Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear about the International Criminal Tribunal's conviction of the three Bosnian Serbs for rape, torture, and sexual enslavement of Muslim women during the Bosnian war. I submit into the Record the following Washington Post article that appeared on February 23, 2001, which details the outcome of the verdict. Perhaps most significantly, the judges ruled that mass rape is a crime against humanity, the most serious category of international crimes after genocide. This is a landmark moment in the struggle for women's rights and in addressing issues of violence against women. For the first time, in the international justice system, sex crimes against women are being specifically identified and punished. In the past, UN war crimes tribunals ignored mass rape and sexual enslavement and considered these crimes to be a natural occurrence in war. Crimes against women like forced prostitution and rape that took place during WWII were never even prosecuted in the international tribunals that followed the war. Violence against women is unacceptable. We, in the United States, need to recognize the importance of this decision, take it to heart, and make ending violence against women a priority here at home and abroad. I want to recognize Presiding Judge Florence Mumba for her excellent work in pushing this trial to a just conclusion. It is a milestone decision for women all over the world. I applaud this decision and hope that we, in Congress, will follow this global legal model and use all of our means and resolve to bring justice and security to the women of our nation and the world. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2001] Watershed Ruling on Rape Serbs Found Guilty of `Crime Against Humanity' (By Peter Finn) Berlin, Feb. 22.--Three Bosnian Serbs were found guilty today by a U.N. war crimes tribunal of the rape, torture and enslavement of Muslim women during the Bosnian war. It was the first time an international court ruled that rape is a ``crime against humanity'' The three men were sentenced to between 12 and 28 yeas in prison for sex crimes committed near the town of Foca, southeast of Sarajevo, in 1992 and 1993, at the height of Bosnia's ethnic conflict. Human rights groups have estimated that tens of thousands of women, mostly Moslems, were raped during the war. The judges found the three men's crimes to be part of a pattern of violent sexual abuse and intimidation condoned by the wartime Bosnian Serb leadership. ``What the evidence shows is that the rapes were used by members of the Bosnian Serb armed forces as an instrument of terror,'' said Presiding Judge Florence Mumba as she sentenced the men at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Today's decision was also significant for breaking old patterns by which international courts considered rape during war to be some lesser offense, if an offense at all. The decision ``opens a whole new category'' of war crime, said Eugene R. Fidell, of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit organization in Washington. During World War II, the Japanese and German armies systematically enslaved thousands of women to serve as prostitutes for their soldiers. Dutch authorities tried Japanese officers who enslaved Dutch nationals, but the international war crimes tribunals that the allies created after the war did not treat the womens enslavement as a war crime, or crime of any kind. Likewise, international courts have generally not treated as war crimes rape and other sexual violence that soldiers in combat zones commit of their own volition, assuming the soldiers were prosecuted at all. In today's decision, Dragoljub Kunarac, 40, was sentenced to 28 years on 11 counts, including rape, torture and enslavement as crimes against humanity. Radomir Kovac, 39, was sentenced to 20 years on four counts. And Zoran Vukovic, 45, was sentenced to 12 years after the court dismissed most of the charges against him but convicted him on four counts. The crimes occurred as Bosnia, formerly a republic of Yugoslavia, was the scene of war between its three main ethnic groups, Serbs, Muslims and Croats. After Foca, a largely Muslim town, was overrun by Bosnian Serb forces, its mosques were burned and its civilian population rounded up and imprisoned in separate camps for males and females. Sixteen rape victims and other witnesses testified at the eight-month trial that Serb paramilitary forces entered the women's detention centers and selected women and girls as young as 12 for nightly gang rapes and sexual torture. Many of the women were left with permanent gynecological and physchological damage. In an impassioned and scathing judgment today, Mumba said, ``Muslim women and girls, mothers and daughters together [were] were robbed of the last vestiges of human dignity.'' ``Women and girls [were] treated like chattels, pieces of property at the arbitrary disposal of the Serb occupation forces.'' Lawyers for the convicted men had argued that the women were willing sexual partners. As Kunarac stood before the three-judge panel, Mumba said, ``You abused and ravaged Muslim women because of their ethnicity, and from among their number, you picked whomsoever you fancied on a given occasion.'' Kunarac briefly bowed his head as his sentence of 28 years was read. ``I remember he was very forceful. He wanted to hurt me,'' one witness testified about Kunarac during the trial. ``But he could never hurt me as much as my soul was hurting me.'' Sentencing Kovac, the court said that it was particularly appalled at his treatment of a 12-year-old-girl, who was identified only as A.B. None of the 16 victims who testified, or other victims, was identified, so as to shield them from further trauma. A.B., the court said, was ``a helpless little child for whom you showed absolutely no compassion whatsoever, but whom you abused sexually in the same way as the other girls. You finally sold her like an object in the knowledge that this would almost certainly mean further sexual assaults by other men.'' The court noted that eight years later, A.B. has never been heard from. Sentencing Vukovic to 12 years, the judges found that he raped a 15-year-old girl after threatening her mother with death if she did not tell him where her daughter was hiding. Mumba recalled case after case, summarizing the catalog of horror before she issued the prison terms. In one instance, she noted, Kunarac ``personally raped Witness FWS-183 and aided and abetter her rape by the two other soldiers by encouraging the other men while they were raping her. You further mocked the victim by telling the other soldiers to wait for their turn while you were raping her, by laughing at her while she was raped by the other soldiers, and finally by saying that she would carry Serb babies and that she would not know the father.'' Noting that the three soldiers were not the masterminds of the war--Bosnia Serb leaders have been indicted but remain fugitives--the court said that ``lawless opportunists should expect no mercy [from the court], no matter how low their position in the chain of command may be.'' Foca now lies in the Serb zone of Bosnia and was renamed Srbinje after the war. There are few Muslims in the town today. Dirk Ryneveld, the lead prosecutor in the case, welcomed the verdicts and commended ``the bravery of the victims who came forward to tell their stories.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to join with my colleagues in passing House Resolution 55, honoring Dr. Dorothy Irene Height as an activist and crusader for human rights. Dr. Height has dedicated her life to serving her community. She has affected great change in the areas of women's empowerment, social welfare, economic development, and civil and human rights. She has been a tireless advocate, working for decades on behalf of socially and economically disadvantaged communities. And she is perhaps most notable because she understands the diversity of this country and our world, utilizing a collaborative leadership style, to bring people of different cultures together for mutual benefit. She is a true leader in the struggle for equality and social justice. Dr. Dorothy Irene Height is truly an amazing individual, for whom I have a great deal of admiration and respect.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to inform my colleagues that on March 10, 2001, which is Tibetan National Day, one of my constituents, Reverend Ronald I. Schupp will begin his fifth annual 24- hour fast to call attention to China's occupation of Tibet. Reverend Schupp will be sending a message to the People's Republic of China to free Tibet and allow for displaced Tibetans to return to their homeland. The 14th Dalai Lama was forced to leave Tibet in 1959 and is still working for a just outcome to China's occupation of Tibet. In 1989, the Dalai Larna was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his ongoing efforts to focus attention on this subject. I respect the efforts of Reverend Schupp and wish him well in his efforts on behalf of the people of Tibet.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 45, congratulating the people and the Prime Minister-elect of Israel on the success of the February 6, 2001 election. I also want to commend the authors of this resolution, the distinguished Chairman of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus (Mr. Lantos), as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). These individuals should be commended for their leadership and I appreciate their working to bring the important measure to the floor. On behalf of myself and my constituents in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, I Congratulate the people of Israel and the Prime Minister-elect of Israel, Ariel Sharon, for the successful February 6 election which further demonstrates Israel's commitment to democracy. This resolution also reaffirms the policy of the United States that there must be an end to the violence in the Middle East, that we in this nation value our close friendship with Israel and are committed to Israel's security. Furthermore, it calls on Israel's neighbors and the international community to respect the outcome of this election, and urges the entire international community to help foster peace in the Middle East. The ongoing violence that threatens the people of Israel is troubling to me and it is important that the United States be clearly on record in support of Israel and in support of peace. I remain committed to bring whatever I can to guarantee a bright future for Israel and continuing United States support for efforts to bring peace and stability to Israel and the Middle East region. Again, I thank my distinguished colleagues for introducing this resolution and urge all member to vote in support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to join with my colleagues in passing House Resolution 28, honoring the contributions of Catholic schools to academic excellence. Catholic schools have enhanced the quality of life for the community, as well as hundreds of thousands of young people who have benefited from its commitment to developing their minds and their spirits. I would like to recognize the good work of schools such as Notre Dame High School, Resurrection High School, Northside Catholic Academy Schools, and St. Scholastica Academy in Illinois. These Catholic schools, like their counterparts, provide critical leadership and support to the intellectual development of the lives of so many in Illinois. With a 95 percent graduation rate, and 83 percent rate of continuing on to higher education, catholic schools deserve our recognition for the work they do. I applaud the success and commitment of Catholic schools in the 9th Congressional District and in this nation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues an article written by Douglas Bloomfield for the Chicago Jewish Star. The article provides an accurate summary of President Clinton's efforts to facilitate peace and dialogue in the Middle East during his service to this country. I agree with Mr. Bloomfield that ``No other (U.S.) President has been so closely identified with Israel's search for peace.'' Mr. Bloomfield's article discusses the popularity of President Clinton in Israel and among the Jewish Community in the United States due, in large part, to the commitment he made to do everything within his means to bring peace to the Middle East. I share that appreciation for the priority President Clinton made of these important issues. I have often looked to Mr. Bloomfield's work for an accurate perspective on events and trends in the Middle East as well as a constructive evaluation of U.S. Middle East policy. Clearly the Bush Administration has a tough act to follow in ensuring that Americans and Israeli's feel comfortable in America's commitment to the security of Israel and her prosperity in the future. I urge all of my colleagues to take the time to read the following article. [From the Chicago Jewish Star] Washington Watch--Shalom, Bill (By Douglas M. Bloomfield) ``If Bill Clinton is looking for a job, he can come over there and run for prime minister. He'd win easily,'' said a caller from Israel the other morning. ``He's still the most popular politician in the country.'' And he remains popular at home as well, particularly in the Jewish community, despite the controversies that plagued his administration. The peace proposal he revealed recently in a farewell speech to peace activists included proposes that made even left even some dovish followers uncomfortable, but no reasonable person could challenge the sincerity of his desire to help Israel find peace. Nor can anything overcome the hysterical frenzy of the Clinton haters and those extremists who see any concessions to the Palestinians as selling out Israel. No other president has been so closely identified with Israel's search for peace. He may have been motivated in part by a desire to leave a historic legacy, but as one of the savviest politicians ever to occupy the Oval Office he long ago figured out there were far better ways to do that than by plunging into the Middle East morass. Look instead to his relationship with the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who brought the completed Oslo agreement to Clinton with an appeal for help in implementing it. Clinton promised to minimize the risks for Israel and help smooth out the rough decisions. After Rabin's assassination, Clinton's commitment became a mission. He can be faulted for pushing too long and too hard, especially after it should have been clear that he wanted peace more than the parties themselves, particularly Yasser Arafat. He wrongly relied on Ehud Barak's faulty political instincts and novice politician's enthusiasm. The President ignored the advice of his own advisors, the Palestinians and some Israelis when he bowed to Barak's desire to convene last summer's abortive Camp David summit. More recently, he has been trying to salvage a last minute agreement before leaving office--failing or refusing to hear the window of opportunity slam shut. Clinton consistently overestimated his ability to affect Arafat's behavior, and he may have badly miscalculated the level of the Palestinian leader's commitment to a genuine peace. Clinton has succeeded on so many fronts by dint of charm and personality, and he thought he could do it with Arafat as well. No other foreign leader has been to the White House as often, and Clinton's mistaken failure to demand Arafat pay more for that access only encouraged the Palestinian leader's obstinacy. ``He played Clinton Masterfully,'' said a former White House official. ``Clinton felt he was giving peace every chance, but, like Rabin, Peres and Barak, he failed to hold Arafat's feet to the fire.'' Clinton admonished Arafat in his speech earlier this month to Jewish leaders for fostering ``the culture of violence and the culture of incitement.'' But his persistent reluctance to deal with Palestinian incitement was interpreted as a sign of weakness and may have fueled the current crisis. Echoing a hopeful Israeli leaderships, he wrongly expected Israel's surprisingly forthcoming offers would elicit positive responses. But his blindness to Arafat's faults and deceptions may have encouraged the semi-retired terrorist to cling more tightly to his maximalist demands and let the Israelis negotiate with each other and with the Americans. American and Israeli insiders say Clinton never pushed Israel without being encouraged by leaders there to give them a nudge and some political cover for tough decisions. But at the same time, Clinton mistakenly listened too much to some of his left-leaning Jewish friends who gave him bad advice on such things as his wife's meeting with Mrs. Arafat and his counter-productive confrontations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If Clinton was too intensely involved in the nitty gritty of the peaces process, there is a greater risk that his successor will be too disengaged. Whatever his shortcomings, there can be no questioning Clinton's commitment to Israel and its search for peace. He brought an unprecedented warmth and understanding, even as he demonstrated a genuine empathy for the Palestinians that won their trust. A key to Clinton's winning the confidence of the Israelis and the vast majority of Jewish voters was his high comfort level with the Jewish community at home. It is unmatched by any president, as is the affection and support he got in return. That backing was bolstered by domestic policies that were in synch with most Jewish voters, particularly on issues such as church-state separation, civil liberties, reproductive rights, the environment, education and social welfare. Jewish voters rewarded him and his vice president with nearly 80% of their votes in three national elections. There were more Jewish officials at all levels of the Clinton administration than in any prior government; at one time there were six in Cabinet level posts, compared to none so far in the incoming Bush administration. American Jews never felt on the outside during the Clinton years' that was particularly important since he followed a president who publicly questioned their patriotism. He deserves enormous credit for his historic contribution to the struggle to bring a measure of justice to the survivors of the Holocaust after decades of frustration and inaction. His personal commitment and the intense involvement of his administration, particularly through the outstanding work of Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, helped end half a century of Swiss denial and stone-walling. That personal involvement produced progress in such areas as the restitution of stolen property in other nations, compensation for slave and forced laborers, the settlement of insurance claims, the return of cultural artifacts and aid for the neediest of Hitler's remaining victims. Credit is shared with an unlikely partner, former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY). Although as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, D'Amato was leading an investigation of the Clintons' Whitewater investments, both men rose above their political differences to cooperate fully in the Swiss investigations, realizing success beyond anyone's expectations. Both the Administration and the Congress worked closely with the World Jewish Restitution Organization, representing both Israel and the diaspora, to bring about historic results. I will leave it to others to chronicle Clinton's many shortcomings. I expect history will judge this flawed president more kindly than his contemporaries. He alone robbed his presidency of greatness as he demonstrated that in Washington most of the slings and arrows politicians suffer are self-inflicted. But the Jewish community should be very grateful for his stewardship, for his dedication to assisting Israel in its search for peace, for his contribution to the survivors of the Holocaust and for his undeniable friendship.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article printed on the front page of the January 28, 2001 Washington Post. The article demonstrates a fundamental aspect of the growing human rights emergency in Colombia. It also details the role of paramilitary organizations in human rights violations taking place in Colombia and the complicity of the Colombian military and government in allowing human rights abuse, such as the Chengue massacre, to continue. Despite the thousands of civilian deaths and millions of displaced people in Colombia, the United States has moved forward with a misguided policy of massive military aid and close involvement in Colombia's conflict. I strongly believe that our current policy under Plan Colombia is the wrong approach for our nation in dealing with Colombia and is certainly the most ineffective and insincere way to deal with our domestic drug problem. Chronicle of a Massacre Foretold (By Scott Wilson) Chengue, Colombia.--In the cool hours before sunrise on Jan. 17, 50 members of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia marched into this village of avocado farmers. Only the barking of dogs, unaccustomed to the blackness brought by a rare power outage, disturbed the mountain silence. For an hour, under the direction of a woman known as Comandante Beatriz, the paramilitary troops pulled men from their homes, starting with 37-year-old Jaime Merino and his three field workers. They assembled them into two groups above the main square and across from the rudimentary health center. Then, one by one, they killed the men by crushing their heads with heavy stones and a sledgehammer. When it was over, 24 men lay dead in pools of blood. Two more were found later in shallow graves. As the troops left, they set fire to the village. The growing power and brutality of Colombia's paramilitary forces have become the chief concern of international human rights groups and, increasingly, Colombian and U.S. officials who say that 8,000-member private army pose the biggest obstacle to peace in the country's decades-old civil conflict. This massacre, the largest of 23 mass killings attributed to the paramilitaries this month, comes as international human rights groups push for the suspension of U.S. aid to the Colombian armed forces until the military shows progress on human rights. The armed forces, the chief beneficiary of the $1.3 billion U.S. anti-drug assistance package known as Plan Colombia, deny using the paramilitaries as a shadow army against leftist guerrillas, turning a blind eye to their crimes or supporting them with equipment, intelligence and troops. But in Chengue, more than two dozen residents interviewed in their burned-out homes and temporary shelters said they believe the Colombian military helped carry out the massacre. In dozens of interviews, conducted in small groups and individually over three days, survivors said military aircraft undertook surveillance of the village in the days preceding the massacre and in the hour immediately following it. The military, according to these accounts, provided safe passage to the paramilitary column and effectively sealed off the area by conducting what villagers described as a mock daylong battle with leftist guerrillas who dominate the area. ``There were no guerrillas,'' said one resident, who has also told his story to two investigators from the Colombian prosecutor general's human rights office. ``There motive was to keep us from leaving and anyone else from coming in until it was all clear. We hadn't seen guerrillas for weeks.'' A ``Dirty War'' The rutted mountain track to Chengue provides a vivid passage into the conflict consuming Colombia. Chengue and hundreds of villages like it are the neglected and forgotten arenas where illegal armed forces of the right and left, driven by a national tradition of settling political differences with violence, conduct what Colombians call their ``dirty war.'' Despite peace talks between the government and the country's largest guerrilla insurgency, more than 25,600 Colombians died violently last year. Of those, 1,226 civilians--a third more than the previous year--died in 205 mass killings that have come to define the war. Leftist guerrillas killed 164 civilians last year in mass killings, according to government figures, compared with 507 civilians killed in paramilitary massacres. More than 2 million Colombians have fled their homes to escape the violence. In this northern coastal mountain range, strategic for its proximity to major transportation routes, all of Colombia's armed actors are present. Two fronts of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the country's oldest and largest leftist guerrilla insurgency with about 17,000 armed members, control the lush hills they use to hide stolen cattle and victims of kidnappings-for-profit. The privately funded United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known by the initials AUC in Spanish, patrols the rolling pastures and menaces the villages that provide the FARC with supplies. Paramilitary groups across Colombia have grown in political popularity and military strength in recent years as a counterweight to the guerrillas, and obtain much of their funding from relations with drug traffickers. Here in Sucre province, ranchers who are the targets of the kidnappings and cattle theft allegedly finance the paramilitary operations. AUC commander Carlos Castano, who has condemned the massacre here and plans his own investigation, lives a few hours away in neighboring Cordoba province. The armed forces, who are outnumbered by the leftist guerrillas in a security zone that covers 9,000 square miles and includes more than 200 villages, are responsible for confronting both armed groups. Col. Alejandro Parra, head of the navy's 1st Brigade, with responsibility for much of Colombia's northern coast, said the military would need at least 1,000 more troops to effectively control the zones. The military has prepared its own account of the events surrounding the massacre at Chengue, which emptied this village of all but 100 of its 1,200 residents. Parra confirmed elements of survivor accounts, but denied that military aircraft were in the area before or immediately after the killings. He said his troops' quick response may have averted a broader massacre involving neighboring villages. ``They must have been confused about the time'' the first helicopters arrived, Parra said. ``If there were any helicopters there that soon after the massacre, they weren't ours.'' Strategic Location Three families have flourished in Chengue for generations, tending small orchards of avocados renowned for their size and sweetness. The only residents not related to the Oviedo, Lopez or Merino families are the farm workers who travel the lone dirt road that dips through town. The longest trip most inhabitants ever make is the two-hour drive by jeep to Ovejas, the local government seat. But in recent years the village, set in the Montes de Maria range, has become a target on battle maps because of its strategic perch between the Caribbean Sea and the Magdalena River. Whoever controls the mountains also threatens the most important transportation routes in the north. Villagers say FARC guerrillas frequently pass through seeking supplies. Any support, many villagers say, is given mostly out of fear. As one 34-year-old farmer who survived the massacre by scrambling out his back window said, ``When a man with a gun knocks on our door at 11 at night wanting food and a place to sleep, he becomes your landlord.'' The AUC's Heroes of the Montes de Maria Front announced its arrival in Chengue last spring with pamphlets and word-of- mouth warnings of a pending strike. The paramilitaries apparently identified Chengue as a guerrilla stronghold--a town to be emptied. The AUC's local commander, Beatriz, was one a member of the FARC's 35th Front, which operates in the zone, military officials said. Ten months ago she quarreled with the FARC leadership for allegedly mishandling the group's finances and defected to the AUC for protection and perhaps a measure of revenge. In April, community leaders in Chengue and 20 other villages sent President Andres Pastrana and the regional military command a letter outlining the threat. ``We have nothing to do with this conflict,'' they wrote in asking for protection. The letter was sent two months after the massacre of 36 civilians in El Salado, a village about 30 miles southeast of here in Bolivar province that is patrolled by the same military command and paramilitary forces. But according to villagers and municipal officials in Ovejas, the request for help brought no response from the central government or the navy's 1st Brigade, which is based in the city of Sincelejo 25 miles south of here. In October, the villagers repeated their call for help in another letter to Pastrana, regional military leaders, international human rights groups and others. Municipal officials met with members of the 1st Brigade in November, but said no increased military presence materialized. In fact, municipal officials said, the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion seemed to stop patrolling the village. Six Chengue residents who signed the letter died in the massacre. Col. Parra said the requests for help were among dozens received at brigade headquarters in the past year, but that manpower shortages made it impossible to respond to every one. ``What is clear is that the government and [the military] knew about the evidence of a possible massacre and did nothing,'' said a municipal official in Ovejas, who like many interviewed in the aftermath of the slaughter requested anonymity for fear of reprisal. ``The military seemed to clear out of the zone.'' After weeks of not seeing any sign of the military, villagers said a small, white propeller plane swooped low over the village on Jan. 14, three days before the massacre. They identified the aircraft as the same plane used to drop anti-guerrilla pamphlets three months earlier--a ``psychological operation,'' Parra confirmed, although he denied knowledge of this particular flight. The low-altitude pass left the farmers uneasy. Over the next two nights, the darkness fell on the village, residents said two green military helicopters passed over in slow circles. ``They are the same ones I'd seen pass by before, but just coming and going, not circling,'' said a young mother. ``We didn't know what they were doing.'' Seven hours after the helicopters left the second time, the power went out in Chengue, Salitral and a series of neighboring villages that had warned of a pending paramilitary attack. Villagers noted the time somewhere between 1:30 and 2 a.m. because, as one woman remembered, ``the dogs started barking when the house lights went out.'' Some villagers lit candles. Most remained asleep. In the blackness, the paramilitary column dressed in Colombian army uniforms moved along the dirt The column stopped at the gray concrete home of Jaime Merino, the first on the road, and kicked in the door. They seized him and three workers, including Luis Miguel Romero, who picked avocados to pay for medical treatment for his infant daughter. They were led down the steep dirt road into the village, past the church and school, and to a small terrace above the square where they waited. Three brothers from the green house on the square, a father and two sons from the sky blue house across the square, and Nestor Merino, a mentally ill man who hadn't left his home in four months, all joined them in the flickering darkness. When the men arrived for Rusbel Oviedo Barreto, 23, his father blocked the door. ``They pushed me away,'' said Enrique al Alberto Oviedo Merino, 68. ``I was yelling not to take him, and they were saying `we'll check the computer.' There was no computer. They were mocking us. They took my identification card and said they would know me the next time.'' Cesar Merino awoke on his farm above the village, and peering down, saw the town below lit by candles. His neighbors, 19-year-old Juan Carlos Martinez Oviedo and his younger brother Elkin, were also awake. The three men, who worked the same avocado farm, walked down the hillside into town. Elkin, 15, was the youngest to die. On the far side of town, where the road bends up and out toward Ovejas, the paramilitaries gathered Cesar Merino's cousin, Andres Merino, and his 18-year-old son, Cristobal. One of them, father or son, watched the other die before his own execution. Human rights workers and survivors speculated that the paramilitaries, who were armed with automatic rifles, used stones to kill the men to heighten the horror of the message to surrounding villages and to maintain a measure of silence in a guerrilla zone. The work was over within an hour and a half. As the column prepared to leave, according to several witnesses, one militiaman used a portable radio to make a call. No transmission was intercepted that morning by military officials, although their log of the preceding weeks showed numerous intercepts of FARC radio traffic. Then the men smashed the town's only telephone and set the village on fire. The hillside was full of hiding villagers, many of whom say that between 15 and 30 minutes later two military helicopters arrived overhead and circled for several minutes. The sun was beginning to rise. ``They would have been able to see [the paramilitaries] clearly at that hour,'' said one survivor, who has fled to Ovejas. ``Why didn't they catch anyone?'' Human rights officials say the described events resemble those surrounding the massacre last year in El Salado. Gen. Rodrigo Quinones was the officer in charge of the security zone for Chengue and El Salado at that time, and remained in that post in the months leading up to the Chengue massacre. He left the navy's 1st Brigade last month to run a special investigation at the Atlantic Command in Cartagena, from where military flights in the zone are directed. In a report issued this month, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Washington Office on Latin America called specifically for Quinones's removal. As a regional head of naval intelligence in the early 1990s, Quinones was linked to the killings of 57 trade unionists, human rights workers and activists. He was acquitted by a military court. According to the human rights report, a civilian judge who reviewed the case was ``perplexed'' by the verdict, saying he found the evidence of Quinones's guilt ``irrefutable.'' El Salado survivors said a military plane and helicopter flew over the village the day of the massacre, and that at least one wounded militiaman was transported from the site by military helicopter. Soldiers under Quinones's command sealed the village for days, barring even Red Cross workers from entering. ``We are very worried and very suspicious about the coincidences,'' said Anders Kompass, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights representative in Colombia. ``This involves the same officer in charge, the same kind of military activity before and after the massacre, and the same lack of military presence while it was going on.'' `There Is a Terror Here' During the two hours following the killings, survivors emerged from hiding and into the shambles of their village. Eliecer Lopez Oviedo, a 66-year-old Chengue native, said his son arrived at his small farm at 9 a.m. ``He told me they had burned Chengue, killed my brothers, my sister and my niece,'' he said. ``I arrived there to find that they hadn't killed the women. But my three brothers were above the square, dead.'' What Oviedo and others found were two piles of bodies--17 on the dirt terrace above the square, seven in front of the health center. Cristobal Merino's Yankees hat, torn and bloody, lay near his body. The rocks used in the killings remained where they were dropped. The bodies of Videncio Quintana Barreto and Pedro Arias Barreto, killed along with fathers and brothers, were found later in shallow graves. Ash from more than 20 burning houses floated in the hot, still air. Graffiti declaring ``Get Out Marxist Communist Guerrillas,'' ``AUC'' and ``Beatriz'' was scrawled across the walls of vacant houses. ``The bodies were all right there for us to see, and I knew all of them,'' said a 56-year Chengue resident whose brother and brother-in-law were among the dead. ``Now there is a terror here.'' Officials at the 1st Brigade said they were alerted at 8:45 a.m. when the National Police chief for Sucre reported a possible paramilitary ``incursion'' in Chengue. According to a military log, Parra dispatched two helicopters to the village at 9:30 a.m. and the Dragon company of 80 infantry soldiers based in nearby Pijiguay five minutes later. Villagers said the troops did not arrive for at least another two hours. When they did arrive, according to logs and soldiers present that day, a gun battle erupted with guerrillas from the FARC's 35th Front. Parra said he sealed the roads into the zone ``to prevent the paramilitaries from escaping.'' The battle lasted all day--the air force sent in one Arpia and three Black Hawk helicopters at 2:10 p.m., according to the military--and village residents waved homemade white flags urging the military to shop shooting. No casualties were reported on either side. No paramilitary troops were captured. Three days later, the 1st Brigade announced the arrest of eight people in connection with the killings. They were apprehended in San Onofre, a town 15 miles from Chengue known for a small paramilitary camp that patrols nearby ranches. Villagers say that, though they didn't see faces that morning because of the darkness, these ``old names'' are scapegoats and not the men who killed their families. A steady flow of traffic now moves toward Ovejas, jeeps stuffed with everything from refrigerators to pool cues to family pictures. The marines have set up two base camps in Chengue--one under a large shade tree behind the village, the other in the vacant school. The remaining residents do not mix with the soldiers. ``We have taken back this town,'' said Maj. Alvaro Jimenez, standing in the square two days after the massacre. ``We are telling people we are here, that it is time to reclaim their village.'' No one plans to. Marlena Lopez, 52, lost three brothers, a nephew, a brother-in-law and her pink house. Her brother, Cesar Lopez, was the town telephone operator. He fled, she said, ``with nothing but his pants.'' In the ashes of her home, she weeps about the pain she can't manage. ``We are humble people,'' she said. ``Why in the world are we paying for this?''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the vibrant Indo-American community in my district, many of whom who have relatives in Gujarat, I rise in strong support of the resolution and thank the distinguished co-chairman of our Caucus on India, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who I was honored to travel with them and the President to India last year. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, which expresses sympathy for the loss of lives and Congress' commitment to help our ally, India, the world's largest democracy. I know that USAID and other U.S. agencies are working hard to respond to this crisis. It is also important that we all work to get accurate information to our constituents so that they can know, in the earliest time possible, what has happened to their loved ones. I certainly pledge to do my part and am happy once again to congratulate the authors of this resolution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, to all those who love the arts, cherish the environment, or are part of the ongoing struggle for human rights, Sidney Yates was a hero. He will be remembered for his tireless support of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, his advocacy for Native Americans, his work to protect treasures of nature from the Sequoias to Chicago's lakefront. He was elected in 1948, the year the state of Israel was born and he worked throughout his career to foster U.S.-Israel friendship. Millions of people can thank Sid Yates for the Holocaust Museum for which he was largely responsible. For the occasion of his 90th birthday last summer, Congressman Barney Frank and I circulated a huge card for Sid Yates, and members were literally lined up waiting for their chance to sign. I was pulled into the Republican cloakroom so that more of his former colleagues could wish him well. The words that kept coming up as members talked about him were ``gentleman'' and ``statesman.'' There was reverence in their voices when they spoke of his elegance and eloquence. The voters of the 9th District were proud to elect Sid Yates as their Representative twenty-four times because they knew that he would never fail them. He never wavered from his principles and values, liberal values he shared with the vast majority of his constituents. Through all the years--the McCarthy era, the Reagan and Bush years--Sid Yates was steadfast, never bending with the political winds or polls. He was beloved in his district and he is deeply missed.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, some really astonishing things have been said from the other side of the aisle. For example, that nothing has happened in the last 8 years; that we cannot accomplish things. Fortunately, we are all, as Americans, better off today than we were 8 years ago; but on our side of the aisle we are concerned about people who have been left behind. This was in bills to all people living in Chicago that says, ``Winter is coming and natural gas bills could increase 50 percent or more.'' And on the back it says, ``If you need help with your heating bill, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, can help.'' And it says to ``call LIHEAP if you can't pay your bills.'' In Chicago, unlike programs in Florida, there are a lot of people like that. We need to make sure that there are sufficient funds in that program. That is what this motion to instruct is about, and that is why I support it. Just one final note. The reason that our gasoline prices were too high had nothing to do with the EPA. All of our hearings determined that. And now they are lower because the FTC began an investigation into the oil companies and their colleagues in this House.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I believe that we need to make changes in 1997 Balanced Budget Act to restore cuts made to Medicare and Medicaid. Unlike the authors of the provisions in H.R. 2614 that we are discussing today, I believe that increased payments deserve to go to those entities that actually provide health care to our nation's senior citizens and persons with disabilities. There are some important provisions in this bill. I am extremely pleased with the provision to protect Illinois and other states that stand to lose needed Medicaid funds under a proposed change regarding intergovernmental transfer provisions. This is an important provision that will allow my state and others to continue to provide needed care to the uninsured and the underinsured. But overall, this bill ignores critical priorities, falls far short of what is needed, and actually undermines some protections that many of us have fought so hard to win over the past few years. A major problem is the decision to reward Medicare HMOs instead of directing more resources to actual care providers. Only 16 percent of Medicare's 39 million beneficiaries are in Medicare+Choice, managed care plans. Yet, over the next five years, those plans would receive 40 percent of the newly-restored payments under H.R. 2614. Over a ten-year period, nearly half of the new payments would go to Medicare HMOs. Of course, the 84 percent of beneficiaries who are not in Medicare managed care won't get their fair share under this proposal. But there is no guarantee that Medicare+Choice enrollees will benefit, either. There is no requirement under this bill that Medicare managed care plans pass any of those increased payments through to hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, home health agencies or hospice providers. There is no guarantee that, even with those new payments, Medicare+Choice plans will stay in the market. Last year, we increased Medicare+Choice payments and 934,000 beneficiaries still received letters in the mail saying that their plan was going to leave them high and dry. Yet, Medicare HMOs would get 40 percent of new payments, despite the lack of accountability and guaranteed coverage and despite reports by the General Accounting Office that in 1998 alone Medicare spent $5 billion more on those beneficiaries in Medicare+Choice plans than if those enrollees had been in traditional Medicare. Instead of spending billions of dollars on Medicare HMOs that are here today and gone tomorrow, I would rather spend those dollars to provide direct payments to hospitals, particularly those that serve a disproportionate share of low-income and uninsured patients and provide critical teaching services. I would rather delay the 15 percent reduction in home health spending for another two years, provide nursing home quality grants and support efforts to move individuals to home and community-based care. I am particularly concerned that this bill does not provide adequate funding for hospice and palliative care services. We are all concerned about the high price of prescription drugs, but this is a particular problem for hospice organizations that rely on prescription drugs to provide critical pain relief to terminally ill patients. When Medicare established payment rates for hospice services in the 1980s, medication costs represented about $1 of the daily rate. Today, those costs have increased by about 1500%, to $16 a day. Yet, payment rates have not kept pace and the result is that many hospice care entities are struggling to survive. In fact, as a Milliman and Robertson study conducted in response to a Congressional directive concluded, ``the trend is clear that Medicare hospice per diem payments do not cover the costs of hospice care and result in significant financial losses to hospice programs throughout the country.'' We could be acting today to provide health care for legal immigrant pregnant women and children, to adopt the Family Opportunity Act, to extend health coverage for people leaving welfare for work, to eliminate the Medicare waiting period for persons with ALS, and to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. H.R. 2614 ignores these very real priorities in favor of Medicare HMOs. This is the wrong priority, and I hope that my colleagues will reject this bill. We have time to engage in real negotiations, to debate fairly and to respond to the needs of patients. We can and we must act before we go home this year to pass real, meaningful and pro-patient changes to the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to me that we could adjourn the 106th Congress without having strengthened our federal hate crimes law to protect victims who are chosen because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability and to allow federal prosecutors to pursue hate-crime cases if local authorities refuse to press charges. Unfortunately, hate violence is becoming an all too common occurrence in our communities. That an individual could be so filled with rage for his or her fellow human being is unthinkable--but it has happened in small towns and big cities across this nation and it will continue to happen, until and unless we stand up to bigotry and hate by ensuring that the civil rights of all people are protected. The expanded Hate Crimes legislation that was included in the Senate Defense Authorization bill was just that kind of tool. The defeat of expanded hate crimes legislation ignores overwhelming public support for this critical civil rights legislation. Since 1998 when an African American man was tied to the back of a truck and dragged to death by white supremacists in Jasper, Texas, several high profile hate crimes have continued to shock our country, including a hate based killing spree that profoundly touched my community during July 4th celebrations in 1999. I am proud to represent one of the most diverse districts in America and I will continue to stand with my constituents against bigotry and hate and actively work to expand and improve the federal Hate Crimes law. We cannot and we should not leave Washington without ensuring that the civil rights of all Americans are honored and protected.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Authorization Conference report contains provisions that I along with a majority of my colleagues and the American people strongly support. Those provisions would greatly benefit our nation's military personnel and veterans. I strongly support measures in the bill that will provide lifetime healthcare for military retirees and their families and restore pharmacy benefits to Medicare-eligible military retirees. I am also pleased that our fighting men and women will receive a well-deserved pay raise of 3.7%. In addition, providing our active service personnel with additional economic assistance and lowering their out-of-pocket housing expenses are critical measures that were included in this bill. Unfortunately, the conference report includes billions of dollars for costly weapons systems that will not improve our security or military readiness. In addition, it includes billions of dollars for a national missile defense program that has never been proven effective, and I believe would lead to Cold War II. These funds would be better spent to heighten our commitment to our military personnel and veterans and to better meet their needs, among other things. Extra funding for our veterans would guarantee that valuable resources would be available to enhance their quality of life and fulfill our obligation to our service men and women. It is the least we can do. For those reasons, I did not support this year's Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. However, I will continue to support our military personnel and veterans and a strong national defense based on sound policy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am feeling very sad today and bad today because I had meant to write a note to Bruce Vento and did not do it in time. What I wanted to tell him, maybe I can pass on in some way to his family, was to thank him for his incredible generosity to a freshman Member of the United States Congress. I served with him on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. At one point last year, early in my very first term, I had a press conference dealing with funding for low-income housing. While I had invited a lot of Members to come, one of the few that showed up was Bruce Vento, who is a very important member on that committee. I was really honored for him to be there. Among the things he said were nice things about me, which was so greatly appreciated, and so unnecessary. When I presented my very first amendment on the floor of the House, rather clumsily, it would have been a whole lot worse if Bruce Vento had not been there, because he stood by my side and told me exactly what I should do. And then he spoke to the amendment, which was fairly noncontroversial, a big deal to me, and I think he knew that, because he came down not so much because he supported it, which he did, but I think he came down to the floor to support me, which, again, was greatly appreciated. In a town where people say, ``If you want a friend, get a dog,'' Bruce Vento was the kind of person who would really be a friend, no strings attached. He wanted to help people because he was a kind and a generous and a decent and a nice person. So in addition to all the wonderful contributions that he has made to our country, I wanted to tell him that I really appreciated how kind he was to me. I want to express my deepest condolences to his family, and just to say that I will miss him very much.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3244 and most of the provisions of this conference report. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, for their diligence in crafting this report, which includes several important provisions that will literally save the lives of women and girls around the world. When I had the privilege of traveling with the President to India, I saw little girls who had been sold into the sex industry. No child should be subjected to such horrors. We know that the Violence Against Women Act has saved lives and helped to rebuild even more. And I am grateful that my provisions to expand legal protections for battered immigrant women and children and to fund transitional housing for domestic abuse victims were included in the report. The 1996 immigration laws made some changes that forced many immigrant women to remain in dangerous situations, putting themselves and their children at great risk. Today we have the opportunity to end this injustice. With the passage of this conference report, immigrant women will be empowered to move away from their abusers. They will have the additional legal protections along with access to critical transitional housing services that will enable them to alleviate the abuse and break the cycle of violence. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this conference report.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very sad announcement. Congressman Sidney Yates died last night. Those who loved the arts, who cherish the environment, who struggle for human freedom and dignity lost a hero. Many of us, many of you lost a very dear friend, a true gentleman in this body for 48 years. There will be an opportunity at a later time for those who are moved to pay tribute to Sid to speak on this floor, and details about arrangements will be provided to all Members as soon as they are available.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. It is just unthinkable that we should leave Washington and end this session without reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Last week, by a powerful 415 to 3, this body overwhelmingly affirmed our responsibility to addressing and protecting the needs of all victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. Every 15 seconds someone in our country is battered. Every day, four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence. Every person, woman, man, or child, should feel safe at home and in their neighborhoods. We must ensure that all victims, including immigrant women, are able to report and flee from domestic violence without threats of persecution or deportation. We have the opportunity in these remaining days to pass VAWA. We should do it now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This bill will make a real and profound difference in the lives of persons living with HIV/AIDS by providing resources for essential primary care health and support services. The Ryan White CARE Act was first passed in 1990. Since that time, the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic has changed but the need for the Ryan White CARE Act has not. Today, it is more important than ever that we act to expand access to health and social services. Since coming to Congress, I have had the opportunity to visit with many of my constituents who have benefited from the Ryan White CARE Act. Person after person has told me that, without this Act, they would be unable to afford the treatments needed so that they can remain healthy and productive members of their community. As members of Congress, we have supported increased medical research efforts that have led to promising treatment advances for people living with HIV/ AIDS. The Ryan White CARE Act helps to ensure that people can actually obtain that treatment. It helps them find affordable housing and employment opportunities. It is a program that works and deserves our continued support. In my district, as in other parts of the country, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to threaten individuals, families and communities. I want to recognize the outstanding efforts of many in combating this crisis, both here and in the Chicagoland area. In particular, I want to thank Representative Henry Waxman for his outstanding leadership. As the original sponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act, he has worked to make sure that it remains effective and is flexible enough to address the changing nature of this epidemic. I also want to point out the enormous efforts of the City of Chicago and, specifically, the Department of Public Health. Mayor Richard Daley has developed a strategic plan to provide a comprehensive response to this epidemic, working with providers, prevention experts, community representatives and, most importantly, people living with HIV/AIDS. Recognizing that today there are more people living with an AIDS diagnosis in Chicago than at any other time, the City is working to prevent new infections, provide access to drug therapies and other treatments, improve other services such as affordable housing, and ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible to reflect changing needs. Reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act with adequate funding is essential to meeting those goals. I also want to point out the important work of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and Chicago Health Outreach in this effort. Finally, we must recognize that women and people of color represent a disproportionate number of new AIDS cases. Many of those impacted are uninsured, have no regular access to primary care services, and are unable to afford anti-HIV therapies. I am working with the Evanston Health Department and the faith community in my district to reach out to these communities and provide information on prevention and available services. Therefore, I am pleased that S. 2311 makes improvements in the Ryan White CARE Act to help eliminate disparities in access to services and outreach to underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization and to follow up on this action by providing full appropriation levels for its essential services.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize and congratulate Alliance for Justice and Physicians for Social Responsibility and the more than 200 organizations, including the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, North Suburban Chicago Million Mom March, and the Interfaith Initiative Against Gun Violence for their leadership of the First Monday 2000: Unite to End Gun Violence campaign. In my district, I'd like to recognize Northwestern University, the University of Illinois at Chicago, John Marshall Law and Chicago Kent College of Law for their hosting of First Monday 2000 events. Today, in more than 350 communities across this nation, students, parents, doctors, lawyers, social workers, nurses, civic leaders, community members and elected officials will rally support for the passage of common sense gun safety legislation. These activities will include the showing of a short documentary film, ``America: Up in Arms'' by award-winning filmmakers Liz Garbus and Rory Kennedy. The film is a powerful presentation of the epidemic of gun violence and how it has irrevocably changed the lives of three families in America. Gun violence is all around us. We see it every day on our television screens and read about it in our newspapers. Rarely does a night go by without our local news reporting another shooting or the morning newspapers writing about the latest victims of gun violence. Even in my hometown of Evanston, we experienced three shootings in one night. It doesn't matter if you're in Chicago or small town USA, guns are everywhere--in the schools, on the trains and in the workplace. Numbers don't lie--over 30,000 people, including 4,000 children, die each year from gun violence. We are all affected and we must all take responsibility for ensuring that our children and our communities are safe from gun violence. With First Monday, we will add to our numbers and mobilize young men and women in communities across the country to bring even more energy to our cause. I am proud to be a part of this effort. We are energized, empowered and ready and with this unprecedented campaign we will succeed at ending gun violence.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as we speak right now, outside of this Chamber, our senior citizens who have come here begging us for some relief for the high cost of prescription drugs, they are telling us about how they are spending all of their money, rather than being able to buy the nutritious food or put a decent roof over their head, they are struggling to pay for the drugs that they need. We have only a few days left to provide real relief. A prescription drug benefit under Medicare is what they want. Now we are talking about reimportation of lower-cost drugs from Canada. That is fine. Let us do that. Although, I have to tell my colleagues, it is pretty crazy that we have to rely on the Canadian Government who puts some controls on the cost of drugs, the cost they are willing to pay, and we as Americans have to go and buy those same American-made drugs from the Canadians because we do not do anything to control the cost. Senior citizens need help. Let us get a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their years of outstanding leadership on the Violence Against Women Act and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his leadership as well. In my home State of Illinois, VAWA has meant over $40 million for programs that protect hundreds of thousands of women, children and men who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. I am also pleased that H.R. 1248 includes language from a bill I introduced, H.R. 1352, to fund transitional housing programs for women escaping abuse. In 1994 with the historic passage of VAWA, Congress sent a clear message to this Nation that violence against women is not just wrong, it is a crime. But there were gaps in VAWA 1994 that are addressed in this legislation today. We can still do more. It is my hope that when this bill goes to conference, the conferees will accept the Senate's language that provides desperately needed protections for battered women. But the clock is ticking. These critical programs expire in only a few days. I urge everyone to vote for H.R. 1248.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter, Mr. Speaker, from one of my constituents. It says, ``Thank you for being a supporter in the right to correct the disparity in prescription medication as it pertains to seniors in this country. Below is a chart showing medicines my wife and I take on a daily basis.'' They show that Mr. And Mrs. Olsen combined spend $5,556 a year on their medication. Mrs. Olsen takes seven; Mr. Olsen takes three every single day. It says, ``How long can a person on a fixed income carry this financial burden? We do not expect these medicines to be given to us free; we expect to pay our fair share. We certainly know that they help us have an extended and quality life. Please help us find some equity and relief in this whole prescription price maze. May we hear from you soon, thank you.'' Well, we could do something soon. I look at Zoloft, a prescription Mr. Olsen takes and he pays $763 a year for that. He could go to Canada and get that for 68 percent less. He could go to Canada and get it less for the exact same drug, same package, same everything. Mr. Speaker, we can reimport drugs and lower the cost.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, emergency contraception has been portrayed as equal to abortion on this floor. Let us set the record straight. Emergency contraception is oral contraceptive used at higher doses. This is oral contraception, taken once a day, prescribed by a health professional. And this is emergency contraception, taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraception is not abortion. Same drug, same formulation, higher dose, one time. Passes through the system in a couple of hours. Both oral contraceptives and emergency contraception work the same way: They prevent pregnancy. If a woman is pregnant, neither oral contraceptives nor emergency contraception will disrupt that pregnancy. Let me repeat: If a woman is pregnant, neither oral contraceptives nor emergency contraception will disrupt that pregnancy. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn motion.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleagues have passed H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act, and I wish to add my strong support for this long overdue legislation. H.R. 2883 would restore fairness to our immigration law by removing the burdensome requirement that U.S. citizen parents apply for naturalization for their foreign-born adopted children. What our current immigration policy says to parents is that adopted foreign-born children are not equal to their biological siblings and are not worthy of automatic U.S. citizenship. Requiring foreign-born adopted children to apply for naturalization is insulting and it's wrong. with the passage of H.R. 2883, we are sending a clear message to American parents that, should they choose to adopt a child from another country, U.S. citizenship will be awaiting that child once he or she sets foot on U.S. soil. As the aunt of Korean-born Jamie and Natalie, I strongly identify with this issue. The birthright of all children of U.S. citizen parents, whether they are biological or adopted should be automatic U.S. citizenship. This bill will simplify the already complicated and complex process parents undertake when they embark on an international adoption and I applaud its passage.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I represent a district, and I am proud to, that is probably one of the most diverse in the Nation. It is really a gateway to the United States for people from every part of the globe. They embrace our country in a way that demonstrates their willingness to play by the rules. We are talking about people affected by this bill who are legally in the United States and, in the case of those people who have been impacted specifically by the provisions of the 1996 law, if they have committed some sort of infraction, have paid for that. They have already done that. What this bill has done is cause pain to so many families because the rules have been changed, which in some ways is not really a very American idea, saying that now, even though they have paid the price, they are going to be deported because we have redefined that infraction that they have committed and they are going to be out. It means that they have to leave their families, and the pain that it has caused can be corrected by supporting H.R. 5062. I urge that support, Mr. Speaker.