Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget and in support of the Democratic alternative. The Republican Party, unfortunately, has always been hostile to Medicare. My senior citizens need Medicare, and that is why the Democratic plan strengthens Medicare. When I talk to senior citizens in my district, they tell me that Medicare is just as important to them as Social Security. When I speak with my mother, who is my best advisor, she tells me that Medicare needs to be enhanced. The President has proposed a prescription drug component. I believe that that is what we should have. The Republican resolution, it does not provide a long-term care benefit, nor prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We need to make sure that our seniors do not choose between food and drugs. The Republican budget has no problem in proposing a $775 billion tax break for the rich, for the wealthiest of Americans. We cannot continue to play politics with our seniors' health. The Democratic plan strengthens social security and strengthens Medicare. The Republican plan leaves out Medicare. Medicare ought to be on the table. The prescription drug component ought to be part and parcel of the mix. Long-term care is very, very important. Senior citizens in this country need help. The Democratic plan provides that help, the Republican plan does not. Let us work on a budget resolution that enhances Medicare, not hurts it. We cannot ignore the problem.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the resolution, I support our armed forces, our brave men and women, and I support the President in his courageous decision. This morning I showed a picture that I wanted to in advance and say it again. I apologize to my colleagues, the American people, if they are offended by this picture, but I think it has to be shown because this to me tells us why we are in Kosovo. This is the picture of one of the victims, a dead Albanian child. Let me read for my colleagues what it says. It says his mother will never have to see him this way, they killed her too. Every night, while most of our children sleep in the comfort of a warm bed, Albanian homes in a place called Kosovo are being raided, and innocent people are being massacred, many of them children, all in the name of ethnic cleansing. That is what is going on. That is why we, as leaders of the world, have to be in Kosovo, to stop genocide on the continent of Europe. That is why NATO has to be there, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is concerned about North America and Europe, to stop genocide. It is in U.S. national interests to stop genocide and in the U.S. national interest to stop a wider war because, if we did nothing, surely the war would expand and possibly engulf NATO allies such as Turkey and Greece and Hungary and other countries such as Albania and Macedonia and Bulgaria. So once again, as the leaders of the free world, we are doing the right thing. Mr. Milosevic has broken every agreement that he has accepted. He signed an agreement in October, and he violated it. Thousands and thousands of people have been displaced from their homes. There are a quarter of a million refugees, 100,000 in the past 2 weeks alone. People are being slaughtered. Innocent civilians, unarmed civilians, men, women and children lined up and shot into a pit. This has to stop. I am proud of our Armed Forces. Support the resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I apologize in advance to my colleagues and to the American people who may be offended by what I am about to show but I think it is very, very important in view of the events of today that we show this. This is a poster. It shows a dead child who was killed with ethnic cleansing in Kosova, and it says his mother will never have to see him this way. They killed her, too. My colleagues, this is what is going on today in Kosova, and I say Kosova because 92 percent of the population, the ethnic Albanians who live there, call it Kosova and they were being ethnically cleansed. We need to stop it. We need to support the bombing. We need to support NATO troops on the ground. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is concerned about genocide in Europe as it rightly should be. Milosevic, the Serbian leader, has broken every agreement to which he has agreed. The U.S. vital interests are there. We have a vital interest to stop genocide. We have a vital interest to stop a wider war which will surely happen in the Balkans if we sit back and do nothing. It could suck in our allies, Greece and Turkey and Hungary and other countries. We need to support U.S. troops. We need to support the bombing. Stop the killing in Kosova now. Stop the genocide and the ethnic cleansing.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Mississippi for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 130. I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill, and this is a bipartisan bill, to name the Federal courthouse at Foley Square in Manhattan in New York City as the ``Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.'' By naming the Foley Square courthouse after Justice Marshall, Congress would send a signal to the American people and the entire world of the importance of the principle of equality under the law. As my colleagues know, the late Thurgood Marshall was not only the first African American Justice of the United States Supreme Court, he also was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in the history of our Nation. Through his skill, advocacy, and dedication to the cause of civil rights, he led the charge for equality, not only for African Americans, but for all Americans. Thurgood Marshall was born July 2, 1908 in Baltimore, Maryland. After attending public schools in Maryland, he received his bachelor's degree from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania and his law degree from Howard University right here in Washington, D.C. where he graduated first in his class. After handling a variety of private legal cases, Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1936 as Special Counsel to the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Only 3 years later, Marshall founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of the great protectors of civil rights in our country's history. I would urge my colleagues commemorating the life of Thurgood Marshall today to cosponsor H. Con. Res. 33, my legislation, which commemorates the 90th anniversary of the founding of the NAACP. While at the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall won 29 of 32 cases he argued before the United States Supreme Court. Most prominent of Marshall's victories of course was Brown versus Board of Education, that famous 1954 case, in which the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal policy that was used to justify public school segregation that had been in effect since 1896. While at the NAACP, Marshall also won important cases against discriminatory poll taxes, racial restrictions in housing, and whites- only primary elections. In September 1961, after such a distinguished career with the NAACP, President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall as the first African American to sit as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He was later chosen by President Lyndon B. Johnson as the United States Solicitor General, also the first African American to hold this position. On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. As the first African American Associate Justice, Marshall became known for his heartfelt attacks on discrimination,, unyielding opposition to the death penalty, and support for free speech and civil liberties. As my colleagues know, the House passed this bill last year. We are considering it again today because it did not come to the floor of the Senate by the end of the session. I am hoping the Senate will immediately take up this bill after the House passes it. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note the New York State Senate, the New York State Bar Association, and the New York State County Lawyers' Association, of which Marshall was a long-time member, have endorsed this bill. It is bipartisan, strong bipartisan support. The courthouse at 40 Centre Street in New York has gone unnamed since its construction in 1935. I believe that identifying this courthouse with Justice Marshall would be a fitting commemoration of his life's pursuit of justice and equality under the law. The Thurgood family is delighted to have this important courthouse named after Justice Thurgood Marshall. I urge my colleagues to offer this tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall and to support H.R. 130. I just want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise), for their cooperation and strong support for this bill. I appreciate their collegiality very, very much.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the House very wisely passed a resolution giving the President the authority to send U.S. troops to Kosova as a part of NATO, and at the time many of us arguing in favor of the resolution said that it was necessary for the United States to be a leader of NATO and to show that we are the leader and to have 4000 of our troops, if necessary, participate in the NATO peacekeeping force which would only be 15 percent of the total and which would in essence be a poster child for burden sharing. When I got up to the floor, as did many of my colleagues, we talked about genocide and ethnic cleansing and said that it was important for NATO to have a presence in Kosova in order to prevent ethnic cleansing. Today in the front page of the Washington Post there is unfortunately an article which says ``Kosovo Killings Called a Massacre,'' and I just wanted to read some of the article and then ask to have the entire article put into the Record, but the article starts off by saying: An independent forensic report into the killings of 40 ethnic Albanians in the Kosovo village of Racak in January has found that the victims were unarmed civilians executed in an organized massacre, some of them forced to kneel before being sprayed with bullets according to western sources familiar with the report. The findings by Finnish forensic experts set to be released Wednesday in Pristina, the Kosovo capital, contradicts claims by officials of the Serb led Yugoslav government that the dead were armed ethnic Albanian separatists or civilians accidentally caught in a cross-fire between government security forces and separatist rebels. Western officials have blamed the killings on government police. It has been apparent for many years now, but especially during the past several months, that ethnic cleansing and genocide has been going on in Kosova, and by the way I say ``Kosova'' because that is the way 92 percent of the people who live there who are ethnic Albanians pronounce it. They pronounce it ``Kosova'' and in my estimation, if that is what the people who live there call their land, that is what I call it. We have said that ethnic cleansing and genocide has been going on, and that is why it is just so important for NATO to be there. People who say that it is not in our vital interests, I would argue that it is in our vital interests to stop genocide and also in the U.S. vital interest to prevent a larger outbreak of the war which would surely, if given a chance, suck in many neighboring countries, including the potential to suck in NATO allies of Turkey and Greece and Bulgaria and other countries as well. And so that is why the U.S. has a vital interest. But I wanted to come to the floor today to point out the ethnic cleansing and the genocide and to say that when the United States has the ability to help prevent these kinds of atrocities we ought to do it. Again this is an independent panel. This is not some panel that is hired by one side or another. This is an independent panel, independent forensic report, and it is what we said all along, that these are innocent civilians, unarmed civilians, men, women and children who are being ethnically cleansed who are being killed by the Serbian led forces under Slobodan Milosevic, who in my opinion is a war criminal and should be prosecuted by the International Tribunal at the Hague. Mr. Speaker, I place the entire article into the Congressional Record at this time: [From the Washington Post, March 17, 1999] Kosovo Killings Called a Massacre--Some Victims Shot While on Their Knees (By R. Jeffrey Smith) Rome, March 16--An independent forensic report into the killings of 40 ethnic Albanians in the Kosovo village of Racak in January has found that the victims were unarmed civilians executed in an organized massacre, some of them forced to kneel before being sprayed with bullets, according to Western sources familiar with the report. The findings by Finnish forensic experts, set to be released Wednesday in Pristina, the Kosovo capital, contradict claims by officials of the Serb-led Yugoslav government that the dead were armed ethnic Albanian separatists or civilians accidentally caught in a cross-fire between government security forces and separatist rebels. Western officials have blamed the killings on government police. Because of the extreme sensitivity of the case, leaders of the European Union, which sponsored the probe, have asked the forensic team to withhold some of its most potentially inflammatory findings when its members appear at a news conference Wednesday, officials said. The request, they say, was made out of concern that the results will further polarize the two sides in the Kosovo conflict and impede the Belgrade government's acceptance of a peace agreement for the Serbian province at talks underway in France. One Western official said the German government, which holds the rotating chairmanship of the European Union, had ordered the Finnish team not to release a summary of its probe, which includes details about how some of the victims appeared to have died. Instead, at Bonn's request, the team agreed to release only the voluminous summaries of autopsies it helped conduct on bodies of the victims. The killings on Jan. 15 at Racak, an ethnic Albanian village southwest of Pristina, outraged the world and became a turning point in the year-long conflict between security forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army, the main ethnic Albanian rebel group fighting for Kosovo's independence from Serbia, the dominant republic in the Yugoslav federation. NATO leaders condemned the killings at the time and renewed their threat to carry out punitive airstrikes against Yugoslav military targets. Days later, both sides in the conflict agreed to take part in peace talks in France sponsored by the United States, Russia and four west European nations. On Monday, ethnic Albanian negotiators pledged to sign a draft peace agreement that would provide substantial autonomy to Kosovo, while Belgrade officials have continued to object not only to the language of the proposed political settlement, but also to a provision mandating deployment of 28,000 NATO-led troops in Kosovo to enforce its terms. The forensic team's investigation, based on an examination of evidence at the site and autopsies conducted jointly with Yugoslav government pathologists, determined that 22 of the victims were slain in a gully on the outskirts of Racak, precisely where their bodies were found on the morning of Jan. 16. The gully is so narrow that these victims could only have been shot deliberately at close range, the sources said. Although the bodies of some other victims in the village were moved into homes or a mosque before international observers arrived, the forensic experts were able to determine where all but four of the 40 victims had died. From the pattern of the bullet wounds on their bodies and other evidence--such as their civilian clothing and possessions-- the team found no reason to conclude they were killed accidentally or were members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, said the sources, who asked not to be identified. Western officials say the team found that the angle of the bullet wounds in the victims' bodies was consistent with a scenario in which some of them were forced to kneel before being sprayed with gunfire from automatic weapons. This ``spray pattern'' finding is among the sensitive details that officials said may be withheld at Wednesday's news conference. Wounds on the bodies of some other victims evidently suggest they were shot while running away, the sources said. On Jan. 16, U.S. special envoy William Walker, head of an international monitoring mission in Kosovo, described the killings as a massacre by government forces, and Yugoslav officials ordered him out of the country. The order was later suspended after the West threatened punitive action. Western sources subsequently disclosed that telephone conversations between top Yugoslav and Serbian officials about the slayings showed that the officials explicitly sought to contrive an explanation for the killings that would shift blame away from security forces. The Yugoslav government invited the Finnish forensic team to conduct the investigation at a time when many countries were demanding an inquiry by the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Yugoslavia has refused to cooperate with the tribunal or recognize the legitimacy of its mandate over matters of Yugoslav territory, so the Finns were accepted as compromise. Officials in Belgrade, aware of the potential impact the forensic report might have on foreign sentiment about the conduct of its army and paramilitary forces, have mounted sustained propaganda campaign to cast the forensic team's conclusions in a favorable, and, according to the sources, highly misleading light. An article in today's editions of Politika, a Belgrade newspaper connected to the government, claimed for example that the team had established that all the victims all had fired weapons before their deaths and that the bodies of all of them had been moved. The chief public prosecutor for Serbia, Dragisa Krsmanovic, alleged similarly last week that forensic tests showed the victims all had been shot from a distance. As a result, he said, government troops could not be prosecuted for their actions in Racak. The forensic team searched but found no evidence to support these claims. On the other hand, its findings cast doubt on the assertion of some Western officials, including Walker, that the bodies has been deliberately mutilated by government troops. Although 45 people reportedly were slain at Racak, the Finnish team was given access to only 40 bodies. The investigators learned that at least five more bodies, including those of at least two women, were removed from the area and presumably were buried in a cemetery south of Racak, along with as many as seven others who apparently were wounded during the assault and died later.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the lead Democrat on this resolution, and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for his leadership in sponsoring this resolution. As the gentleman from Arizona said before, this is a bipartisan resolution. It has 280 cosponsors, which is a majority of this House. What this does is simply bring Congress in line with what has been said many, many times before by President Clinton, by the administration, and by anyone who is in the know about the Middle East, that a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state destroys the peace process. Clear and simple. So if we want the peace process to continue, then there ought to be no unilateral declarations of any kind. If we want to destroy the peace process, then Mr. Arafat can go right ahead and issue his unilateral declaration. Some of my colleagues have said this will influence the Israeli elections. That is nonsense, because every mainstream party in Israel, every candidate for prime minister in Israel who is in the mainstream is opposed to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. So this will not affect the Israeli elections. It simply holds Mr. Arafat's feet to the fire. Now we know Mr. Arafat has a way of talking out of 32 sides of his mouth. We want him to keep his commitments. This is a very, very balanced resolution, and I want to read some of it. Simple. It says, ``Whereas at the heart of the Oslo peace process lies the basic, irrevocable commitment made by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat that, in his words, `all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.' '' That is from Yasser Arafat's own mouth. Why would anyone be opposed to holding his feet to the fire on that? The resolution further states, ``Resolved by the House of Representatives * * * That (1) the final political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be determined through negotiations and agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.'' Who could oppose that? ``(2) any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition,'' as it will. Finally, ``(3) the President should unequivocally assert United States opposition,'' which the President has, ``to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, making clear that such a declaration would be a grievous violation of the Oslo accords and that a declared state would not be recognized by the United States.'' If you ask me, this is again certainly a mainstream resolution. It has broad bipartisan support. It is only asking the parties to keep the commitments to which they made. Mr. Arafat has to understand that there will be severe consequences if he does not fulfill his commitment, blowing up the peace process and a cut off of American aid. So, again, this is bipartisan. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for his leadership.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. As I mentioned before, I think this resolution is ill-timed and we should not be doing this, but since it is on the floor I rise to support the Gilman resolution. Carnage has gone on in Kosova for too long, and by the way, I say Kosova with an ``A'' because 92 percent of the people that live there are ethnic Albanians and pronounce it Kosova. Ethnic and cleansing and genocide has gone on for too long. The butcher of Kosova, Slobodan Milosevic, continues to kill people. We continue to see genocide on the face of Europe. We cannot sit still and continue to allow this to happen. Until the United States stepped in in Bosnia, we saw 200,000 people ethnically cleansed by Milosevic and his people, murdered, and we are going to see it again unless the United States grabs the bull by the horns. We were told by some on the other side of the aisle that when U.S. troops went to Bosnia there would be many, many American casualties. That has not happened. It will not happen in Kosova, but we will prevent innocent civilians from dying. I support independence for the people of Kosova because I believe that is the only long-range plan that works, they are entitled to the same things that we hold dear, they are entitled when Yugoslavia broke up the former Yugoslavia, the Croats, and the Slovenians, and the Bosnians, and the Macedonians all had the right to independence and self-determination. The Kosovar Albanians should have that same right. This agreement does not do that, but at least it stops the killing, it stops the ethnic cleansing, it gives them half a loaf. Milosevic does not want it. He does not want U.S. troops or NATO troops because he wants to keep the killing and he wants to keep the stranglehold on the people of Kosova that have no political rights, no economic rights, no human rights. NATO has to lead, and the United States has to lead in NATO. NATO cannot do it alone. If we are not the leaders, we will not be successful, NATO will not be successful, and I say to my colleagues we cannot be in favor of stopping genocide and helping the Albanians if we are not willing to have NATO troops on the ground with U.S. leadership and U.S. participation. This is in the vital interests of the U.S. We do not want a larger war. We need to support the Gilman resolution. It is time to step up to the plate.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the other side talks about all kinds of reasons why the United States should not send any of its troops into Kosovo. We know that there has been ethnic cleansing. We know there has been genocide. I was always taught that two wrongs do not make a right and to me it is ridiculous to say, well, there is genocide going on in all parts of the world so therefore we should not intervene in any part of the world. That does not make sense to me at all. I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment which in effect guts the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment. The isolationist attitude that I hear amongst some of my colleagues is indeed troubling and puzzling. We have heard these arguments time and time and time again. We heard these arguments during the Second World War when 6 million people plus were ethnically cleansed and the Holocaust was there. I am not saying that this is on the same level, but when innocent people are killed because of their race, or ethnicity, we have a right and a duty, I think, to respond. We saw in Bosnia that until the United States grabbed the bull by the horns, Europe was not capable of stopping the carnage, and we saw 200,000 people ethnically cleansed because of their ethnicity, and we will see it again in Kosovo unless we are willing to step in. Now, we talk about burdensharing, and I accept the argument that it is not fair to ask us to do the lion's share. But here we are only proposing 4,000 troops out of 28,000. This is the poster child for burdensharing. Our NATO allies are doing the bulk of the troops. And for the United States to pull out now or for this Congress to send a wrong message now does such harm to the negotiations, I think probably destroys the negotiations, and how many more thousands of people will have to be killed until we step in a year or two or three years away? Isolationism did not work during World War II, it did not work during other wars, and it will not work now. I can never understand my colleagues who say that somehow people who volunteer for the armed forces and do not want to go, somehow that is a reason not to send troops. If you volunteer, you know you are volunteering, and in the future you know you may have to go. So to me because somebody wants to be with their family, I would want to be with my family, too, but that is not a reason for United States troops not to do what we need to do, which is in our national interest. It is in our interest to stop genocide. It is in our interest to stop a wider war which will surely happen if we let it go unchecked. We have allies, Greece and Turkey and other allies, that can be sucked into a wider Balkan war. But if we take steps now along with NATO, we can prevent all this. I also do not understand some of my colleagues who are always one to have more money for the defense budget, they always fight for more money for defense but yet they never seem to want to use the defense. It does not make sense to me at all. If we are the superpower in the world, and we have a strong defense, and we need to beef up our defense, then there are times we need to use our defense. This is such a time. We heard when we were debating Bosnia here in Congress that there would be hundreds if not thousands of American casualties. That has not happened. It will not happen in Kosovo, either. The naysayers, the doom and gloom people, it will not happen because our forces are the best. There is a mission here, and it is a specific mission here. We are going to Kosovo to keep the peace. Mr. Milosevic has slaughtered hundreds and hundreds and thousands of Albanians. People there have no rights. They have no civil rights. They have no human rights. Men, women and children are slaughtered. We have seen the carnage. Only the United States leadership can stop it. This is not the time to be isolationists. I appeal to my colleagues, and again I think this is the wrong time to be debating this, because there is no peace agreement. That is just the point. The gentleman from Texas said there was no agreement. I think if we pull the rug out from under the President and say we do not want troops before there is an agreement, there surely will not be an agreement. We should have waited until there was an agreement to debate this in the United States House of Representatives. I sincerely hope that our colleagues will understand the gravity of this issue and support the gentleman from Connecticut and support the gentleman from Texas. No more than 15 percent United States participation is needed.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have spent as much time as anyone over these past 10 or 11 years dealing with the problem in Kosovo. I want to tell my colleagues as far as I am concerned this is a wrong rule and the wrong resolution at the wrong time, and it should be defeated. I have hardly seen anything more irresponsible, quite frankly, in my 10 plus years here than this resolution and this rule. As far as I am concerned, this is an attempt to embarrass the President, this is mischief-making at its worst, and it undermines American foreign policy, it undermines the negotiations going on. I returned from Rambouillet 3 weeks ago, and I can tell my colleagues that if we pass this rule and the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) goes down to defeat, as I suspect it will, this will destroy the negotiations and destroy the peace process, and we will be responsible for that. The Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) came and said that this was an open process, and I think he was a bit disingenuous, quite frankly. He says that he wants to meet Democrats halfway. We have not seen that meeting us halfway on committee ratios, we have not seen it on funding, and now the Democrats are pleading, the administration is pleading and saying please postpone this vote until there is an agreement, and we cannot even get a postponement on the vote. Senator Dole was quite eloquent yesterday. He said, quite simply, first we get an agreement and then we go before Congress to ratify the agreement. We do not do it the other way around. Senator Dole has also spent more time than anybody in terms of Kosovo, and he thinks this will be very damaging. Everybody that has worked in this process thinks it will be very, very damaging. There is no reason to do this kind of thing now, except to embarrass the President politically and undermine U.S. foreign policy. This is absolutely irresponsible. It will damage the peace process. Let me remind my colleagues that foreign policy should be bipartisan. I was one of those Democrats that voted with President Bush and supported him in the Persian Gulf War when he asked for bipartisanship. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we get very little of it from the other side. All I know is that in Kosovo there is genocide, ethnic cleansing and killing, and it needs to stop, and if the United States Congress votes against sending troops to Kosovo, Slobodan Milosevic, the butcher of Kosovo, will laugh and laugh and laugh, because we will have given him cover. The Albanians, who have agreed to the agreement will back off, because without strong American participation they will not have the fortitude; they only trust the United States of America. We have seen time and time again, we saw it in Bosnia, 200,000 people were ethnically cleansed, and until the United States grabbed the bull by the horns and showed the leadership in NATO, people were being killed and genocide was happening again on the face of Europe. And when the United States grabbed the bull by the horns, only then did it stop, and it is the same situation here. It is disingenuous of my colleagues to say they want the killing to stop, but they do not want to support American troops as part of NATO on the ground. Without our participation, the killing will continue and the ethnic cleansing will continue. Defeat this rule. It is nothing more than mischief making and it does not do this Congress good service at all.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 34 on approving the Journal, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to impeachment. I rise in strong opposition to this attempt at a bloodless coup d'etat, this attempt to overturn two national elections. The American people are ahead of the politicians; they are certainly ahead of the majority party. They want censure. Why are we not given the opportunity to vote up or down for censure on the House floor? Why are we not allowed to represent our constituents on the House floor? No one believes that the President will ultimately be removed from office, so we will have dragged this country through a 6-month trial in the Senate and Bill Clinton will still remain President. What good does that do? Let us put this behind us with a bipartisan censure. Let us get on with the issues of importance to the American people, such as health care, Medicare, Social Security, education, campaign finance reform. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they have a constitutional duty to move forward. I come from the Bronx, and we talk about street smarts there or a little bit of common sense, and common sense means you do not move forward with blinders on, you do what is best for the country. Please, do not move for impeachment. This will only harm our country that we love.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution, our troops and our President making the decision. I was one of the Democrats 8 years ago to support President Bush. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to support President Clinton in this endeavor.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a laudable program of the YWCA of Yonkers in which a week-long series of events will highlight the struggle against violence. This is the fourth year in a row in which the `Y' is sponsoring a ``Week Without Violence'' program to inspire people to consider alternatives to violence by demonstrating that people from all communities can live together without violence in their homes, schools and neighborhoods. From October 18 through October 24 the `Y' is sponsoring a series of programs and remembrances with the support of the Police Department, the Public Schools, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Commission for Nonviolence, My Sister's Place, and Cluster's Conflict Resolution Program. The series includes a public education campaign to identify and activate practical alternatives to violence. It also includes a day of remembrance in memory of Yonkers residents who lost their lives to violence, most especially the Biller family and Frederick Pagliara. The week includes programs which treat violence against women as well as violence against men and the scourge of race and hate crimes. The `Y' program, by spotlighting violence and the harm it does to all of us, and by offering alternatives, such as conflict resolution, gives positive recommendations to help the community. It is part of a nationwide `Y' program we all should join to reduce the epidemic of violence in America and make our country secure for all.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to tender my congratulations to a man of the cloth who has served his congregation at the Macedonia Baptist Church for forty years. The Reverend Dr. Richard H. Dixon, Jr. has accomplished much for his church in those decades. He was one of four children born to the late Rev. Richard and Beulah Dixon. He received his Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Detroit and is a candidate for a doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary. During his years at Macedonia Baptist, the church built a 75-unit Senior Citizen Complex, purchased the Macedonia Community Center, established the Collin Allen Day Care Center, and formed the church credit union which has helped congregants to buy homes and send their children to school. He and his wife, Earnestine Wright Dixon, have three children and four grandchildren. Mrs. Dixon has also served her community faithfully and well. She has served as an officer of four separate PTAs, is currently president of the Church Women United, and is a member of the Board for Mount Vernon Council of Churches. The Rev. Dixon is also someone I have had a close and growing relationship with over the past years. I consider him a friend and advisor. He has graciously invited me to his home and I was delighted to have attended family events. The depth of the contribution these two wonderful people have made to their community can hardly be measured. I join the church and the city in congratulating Rev. Dr. Dixon for his forty years of giving.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about community newspapers, their value to the neighborhoods they serve and their function in unifying a community. Specifically I am speaking about a wonderful and dedicated community newspaper in my district--the Norwood News. This newspaper was founded ten years ago by the Moshulu Preservation Corporation to help make Norwood a better place and to fill a void--no newspaper was being published in the neighborhood. From its first edition it has fulfilled that mission. The front page story that day was about a sewer reconstruction project gone awry and which has led to the destruction of a line of magnificent trees. In the intervening decade the paper has evolved in design and grown in content but has maintained one constant--to do stories about the community and to give the community a path of action. When necessary, the Norwood News dedicates large segments of its edition to stories having a significant impact in the community--more space than a daily newspaper could afford to give. Remarkably, it is able to accomplish its great work as a not-for-profit newspaper because the neighborhood cannot sustain a paper which requires a profit. The spirit of a free press, so necessary to freedom and democracy, lives in the Norwood News. It carries on the grassroots tradition of bringing local information to people so they can make informed decisions. I congratulate the Norwood News on its tenth anniversary and look forward to reading the newspaper for many more years.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to praise a man who for more than three decades has given himself to the education of our youth and to the betterment of his community. Robert Stauf started teaching in the Bronx in 1984 after graduating from Fordham College. For the next few years he taught at St. Philip Nerl School while he furthered his studies at Hunter College, where he did graduate work in guidance and school counseling, and at Manhattan College, where he did graduate work in administration. From 1964 until 1997 he taught in Yonkers Public Schools. But it was in the area of community service where Robert Stauf has been exemplary. He has evinced a willingness to serve on many committees to further the goals of education. He has also served on many government committees and in a boundless number of civic organizations. He served on the Community Relations Committee for three administrations, was chair of the Human Rights Commission and the Community Action Program, served on the Parking Authority, the South Yonkers Planning Association, the Third Precinct Community Council, was in the leadership of an astonishing number of Irish-American organizations, in 1993 served on the Yonkers City Council, and if that wasn't enough, he can sing. Bob Stauf has taught our young for almost two generations while being a leader to the many communities he served for as long. Yonkers is very fortunate in having someone so willing to do so much for his community. I join Yonkers in saluting Bob Stauf for his many contributions to his City.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak in praise of a man who has served with distinction in the Yonkers school system for 35 years-- Reginald F. Marra. He started in 1963 as an Industrial Arts teacher at Yonkers High School and has recently retired as Superintendent of the state's fourth largest school district with 24,000 students and a quarter of a billion dollar operating budget. His career has been one of increasing responsibility. His second position was as guidance counselor. In 1970 he was named Administrative Assistant, two years later he was named Assistant Principal and in 1973 Principal of Commerce Middle School. A year later he went to Saunders Trades and Technical High School where, drawing on his experience, he established innovative programs to assure significant employment opportunities for his students. In 1984 he became Director of Occupational Education and served as a Special Assistant to the Superintendent in 1986. From 1987 until 1993 he was Deputy Superintendent and that year he was named Superintendent. He has worked tirelessly to redesign the school system in the areas of curriculum, standards, goals and accountability. Among his many accomplishments, he increased the use of computer networks, established community, university and business partnerships within each school to expand student opportunities, worked with the professional staff to improve morale and make the district competitive in attracting and retaining professional staff. Reginald Marra has earned the respect and thanks of the City of Yonkers, its students, past, present and to come, and their parents. I am proud to join them in this salute.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the 17th congressional district in New York covers a large part of Bronx County. We affectionately call Bronx ``the Bronx,'' it is one of the only places in the country where we put the ``the'' in front of it. I am Bronx born and bred. The Bronx is not only famous for the Bronx Zoo and for the Bronx cheer, but it is also famous for the Bronx Bombers, notably the New York Yankees. And last night at the close of the last vote, I flew back to New York to be at Yankee stadium and watch the New York Yankees win the American League pennant and now the World Series will begin Saturday night at Yankee stadium. I was raised just a few blocks from Yankee stadium. When I was boy I used to walk to Yankee games. Now I look forward, Saturday night, to seeing the Yankees march on to win the World Series. This year, Mr. Speaker, the Yankees set an American League record, winning a record 114 games. And, of course, this week's Baseball Weekly has a picture of Bernie Williams on the front page, and it says, Bronx Battlers, and so we are very, very proud of that in the Bronx. I take to the well today to issue a challenge to my colleagues from both San Diego and Atlanta. We do not quite know who is going to win the National League pennant, but it will be decided in a day or two. I would like to issue a challenge to them. I would like to bet them on the eventual winner of the World Series for 1998. I have no doubt that it will be the New York Yankees. And let me say that I would be more than willing, when the Yankees win, to take them on a tour of the Bronx. The Bronx has come back after many years and we are very, very proud of the 1.3 million people living in the Bronx and very, very proud of what the Bronx Bombers, the New York Yankees, have accomplished. So since we probably will be out of session by Thursday or Friday and we might not know who the Yankees will face, I want to issue a challenge again to my colleagues from both Atlanta and San Diego. I would be very happy to take a tour of their district, if their team wins, but of course their team will not. So I want to invite them to take a tour of the Bronx after the New York Yankees win the World Series.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding to me. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) really said it all. It is difficult to add anything, so I am just going to repeat some things. Because when we talk about Tom Manton, all the good qualities that we would like to have in an elected official really come out. Honesty, integrity, hard working. That is really what Tom Manton is all about. When I first came to Congress 10 years ago, and Tom had already been here for 4 years, he came and extended his hand and offered me any help that I would need. And that is why in the 10 years that I have been here, Tom Manton has been one of my best friends, because I always know that if there is something I need, I can go to Tom Manton, whether it is advice or a personal favor or anything else. He make its very, very easy. One thing about friends, we want friends to be approachable. We want to be able to come to our friends and be honest and know that we are going to get that same honesty back in return. That is what you have with Tom Manton. It has been a privilege to serve with him on the Committee on Commerce, and on that committee he is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Finance Hazardous Material and has done a very wonderful job there as well. We are fighting for the good not only of New York, but for the good of the country. And it has been a pleasure to serve with Tom on the Committee on Commerce. When redistricting came in 1992, Tom saw his district change, as we all did. Part of his district, for the very first time, came to the Bronx where I was born and bred and have my district. Tom and I right now have adjourning districts, back to back, and we share a number of communities in the Bronx. And even though he is Queens' famous son, the Bronx has taken him as a son as well and we have worked very well together. The beauty of this country has been so many different groups have come to the shores, different immigrants, and we know that in New York where so many different groups have come together, the ethnic diversity of New York has been the treasure of New York. Those of us who have been born in New York and growing up in New York City share that diversity and share the culture of all the different ethnic groups, whether it is the culture or the food or just the family and the friendship, that is what we do. Tom has been very much a part of that culture. As was mentioned before, he has been a leader in the fight for peace and justice in the North of Ireland as one of the founders and the chairman for many years of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. But he has always stood for right and against injustice all over the world, whether it was fighting injustice in South Africa, or whether it was fighting for the right of Israel to live in peace, or whether it was fighting for peace and freedom all over the world. Tom Manton has already been there. It has been mentioned before, when Tom gives you his word, you can go to the bank with it. That is what we really want to see in our elected officials and in our friends. The fight for working people, one of the things that many of us who have grown up, again, in New York and across the country, Tom's father, with his blue-collar roots and my father with his blue-collar roots, Tom and I would often talk about the fight for working people, the fight for men and women in this country to ensure that workers have dignity and have the rights. That is why Tom has always been supported by working people and has always had a very, very high rating in terms of labor and in fighting for the rights of working people. So it was with a bit of sadness, Madam Speaker, when Tom announced that he was going to retire. But one of the joys that we have is, he may be retiring from the United States Congress but, as was mentioned before, he will be active in New York City politics as the chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party. So even though my district does not go into Queens, I am delighted that we will continue to work together for the betterment of the Democratic Party in New York, for the betterment of the people of the city of New York and the State of New York, and for the betterment of the people of the United States of America. Tom, we are really going to miss you. You are a great guy, a great Member. It has been an honor to be a colleague. It has been an honor to be your friend. I know that we are going to continue to work closely together in the coming years. God bless you. You are the type of elected official, you set the standard to which we all aspire. Thank you for your friendship and thank you for just being you.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for this home health care bill. In April I introduced the Medicare Home Health Agency Efficiency Act, and I am pleased that H.R. 4567 addresses many of my concerns and, in the end, creates greater equity for all home health care agencies. I hope that we can in the next Congress and in conference continue to work on the problems that still face home health care agencies and my constituents. The current reimbursement system in New York penalizes the most efficient home care agencies and without this legislation, home care agencies in New York would have to close and deprive people of vitally-needed services. I strongly support the concept of home health care. I have a story also. My father, before he passed away, we kept him in our home, and without home health care services, we could not have done this. So I think this is a good first step, it is a good step in the right direction, and we need to keep on working on this problem. I commend my colleagues for doing this. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, today we take a vote on the future of our children. Day in and day out the Members of the 105th Congress come to the floor and express their concerns for ensuring opportunities for the next generation. H.R. 4274, ``the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill,'' is one piece of legislation that goes to the heart of our collective concerns. However, despite our desire to assist our children we instead embark on a bill that politicizes their future. Instead of providing opportunities, this bill guts national education funding for short term political gain. This bill eliminates funding for technology in the classroom in low-income school districts, it eliminates funding for teacher training, and it even eliminates funding to ensure that our children can read before the end of the third grade. However, to just discuss the inadequacies of this bill on our elementary school aged children would not be a fair summarization of the destructive nature of this piece of legislation. This appropriations bill attempts at its very essence, to provide budget cuts off the backs of the poor, the immigrant and the laborer. H.R. 4274 if passed would eliminate federal subsidized funding for 4.4 million of the poorest households to pay for their heat during the winter months; this bill if passed would cut federal funding for bilingual education by $25 million which would reduce funding for adequate teacher training; this bill if passed would even cut OSHA workplace safety enforcement by $12 million which would result in 4,000 fewer workplace safety inspections in 1999. The role of government is debated each day on the floor of this House, in our committee rooms, and in our districts but we all can agree that our mandate is to serve the people. It is paramount that as a national body we focus not on partisan political goals but rather on what is in the best interest of our constituents. Members would then understand that this appropriation bill is too unfair, too detrimental to our national educational policy and too damaging to the poor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing H.R. 4274 and vote no on this bill.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic that I have 20 seconds. The Republican majority wants to give us no time limit on an impeachment inquiry which will turn into an open-ended fishing expedition, but I have 20 seconds here. They want to severely limit the amount of debate here amongst our colleagues. The American people are smart. They want this politically motivated witch-hunt to end. It is no coincidence that Mr. Starr brought his report 7 weeks before a national election. Let us stop the politics. Let us really talk about bipartisanship. Why can we not have adequate time to debate this important thing to the Nation? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, perhaps a second and a half.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House today. I want to call attention to a very, very serious crisis in the world and that is in the Province of Yugoslavia called Kosovo. We read about it in the paper today on the front page, that there were several massacres, that bodies were found of innocent civilians, men, women and children, as the Serbian police forces and military units continue their campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Kosovo is a place where over 92 percent of the population, 2 million people, are ethnic Albanians, and they are totally dominated and ruled by Belgrade, by the Serbs who comprise less than 10 percent of the population. These people for 10 years have had no freedoms, no political freedoms, no economic freedoms, no social freedoms. Unemployment is rampant, 80 percent, 90 percent. No hope. And on the ground, the situation gets worse and worse and worse. We have to take a stand before we see Bosnia repeat itself. Bosnia is indeed repeating itself. That ended up with 200,000 innocent people slaughtered. Kosovo could be even worse. Now, I have called and I will call again and say it again, we read in the paper today that NATO is considering air strikes in order to stop the Serbs from killing innocent civilians. We have been saying this time in and time out. Actions speak louder than words. Mr. Speaker, it is time for action. We need to have immediate NATO air strikes on Serbian positions in Kosovo so that the innocent civilians will not continued to be slaughtered. We now have at least 300,000 homeless civilians, more than a tenth of the entire population, some people would say it is as much as a quarter of the entire population, driven from their homes, and the pattern is like this. First Serbian artillery shells the villages, causing innocent civilians to flee in panic, fleeing into the hills and into the mountains. Then the next thing they do after the civilians have left is they come in and loot the houses and they steal everything they can. And then finally they burn the houses down to the ground. So we have a situation where refugees now cannot have a place to go back to. And we are facing, as winter is approaching, perhaps another week or two at the most, where we need to get in so that innocent civilians can have humanitarian aid. The Serbs are keeping out humanitarian relief workers to get food and lodging and clothing to these people. Will the West again wait until it is too late? I have a letter signed by 18 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle calling on the President to issue immediate air power with our NATO allies to stop the carnage; to indict Slobodon Milosevic, the leader of Yugoslavia, who is responsible for this, who because of Serbian nationalism has again, as he did in Bosnia, caused the death of innocent people. The short-term problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to get aid to these people because what is going to start to happen is they are going to start to die because of the cold and because of starvation. And that is the immediate concern that the world should have. Of long range concern is what to do in Kosovo, and I have said time and time again and will say it again, self-determination for the people of Kosovo is the only answer. Why should the Albanians in the former Yugoslavia be treated any different than any of the other peoples that were allowed to form their own nation? The Croats, the Bosnians, the Slovenians, the Macedonians and so on and so forth. Self-determination is a basic principle in which we in America believe, and if it is good enough for all the other ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, it should be good enough for the Albanians as well, particularly since this is the group that was getting the worst end of the stick in Yugoslavia, and certainly now that we are seeing genocide and ethnic cleansing rear its ugly head on the continent of Europe. The time for action is now. The only thing that Mr. Milosevic understands is the credible use of force. He will only stop as he did in Bosnia, when we had NATO air strikes and he knew that NATO and, more importantly, the United States meant business. If he thinks these threats are empty, and quite frankly they have been empty for months upon months upon months. We have said that we would threaten, we have threatened him, we have said that we would bring in NATO air power, we have done all kinds of flying, but he knows it does not mean a hill of beans. The only thing he will understand is if he knows the West is ready to take action. Now, shamefully our allies in Germany and Italy are trying to say that the United Nations Security Council needs to approve before NATO could move forward. I did not know the United Nations had a veto on what NATO can do. I think the NATO alliance needs to take action and needs to take action now, from a humanitarian point of view. Also, the thing is that this can explode into a wider war and drag our NATO allies in if we do not act now. The time for military strikes is now.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), for those words and, Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2187, a bill which I introduced last year to name the Federal Courthouse at Foley Square in New York City as the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. By naming the Foley Square Courthouse after Justice Marshall, Congress would send a signal to the American people and the entire world of the importance of the principle of equality under the law. As my colleagues know, the late Thurgood Marshall was not only the first African American Justice of the United States Supreme Court, he also was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in the history of our Nation. Through his skill, advocacy, and dedication to the cause of civil rights, he led the charge for equality not only for African Americans but for all Americans. Thurgood Marshall was born on July 2nd, 1908 in Baltimore, Maryland. After attending public schools in Maryland, he received his Bachelor's Degree from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, and his law degree from Howard University right here in Washington, D.C., where he graduated first in his class. After handling a variety of private legal cases, Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1936 as special counsel to the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Only 3 years later Marshall founded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of the great protectors of civil rights in our country's history. While at the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall won 29 of 32 cases he argued before the United States Supreme Court. Most prominent of Marshall's victories was Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court struck down the ``separate but equal'' policy that was used to justify school segregation. While at NAACP, Marshall also won important cases against discriminatory poll taxes, racial restrictions in housing, and whites-only primary elections. In September 1961, after such a distinguished career with the NAACP, President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall as the first African American to sit as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. And later, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall as the first African American to serve as the United States Solicitor General. On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall as the first African American to sit as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. During his tenure on the court, Marshall became known for his heartfelt attacks on discrimination, unyielding opposition to the death penalty, and support for free speech and civil liberties. The Courthouse at Foley Square in Manhattan, in New York City, has gone unnamed since its construction in 1935. I believe that identifying this courthouse with Justice Marshall would be a fitting tribute to his life's pursuit of justice and equality under the law. This is a very, very famous courthouse. Indeed, when I first announced my candidacy for Congress 10 years ago, back in 1988, I announced it at the steps of the Federal Courthouse at Foley Square. It is a very, very important and well-known courthouse in the entire New York City metropolitan area. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the New York State Senate, the New York State Bar Association and the New York State County Lawyers' Association, of which Marshall was a long-time member, have endorsed this bill. This bill has been endorsed in a bipartisan fashion with cosponsors of the bill, many cosponsors of the bill, including my colleagues, the gentleman from Westchester County, in New York, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Gilman); the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly); and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). And there are others as well. I urge my colleagues to offer this tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall and to support H.R. 2187. This is certainly a bill on which everyone agrees, and I am very grateful to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who was very instrumental in helping me get this bill to the floor; the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim). I want to thank everybody for this. This is truly a bipartisan effort.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, I rise today to state my strong support for this higher education the amendments conference report. If one goes down the list of all the goods things in this bill, increasing Pell Grants, lowering interest rates on student loans, strengthening direct loan and guaranteed loan programs, improving teacher quality, preparation and recruitment, making needs analysis more fair and reasonable, establishing the Gear Up Mentoring Initiative, strengthening TRIO, the historically Black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions, we know we have a really, really good bill. I am also thankful that my bill, which requires the Department of Education to directly link its web site to free data bases of accurate information concerning scholarships, fellowships and any other financial aid information, is also included in this conference report. I introduced this bill with my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) back in April of 1997. Our provision within the conference report is vital in not only empowering parents and students, but in preventing fraud. In September of 1996, the Federal Trade Commission began its investigation, Project ScholarScam, into unscrupulous companies that preyed on American families' anxieties about how to finance their children's college tuition. These scholarship scams guaranteed or promised scholarships and grants in exchange for advance fees. Once these fees were collected, no scholarships or grants were ever provided. Sometimes these companies would ask for a student's checking account to confirm eligibility, then debit the account without the student's consent. American families by the thousands were defrauded and student's hopes were disheartened. Currently my daughter is a senior in high school and I for one know firsthand the difficulties in meeting the skyrocketing costs of higher education. Our provision is a major step forward in preventing future scholarship scams and is a vital tool in empowering parents to look for creative ways to finance a college education. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6, and I commend all the people involved, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).