poor, to the tortured, to the prosecuted, to the persecuted, to the refugees and the voiceless. Anything less than full commitment to these human rights would be a betrayal of our own convictions and beliefs as a Nation and to our responsibilities spelled out in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the author of the resolution and my friend and colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me at the outset pay tribute and commend the author of this resolution, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), because he is dealing with an issue of extreme importance. Of all the hundreds of hearings that I have participated in during the course of years, Madam Speaker, probably none was more moving than a hearing I chaired on a situation involving children of American women abducted by their fathers to Saudi Arabia. Now, I think it is extremely important to bear in mind that while many countries are involved in matters that this legislation attempts to deal with, the vast number of the children are taken to countries where only the father's rights are recognized. In such cases, the left- behind mother is utterly helpless and hopeless, and the anguish and suffering of both the mother and the children is beyond comprehension. I believe this resolution, which attempts to deal with unresolved cases of child abduction cases, will focus both public and media attention on this outrage, and it is my earnest hope that at least international embarrassment might induce some of the governments to be more forthcoming in dealing with these matters. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has made some progress in aiding the return of abducted children. But many of the countries most affected by this legislation are not parties to that convention, and I think my colleague from Arkansas deserves great commendation for refocusing the attention of the civilized world on this outrageous practice. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by paying special tribute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for taking the lead in this body on this most important issue. He has been an indefatigable fighter for many good causes, but this probably is one that deserves the most serious commendation and respect. I am proud to be the principal Democratic cosponsor of this legislation. According to Amnesty International, Madam Speaker, torture is practiced on a systematic scale in no less than 117 countries across the globe today. Governments frequently target human rights advocates and political opposition members for torture to disable them and instill fear in society in general. Torture is clearly the most popular and effective weapon employed by rogue nations against democracy. The main purpose of torture in most cases is not to gain any information from the victim. Rather, its purpose is to strip the individual human being of all personal dignity, to destroy all personal self-control and to reduce a human being to a state of sheer panic, fear, terror and pain. In other words, the purpose of torture is the destruction of the character of the victim, not necessarily the intention to kill him. Long after the physical wounds of those lucky enough to survive have healed, the embarrassment and the trauma of their torture persists. This is why torture renders people silent. This silence, the inability to reach out, many times increased by our inability to listen and to believe, is the real goal of torture. There are no more than 150 treatment programs for victims of torture in 76 countries. These programs provide invaluable support to the courageous men and women who are fighting for principles upon which our country was founded. They enable the survivors of torture to recover from the effects of torture and to resume their struggle on behalf of democracy and human rights. This is a long, painful and slow process. The centers give victims the important hope that somebody is listening, somebody believes their stories. Currently there are some 400,000 victims who survive torture in many countries living in the United States. We need to listen to them and to live up to our responsibilities. In addition to the medical and psychological services torture treatment centers provide, they also document irrefutable evidence that torture is being practiced in many countries, and these centers become effective instruments in pressuring and changing governments to desist from the practice of torture. It is my hope that my colleagues across the political spectrum will unanimously approve this legislation. I strongly urge support of everyone in this body. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of Mr. Riggs and in equally strong support of the amendment offered by Mr. Martinez to the Riggs Amendment. The amendment being offered by Mr. Martinez is the result of thoughtful hard legislative work by my distinguished colleague Congresswoman Pelosi, who together with me represents the City of San Francisco. I thank her for her important efforts in this regard. Under the Riggs Amendment, school districts--such as the San Francisco Unified School District--would lose Federal funding if they do not comply with State Law, even if those school districts were adhering to a Federal court order that conflicts with state law. The Riggs Amendment puts responsible, functioning school districts in an untenable situation. If the Riggs Amendment passes, school districts would be asked to choose between compliance with Federal law as mandated by United States courts and with receiving Federal funding. Is this the message we in the Federal Government wish to send the American people? Should we penalize American school- children simply because their school district has acted properly to observe the laws of the United States as interpreted by Federal courts? Our Constitution provides that federal law takes precedence over state law, and clearly school districts acting in accordance with Federal law should not loose Federal funding because there is a conflicting state law. Mr. Chairman, the Riggs Amendment specifically attacks school districts in cities such as Chicago, Denver, New York City, San Jose, and St. Paul--each of which is following a court-ordered mandate regarding bilingual education. The San Francisco Unified School District could lose nearly $1 million in federal funding if the Riggs Amendment is adopted. Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage that Mr. Riggs' Amendment would enact legislation that would harm school districts in this manner. The Riggs Amendment will hurt rather than help our school children. The Riggs Amendment will subordinate the quality of our children's education to politics. This amendment is a poison whose only antidote is the Martinez Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Riggs Amendment and support the Martinez Amendment.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, human rights are universal by definition. Simply by being a member of the human race, every person has certain inviolable rights--those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was created by the members of the United Nations fifty years ago. Unfortunately, however, not every government in the world recognizes these rights. The Government of Iran recently gave the world a glaring example of the type of officially sanctioned depravity that can occur when rights of the individual are not protected--and in fact are actively violated by his or her own government. On July 21st the Iranian government executed Ruhollah Rowhani in the town of Mashad. Mr. Rowhani, a married father of four, was not a criminal. He was a member of the Baha'i faith, and there is very credible reasons to believe that his death is a direct result of his faith. He was not accused of any crime that would be recognizable to us here in the United States or in most other places of the world. He was held incommunicado for nearly a year prior to his execution. He was not given access to lawyers. He was simply abducted by the government, held, subjected to a sham trial, judgment was passed, and then he was murdered. The approximately 300,000 Baha'is who live in Iran are in an extremely precarious position that is highlighted by this extreme treatment of Mr. Rowhani. Although Baha'is are the largest religious minority in Iran, their faith is not recognized as a legitimate religion by the government. In fact, the theocracy in Teheran consider the Baha'i faith to be heresy and an anti-Muslim conspiracy. Baha'is in Iran are labeled ``unprotected infidels'' and have no legal rights. Baha'is are prohibited from electing leaders, organizing schools or conducting other religious activities. All cemeteries, holy sites and Baha'i community property were seized after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Baha'is are denied government jobs and pensions, and more than 10,000 have been dismissed from government and university posts since 1979. Baha'is of school age are also barred from both 4 year high schools and universities, severely limiting economic opportunities. Baha'i marriages are not recognized and the right of inheritance is not recognized for Baha'is. In short, the Baha'i community in Iran is slowly being strangled through a regime of official persecution. It is important to note also, that the Baha'is in Iran have never engaged in any illegal or anti-government activity that would in any way justify this type of treatment. In fact, it is my understanding that obedience to the civil law of the land in which they live is a principal tenet of Baha'i teachings. The repression of the Baha'is in Iran is purely based on religion and intolerance. The overall situation facing Baha'is in Iran and the recent execution of Mr. Rowhani raise grave concerns for the fifteen other Baha'is being held by Iranian authorities on religious charges. In particular, seven men have been sentenced to death and may be facing imminent execution. I urge the Government of Iran to ensure the immediate safety of three Baha'is most imminently in danger of execution--Ata'ullah Hamid Nasirizdih, Sirus Dhabih-Musqaddam, and Hidayat-Kashifi--and to ensure that these men are afforded fair and public trials prior to any action being taken against them. I also urge on the White House and State Department Administration to work through appropriate channels, including the United Nations, and to work with our allies and friends to make clear to the Government of Iran that the lives of all Baha'i prisoners must be protected and that this behavior is unacceptable and must stop. The rights of the Baha'is of Iran, and of all humans, are unambiguous. It is the responsibility of the Government of Iran to ensure these right for all their citizens.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 421, and I commend the Gentleman from Texas, Congressman Brady, as well as the cosponsors of this important resolution for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, before us today is legislation which highlights one of the most tragic losses in the fight for human rights world-wide. The violent death of Guatemala's outstanding spiritual leader and human rights defender, Monsignor Juan Jose Gerardi, the Bishop who served as General Director of the Guatemalan Archbishop's Human Rights Office, is not only a tragic loss for Guatemala, but also for the process of reconciliation in civil-worn torn Guatemala and its search for truth. I previously had an opportunity to express to Bishop Gerardi's coworkers and the Guatemalan people the condolences of the U.S. Congress and the American people for the tragic loss of Bishop Gerardi, and would like to take this opportunity to do so again. Mr. Speaker, Bishop Gerardi was murdered on April 26th, 1998--only two days after he publicly presented the report ``Guatemala: Never Again.'' This report represents an outstanding and extremely difficult effort to establish the death toll of 36 years of civil war, which is estimated to be at least 150,000, in addition to some 50,000 estimated disappearances. This crucial report--which clearly placed the blame for the majority of human rights abuses during the civil war upon the Guatemalan army--was prepared by the inter-diocesan project, Recovery of Historical Memory (REMHI), which the Bishop coordinated. Needless to say, there is complete documentation for only a small number of cases, and the efforts by the Archbishop's Human Rights Office will continue. Let us never forget that these staggering estimates reflect the suffering and pains of hundreds of thousands of individuals, families, and loved ones, which no statistics can ever do justice. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to take this opportunity to thank my good friends and distinguished colleagues, Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi of California and Connie Morella of Maryland, as well as Congressman George Miller of California for leading a recent delegation in conjunction with the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, which went to Guatemala to examine the impact of the murder of Bishop Gerardi on the future of the peace process and to check the status of the investigation launched by the Guatemalan authorities. Our resolution today clearly shows to all parties involved how seriously we in the United States Congress and in the U.S. government take these brutal efforts to silence this human rights activist. The guilty parties must be brought to justice. While the world mourns the tragic loss of Bishop Gerardi, the efforts to implement the peace process must continue. Only by establishing the basic democratic principle of accountability will the Peace Accords be successful. Otherwise, the removal of Guatemala from the U.N. Human Rights Commission list of Countries under observation for human rights abuses could prove to be premature. In order to assist the people in Guatemala to achieve the goals expressed in the peace accords, I have introduced H.R. 2635, the Human Rights Information Act, which provides Truth Commissions, such as the one in Guatemala, with the necessary information to document and prosecute human rights abuses which occurred in their country. The bi- partisan Human Rights Information Act is currently cosponsored by 92 of our distinguished colleagues in the House. I commend the outstanding human rights leadership of my friend and colleague, Congressman Steven Horn, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, for holding a hearing on this bill. I hope it will be possible to mark up this bill as soon as possible, before we run out of time in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.