Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand with so many of my colleagues to urge support for comprehensive hate crimes legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Conyers for his outstanding leadership in this area. His unwavering support and dedication to advancing civil rights has been a beacon for us all. I hope my granddaughters Isabel and Eve never know of violence motivated by bigotry and hate. Today we have the opportunity to strengthen our hate crimes prevention law by expanding the definition of a ``hate crime'' to include sexual orientation, as well as gender and disability. These crimes tear at the fabric of our society and insidiously erode our principles of tolerance and diversity. Before this Congress adjourns for the year, we must send a loud message that the safety of all people is paramount and anyone who commits a crime based on bigotry and hate will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't want to be the one to explain to Ricky Byrdsong's widow that he did not deserve protection because he was killed walking outside of his house rather than while he was engaged in a ``federally protected activity.'' And I don't want to be the person who has to explain to the family of Matthew Shepard why this Congress was unable to pass tougher laws that punish people who commit crimes based on sexual orientation. The Byrdsong and Shepard families are not alone. For every high profile, heinous hate crime that makes it to the forefront of our national consciousness, hundreds and thousands of nameless victims and families have been targeted simply because of their gender, sexual orientation and disability. Since 1991, 60,000 hate crimes have been reported to the FBI and in 1998 alone, there were close to 8,000 hate crimes reported, almost one every hour. Many argue that hate crimes cannot be separated from other crimes. This is just untrue. Hate crimes are violence targeted at individuals simply because of who they are. Perpetrators are motivated by hate and their actions are intended to strike fear into an entire group of people. We know that individuals are targeted because of their sexuality, disability, and gender just as often as because of their race, religion, and national origin, and our hate crimes prevention legislation must be expanded to protect them too. What is the lesson we are teaching our children and what legacy will I leave my granddaughters if we don't pass laws that protect all of our citizens? If we fail, we will be turning our backs on our citizens. Should we succeed, we will be sending a clear message to all that we will not tolerate bigotry and hate. We have a choice, Let us choose wisely.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to join my colleagues, the Distinguished Chairman and the ranking Democratic member of the International Relations Committee in welcoming to the United States the Honorable Prime Minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee. On behalf of Illinois' Indian American community and the people of Illinois in the 9th Congressional District, I want to express a most sincere welcome and best wishes for an enjoyable and meaningful visit to Prime Minister Vajpayee. As my colleagues and the Prime Minister are aware, the Chicago Metropolitan area boasts one of our country's most diverse populations, including a thriving Indian-American community of over 100,000 that is growing every year. As a member of Congress who values the relationship between our two nations and recognizes the significance of Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit, I believe this is an opportunity to strengthen relations between India and our country even further. The Prime Minister's visit also gives the Indian American community a chance to showcase its contributions to American society and to the U.S.-India dialogue. I was fortunate to be one of eight members of Congress privileged to join President Clinton on his historic trip to India earlier this year. That was such an incredible and valuable experience for me, one which I learned from and which has helped me to understand the rich history and cultural traditions of a great number of my constituents who are of Indian descent. I was so touched and honored by the warm reception the President's delegation received. I know that we will all do our best to reciprocate so that Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit is greeted with the honor and respect it deserves. On Thursday, Prime Minister Vajpayee will address a joint session of Congress. This will be the first address to a joint session of Congress by an Indian Prime Minister in six years and the only address by a world leader to the 106th Congress. It is important that on this historic occasion, Congress sends a strong message on the importance of our relationship with India in such critical areas as trade, national security, health, science and technology and education. The friendship between our people has never been stronger and the relationship between our governments has reached a new height of cooperation. That is why I am a proud original cosponsor of H. Res. 572. The resolution expresses the Sense of the Congress that the United States and India should continue to work together. I urge all members to vote in support of it, and on behalf of myself, my family and my constituents, I offer a wholehearted and gracious welcome to Prime Minister Vajpayee.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my colleagues today in support of H.R. 4115, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization. This bill builds upon and continues the legacy of my predecessor Representative Sidney Yates whose hard work led to the passage of legislation establishing the Holocaust Memorial Council in the 96th Congress. The vision of Congressman Yates and so many others has translated into a powerful, successful, and beautiful testament to the lives that were lost to the Holocaust, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. And what a testament the Museum is. Without about 12 million visitors every year, the museum has served as an incredible teaching tool, as well as a place of peace where people can go to remember those who were lost. Along with the great success of the facility here in Washington, the Museum does substantial outreach to schools and communities throughout the nation. The traveling exhibits of the Museum have brought the lessons of the Holocaust to those who are unable to visit the nation's Capital. The Museum also provides materials for teachers who devote class time to Holocaust commemoration. Anyone, who has visited the Museum or one of its traveling exhibits understands the important role they play and the important lessons they can teach to all Americans. The Holocaust Memorial Council has also helped guide this body in observance of the Days of Remembrance every year when we take time in the nation's Capital to commemorate the Holocaust. The bill we are considering today makes permanent the authorization of such sums as necessary for the Museum to continue to operate. Besides going through the formality of making this funding permanent today, we are making an important statement. With passage of this legislation, the members of this body are saying to the nation and to the world that we will never forget and that we will continue to teach our children and our children's children that what happened during one of the world's darkest and most tragic chapters in history must never again be tolerated. Again, Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in supporting this legislation and I thank all members who worked to bring this measure to the floor. I urge all members to vote in support of H.R. 4115.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with my colleagues an Op-ed by Paul Krugman that appeared in today's New York Times. This thoughtful piece dispels the myth that prescription drug insurance plans for the elderly are the answer to lower drug prices. Mr. Krugman bases his conclusion on the fact that the market will not allow for prescription drug only plans, since the cost of premiums to seniors would be prohibitive. He clearly states that the only way to ensure the success of a Medicare prescription drug benefit ``is to make the coverage part of a government program.'' He adds, ``Republican leaders in the House, in particular, are true believers in the miraculous powers of the free market--they are in effect members of a sect that believes that markets will work even when the businessmen actually involved say they won't, and that government involvement is evil even where conventional analysis says it is necessary.'' From the start, Republicans in Congress crafted a prescription drug bill that would guarantee only one thing--that the pharmaceutical companies can continue to price gouge seniors. The President and Democrats in Congress want to give seniors a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is universal, voluntary, and affordable, and builds on the current structure of Medicare. Below is the full text of Mr. Krugman Op-ed. [From the New York Times, July 26, 2000] Reckonings; Prescription for Failure (By Paul Krugman) In denouncing President Clinton's plan to extend Medicare coverage to prescription drugs, and in touting their own counterproposal, Republicans have rolled out the usual rhetoric. They excoriate the administration plan as a bureaucratic, ``one size fits all'' solution. They claim that their plan offers more choice. And for once their claims are absolutely right. The Republican plan does offer more choice. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases in which more choice is actually bad for everyone. In fact, by trying to give people more choices the Republican plan would end up denying them any choice at all. Where Democrats want to offer drug coverage directly to Medicare recipients, the Republicans propose to offer money to private insurance companies instead, to entice them into serving the senior market. But all indications are that this plan is a non-starter. Insurance companies themselves are very skeptical; there haven't been many cases in which an industry's own lobbyists tell Congress that they don't want a subsidy, but this is one of them. And an attempt by Nevada to put a similar plan into effect has been a complete dud--not a single insurer licensed to operate in the state has shown any interest in offering coverage. The reason is ``adverse selection''--a problem that afflicts many markets, but insurance markets in particular. Basically, adverse selection is the reason you shouldn't buy insurance from companies that say ``no medical exam necessary'': when insurance is sold to good and bad prospects at the same price, the bad risks drive out the good. Why can't the elderly buy prescription drug insurance? Suppose an insurance company were to offer a prescription drug plan, with premiums high enough to cover the cost of insuring an average Medicare recipient. It turns out that annual spending on prescription drugs varies hugely among retirees--depending on whether they have chronic conditions, and which ones. Healthy retirees, who know that their bills won't be that high, would be unwilling to buy insurance that costs enough to cover the bills of the average senior--which means that the insurance plan would attract only those with above-average bills, meaning higher premiums, driving still more healthy people away, and so on until nobody is left. Insurance companies understand this logic very well--and are therefore simply not interested in getting into the market in the first place. The root of the problem is that private drug insurance could be offered at a reasonable price only if people had to commit to paying the necessary premiums before they knew whether they would need expensive drugs. Such policies cannot be offered if those who find out later that they don't require such drugs can choose to stop paying what turn out to be unnecessarily high premiums. And while in principle one could write a contract that denies the insured the choice of opting out, just try to imagine the legal complications if a private company tried to force a healthy retiree to keep paying high premiums for decades on end, even though he turns out not to need the company's benefits. As a practical matter the only way to avoid this opt-out problem, to enforce the kind of till- death-do-us-part commitment needed to make drug insurance work, is to make the coverage part of a government program. All of this is more or less textbook economics. So why are Republican leaders insisting on a plan that almost nobody familiar with the issue thinks will work? Cynical politics no doubt plays an important role. So does money; the insurance industry is by and large against the Republican plan, but the pharmaceutical industry is very anxious to avoid anything that might push down drug prices, and fears that the administration plan will do just that. But sincere fanaticism also enters the picture. Republican leaders in the House, in particular, are true believers in the miraculous powers of the free market--they are in effect members of a sect that believes that markets will work even when the businessmen actually involved say they won't, and that government involvement is evil even where conventional analysis says it is necessary. The Republican plan is, in short, an assertion of a faith that transcends mundane economic logic. But what's in it for us heathens?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member, I have to admit that I really did not understand until I got here how dramatically what we do here affects, for better or for worse, in the most intimate ways, the lives of men and women and children every single day in all parts of the globe. We are the only superpower in this world, and our capacity right now to do good in the face of starvation and disease and poverty is so great that it makes me weep with frustration that we are doing so little. But I am truly overwhelmed by the audacity that we would use our great power to require the clinics like we saw, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), to certify that they will not, with their own non-U.S. dollars, conduct any activity related to abortions so that they can control their own families and take care of the children that they have. It is on behalf of those men and women and children that I urge support for the motion to strike.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, when the House passes the Conference Report on H.R. 4425, the Military Construction Authorization bill, we will also be voting on a massive supplemental bill that has been attached. Unfortunately, members have not even been given the courtesy of an opportunity to review the contents of the conference report. So, we can not possibly know in detail what we are considering. However, I do know that the Military Construction bill authorizes billions of dollars' worth of unnecessary, irresponsible, and dangerous equipment and programs. Two provisions included in this measure are particularly troubling to me. The first is $60 billion for construction of national missile defense facilities in Alaska. I believe that the decision to go forward with construction for this plan is misguided, extremely premature, and actually risks the welfare of our nation. We have already spent billions of dollars on development of this system and it still has not been proven to work. I do not believe that it ever will. Leaders in the scientific community and even the Pentagon's own experts have raised serious questions about NMD. Moreover, it is clear to me that moving forward with construction of this system will undermine diplomatic efforts to curb the threat of weapons of mass destruction to our nation. I believe that the United States should be investing in peace with at least as much vigor as we continue to fund our wasteful military agenda. I believe that the deployment of a national missile defense system will in fact bring this nation closer to war. Another misguided, and extremely troubling provision in the legislation we are considering tonight is the more than $1 billion in aid for Colombia. I have spoken out against this plan on numerous occasions and I want to go on the record in strong opposition to this Colombian aid package tonight. If we really want to help the Colombian people, as I do, we should not be escalating military conflict in that nation. We should not be giving over $1 billion in military aid to a government with one of the worst human rights records in this hemisphere for a mission that promises to bring further suffering and violence to a country that has already endured so much. I want to share with my colleagues a report by the Heartland Alliance that evaluates both the House bill as it relates to Colombia and the version passed by the other body and submit it in the Record. I believe the report is well done and commend it to the attention of all members. The text of the report follows: Heartland Alliance's Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center Summary Response to Senate Bill and House Bill Relating to Aid to Colombia and Recommendations I. Principles relating to aid to Colombia 1. Rather than focusing on the expressed aims of the Colombia government and armed forces, first and foremost U.S. aid should address the grave humanitarian needs of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons as a result of forty years of civil war in Colombia. 2. Work against the consumption rather than the production of narcotics. 3. Develop and support viable, long-term agricultural alternatives to drug production rather than pursuing ineffective short-term measures such as crop destruction. 4. Suspend and/or condition aid packages to Colombia until an effective peace agreement between internal combatants is secured, thereby providing an incentive for peace rather than prolonging violence. These principles define a clear role for the U.S. as a defender of peace, prosperity and human rights in the Americas rather than a supporter of impunity and armed conflict. II. Senate bill S. 2522 A. Evaluations 1. Demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers. 2. Conditions on the aid: certifications from the Department of State regarding the following areas: a. Investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of Colombian Armed Forces personnel by civilian courts in cases of human rights violations; b. Suspension of members of the Colombian Armed Forces who are alleged to have committed violations of human rights; c. Full cooperation of Colombian Armed Forces with civilian authorities and courts in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of members of the armed forces for human rights violations; d. Prosecution of leaders and members of the paramilitary groups and members of the Colombian Armed Forces aiding or abetting such groups. 3. Consultative process between the Department of State and human rights organizations. B. Recommendations 1. Support child soldier aid. 2. Establish adequate monitoring procedures that effectively ensure: a. The investigation and prosecution of human rights violators in the military; b. The suspension of military personnel involved in violations of human rights; c. The cooperation of military personnel with civilian authorities and courts and; d. The investigation, prosecution and punishment of members and leaders of the paramilitary and military personnel aiding or abetting such groups. 3. Establish a formal consultative process with clear monitoring procedures between the Department of State and human rights organizations. III. House bill H.R. 3908 A. Evaluations 1. Limitations on the use of helicopters 2. Assistance to internally displaced persons 3. Humanitarian training and support for investigations on human rights violations by the Colombian Armed Forces 4. Enhancement of U.S. Embassy capabilities to monitor the assistance and to investigate human rights violations 5. Monitoring actions of the guerrilla groups and the paramilitary groups against U.S. citizens 6. Presidential waiver power on the conditions on military assistance B. Recommendations 1. Direct aid to support and improve the investigation capabilities of the Prosecutor General in Colombia 2. Create the physical and technical capability for the U.S. to systematically monitor the effects of the aid 3. Support the aid for internally displaced persons 4. Eliminate presidential waiver power, which may contribute to the escalation of the conflict and ignores the monitoring functions of the U.S. I. Senate Bill S. 2522 1. Demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers.-- The Senate Bill includes a provision that no less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for demobilizing and rehabilitating activities for child soldiers. This is an important issue considering that both guerrillas and paramilitary forces voluntarily and forcibly recruit minors. Furthermore, it is important to insist that the government should not voluntarily recruit minors, as it does presently in spite of various public announcements and actions. 2. Conditions on the aid: certification by the Department of State.--The Senate Bill conditions the disbursement of aid to certification from the Department of State. The detailed and specific conditions of the Senate Bill need to be outlined, and the following considerations need to be applied. a. Investigation, prosecution and adjudication of Colombian Armed Forces personnel by civilian courts in cases of human rights violations.--The Senate Bill requires a statement from the President of Colombia to the Secretary of State that members of the Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are alleged to have committed human rights violations will be brought to civilian courts in accordance with the 1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional Court. However, a recently adopted Military Penal Code will enter into force as soon as a statutory law on the administrative structure for the military courts is adopted. This new code did not take into account all the elements established on the aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Court, specifically in relation to the concept of ``service-related crimes''. Concretely, the only crimes expressly excluded are torture, genocide and forced disappearance. Other human rights violations, international humanitarian law breaches, and common crimes such as rape will be brought to the military courts. Additionally, obeying orders can be argued to avoid responsibility. b. Suspension of members of the Colombian Armed Forces who are alleged to have committed violations of human rights.-- The Senate Bill establishes that the Department of State should certify that the Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces is promptly suspending from duty any armed forces personnel who are alleged to have committed violations of human rights or to have aided or abetted paramilitary groups. It is important to establish the meaning and effect of such suspension. Presently such suspension has no punitive effects. c. Full cooperation of Colombian Armed Forces with civilian authorities and courts in investigation, prosecution and punishment of members of the armed forces for human rights violations.--The Senate Bill requires a certification that the Colombian Armed Forces are cooperating fully with civilian authorities in investigating, prosecuting and punishing in the civilian courts, members of the Armed Forces who are alleged to have committed violations of human rights. Even though the general idea of such a requirement is positive it is necessary to make it as concrete as possible so that more than a general statement, it would require individual cases to be examined and aid conditioned accordingly. d. Prosecution of leaders and members of the paramilitary groups and members of the Colombian Armed Forces aiding or abetting such groups.--The last certification requirement refers to the prosecution of leaders and members of paramilitary groups and members of the Colombian Armed Forces who are aiding or abetting such groups. Again, more than a general statement is required for effective enforcement. Evidence should be submitted to Congress demonstrating that effective actions are being carried out and that the impunity described in the U.S. Department of State Country Report has been overturned. 3. Consultative process between the Department of State and human rights organizations.--The consultative process between the Department of State and human rights organizations is a positive aspect of the Senate Bill. It acknowledges the experience and professionalism of these organizations and also contributes to improving the human rights information in a country in which the United States is investing a considerable amount of resources. It can be concluded that a certification from the President of Colombia to the Department of State is not a sufficient condition. It is essential that adequate monitoring procedures be established to effectively determine that U.S. aid is not contributing to or sustaining human rights violations. Conditions placed on the aid could compel the Colombian authorities and armed forces to respect and protect human rights. The creation of a formalized consultative process would contribute to the production of reliable and complete reports on a complex country enmeshed in an internal armed conflict. II. House bill H.R. 3908 1. Limitations on the use of helicopters.--The House Bill specifically conditions that helicopters only be utilized by the Colombian National Police for counter-narcotics operations in southern Colombia. The Senate Bill, regrettably, does not establish any limitations on the use of the helicopters. This is a positive aspect in the sense that the helicopters would not be used for the general development of the armed conflict but exclusively for counter-narcotics operations. 2. Assistance to internally displaced persons.--The House Bill specifically indicates that not less than $50,000,000 of the funds appropriated, shall be made available for assistance for internally displaced persons in Colombia. No specific mention of internally displaced persons is mentioned by the Senate Bill, in spite of the considerable number of victims, as mentioned above, and their special vulnerability as victims of complex and continuous human rights violations. 3. Humanitarian training and support for investigations on human rights violations by the Colombian Armed Forces.--The House Bill establishes that up to $1,500,000 shall be made available to provide comprehensive humanitarian law training and to support the development of a judge advocate general to investigate human rights violations by Colombian Armed Forces. The Senate Bill, regrettably, does not include such important provisions. 4. Enhancement of U.S. Embassy capabilities to monitor the assistance and to investigate human rights violations.--The House Bill establishes that up to $250,000 shall be made available to enhance the U.S. Embassy's capabilities to monitor U.S. assistance to the Colombian Armed Forces and to investigate reports of human rights violations related to such assistance. These resources would be particularly useful to train U.S. officials and to develop the capacity to fund specific evidentiary tests through a joint program with the Colombian judiciary. 5. Monitoring actions of the guerrilla groups and the paramilitary groups against U.S. citizens.--An equal amount of funding is established to monitor the actions of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the United Colombian Self-Defense Organization (AUC) relative to criminal actions against U.S. citizens. In summary, the House of Representatives was expressly concerned with obtaining reliable information on Colombia. The Senate disregarded these initiatives and supported a certification procedure. The House Bill provides for the possibility to use aid to support and improve the investigation capabilities of the Prosecutor General's Office in Colombia. Empowering Colombian judicial authorities to prosecute cases of human rights violations would contribute to a general improvement in the human rights situation in Colombia. An effective monitoring procedure would contribute to providing the U.S. Congress with tools to evaluate the impact and effect of the U.S. aid in Colombia. Moreover, restrictions on the use of military equipment would help to ensure that U.S. aid is for anti-narcotics purposes and not to foment civil conflict or arbitrary violence. Finally, establishing a minimum amount of aid for internationally displaced persons would help to mitigate the adverse effects of the aid package on many different social groups in Colombia, particularly those who have been forcibly displaced. 6. Presidential waiver power on the conditions on military assistance.--An especially negative aspect of the House bill is endowing the U.S. President with waiver power regarding the conditions of military assistance. Such a waiver weakens the conditions established by the House of Representatives, which are more vague than those contained in the Senate Bill. We hope that you find this information useful and if you have further questions, concerns or would like to further discuss these issues, we will be more than happy to meet with you, or your staff or to draft any documents regarding U.S. aid to Colombia. Thank you again for your concern and interest on this important issue. Mary Meg McCarthy, Director, Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center. Helena Olea, Legal intern.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, abortion is a legal health care option for women in this country and has been for almost 30 years, and this right should be no different for Federal prisoners. For that reason, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have all heard all of the arguments I think, but I want to tell my colleagues about an experience that I had when I was in the State legislature in Illinois. We wanted to talk about real options for mothers in prison, or women who gave birth in prison. All of those who are so in favor of taking away the constitutional rights of women to have an abortion, to choose an abortion, ought to think about what happens when that woman does have the baby. I had legislation that would have offered women in prison who were nonviolent, short-term offenders, that is their prison sentence was less than 7 years, to be in residential settings where they could be mothers and could be with their children and could prepare for a life after prison to be with their children. That is not at all what happens, and that bill did not even get out of committee to be considered on the floor, because oh, no, we are going to punish these women, and now we are going to punish them to the extent that we are going to force them to have that child, but that child is going to be immediately ripped away from that mother whether she wants that baby now or not, is going to be put into a foster care system which throughout the country is known to be inadequate; this child is going to begin life at an enormous disadvantage. I would like to see if somebody cares about what happens to that child after birth, not just from conception to birth, but what happens to that child after that child is born. So not only are we stripping these women of their constitutional right to make a choice, but in many ways, we condemn the outcome of that, the child that is born to a life of deprivation. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to begin by doing what is right and allowing the constitutional rights of those women to be exercised when they are in prison, and to continue to give them reasonable options, if they want to carry that baby to term, to be able to have a setting in which motherhood and childhood can thrive and survive.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, so much, for allowing me to participate tonight in this incredible discussion about a problem that faces the gentleman in his district. There is no doubt, I am sure, to any of the seniors in the gentleman's district that he is definitely on their side and fighting every day for them. I am also happy to be here with my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). We come from very different kinds of districts, but there is one important thing that we have in common, and that is that our senior citizens are struggling just the same every single day to try and pay for their prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, the next time anybody goes to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription, I would suggest that they look at the people who are waiting there to get their prescription and try and pick out the person who is paying the absolute top dollar for their prescription. One might think, well, it could be that well-dressed business executive who is going to be paying the most, or that kind of upscale-looking young working woman who is going to be paying the most. But the truth of the matter is, one has to pick out the oldest, the frailest, the poorest looking person in that line, probably a woman, and that is the person that is going to be paying the most for prescription drugs, and that is simply not fair. That is based on a very conscious decision by the wealthiest industry in the world, the pharmaceutical companies. To figure out how to boost their profits, they are going to go after the people who need those drugs the most, those medicines the most, and who are going to do everything they can to try and pay for them, those are the people they are going to try and squeeze out the most money from. Seniors make up about 12 percent of the population, but they use about a third of the prescription medication, so it is, of course, a logical target group, the most logical prey for the pharmaceutical industry. Most of them have little or no insurance, or their insurance is inadequate. So that means they do not have anybody on their side to bargain for them for lower prices. The gentleman referred to a study that was done under the auspices of the Committee on Government Reform on which I sit, and I did that study in my district. I found that uninsured, uninsured for prescription drugs, uninsured senior citizens were paying, on average, 116 percent more than the most favored customers of the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, the Veterans Administration. Those were paying 116 percent less than our senior citizens were. Then we did another study. We looked at what about if they went to Canada or to Mexico, and just as the gentleman said earlier, in my district, just like in the gentleman's district or in Arkansas or in any district around the country, it was about 80 percent less for those same drugs that they need to save their lives, to enhance their lives, to extend their lives. If they went there they would pay 80 percent less. Then my dog Bo and I did a press conference together. Bo sat down next to me. He is a good old dog. I said that a drug, one of the drugs actually that I take, Vasotec, for high blood pressure, that same drug for Bo, and it is a drug that is used on animals, would be about 58 percent less. If I could send Bo to the drugstore to get the drugs, I would be better off, too. That is not right. I did the press conference at a senior citizen center, and they were offended by that, and they should be offended by that. This is not because there is less research done on the drug for Bo, this is not because it is a different drug that is cheaper, it is because they charge what the market will bear, and they know that the seniors are going to have to pay more for those drugs if they do not want to have a stroke. Mr. Speaker, the drug companies say to us, look, if we are not allowed to charge these prices, then we are just not going to be able to do the research and development and you are simply not going to have the drugs. Again, as the gentleman pointed out, if that money is so scarce for research and development, then tell me why we can hardly turn on the TV anymore without seeing, one after another, an ad by the drug companies for a drug. They are spending far more on their advertising budget than they are on their research and development budget. Let me just end with this. One of the ads that they have, they used to have, I do not know if she is on TV anymore, I have not seen her lately, is this nice-looking elderly woman called Flo. She looks very fit. Flo goes bowling. She ends up her ads, ``We want to keep government out of our medicine cabinet,'' is what Flo says. No, no government program to lower prices. I would like to just tell the gentleman that I have worked with seniors for years and years. I was executive director of the State Council of Senior Citizens in my State before I ran for public office. I have been talking to senior groups ever since I have been a public official. I have never once heard a senior citizen tell me, keep government out of my medicine cabinet. It is the opposite. They are saying, please, Representative, help me. Do something. Government has to be part of the solution here. I love my Medicare, but it is not helping me when it comes to prescription drugs. I need you now. They need us now. We have to come up with an answer. The answer is having a prescription drug benefit under Medicare giving affordable, accessible prescription drugs for our senior citizens. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in getting us there.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan amendment because this bill does not meet our great need for affordable housing. I represent Chicago, where the waiting list for public housing is 35,000 families long. Thirty-five thousand people is as big as some cities. That is like having the entire city of Atlantic City waiting in line to get a decent place to live. It is even worse than that in Chicago. In Chicago, right next to that line is another line of 24,000 people waiting for Section 8 vouchers. In fact, that line is so long they had to close it. The need for affordable housing is so great in Chicago that not only can a person not get a rental voucher, they cannot even get in line to get a rental voucher. That is what we are facing in Chicago. And it is the same in communities across this country. This bar graph shows the latest available national figures; 5.4 million households facing what is called worst case housing needs. That means that they either pay 50 percent or more of their income for rent or they live in substandard housing; 5.4 million men, women, and children, more than any other time in our history. But this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to help even one additional family, and does nothing to reduce the lines, and actually cuts money to improve housing. The press asked for additional funds for public housing. That is money to do the repairs and upkeep that every home requires, including our public housing. And that is money for the HOPE 6 program, which would rebuild public housing that is uninhabitable like the kind we suffer in Chicago. And that is money for the Drug Elimination Grant program to fight the drugs and gangs and guns that are chewing up our children. But this bill does not make any of that a priority. It actually cuts money for public housing from last year's funding levels. And these cuts are on top of the cuts that we had last year and the year before and every year since 1994, totaling over $1 billion in cuts for public housing. In Chicago we have a line as long as Atlantic City waiting for public housing, and this bill does nothing to help them. And it does not help our cities and neighborhoods, either. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Republicans and Democrats, wrote us a letter detailing what they need to revitalize their cities and bring home jobs and homeowners back into their community. The mayors want $2 billion for HOME, the major Federal homeownership program that gives mortgage counseling to would-be home buyers and helps build cities and repair homes. This bill, however, does not make homeownership a priority. This bill actually cuts the HOME program. And it does not do enough for the homeless. This is a housing budget. If we help anybody, we should at least help the people who have no house at all. Instead, we keep homeless funding at the same inadequate amount that we gave them last year. It is not that there are any less homeless people. In fact, there are more homeless people. The Urban Institute recently updated their study on homelessness. The new study showed that over 840,000 people live on the street any given night. We should be ashamed. Twenty-five percent of those people are children. That is more people than live in Detroit or Milwaukee or San Francisco. Imagine on any given night that everybody in San Francisco, even the children, have to line up in a homeless shelter. This bill leaves them out in the cold. There are lines of people waiting for affordable and decent housing in Chicago, in Washington, in San Francisco, in Boston, in rural America, in the South, in the North, everywhere. And this bill does not enough, almost nothing, and certainly nothing additional to help them. With a booming economy and budget surpluses, we can help the families, the seniors, the communities, and the homeless. The President asked for that money to provide more help. The majority leadership could have found the money. I am voting against this bill until they do. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we often are on this floor wringing our hands about why the public treats us so contemptuously and thinks so little of us all too often when we know we are here to do the people's work. But every once in a while, a bill comes along that reinforces that low esteem that the American public has for us, and this is one of them. The fact that there is an effort right now, an organized effort to protect the tobacco industry from the lawsuits. That is why I am here to strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others to get rid of this rider. Now, I have heard the arguments, oh, well the Justice Department can use its own money, or the Justice Department can get it from another fund. But there are all these other efforts going on at the same time which everybody knows about that would prevent any money, even a single dollar going. We have got riders coming up in the Commerce Justice bill. There are riders all over the place that are trying to thwart these lawsuits against the tobacco industry. It would be more credible if it were not for the fact that the veterans are all for these lawsuits going forward, including the American Legion. Four of them have endorsed the Waxman amendment. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, AmVets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans have explicitly endorsed this amendment that would allow these lawsuits to go forward and this small amount of money, relatively small amount of money from a litigation fund to go after the tobacco companies. Why should we not? Tobacco-related illnesses cost the Federal taxpayers approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid. The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco- related illness. The Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion. Indian Health Services pays $300 million. The Veterans Administration pays $4 billion, not $4 million, $4 billion a year to treat tobacco-related illnesses. So why not take a portion of that overall fund, not the fund directly going to services, but the litigation fund to try and get some of that money back? I will tell my colleagues, I think that the American people understand that tobacco is costing them, it is costing them and their families and their lives, and it is costing their taxpayer dollars. These thinly veiled efforts to protect the tobacco industry are not going to be viewed very well by the American people. We should all stand up together, Republicans and Democrats, because I agree this is not and should not be a partisan issue. We should stand up together and support this amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud today to join with so many of my colleagues to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Fulfilling our commitment to the arts will enrich the lives of many Americans, especially our children. I would like to recognize the good work of the Illinois Arts Council and the Illinois Humanities Council. They provide critical leadership in the support and development of numerous arts and humanities programs that touch the lives of so many in Illinois. Among those wonderful and innovative programs in the Lira Ensemble in Chicago, the only professional performing arts company specializing in the performance, research, and preservation of Polish music, song, and dance. The Lira Ensemble and other arts and humanities programs contribute greatly to our communities. They deserve our support. It cost each American less than 36 cents last year to support the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA in turn awarded over $83 million in grants nationwide and over $1.7 million in my home state of Illinois. Economically, support for the arts and humanities just makes sense. The arts industry contributes nearly $37 billion into our economy and provides more than 1.3 million full-time jobs. In addition, arts education improves life skills, including self-esteem, teamwork, motivation, discipline and problem-solving that help young people compete in a challenging and ever-changing workplace. Let's do the right thing for our communities and increase this funding now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this floor extolling the unprecedented economic prosperity and patting ourselves on the back for this remarkable economy, but we ignore the reality of a housing crisis that we have here in the United States. In fact, the economic prosperity has worsened the housing crisis because fewer and fewer people are able to really afford to even stay in their neighborhoods, pay the real estate taxes, find affordable housing. If we look at the shelters, we will find that they are bulging, emergency shelters are bulging, and these are people who are working. These are sometimes people who are making $20,000 and even more. And this piece of legislation does virtually nothing to address that problem. We find that nationally 13.7 million households, that is a lot of people, are living in substandard housing or paying more than half of their income on housing. In Chicago, in my city, 35,000 families are on the waiting list for the Chicago Housing Authority, for public housing; and that will take 10 years to get through that list. Madam Speaker, 28,000 families plus are waiting for section 8 rental vouchers, and the rental voucher program is closed. It will take 5 to 6 years to get through that program. The budget cuts from this year, not just under the President's, but $100 million from the President's requested for public housing. It cuts Hope 6, $10 million from last year. It cuts homeless assistance funding. It cuts help for people, homeless options for people with AIDS is even. And yet there are more people that need the service. So we are going to serve even fewer people. This is a serious problem that we are facing. We need to address it in this legislation. We are far from achieving our goals. I would oppose the rule and support the President in his pledge to veto this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, recently, I asked the Congressional Research Service to provide information on the number and cost of mergers and acquisitions involving pharmaceutical companies over the last 5 years. The total: $375 billion. In the last 6 months alone, Monsanto announced it would pay $23.3 billion to buy Pharmacia and Upjohn, Glaxo Wellcome has pledged $76 billion to buy SmithKline Beecham, and Pfizer said it would spend $90.27 billion to buy Warner- Lambert. I have been concerned about the effect of these mega-mergers on competition and prices. And I have been skeptical about claims that the increasing trend of drug companies buying other drug companies boosts research activities. A recent report by CenterWatch, a research entity focused on the pharmaceutical industry, confirms those fears. According to its analysis of 22 mergers completed between 1988 and 1999, the number of drugs under development actually dropped by 34 percent during the first 3 years after the mergers. The median number of projects in development--from preclinical to late-stage testing-- fell from 85 to 56 potential drugs. And, after a slight rise, the number of clinical trials also fell to 9 percent below pre-merger levels. In a Newark Star Ledger article, Ken Gatz, head of CenterWatch, stated that ``mergers are not meeting certain strategic R&D objectives and may even harm the industry's larger term ability to innovate.'' Drug companies argue that they cannot afford to lower prices to senior citizens and other consumers because it will hurt their R&D efforts. Yet, these same drug companies spent $375 billion to buy each other in mergers that have reduced R&D efforts. It is time that we reject these false claims. Congress must act now to expand Medicare to provide prescription drug coverage to all senior citizens and persons with disabilities. And it must use the power of Medicare to negotiate affordable prices. The pharmaceutical industry can certainly afford it, but our senior citizens cannot afford to wait. [From the Star-Ledger, June 8, 2000] Drug-Industry Mergers Fail To Boost Research, Development, Study Finds (By Edward R. Silverman) Despite claims by drug makers that mergers can boost their output, a new study has found that the number of medicines under development actually declined by 34 percent during the first three years following completed deals. The findings suggest that, rather than creating much larger companies capable of developing many more medicines, newly merged drug makers are instead trimming their product pipelines and, consequently, failing to become as productive as planned. ``A number of professionals believe that, in the long run, mergers create better companies,'' said Annick de Bruin, research manager at CenterWatch, a Boston-based research group that tracks the development of new pharmaceuticals and the clinical trials conducted to test these products. ``But in the short term, these mega-mergers cause disruptions in internal operations, and project cancellations with contract research organizations and with investigative sites'' that are chosen to test new medicines on patients, she said. CenterWatch analyzed 22 mergers completed between 1988 and 1999 and found that, three years after deals were completed, the median number of development projects--from pre-clinical through late-stage testing--dropped to 56 potential medicines from 85. Among the mergers examined were last year's combination of Astra and Zeneca; the Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz union, which formed Novartis in 1996; the Pharmacia and Upjohn merger the year before, and the Glaxo Holdings and Wellcome deal the same year. The key areas looked at by the firm included drug- development spending; the number of original new drug applications filed with regulators; the number of new development projects generated, and therapeutic areas focused on by the newly merged companies. In discussing the issue, CenterWatch noted that companies tout the benefits of mergers, such as cost cutting, that can make it easier to devote resources to generating higher revenue and profits--and higher stock prices. However, the study also cited comments from drug company managers who explained that cost-cutting often extends into drug development, but usually isn't evident right away because of commitments made to Wall Street about upcoming products. In fact, CenterWatch found that the number of clinical projects declines after a merger. Before a deal, companies carried an average of 43 projects. A year later, that rose by 10 percent, but then fell 9 percent below pre-merger levels two years on. This drop represented a shortfall of $15 million to $20 million in funding, which would have been provided in the form of grants to academic investigators and contracts awarded to contract-research organizations, which conduct trials for drug makers. ``In my experience,'' one manager told CenterWatch, ``companies have gaps in their pipelines that they're trying to mask. These gaps won't be seen early in the merger. They sort of bubble up several years out.'' As for overall spending on research and development, CenterWatch found that annual growth in spending before mergers was 7.7 percent, it dipped to 3 percent a year later and returned to nearly 8 percent three years after deals were done. ``In the short term, mergers are not meeting certain strategic R&D objectives and may even harm the industry's longer-term ability to innovate,'' said Ken Getz, who heads CenterWatch.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, of course, we have to be careful how we spend money, but it is not just how much, it is how wisely we spend the money. We might as well put our money on programs that we know work. We know that treatment and prevention are more cost effective than other options. Each dollar invested in drug abuse prevention saves $15 in reduced health and social and criminal justice and other societal costs. Each dollar invested in drug abuse prevention will save communities $4 to $5 for drug abuse, counseling, and treatment. Recent studies show that substance abuse treatment services have lasting and significant benefits; 50 percent decrease in drug and alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment; 43 percent decrease in homelessness; 19 percent increase in employment. We can win a war on drugs. We know how to spend money. It is not with helicopters in Colombia, but it is with the Pelosi amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 331, a bill that commends Israel's redeployment from southern Lebanon. I commend and thank my colleagues, the sponsors of this resolution for giving all members an opportunity to formally support Israel's recent withdrawal from southern Lebanon. We have all witnessed some tough times in Israel's journey toward the peace it desires. This unilateral and courageous step shows the world and especially those in the Middle East that Israel is committed to moving forward for peace. This decisive action on Israel's part is one of many risks Israel's leaders have proven willing to take in order to make peace a reality. I commend Prime Minister Barak, the members of the Knesset, and the people of Israel for their courage and resolve. I also want to acknowledge the important work of so many in our country who have devoted time and energy to ensuring a bright future for Israel. I am committed to supporting Israel and helping to guarantee her security so that the dream of peace in the Middle East may one day be a reality. Along with my colleagues, I hope to see the United Nations bring about a more secure environment in southern Lebanon, including taking action to disband any terrorist organizations in that area. I am so proud of Israel for taking this meaningful step toward peace. While Israel has shown great restraint in the face of violence, I want to reassert my belief that Israel has every right to protect itself against terrorists or attacks by other nations. Israel is the United States' closest ally in the Middle East and other nations would not be wise to test the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Again, I applaud Israel for this bold move, and I urge all parties in the Middle East to reenter serious negotiations for peace in the Middle East. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H. Con. Res. 331, so that this body can be on record in our support for Israel's efforts to bring peace to that nation and the region.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, in a special message to the Congress in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote, ``Every child must be encouraged to get as much education as he has the ability to take. We want this not only for his sake--but for the nation's sake.'' Kathleen McMahon took that message to heart and dedicated her life to the noble profession of teaching. As a Chicago Public Schools teacher for 34 years, she enriched the lives of countless students and ``encouraged'' them in the classroom. She knew from the start that a life of teaching is well worth the rewards. Her time and energy were the building blocks that helped many students thrive and grow. On behalf of all her students, their parents, and her colleagues, I wish to commend Kathleen McMahon for her years of dedication and her immeasurable contribution to our community and wish her well in retirement. We are thankful for all her hard work teaching our nation's future leaders. I am sure that she will be missed by all at Norwood Park School.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues excerpts of a speech recently delivered by the Vice President on the subject of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the situation in the Middle East region. I found the Vice President's remarks to be quite thoughtful and believe they would be of great use to members. The Vice President made a number of especially important points. He stated that the United States can and should continue to guarantee Israel's qualitative military edge. We all want to see peace in the Middle East. But without security, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with hostile adversaries toward a resolution of age old differences. I am pleased that the Vice President spoke of Israel's participation in international politics, and underscored his commitment to helping Israel achieve full and fair status at the United Nations. The Vice President made it clear that he understands the importance of the U.S.-Israel friendship. He also pointed out that while we are close allies, and are supportive of the peace process, we must never pressure Israel to do anything it feels may compromise its security. I am so pleased that Egypt and Jordan have entered into peace treaties with Israel. I join the Vice President in expressing hope for success with the Palestinian authorities. I agree with him that a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is possible. However, we must see as much resolve from Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian leadership toward that goal in order for it to be reality. Like many Israeli's, Syrians, and others around the world, I am disappointed that Syria has not taken advantage of the opportunities presented so far to negotiate in good faith toward a fair and lasting resolution to the issues the two nations face. I hope that President Assad will engage Israel again and commit to working through the challenges that remain in the way of peace between Israel and Syria. The Vice President's words regarding Russian and Iran were encouraging, in that, he realizes that Russia must actively work to help reduce the threat Iran poses to the international community, to Israel, and to the U.S. Finally, I join the Vice President and numerous other leaders in this nation and around the world in remaining committed to Israel's security now and in the future. Until the day comes that we witness peace between Israel and all of her neighbors, I will remain steadfast in my support for our great ally in the Middle East. I will always work to maintain a strong friendship and strategic alliance between our two nations. Remarks by Vice President Al Gore

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, one of the more compelling arguments for PNTR is that it will improve the life of Chinese workers and that U.S. companies will export higher wages and better working conditions, but this factual and shocking report says exactly the opposite, that, in fact, U.S. companies are instead taking advantage of the nearest slave labor conditions and wages, that persist in Chinese factories. But we should not be surprised that companies like Wal-Mart, half of whose U.S. workers qualify for food stamps, have workers in China, nearly half of which owe the factory money after working for a month, 12 to 14 hours a day, making Kathie Lee handbags. Opponents of this proposal dismiss as isolationists and antiprogress, but we favor establishing rules that protect workers and establish our ideals.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues the deep concern that I have for 13 members of the Jewish community in Iran who are on trial for a crime I do not believe they have committed. Iran's arbitrary charges against these thirteen individuals endangers that country's entire Jewish community and is an offense to world Jewry. The trial takes place at the same time when the world honors those who were lost to the Holocaust and vows never to let such atrocities of hate recur. I am encouraged by the fact that so many of my colleagues have taken a role of moral leadership on this issue, and have expressed their outrage to the Administration and to Iranian authorities. This past week, members of Congress took further steps to emphasize how seriously this trial can affect Iran's status. We wrote to the World Bank and contacted nations on the bank's loan approval board to urge postponement of pending loans for development projects in Iran. Unfortunately, those loans were approved. I am grateful that representatives of numerous nations that were present expressed concern over the trial. The outcome of this trial will not be overlooked by members of Congress or the Jewish and human rights communities. The future for these thirteen individuals does not look promising. No matter what the outcome of this trial is, I will never forget Iran's behavior and will take this matter into account as I make foreign policy decisions that affect that country. I commend to my colleagues an article written by Douglas Bloomfield for the Chicago Jewish Star. Mr. Bloomfield's column is usually full of great information and insight, this one is particularly compelling and is worthy of members' attention. Shoa Trial (By Douglas M. Bloomfield) There was something deeply troubling and yet fitting that as Jews around the world last week remembered the Six Million who perished in the Holocaust, the Ayatollahs began the trial of 13 Jews accused of spying for Israel. It was a dramatic reminder that Jews remain endangered in some parts of the world. The time and place were appropriate. Iran is where a long- ago Hitler once concocted genocidal plans for the Jews of the Persian Empire. Just a few weeks ago, Haman's modern descendants declared the ancient vizier was really an Egyptian, not unlike the Austrians trying to convince the world Hitler was really a German. The trial of 13 men accused on trumped up espionage charges opened on a dramatic note with the televised confessions, outside the courtroom, of first, one man and then two more and other followed, all dutifully denying coercion. It was an alarming development unabashedly offered by a regime that wanted the world to see the confessions but not the trial. Naturally, the ``confessed '' spies declared that their admissions were voluntary; what would one expect from a man who'd been in an Iranian jail for some 15 months, never allowed to see his lawyer? It was reminiscent of Iran's Lebanese allies distributing videotapes of their American hostages pleading guilty to sundry offenses, and North Vietnam staging televised war crime confessions by American POW's. No court in any civilized country would consider such confessions to be valid, but then again few would call Iran ``civilized.'' If the Iranian charges were true and the confessions freely given, there would be no reason to keep the evidence and the trial secret. The defense attorney for one of the three said that under Islamic law and international norms, a confession given by a prisoner after more than a year in jail is invalid. International attention is focused on the courtroom in the southern city of Shiraz. President Clinton has repeatedly spoken out, as have Members of Congress, the nation's governors and many mayors and other public officials. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last week warned Iranian leaders the trial ``will have repercussions everywhere'' on that country's efforts to ``earn international respect.'' That came in the same week that her department officially reaffirmed Iran's status as a leading state sponsor of international terrorism. Other leaders have made serious and personal efforts to help: the Pope, UN Secretary General Kofi Anan, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Prime More than 60 journalists, human rights activists and diplomats from the around the globe stood vigil outside the locked doors of a legal system controlled by the most extreme factions in that country. Inside, the lives of 13 Jews were in the hands of a single man who sits as prosecutor, judge and jury. Israel has privately assured the United States the men are innocent and it is unaware of any links between the accused and Israeli officials. Charges that they also spied for the United States have apparently been dropped. Some of the international pressure is apparently getting attention in Tehran. That's why the prisoners were presented on television confessing. It may also explain why the trial was adjourned for Passover, not exactly a national holiday in the fervently Islamic state, and why the three youngest defendants were released on bail. Trials in Iran usually last hours, not weeks as this one is expected to. The court could have declared them guilty and quickly hanged them, as happened three years ago with two other Jews similarly charged. But will those gestures, aimed at the international community, be enough to save the lives of these men? What do these gestures mean? The hard-liners have never shown much sensitivity to world opinion. In fact, they seem to revel in sticking their thumbs in the eyes of public opinion, especially American and Israeli eyes. Just before the trial began, a leading cleric delivered a sermon over state radio declaring, ``These people are spies . . . they are Jews and are . . . by nature enemies of Muslims.'' These 13 Jews are pawns in a battle between the hard-line Islamic extremists and the reformers, who scored another important victory in last Friday's runoff elections, for control of an ancient land whose chief exports of late have been religious bigotry and terrorism. One thing the ruling ayatollahs and the reformers led by President Khatemi seem to agree on is their hatred of Israel. If the verdicts are guilty, which carries a death penalty, some fear the ayatollahs declare that all Jews are Zionists, and the Zionist state is the mortal enemy of Islam and Iran, and thus all Jews are enemies and spies. Iran wages daily war against Israel through proxies such as Hezbollah. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said again recently the only way to solve the problems of the Middle East is to annihilate Israel. As the trial in Shiraz opened, there was an event worth noting in another country with a long and bitter history of anti-Semitism: Poland. Some 5,000 young Jews from around the world, led by the presidents of Israel and Poland, took part in the annual March of the Living from Auschwitz to Birkenau to honor those who perished solely for the crime of being Jews. Just weeks earlier, a British judge struck an important blow for the cause of truth and morality, a blow in an ongoing battle against Holocaust denial that should never have been necessary. Other nations are at long last beginning to come to terms with their Holocaust guilt and with Holocaust denial; throughout the Arab world, however, denial is a surging companion to rising anti-Semitism, often officially encouraged as in Egypt and Syria. In this country, too, we have made tremendous progress in confronting the scourge of anti-Semitism, but there are counter-forces, including a presidential candidate who admires Hitler, belittles the Holocaust and blames the Jews for dragging America into World War II. The trial of the Iran 13 is an alarming reminder that for all the lessons learned from the tragic past, there remain places where Hitler's work is commended, not condemned. It is a clarion warning of our responsibility to stand guard on the legacy of Hitler's victims in Iran and around the world.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Moakley amendment. Even School of the Americas supporter Senator Paul Coverdell characterized the Department of Defense's proposal as cosmetic changes that would ensure that the old SOA would continue its mission and operation. Just like the SOA, the new school will still be located in Fort Benning; still train Latin American soldiers in commando tactics, military intelligence, psychological operations and combat arms; still have no independent outside oversight; still not monitor graduates for human rights abuses; still have inadequate screening of soldiers who attend; still tout fancy human rights courses that nobody takes or take for just a few hours. And this is not just rehashing of old news. Since last year when 230 Members of this body voted against the SOA, new revelations have come to light about the SOA's connection with human rights abuses. In January of this year, SOA graduate Colonel Lima Estrada was arrested in Guatemala for the brutal assassination of human rights champion Bishop Juan Gerardi just 2 years ago, and on and on. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Chicago Tribune that says it is time for lights out at the SOA.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), do not question our reverence for life, including the lives of women and including the lives of the 100,000 women active service members, spouses and dependents of military personnel who live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their healthcare. The current ban on privately-funded abortions discriminates against these women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally protected right to choose, simply because they are stationed overseas. The bottom line is, prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain services at overseas military services endangers women's health and lives. Vote yes on Sanchez-Morella-Lowey.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize and congratulate the Field Museum in Chicago on its unveiling of Sue, the 67 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. Sue's journey to the Field Museum began in South Dakota in 1990. Sue Hendrickson, a fossil hunter, discovered the bones while walking on a Cheyenne River Reservation. It took 12 scientists 30,000 hours to remove the fossilized bone from rock. She was then transported in 130 crates and boxes to a glass laboratory at the Field Museum where scientists began to meticulously reassemble her. Paleontologists could not have known then what a magnificent scientific treasure they were uncovering. While the majority of the 22 partial T-rex skeletons in the world are only 40 to 50 percent complete, Sue is about 90 percent complete, making her by far the most complete skeleton ever recovered. It is believed that when Sue roamed this earth, she would have weighed in at 7 tons, measured 50 feet in length, had a stride that measured about 10 to 12 feet and would have traveled at about 6.25 miles per hour. I applaud the scientists, researchers, paleontologists, and craftsmen who went to painstaking efforts to recreate an accurate, finished skeleton for all Chicagoans and admirers around the country and world to enjoy. I also want to congratulate the Field Museum on its effort, and for continuing its extraordinary commitment to bringing the wonders of science to a broader community.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 14, 2000, Mother's Day, I was proud to join countless mothers and family members in sending a loud message to Congress. It was a message to those Members who for too long have listened to the gun lobbyists and ignored the wishes of the mothers of this country. How many more children will be lost to gun violence before this Congress acts? How many more families, in every part of this country, will have to bury their young before the message of passing sensible gun safety laws is heard? And how long will mothers have to live in fear for their children's safety before some in Congress admit that guns are robbing families and this nation of our most precious possessions? The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial today, wrote that over the years, the voice for gun safety has been ``muted and polite.'' But the editorial went on to say that ``On Sunday it was loud, powerful and plentiful. When that voice comes to be heard on Mother's Day, Father's Day, Election Day and every other day of the year, the political leaders propping up the gun lobby will have a new reason to tremble.'' That is true. This Sunday was the start of a movement. This is a movement that will help bring about change and save lives. It is a movement that will shape the future of this country. Mothers will continue to march until we get the job done. Why Moms Must Keep Marching Congratulations to the organizers of the Million Mom March. Whether or not they actually achieved their lofty seven- figure goal, their turnout was extremely impressive. In this debate, numbers count. Hundreds of thousands of mothers and others turned out Sunday in Washington and in towns across the country, including Chicago. Their message was loud and clear: America needs to get a handle on guns. Even after several years of declining violent crime rates, firearms deaths in the U.S. are astonishingly high compared to much of the rest of the world. While the moms marched, the politicians and lobbyists who have stifled gun legislation in Washington scrambled to put up a brave front. The National Rifle Association countered with soft and fuzzy TV ads preaching gun safety. That's a fine sentiment, but it's a bogus one when it comes from the folks whose primary mission is to prop up a furious and freewheeling market in guns, including guns whose only purpose is to kill human beings. Even in the wake of the horrendous Columbine High School shootings, a stalemate in Congress has blocked modest gun control measures. It's time to break that stalemate. Those in the Capitol who still think they can duck and dodge this one, all those moms on Sunday called them out. There has been a frustrating political dynamic at play in this country. Support for gun legislation is widespread, but it hasn't been particularly vocal. Those who oppose tougher gun laws are in the minority, but they are well organized, they are fervent in their cause and they have made themselves heard. That was clear in Illinois during recent debate over Gov. George Ryan's call to reinstate a felony gun law. Skittish legislators said most of their callers opposed Ryan's position. But polling showed overwhelming support for it. That included the vast majority of voters in the districts of 12 Republican senators who did not support the tougher gun law. Ultimately, Ryan prevailed, after threatening to keep legislators in Springfield until they say things his way. But many in Congress and the legislatures still tremble in fear of the gun lobby. That's why the moms march was so important. Heretofore that voice, the voice for gun restriction, has been muted and polite. On Sunday it was loud, powerful and plentiful. When that voice comes to be heard on Mother's Day, Father's Day, Election Day and every other day of the year, the political leaders propping up the gun lobby will have a new reason to tremble.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my continuing support for H.R. 3519, the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund Act, is sponsored by the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the gentlewoman from California. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of that bill. If enacted, H.R. 3519 would create a worldwide trust fund that is admiminstered by the World Bank and funded by governments, the private sector, and international organizations. Nations would be able to receive grants from the trust fund to address the HIV/AIDS crisis. The bill would direct the United States to contribute $100 million a year to the fund for 5 years, the hope being that U.S. contributions would help leverage contributions from others in the private sector and the international community. I must say that, while I am happy this bill seems to have the support necessary for passage, I am extremely disappointed that the amount of annual U.S. contributions to the fund under this bill will be $100 million instead of $200 million, the amount approved by the House Banking Committee. Although the passage of this bill would be a significant victory in the battle against HIV/AIDS, it is a small drop in a very big bucket. It is estimated that about $10 billion would be needed over the next 5 years, just to fight AIDS in Africa. We must do much more if we want to seriously address the HIV/AIDS epidemic that is killing millions of people worldwide, and the United States has to lead the way. It is in our own best interests to do so, because HIV/AIDS knows no borders and, because it threatens the stability of the world, even more than conventional warfare. AIDS is claiming more lives than all the armed conflicts in the last century combined. Twelve million men, women, and children in Africa have already died of AIDS. Today in Africa, 5,500 people are buried daily because of AIDS, and that number is expected to more than double. AIDS is the leading cause of death in Africa, but also, and this is very important, among young adult African-American men in the United States as well. It is our problem. There is no doubt this bill is a necessary move in the right direction. Again, I commend my colleagues for their tireless efforts on this issue, and I urge all members to vote in support of H.R. 3519.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of S. 2370 designating the Federal Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan after a dear friend and true statesman, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This bill is a fitting tribute to a distinguished scholar, an outstanding Senator, and a great American. The building that will bear his name was built to last more than 200 years and will be a lasting monument to the long and distinguished public service career of Senator Moynihan. Senator Moynihan has served our country for forty-seven years. He is the only person in our country's history to serve as a member of the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet for four successive administrations. He was Ambassador to India, as well as the President of the United Nations Security Council. And since 1977, he has served the great people of New York in the United States Senate. Senator Moynihan is also one of our great scholars. He has received more than 60 honorary degrees, has written or edited 18 books, holds a Ph.D. from Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has taught at such distinguished institutions as MIT, Harvard, Syracuse, and Cornell. I know few people who can match his resume and none can surpass his commitment to this Nation. New York will be losing a strong voice and dear friend in the Senate when Senator Moynihan retires at the end of this year. I have had the privilege of working with Senator Moynihan on several bills on behalf of our constituents over the years. Even as a freshman Member of the House, Senator Moynihan was generous with his time and became a valued advisor to me. I have enjoyed working with him and will sorely miss his presence when he retires. He is a distinguished Senator and one we will deeply miss in both Chambers. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 2370. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.