Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune, September 22, 1999: Two Fenger High School students were injured Tuesday when a gunman opened fire on a crowd of students walking home, Chicago police said. Authorities said between 6 and 12 shots were fired, sending the students scurrying for cover. Witnesses told the police the shooter was a 17-year-old male who had been expelled from the South Side High School a year ago. The shooting near Fenger took place about 3 p.m. A large group of students walking south on Wallace began arguing with a smaller group of at least four people near the intersection. The gunman, who was in the smaller group, allegedly pulled out a handgun and began firing into the other crowd of students. It was unclear whether the gunman intended to hit the two injured students or whether he knew them. ``It's crazy. It's just crazy out there,'' said Crystal Allen, Darrell Allen's mother, as she rushed into the hospital's emergency room. ``Your kids can't even walk to school without being shot. It's a shame. They have metal detectors in the schools. But what happens when they walk outside?''. Conferees, please do something meaningful to keep guns from turning school yard brawls into injury and death.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of Evanston, Illinois, I have been to three funerals in recent months. I have cried with grieving parents bearing their children because of senseless gun violence. To honor the memories of those children, I pledge my support for gun safety legislation and continue the roll call of names of children who have been killed by gunfire since Columbine: Susie King, age 11, killed by gunfire on May 23, 1999, West Lampeter, Pennsylvania; Lee Brown, age 16, killed by gunfire on May 27, 1999, Forest Park, Georgia; Armando Garcia, age 16, killed by gunfire on May 28, 1999, San Bernardino, California; Angela Yglesias, age 18, killed by gunfire May 28, 1999, Detroit, Michigan; Antonio Munoz, age 17, killed by gunfire on May 30, 1999, Providence, Rhode Island; Iris Turull, age 3, killed by gunfire on May 31, 1999, Bronx, New York; Daron Mitchell, age 18, killed by gunfire on May 31, 1999, Akron, Ohio; Allen Darrington, age 17, killed by gunfire on June 1, 1999, Kansas City.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, if legal permanent residents are good enough to pay taxes, to work in our country and to serve in our military service, then we are certainly also made better by their voice, and I would urge defeat of this amendment. I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the Bereuter/Wicker amendment. Cutting legal permanent residents access to the political process is absolutely the wrong thing to do Legal permanent residents are immigrants who have made the commitment to become citizens of the United States and are in the middle of the process towards full citizenship. They have made the commitment, not only to come to this country and make a better life for themselves and their family but, through the goods and services, jobs and taxes that their labors produce, they have made the commitment to make this country better for all of us. And they have given more than that. Legal permanent residents are eligible for the draft, have served in the U.S. military and served with great distinction in defense of the rights that every American holds dear. Like immigrants for generations, they came to this country and participated and this country is much better for it. The Bereuter/Wicker amendment, however, would limit their participation. The Bereuter/Wicker amendment says that legal permanent residents--people who we ask to put their life on the line--aren't good enough to support the people who would put them on that line. That's wrong. If we are made better by their work, their taxes and their military service, then we are also made better by their voice. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and allow legal permanent residents to enjoy much needed reform of campaign finance reform just like we enjoy all that they bring to our country.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts on a serious human rights issue. On July 16, 1999, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on the human rights situation in Kazakhstan. I attended the hearing and was moved by the testimony of witnesses before the Caucus. I would like to take this opportunity to share the following remarks, which I made at the hearing, with all of my colleagues. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus is deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Kazakhstan and has called this briefing today to take a closer look at recent developments. I am chairing this briefing on behalf of my colleagues, the Honorable Tom Lantos of California and the Honorable John Porter of Illinois, the co-chairs and founders of the Human Rights Caucus. Both men are not able to attend this morning but that should not be taken as any indication that they do not take this matter seriously. The Caucus has for more than two decades been the leading voice in the United States Congress on the protection of human rights, civil liberties and basic freedom around the world. No one is exempt from our scrutiny or our concern. Kazakhstan is a former Soviet Republic that held great promise early in this decade for moving toward democracy and a free market economy. But there has been a steady and alarming deterioration in recent years. On January 10, 1999, President Nazarbayev was elected to serve a new seven-year term in elections considered by international standards to be seriously flawed. The United States Government and European Union both rejected those elections as illegitimate and refused to recognize the outcome. The Constitution, adopted in 1995 in a referendum marred by irregularities, permits the President to rule by decree and it cannot be changed or amended without the President's consent. Therefore both the executive and judicial branches are under the control of the President. Government Officials routinely harass and intimidate political opponents. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1998, ``Members of the security forces often beat or otherwise abused detainees, and prison conditions remained harsh. There were allegations of arbitrary arrest and detention, and prolonged detention is a problem. . . The Interior Ministry reported in September that 1,290 prisoners, or more than 1 percent of all prisoners had died since the beginning of the year of disease, mostly tuberculosis, aggravated by harsh prison conditions and inadequate medical treatment. Estimates by human rights monitors are not substantially different from government figures.'' We are pleased to have with us today as our leadoff witness Mr. Akezhan Kazhegeldin, Chairman of the National Republican Party of Kazakhstan. He is leading the fight for democracy in his country at a great personal risk to himself and his family. Other witnesses are with us here today were arrested, harassed and paid with their health and well being for their desire to tell the truth. Tell the truth to the people of Kazakhstan and to us. The Nazarbayev regime has employed authoritarian methods to threaten and silence the witnesses who will testify today. For example, the brave Mrs. Savostina, is a veteran of Joseph Stalin's Gulag. Instead of receiving an award from the post-Communist government of her country, the Kazakhstani authorities have arrested her several times. On June 16 of this year a criminal investigation was initiated against Mr. Kazhegeldin and his wife for filing his 1997 income taxes late even though they had been paid in full at least nine months earlier. They were paid late only due to a mistake of his Kazakhstani attorney and accountant, but nothing was said about any criminal charges last fall when Mr. Kazhegeldin was in Kazakhstan, nothing until the surprise charges were filed just last month. Now the Nazarbayev regime has gone even farther in its abuse of the rule of law and is taking advantage of the legal system--which it controls--to persecute Mr. Kazhegeldin. The head of the Kazakhstani tax service, who happens to be Mr. Nazarbayev's son-in-law; the head of the internal KGB of Kazakhstan, another relative of the President, and the Chairman of the Supreme Court, a close personal friend of Mr. Nazarbayev, have written to Belgian police to initiate harassing investigations. This is an unacceptable way to treat an opposition leader. I wrote to Secretary of State Albright recently to express my concern for the well being of Mr. Kazhegeldin and this latest attempt by the Nazarbayev regime to silence his voice of democracy. The U.S. Department of State wrote to me on July 9, that ``we had made it clear to the highest levels of Kazakhstan's government that harassment of opposition figures is not acceptable.'' I would like to read into the record another portion of that response to my letter to the Secretary of State. ``A fundamental component of U.S. policy in Kazakhstan is promotion of democracy and human rights. Local and parliamentary elections expected this fall will again test Kazakhstan's democracy and observance of fundamental human rights. We remain intensively engaged with the Kazakhstani government on democracy issues. Our message has been consistent and clear: long-term stability depends on actions now to build democracy and foster greater respect for fundamental human rights principles, including Kazakhstan's commitment of the OSCE. We have specifically urged the government to bring its legislation on elections, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media into accordance with international standards; schedule elections far enough in advance to give parties and candidates adequate time to prepare effective campaigns; register new parties and NGOs promptly in order to endure broad participation in the elections, including by candidates and groups critical of the government; and broaden the central and local election commissions to include non-governmental representatives.'' Prior to the January presidential elections, Vice President Gore phoned President Nazarbayev and demanded that Mr. Kazhegeldin be allowed to run for the presidency in the elections earlier this year. Unfortunately, Mr. Nazarbayev totally ignored the request of the Vice President of the United States. The Nazarbayev government is determined to silence the voice of any viable opposition from being heard within Kazkhstan. It talks about democracy while it continues its autocratic and repressive conduct. No democracy, especially the United States government and this Congress, should tolerate such conduct.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues I found this budget very hard to explain to people back home. While we are all here patting ourselves on the back for this string of unprecedented economic prosperity, it seems all too easy to overlook the communities that are not reaping the benefits. The unemployment rate in some of these communities is as high as 20 percent, Mr. Chairman, and more than 5 million families in our country are only a paycheck away from losing their homes. In light of these problems that our families and our seniors are facing, we should use our prosperity to increase HUD's capacity to create jobs, to build homes; but instead we are cutting the HUD budget. The effects of these cuts on the lives of families and seniors and the homeless would be devastating. In my district alone, we would loose $4.5 billion; and hundreds of low-income families could be left out in the cold. In the city of Chicago where the Chicago housing authority is just beginning to turn the corner on a persistent housing crisis, we are going to be setting the CHA back. We have a responsibility here, a responsibility to expand and not to cut vital housing and economic development programs. We need to take drastic steps, not to cut, but to develop a successful and comprehensive affordable housing and economic development policy. This should be a national priority, and at a time when we have a $14 billion federal budget surplus; if not now, when?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, when the House of Representatives returns next month, it will consider the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It is critical that we include adequate funding to meet the housing and community development needs of the country. On any given night, there are 600,000 homeless persons--including children and veterans--living on our streets. There are another 5.3 million families who pay over half of their income on housing. Millions of them live in substandard housing. This is a crisis. Tragically, the VA-HUD appropriations bill falls far short. In fact, in most areas, it represents a step backwards. I hope my colleagues will consider the following letter, signed by fifty organizations. Those organizations include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, NAACP, AFSCME, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, National Council of Senior Citizens, National Council of Jewish Women and many other community, faith-based, and civic groups. They are calling on us to respond to this enormous need and to meet our responsibilities by providing more funding for housing and community development. Fully Fund Housing and Community Development, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Washington, DC, August 3, 1999. Hon. Janice Schakowsky, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Schakowsky, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Housing Act of 1949, in which Congress declared the national goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. We believe, as do most Americans, that this nation is capable of achieving this worthy goal. However, we have a long way to go. Even while most Americans are thriving in our remarkably healthy economy, many families still struggle with excessive housing costs and insufficient income to meet basic needs. Over 9,000,000 very low income households pay more than half of their income for housing. The 1999 report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, The State of the Nation's Housing, clearly documents the paradox of record accomplishments in housing production and home ownership while rents are increasing faster than wages. Nowhere in the country can a household with one full time minimum wage earner afford basic housing costs. Families who apply for housing assistance wait longer than they ever have before, and in many communities, waiting lists are closed indefinitely. We believe that a time when we are celebrating bountiful budget surpluses is also the time to address our severe national shortage of affordable housing. This can best be done by strengthening the proven federal housing and community development programs that lift up low-income Americans. There is ample evidence that housing assistance helps low income families gain the housing stability that is necessary for family members to succeed at work and in school. Unfortunately, the action of the House Appropriations Committee last week weakens our housing and community development programs. Rather than building on the success of our economy by extending its rewards to more and more people, the Committee moved us backwards by failing to fully fund the President's FY2000 HUD budget request. The bill cuts CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, Public Housing Operating Fund, and Homeless Assistance, among others, and does not fund a single new housing voucher. We find it inconceivable that in this period of extraordinary economic prosperity that Congress continues to purport that we are unable to fund modest expansions of programs that improve the housing and economic opportunities of low wage earners and people on fixed incomes. The substantial tax cuts that are under consideration in the House will not improve the housing circumstances of low income people, but more housing assistance will. We urge you to vote against the HUG-VA-IA Appropriations bill when it comes to the full House. We are capable of doing much better. Sincerely, ACORN, AFSCME, AIDS Policy Center for Children, Youth and Families, Alliance for Children and Families, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Community Change, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Foundation, Coalition on Human Needs, Development Training Institute, Employment Support Center, Feminist Majority, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jesuit Conference, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Lutheran Services in America, McAuley Institute, Mennonite Central Committee U.S., Washington Office, NAACP, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Child Advocates, National Association of Housing Cooperataives, National Association of School Psychologists, National Center on Poverty Law Inc., National Coalition for the Homeless, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Senior Citizens, National Housing Law Project, National Housing Trust, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Ministries, American Baptist Churches, USA, National Neighborhood Coalition, National Network for Youth, National Puerto Rican Coalition, National Rural Housing Coalition, National Urban League, Neighbor to Neighbor, Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Preamble Center, Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, Surface transportation Policy Project, Unitarian Universalist Affordable Housing Corporation, United Church of Christ, Office of Church in Society, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Volunteers of America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because it is the first step in ripping off the roof over people's heads. That is what we are doing when we cut $2 billion from the HUD budget. Now, some people will argue that cutting the budget is good government. But this is not just some government program, it is a roof over people's heads. When we cut this program, we are taking away some seniors' rent money, we are throwing families out of their homes, and we are denying people on fixed and low incomes the safety and security of an affordable home. The residents of over 500,000 affordable apartments are at risk of losing their homes over the next 5 years if HUD does not renew the contracts with the private landlords who own them. The money to do that was cut. Last March, we cut $350 million from the Section 8 program, with solid promises it would be back in the budget; but it is not. Well, we can put the $350 million back if we do not give $800 billion to wealthy special interests in the form of an irresponsible tax cut. And we should put in the $1 billion that the President requested because 500,000 households are depending on us.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am protesting this rule because it's the first step in ripping off the roof over people's heads. That's what we are doing when we cut the HUD budget. Some people will argue that cutting the budget is good government. They will argue that we are reducing wasteful government spending. But this isn't just some government program. It's a roof over people's heads. When we cut this program, we are taking away some senior's rent money. We are throwing families out of their homes. We are denying people on fixed and low incomes the safety and security of an affordable home. One of those government programs is the Section 8 program. HUD has contracted with private landlords to provide affordable apartments to people on fixed and low incomes. Over 500,000 of those apartments will come up for renewal in the next five years. If we don't renew those contracts, landlords will leave the program, raise their rents and evict hundreds of thousands of people on fixed and low incomes. This is a terrible thing and we know it. Last March, we cut $350 million from the Section 8 program to pay for non-emergency spending in Kosovo. But both the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee promised to put it back if they could because they know that it is money well spent. If we have the money, we ought to use it to give people a safe home so they can go to work and their children can go to school and they all can be productive citizens. Well, we can put the $350 million back if we don't give $800 billion to wealthy special interest in the form of an irresponsible tax cut. And we should put in an extra $1 billion that the President has requested because 500,000 households are depending on us. This money is well spent. It's money for local governments to attract jobs. It's money for services for seniors and persons with disabilities so that they can live their lives with some comfort. It's money for secure families. People deserve this from us and we ought to give it to them. Oppose this rule, because it's the first step in ripping off the roof over people's heads. Fully Fund Housing and Community Development National Low Income Housing Coalition, Washington, DC, August 3, 1999. Hon. Janice Schakowsky, House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Schakowsky: This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Housing Act of 1949, in which Congress declared the national goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. We believe, as do most Americans, that this nation is capable of achieving this worthy goal. However, we have a long way to go. Even while most Americans are thriving in our remarkably healthy economy, many families still struggle with excessive housing costs and insufficient income to meet basic needs. Over 9,000,000 very low income households pay more than half of their income for housing. The 1999 report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, The State of the Nation's Housing, clearly documents the paradox of record accomplishments in housing production and home ownership while rents are increasing faster than wages. Nowhere in the country can a household with one full time minimum wage earner afford basic housing costs. Families who apply for housing assistance wait longer than they ever have before, and in many communities, waiting lists are closed indefinitely. We believe that a time when we are celebrating bountiful budget surpluses is also the time to address our severe national shortage of affordable housing. This can best be done by strengthening the proven federal housing and community development programs that lift up low-income Americans. There is ample evidence that housing assistance helps low income families gain the housing stability that is necessary for family members to succeed at work and in school. Unfortunately, the action of the House Appropriations Committee last week weakens our housing and community development programs. Rather than building on the success of our economy by extending its rewards to more and more people, the Committee moved us backwards by failing to fully fund the President's FY2000 HUD budget request. The bill cuts CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, Public Housing Operating Fund, and Homeless Assistance, among others, and does not fund a single new housing voucher. We find it inconceivable that in this period of extraordinary economic prosperity that Congress continues to purport that we are unable to fund modest expansions of programs that improve the housing and economic opportunities of low wage earners and people on fixed incomes. The substantial tax cuts that are under consideration in the House will not improve the housing circumstances of low income people, but more housing assistance will. We urge you to vote against the HUD-VA-IA Appropriations bill when it comes to the full House. We are capable of doing much better. Sincerely, ACORN, AFSCME, AIDS Policy Center for Children, Youth and Families, Alliance for Children and Families, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Community Change, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Foundation, Coalition on Human Needs, Development Training Institute, Employment Support Center, Feminist Majority, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jesuit Conference, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Lutheran Services in America, McAuley Institute, Mennonite Central Committee U.S., Washington Office, NAACP, National Alliance to End Homelessness. National Association of Child Advocates, National Association of Housing Cooperatives, National Association of School Psychologists, National Center on Poverty Law Inc., National Coalition for the Homeless, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Senior Citizens, National Housing Law Project, National Housing Trust, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Ministries, American Baptist Churches, USA, National Neighborhood Coalition, National Network for Youth, National Puerto Rican Coalition, National Rural Housing Coalition, National Urban League, Neighbor to Neighbor, Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Preamble Center, Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Unitarian Universalist Affordable Housing Corporation, United Church of Christ, Office of Church in Society, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Volunteers of America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a consumer advocate, I have been asking from day one what is in this financial modernization act that I can bring home for ordinary consumers in my district, the soccer moms, schoolteachers, small businesses. Face it, they are not worrying about the ability of banks, insurance companies, and security companies to merge. But I warn my colleagues, they will be interested if we let those companies poke around in their most private medical and financial records. Do not underestimate the American appetite for privacy. They will be interested if hopes for their small businesses and mortgages and investments to improve their neighborhoods dry up, which is what the Senate bill will do because it dangerously undermines the Community Reinvestment Act. This motion to instruct addresses both the issues of privacy and CRA, possibly the only two provisions most of our constituents care about.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on my Special Order this evening.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think that the gentlewoman has expressed the kind of impatience that many Americans are feeling right now. They want to know when we are going to do something. That is particularly true right now of the residents in my district, who are just beginning the healing process after having suffered the violence of hate over the Fourth of July weekend. I want to put a face to one of the victims of gun violence. Ricky Byrdsong was a former basketball coach at Northwestern University. He was a father, a community leader, and an inspiration to his family and all those who knew him, a deeply religious man. Ricky Byrdsong was committed to a cause, and his cause was to help underprivileged youth reach their full potential and follow their dreams. His work took him to neighborhoods where violence was all too common a feature of everyday life. He lived with his wife and three children in Skokie, Illinois, a quiet community of ordinary homes and bungalows, quiet streets, good schools, and he once commented to a friend on how happy he was to live in a safe neighborhood. He did not have to worry about his kids being hurt. He did not have to worry about the violence that is so common in other neighborhoods. He was happy to live in the peaceful community of Skokie, Illinois. But that all changed on Friday, July 2nd, when Benjamin Smith murdered Ricky Byrdsong when he was outside playing with his children. He was killed because of the color of his skin. And Mr. Byrdsong was not the first target that night of Benjamin Smith's hate. Six men were shot in Rogers Park. They were walking home from synagogue, they were orthodox Jewish men who were praying that evening. It was a warm summer evening as they walked home. Twenty bullets found their way into six people that night. It is only a miracle really that none of those people was killed. The mother of one of those victims said, ``This was not just hate. This is what happens when hate is given a gun.'' Dr. Michael Messing was another victim that night. He and his son were the first people who were shot at that evening. He and his son were walking home and he described this at the forum that I held yesterday how Benjamin Smith actually stopped his car, got out and pointed his gun at Dr. Messing and he knew that right away he had to flee, that this was clearly a dangerous situation, he was shot at, his son was shot at, and again miraculously the bullets missed him. But he stood there to watch his neighbor down the street get shot and suddenly from victim, he turned into physician and ran down the street to care for them. He faxed me a statement today that said: ``As a recent victim of Benjamin Smith's anti-Semitic and racist shooting spree, I implore you, our leaders in Congress, to pass the necessary legislation on gun control which would inhibit easy access to weapons for criminals. In doing so, you will create a safer, healthier and more optimistic future for our country. If you fail to do so, my living nightmare might one day become yours as well. You can imagine what a nightmare that is to be with your son and friends walking home and being shot at on the streets of your community. Littleton, Colorado; Rogers Park in Skokie, Illinois; Bloomington, Indiana; Springfield, Oregon; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Jonesboro, Arkansas; West Paducah, Kentucky; and Pearl, Mississippi. Is your hometown next, Mr. Speaker? No one knows for sure. At the forum yesterday, a number of incredible people testified. They are victims of gun violence that perhaps gave the most dramatic testimony of all. One was Maureen Young, who comes from my town of Evanston, Illinois. She spoke about her 18-year-old son who was shot in the heart by a person who was told to kill someone for their gang initiation. As she was speaking, she held up the printout from the hospital heart monitor that showed her son's flat line. She held up that tape that showed the flat line on the heart monitor that indicated that her son was dead. And she said, ``How many mothers are going to have to come home from the hospital with a tape like this indicating that their child has died?'' Mrs. Young is one of many victims, many mothers, many fathers, who has turned their own personal tragedy into a crusade, and now she is a leader in the Bell Campaign, a campaign designed to wake up America, to organize victims and people who care about those victims into a grassroots campaign to make this Congress more afraid of people who want sensible gun safety legislation than they are from the small minority of people who resist passing even the most sensible and simple pieces of legislation. It is hard to imagine what Maureen Young has experienced. But there are an average of 13 mothers every single day who experience that. We talk about Columbine and Littleton, Colorado, because it is a community where we do not expect some things like this to happen, just like Skokie, Illinois, and Rogers Park, Illinois. But 13 mothers every day experience the same kind of horror. In my own little town, I have attended three funerals in the last year. I am tired of these funerals. I guess Ricky Byrdsong's funeral makes four. Mark Carlin, President of the Board of Directors of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, urged us to apply the same common- sense practices that we apply to cars to guns. Why can we not treat guns with the same common-sense regulation as we do our cars? Are we any less free because our car is registered? He talked about transferring the registration of his father's automobile to himself and how he had to go down and fill out the paperwork. And no one would question that that is not a good thing to do. He talked about the fact that we have to get a driver's license and renew that driver's license, and why is it not that every single gun owner does not need to register for that gun? We would not think of saying people should drive a car without a driver's license. And he said, ``What is more sacred in our culture than the automobile?'' It defines us in some ways, our mobility, our freedom, our independence, and yet we understand that automobiles and drivers are heavily regulated. And yet not guns. The gun lobby says guns are somehow a sacred object, that it should escape all that kind of regulation. At the forum yesterday, I held up a TEC-9 in one hand and a baby rattle in the other hand. Baby rattles are governed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have laws about it. We have laws about how big the parts are in toys that we give to our children. Guns are exempt from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Why is that? It is one of the only products, I think it is the only consumer product that is exempt from that kind of regulation. So Mark Carlin was saying, let us at least treat guns with the same respect, if you will, as we do our automobiles. We had Dr. Kathryn Coffer Christophel who is a respected pediatrician at Children's Memorial Hospital and also an expert on gun safety approaching it as a health issue, reframing this debate as a public health crisis. She talks about how every year over $1 billion is spent on medical costs associated with the treatment of individuals who have been shot. Of course, these dollar figures do not take into account the lost earnings to their families while they are recuperating. She pointed to a chart that we had there yesterday that showed that in 1996 there were 15 handgun murders in Japan, 15 in the whole nation in the whole year. Thirty handgun murders in Great Britain, Mr. Speaker; 106 in Canada; 213 in Germany; and 9,390 in the United States. She said, if we looked at that chart and we were talking about a disease, a virus or a bacteria, and we saw how many people were afflicted in the United States, is there any question in our minds that we would say, what are these other nations doing? They seem to have conquered this epidemic, or dramatically reduced it. What are they doing that we are not doing to confront this health crisis. And the answer is really very simple. They have far tougher gun laws. Oh, we may want to bring in all other kinds of cultural issues and maybe they affect some few cases. By and large, the explanation for the difference is we have more guns. Mr. Speaker, we heard from a remarkable young man, Albert Smith, who just graduated from Evanston Township High School and his family also was touched by a gun-related tragedy in which a member of his family was killed. Albert really does not like to go into details about the tragedy that struck his family, but what he likes to talk about is how it spurred him into action on antiviolence issues, including gun control. What Albert did was organize a conference on violence and gun control at Evanston Township High School in May which included the U.S. attorney from Massachusetts who came to talk about strategies that they had developed to reduce gun violence, particularly among youth, where they had a long period, I think over 2 years, where not a single child in the City of Boston was lost to gun violence, a coordinated strategy of prevention and control. Albert had just one simple challenge for all of us who were gathered yesterday and that is, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? What are we going to do about it? I have received, as I am sure many, many Members of Congress have, letters from my constituents, letters that tell sad stories and cry out for help, and tell about fear, tell about the fear now of ordinary kids that are afraid to go to school who now think yes, indeed, it could happen to me. Dear Representative Schakowsky: Hello. I am currently a high school student at Niles West. I know that I am not old enough to vote for anything, but I would appreciate if you would take the time to consider what I had to say. I think that there should be stricter laws about guns. Too many kids are getting their hands on guns. I don't know how, but there should be a way to keep guns off the streets. In the Colorado shooting, those kids had some big firearms. How did these kids get their hands on such guns? I am not sure that I feel safe in school, ever since the Colorado shooting. If, by chance, this topic comes up, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues are listening to that. This child from Illinois is saying, If, by chance, this topic comes up, please vote for stricter laws against guns. I heard too many stories about little kids and guns, and I am afraid that someone I care about might get hurt by a gun. I thank you for taking your time to listen to what I say. And I hope that all of us here, Mr. Speaker, will take time to listen to what this student had to say. Another: Like most people, I have been disturbed by the rising violence in our lives. But Littleton really brings it home. It seems ridiculous to me that guns can be picked up at gun shows without even a background check. It is even worse that people not old enough to legally drink beer can buy assault rifles. Why aren't guns regulated for safety, like every other consumer product? Thousands of children could be saved from disability or death by simple child safety standards for handguns. Yesterday at this forum, I also held up a TEC-9 and a child safety lock. For $5 or $6, one can get a lock that will be put on guns that will prevent the accidental shooting of children. Let me tell my colleagues a few of those stories. In Florida in 1999, an 11-year-old boy got angry with his 13-year-old sister. He went to a closet at home, took out a gun his parents kept there and killed his sister. The gun was in an unlocked box, was next to the ammunition, and had no trigger guard. In Tennessee in May in 1998, a 5-year-old boy found a loaded hand gun on his grandfather's dresser and carried it to school, threatening to kill his teacher and classmates. In Cleveland, a 13-year-old boy took his father's unsecured handgun and killed himself while playing Russian roulette. The city prosecutor brought charges against the boy's father for violating the ordinance that prohibits minors from having access to a gun. In Florida, a 14-year-old boy found his father's gun in a closet and shot a playmate in the head after school. The victim lives, but suffers, as we can imagine, from medical problems as a result. This is one of the sensible gun safety measures that was passed by the Senate to require a child safety lock on every weapon. Why not? Why not, America is asking us. We talk about closing the loophole in the Brady Bill and requiring background checks at gun shows. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Smith, who terrorized my community and then killed two people and then himself, and we can talk about the hate groups that he was associated with and hate Web sites on the Internet, and we should. But Benjamin Smith again was able to convert this hatred into violence. Now, he went to buy a weapon and was turned down because he had an order of protection against him, and fortunately that turned up in his background check. What he did was go to an illegal gun dealer, someone who had legally purchased an arsenal of weapons. If we had had legislation that said that only one gun a month could be purchased, this illegal gun dealer would not have been able to have this arsenal that Ben Smith was able then to buy two guns from this man. We need to do sensible things. The gun show loophole is another place Ben Smith could have gone to a gun show to purchase those guns, and if he would have found an unlicensed dealer, he could have bought his guns there too. He would have been able to purchase those guns and murder two people in a way that was not intended when we first passed the Brady law. How many lives would be saved if we would close that simple gun show loophole? When the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) stood on the floor of this House and said, ``All we want to do is keep guns out of the hands of criminals,'' let me just quote from her. She said, ``That is all I am trying to do. My amendment closes a loophole. I am trying to stop the criminals from being able to get guns. That is all I am trying to do.'' And she said, ``This is not a game to me. This is not a game to the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, this is our colleague, a woman from New York, a hero in the battle for gun safety legislation and someone herself who has experienced the tragedy in her own family. America is asking us to do something. Let me just refer my colleagues to an editorial, Mr. Speaker, that appeared June 20 in the Chicago Tribune. It says, ``The statute of limitations on responsibility in the United States House of Representatives expired after 59 days, just 59 days after two students shot up Columbine High School in Colorado. The House decided that more dead children is the price to pay to protect the national gun lobby.'' And the Chicago Tribune again, on July 18 said, ``Last weekend, a bigot with a heart full of hate, a couple of guns and a load of ammo left a trail of blood through Illinois and Indiana. This week, congressional conferees from the House and Senate will start to decide whether the country needs tighter gun control laws.'' Mr. Speaker, I only wish that had been true. I only wish that conferees had been appointed and that they were starting to decide whether we need tighter gun laws. The editorial goes on, ``Poll after poll has shown that Americans want to close the loopholes in the existing gun laws governing the sale and use of firearms, but Members of the House who flatly rejected meaningful gun control legislation last month are not listening to the polls, they are listening to the National Rifle Association.'' Let us review in closing, Mr. Speaker, the three simple measures that the Senate passed that we hope will become the law of the land, that we hope that the Speaker will appoint conferees, that we can get down to the business that the American people are asking us to do. Those three things are: close the loophole in the Brady Bill, the gun show loophole; the second is to require child safety locks; and the third is to ban, another loophole, ban the importation of high capacity ammunition clips. If we do those things, we will have made the first small step in addressing the concerns of the Americans for their own safety, for the safety of their children. We will be saying to the American people that we want your children to be able to walk to school and be in school in safety. We want you to feel safe in your neighborhoods. We do not want another child to die; we do not want another police officer to die. We want to address this problem in our country, and we are going to make those first steps. Let us do it, Mr. Speaker. Let us do it soon.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Chicago I hosted the first of 16 women's forums on gun violence that will be conducted by Democratic women Members of Congress. The goal of these forums is to develop strategies and build grassroots movements to pass sensible gun safety legislation this year. I will tell my colleagues more about this event, Mr. Speaker, during the hour and how much all of us, men and women alike, hope these forums will contribute to making our country safer for our children and our grandchildren. When discussing gun safety legislation, it is easy for us here in Washington to get lost in all the many intricacies of this subject. We can argue fine points of the law, the real meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution, the difference between a 3-day waiting period and a 72-hour waiting period. We can talk about the features of different weapons and ammunition clips and demonstrate our knowledge of the hardware. But for most Americans, it comes down to this. Is my child safe on her way to school? Can I stroll in my neighborhood on a beautiful summer evening? Is it safe for me to walk home from the synagogue after services or from church? No one is secure enough in our country anymore to answer ``yes.'' After the tragedy at Columbine High School and the shootings and killing in my district during the Fourth of July weekend, Americans are asking, what does it take? What does it take before something is done in the United States Congress? How many children have to die? How many parents must prepare for another funeral? We want to talk to you tonight as mothers and as grandmothers. This is about my granddaughter Isabelle and about the horror of gun violence and the simple steps that we can take to reduce it. We know that legislation will not eliminate it, but just ask the devastated families of victims if stopping the killing of even one child is not worth it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). This amendment would strike language in the bill that would effectively close the Army Corps of Engineers' regional office in Chicago, and I look forward to the intent of this amendment being included in the final piece of legislation. At this very moment under a landmark agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chicago, the Chicago lake front is being saved from literally crumbling into the water. The city was able to negotiate an agreement with the Army Corps that advanced by 5 years completion of this project. Certainly, the presence of the Army Corps in Chicago helped us do that. The Great Lakes are unique in the degree to which the Corps is required to work with other Federal agencies. For example, the EPA, which also has its headquarters, its regional headquarters in Chicago, facilitating that kind of cooperation. The north central division has been a national leader in Corps divisions in developing environmental projects. Certainly, the Great Lakes are the world's greatest source of free- flowing fresh water. We should make providing for the quality of the Great Lakes a priority with every opportunity we are given. Keeping the Army Corps' regional office for the Great Lakes and Ohio River divisions in operation at both the Cincinnati and Chicago locations makes great sense. Binational and treaty obligations with Canada would be most seriously impacted by the closure of the Chicago headquarters. The Army Corps of Engineers has responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Boundary Waters Treaty, which are run chiefly through the Chicago regional headquarters. These functions have been identified by the division as the most critical to maintain in Chicago. Lacking an international airport hub, Cincinnati is not as easily accessible as Chicago. Travel costs for the Corps' staff and other Federal agency staff and Canadian counterparts would rise dramatically if the same level of cooperation and collaboration were to be maintained. Maintenance of the integrity of the binational responsibilities of the Corps will be especially critical in the coming year as the Great Lakes region prepares to address the issues of water diversion and consumptive uses. Even short-term disruptions to the Corps' regional leadership structure at this time will have serious consequences on the Corps' ability to effect these important decisions. I know all of my colleagues understand the importance of representing the needs of their districts. We make decisions that are in the best interests of our constituents by being there and seeing them. I would submit to my colleagues, then, that similarly, in order to make decisions that are best for the Great Lakes, the Army Corps must have an operating regional office in the Great Lakes region, in Chicago. Let us continue a strong commitment to environmental quality and culture by voting for the Dingell amendment, and allowing the Army Corps to do their job unimpeded in the Great Lakes region.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Congresswomen Patsy Mink and Edith Green who authored Title IX. Because of their vision, we all witnessed the extraordinary accomplishments of many remarkable women over the years, including the Women's World Cup Champions and Air Force Colonel Eileen Collins. All of America and much of the world was captivated by the grace and athleticism of the U.S. Women's Soccer team. All of us--men and women alike--were thrilled by their performances and marveled at what they were able to accomplish. America was on the edge of its seat during the final game. And, just last week, Air Force Colonel Eileen Collins became the first woman to command a NASA space shuttle. Once again, we had evidence of what women can achieve if they are given the tools and opportunities. It was a thrill for me to join the First Lady, members of Congress including Congresswoman Mink and the World Champion Women's Soccer Team aboard Air Force Two last Monday night to witness the Space Shuttle ``near'' launch commanded by Colonel Collins. It was quite a celebration of the successes of women. I wish the entire crew a successful mission and a safe return home. Tonight, we pay tribute not just to Congresswomen Mink and Green, but to all the other women in this country who have excelled at sports or the arts, at science and in business. Congresswomen Patsy Mink and Edith Green made a real difference in the lives of girls and women, and in the communities in which they live. Without their efforts, there would likely be no World Cup championship women's soccer team today or female NASA shuttle commanders. Those two extraordinary women, through their vision and courage, gave American women the tools to succeed. Representatives Mink and Green were the guiding spirits behind Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972--the landmark legislation that bans sex discrimination in schools in both academics and athletics. Title IX states, ``No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid.'' Before Title IX, many schools saw no problem in refusing to admit women or having strict limits. But since Title IX, we have seen significant increases in women's educational achievements: In 1994, women received 38 percent of medical degrees, compared with 9 percent in 1972; In 1994, women earned 43 percent of law degrees, compared with 7 percent in 1972; In 1994, 44 percent of all doctoral degrees to U.S. citizens went to women, up from 25 percent in 1977. Title IX governs the overall equity of treatment and opportunity in athletics while giving schools the flexibility to choose sports based on student body interest, geographic influence, a given school's budget restraints, and gender ratio. The focus is on the necessity for women to have opportunities equal to men on the whole, not on an individual basis. Here are just a few statistics that illustrate the impact this groundbreaking legislation has had: In 1971, about 31,000 women were involved in college sports and today that number has more than tripled; From 1971 to 1998, spending on athletic scholarships for women has grown from less than $100,000 to almost $200 million; In 1971, there was an average of 2.1 women's teams at colleges and now that number is at a record 7.7 per school; In 1971, the athletic participation of all girls in this country was 294,015. Today, this number has climbed to over 2.2 million; Forty percent of athletes at Division I schools in 1997-98 were women--a 5 percent increase from 1996-97; During the same year, women received 40 percent of athletic scholarship budgets--a 14 percent rise from the previous year. In closing, let me thank, on behalf of all Americans, Congresswomen Patsy Mink and Edith Green and all the girls and women who inspire and lead us each and every day.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, at least 350 million couples worldwide do not have access to information about family planning and a full range of contraceptives. Each day, 55,000 unsafe abortions take place, 95 percent of them in developing countries. Unsafe abortions result in nearly 600,000 maternal deaths. It is estimated that the impact of the $20 million cut off will lead to half a million more unintended pregnancies, 200,000 more abortions, 1,200 maternal deaths, 22,500 infant deaths. And while we are worried about human rights in China, of course, we are, let us worry about what desperate women will do. They will try to induce abortions by inserting objects like sticks and wires and knitting needles into the uterus, drinking harmful or poisonous substances. They will take dangerous doses of over-the-counter medication, douche with poisonous and caustic substances, inflict physical abuse like falling down stairs and blows to the belly and jumping from heights. This is the kind of violence against women we need to worry about, and we can prevent if we support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) talked about violence in very graphic terms, violence to unborn children. Well, let us talk about violence. Maybe he could explain about violence to the parents of Becky Bell, Karen and Bill Bell, whose 17-year-old daughter died from a botched illegal abortion. Maybe Becky's doctor could come and talk about what happened inside of her and the ripped organs and the bleeding that she had before she died from having that abortion. Maybe we can have doctors come in and talk about what happens when a hanger is used by a desperate woman who cannot bring another baby into poverty, who has gone through everything to try and get a legal abortion and now has taken things into her own hands. We have seen the violence against women who are deprived of a safe and a legal, a legal procedure. All we are asking is that women who are Federal employees, whose doctor says they can have an abortion, who have discussed it probably with their families, who have talked to their rabbis, who are denied that, that is what I call violence against women.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I represent the district in which six Jews were shot and Rick Byrdsong was killed. I received this E-mail yesterday: Please allow me to express my horror at the tragedy that has befallen my family. On my way home from synagogue, I was shot by a hate-crazed gunman. I spent 4 days in the hospital. My wife, who was due to give birth any day, witnessed me prostrate on the steps of a house bleeding from wounds to my abdomen, arm and shoulder. I am grateful I am alive. I did not think I would get to see my wife and 22-month-old daughter again. I do not know how to convey to you the horror of being shot from close range because I belong to the `wrong' religion. This used to happen all too frequently to my European ancestors. There, too, people shrugged and moved on to their daily routines until it was too late. This event has harmed my family in so many ways it will take years to heal the wounds. That is from Hillel Goldstein. His mother, Batya Abraham-Goldstein, said, ``This was not just hate. This is what happens when hate is given a gun.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I stand here as the follower to Representative Sidney Yates who was our Nation's most articulate, passionate, and outspoken advocate for the arts and humanities. He was in this body for nearly half a century and never gave up on the fight to protect the arts. As his successor I feel a particular obligation to stand here today in opposition to an amendment that would reduce what I think is a too- small budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by $2 million, an amount that may mean little in other agencies and other aspects of government but means so such to the National Endowment for the Arts. I hope that my colleagues will honor Sidney Yates's long tradition of advocacy by voting against this amendment and in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) which promotes a larger role for the arts and humanities in our community. Budgets are about priorities, and if any of us were to talk to ordinary people in our districts and ask them what was important in their life they would begin to talk about things that they may not classify so much as the arts but really are. In Chicago, particularly in the summer, it is just pulsing with different kinds of events and festivals that allow us to celebrate our diversity together in song and in dance and in cultural performances. This is all art. And in fact, in our city, more people are engaged in arts and cultural events and more money is generated by those than all of our sports franchises put together, and that includes even the days when Michael Jordan was playing for the Chicago Bulls. When we look at what the gentlewoman's amendment would do by adding $10 million to the NEA and $10 million to the NEH, who can say that these are not valuable and important things that we as a Nation should be spending money on? For example, the NEA would use its money for a program called Challenge America; and that new funding would help improve arts education. Educators now understand that the key to learning for many children, particularly at-risk children, is through the arts, through music, through performance, through dance, through the visual arts. That is how we can reach so many of our children that cannot learn any other way. It helps increase access to the arts for all communities, not just a select few. We are talking about an estimated 1,000 communities nationwide that would receive small- to medium-sized art project grants. It would fund cultural and heritage preservation, establish community arts partnerships. In my State, the Illinois Arts Council has proposed an initiative that could be financed through Challenge America. They could collaborate with arts and education organizations to develop programs that encourage parents to attend and discuss arts events with their children, Parents and Children Together. That is what we have all been talking about as a solution for learning problems and for violence and for the culture of violence. The program would include event-specific material to assist parents and children in sharing their arts experiences. They would also include ticket subsidies to assist parents. The initiative would specifically target generations of parents who receive little or no arts education themselves in the schools. And the NEH's additional money would fund Teaching with Technology programs. One part of the program has already begun to research and highlight the best humanities sites on the web. Right now in my community someone who learned about hate through the web killed a person and shot six Jews on their way to synagogue. What we need to do is to be encouraging our children how to seek out Web sites that provide them with positive inspiration. That is what this money would do. It would fund schools, with the consortia of community organizations, local colleges, parents, or businesses to design and implement professional development activities for teachers throughout the school around a given humanities team. Using technology will also be a focal point. Some examples of the program being developed include the Navaho Heritage and Culture, Steinbeck's California, the Immigrant Experience, and Shakespeare. This is where we should be directing kids on the Web, and that is what this money is about. How can we even think about cutting programs that are going to be doing so much for all of us? I urge a no vote on this amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the people of Illinois and Indiana, and in particular the residents of my district, are beginning the healing process after having suffered the violence of hate over the 4th of July weekend. I am thankful and grateful for the outstanding effort by local, state, and federal law enforcement officials in bringing the rampage to an end. I am also proud of my community for never losing faith and for having the courage to stand tall in the face of hate. The killing and shooting spree took the lives of two men and forever changed the lives of many others. What happened as we celebrated our Independence Day should be a wake up call to Congress to step up, fulfill its duty, and pass legislation that protects the lives of our citizens. The mad man who committed these heinous crimes bought his guns illegally from an unauthorized gun dealer. He was able to do so because the dealer just recently purchased more than sixty weapons in a short period of time. He did so for the sole purpose of selling them for profit. We have a responsibility to protect the lives of our constituents. Congress must pass and the President must sign bills to limit the purchase of handguns to one per month and to require the registration of every handgun sold in the United States. Our constituents demand it and our children deserve it. Following the killing spree, Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago wrote in the Chicago Triune about the need for Congress to immediately pass gun safety measures. The people of our state appreciate Mayor Daley's unwavering leadership on this issue. He has taken his cause to state and federal legislators and made it clear that without passing sensible gun safety legislation, we all face the consequences of gun violence. I wholeheartedly agree. His remarks follow.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, more than a week ago our Nation and my community in particular witnessed in horror the cruel and vicious consequences of the doctrine of hate. In a matter of days in the State of Illinois and Indiana a mad murderer full of rage and contempt for his fellow men took the lives of two innocent men and attempted to murder many more victims, including six Jewish men and two Asian students. The spree of hate and violence began on Friday, July 2, just 2 days before we, citizens of this Nation of immigrants, celebrated Independence Day. It ended on July 5. I congratulate the efforts of law enforcement from the local level up to the FBI for so quickly identifying this individual, for its work with the community and for putting an end to his rampage. However, many questions still remain, including the role of white supremacist hate groups in fostering this attack. In my district, where most of these attacks took place, my community breathed a sigh of relief when the killing spree came to an end. But we were left grieving for Ricky Byrdsong and his family; Woo-Joon Yoon, the Asian student from Bloomington, Indiana; and angry for the assault on Jewish men peacefully observing the Sabbath. Ricky Byrdsong lived in Skokie, Illinois. He was a loving husband, a father, a leader in the community, a former basketball coach at Northwestern University, a man of deep religious faith and a constituent. He was murdered in cold blood. His only crime was the color of his skin. He was African American. Ricky Byrdsong was a proud American man who was living the American dream. He left an unmistakable and everlasting impression on all those who had the opportunity to meet him, and he positively touched the lives of countless youth during his lifetime. He was committed to a cause. His cause was to help under-privileged youth reach their full potential and follow their dreams. He was working on his first book: Coaching Your Kids in the Game of Life. The book was scheduled to be released next year on Father's Day. At his funeral his pastor vowed that his book would be completed. Now his family will have to go on without him, his children will grow up without their father's guidance, his friends will no longer hear his infectious laugh, and the community, especially the children, has lost forever a leader. I will never forget the look on the faces of the hundreds of people who attended his funeral last Wednesday. It was a look of disbelief, pain and yet inspiration because Ricky Byrdsong was truly inspiring. I never wish to attend another funeral of a victim of such hatred. Ricky Byrdsong has made our mission clearer than ever. The culture of hate has no place among us. We must educate and use the truth to counter the lies being spread by hatemongers, groups and so-called churches in our communities, schools, places of worship, neighborhoods and especially on the Internet to our youth. As a society, we must not be intimidated by the few who refuse to live peacefully among us. We must stand firm and never ever be afraid. That is why I was so proud to join the Jewish Family and Community Services, Jewish Children's Bureau and the Anti Defamation League, the rabbis and other leaders of the Jewish community in Chicago, particularly Mr. Michael Kotzin of the Jewish United Fund and the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago who showed such leadership, to join with them on the day after six Jewish men were shot to say that an attack on even one is an attack on all of us. I wish to recognize the Jewish United Fund for opening a special fund to aid families affected by bigotry-related violence. The initial goal of the JUF Fund for Hate Crime Victims and Families will offer assistance to the family of Ricky Byrdsong for the children's higher education. As the Sabbath came to a close last Saturday evening, we walked the streets of the Rogers Park neighborhood in solidarity. Rogers Park is the kind of community that haters hate the most. It is diverse, integrated, independent, peaceful and all-American. But in a perverse sense of Americanism during the 4th of July weekend a crazy person attempted to take that away, and he failed. Our community is stronger than ever. We stood together at a time of great anxiety and grave danger. Now is the time for Congress to respond to the tragedies that took place on the 4th of July weekend and pass sensible gun safety legislation. Congress must act now to make it more difficult for individuals to obtain weapons in order to convert their hatred into terror and death. Guns used by the assailant were bought from an illegal gun dealer. He recently purchased more than 60 guns for the sole purpose of selling them for a profit. Unfortunately, two of these guns were sold to a murderer, with complete disregard for the sanctity of life. We have a responsibility to protect the lives of our constituents. Congress must pass and the President must sign bills to limit the purchase of handguns to one per month and to require the registration of every handgun sold in the United States. Our constituents demand it, and our children deserve it, and we should also pass stronger hate crimes legislation so all of us will be safe in our communities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. First of all, I would like to thank my cosponsors, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for their help on this amendment. This amendment would call for a 5-year study of financial modernization's effect on small business and farm lending. What it does is direct the U.S. Treasury Department with Federal bank regulators to study the effect of this bill, and the consolidation of the financial services industry into large conglomerates that it will undoubtedly encourage, on small business and farm lending and suggest legislative and regulatory changes as necessary to aid small business and farm lending. I think our first rule in this House ought to be, first we do no harm. I am not suggesting that this bill will do any harm to small businesses or farms, but we want to make sure that that is the case, because small business certainly does deserve our support. There are 23 million small businesses that employ 53 percent of the workforce and account for 47 percent of all sales. Sixty-seven percent of all small businesses get their credit from banks, and many of these are small banks. We know that smaller businesses often have more difficulty in obtaining loans from banks. What we want to make sure is that the result of H.R. 10 is not that we see fewer loans going to small banks and to farmers. The data shows, as I said, that small businesses and farmers do rely on small banks for their financing and a world without small banks could negatively affect the businesses and our national economy. Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve acknowledged before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services during hearings on H.R. 10 that ``small bank lending is inherent in the way small business is effectively financed. If it turns out that a lot of community banks would sort of fade or be absorbed into large institutions, I would be concerned.'' What my amendment does is ensure that regulators and the public will have the necessary information to combat negative effects on small business from this legislation. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.