Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Progressive Caucus to draw attention to the devastating effects that could be caused if the United States were to default on its debt. First, let's be clear that raising the debt ceiling will have no effect whatsoever on any new spending that the Congress might do. It's simply giving the government authority to pay its bills, to pay its bills for obligations that the Congress has already authorized. Second, while Republicans have attempted time and time again to pin the current deficit on President Obama, the facts cannot be denied: It was the policies of the Bush years that got us here. It was just a decade ago that President Clinton left office not with just a balanced budget but a surplus, and the Congressional Budget Office declared in 2001, ``The outlook for the Federal budget over the next decade continues to be bright.'' That quote, of course, came before the 2001 Bush tax cuts were signed into law; two wars that weren't paid for, put on the credit card; two tax cuts that weren't paid for and that mainly benefited the wealthy; and a devastating recession that may have been prevented, had government regulators not turned a blind eye to Wall Street greed. The Bush policies ran up the bills. Those are the bills that our country is committed to pay, and those are the bills that need to be paid if the full faith and credit of the United States is to be protected. So now this Republican-manufactured crisis could be solved in 5 minutes if we simply passed a clean debt ceiling increase, like we did seven, eight times during the Bush administration, 18 times under Ronald Reagan, and then turned our attention immediately to ways to put our fiscal house in order, focusing on the real crisis, which is the jobs crisis. Instead, Republicans are choosing to hold our Nation's financial standing hostage, with potentially devastating consequences. Allowing a default on the debt would essentially be a tax on every American family. Interest rates on everything, from mortgages and auto loans to credit cards and small business loans, would immediately soar. A conservative estimate suggests that the effect of an increase in interest rates could cost a homeowner with a 30-year mortgage of $172,000 an additional $19,100 more over the life of the loan. A drop in the stock market would hit the savings and retirement accounts of middle class Americans, less available credit for small businesses and consumers, and lower economic growth that could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. In addition, if the country can't pay its bills, an unthinkable scenario becomes a reality, having to choose between what aspects of the government to fund and what bills to pay. Seventy million checks are due to go out next Wednesday. Those include Social Security and veterans and our military families, and these checks are threatened. That is the threat the Republicans are willing to make, holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in order to push for extreme policies that would gut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and devastate the economy and the middle class in order to protect hedge fund managers and corporations that ship our jobs overseas. That is what the Republicans are advocating, but they are not willing to ask for one penny more for millionaires and billionaires. We need to deal with our fiscal challenges, and I have offered proposals for how to do that in a way that protects the social safety net and what is now the disappearing middle class. First, we need to create jobs. Putting people back to work will raise revenues and bring down the deficit as a proportion of the economy. Second, we need to eliminate spending we don't need, such as billions of dollars in waste spent by the Pentagon. But we need to protect spending on vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And finally, we need to raise revenues in a fair way. I've introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act, H.R. 1124, which would create new tax brackets beginning at 45 percent for income over $1 million a year and rising to 49 percent for income at $1 billion a year; and yes, there are Americans who make that. And according to an estimate by Citizens for Tax Justice, my legislation could raise as much as $800 billion over the next 10 years. Those are the types of proposals that should be considered so that we can achieve fiscal responsibility in a way that protects seniors and children and the middle class and all those who aspire to it. Right now the American Dream itself is at stake. It is slipping through the hands of people that used to be middle class. We cannot tolerate that. We need to raise the debt ceiling.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 637, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. While our Nation stumbles toward a potential default, the Republican Party is wasting our time with consideration of a bill that will not move through the Senate and which the President has already threatened to veto. But even though this legislation is a futile effort, it does clearly articulate the philosophy of the Republicans in this House of Representatives. This is a bill that really makes one shake one's head. It is an astonishing effort to destroy hard-won, longstanding, and successful and popular laws. It cuts valuable health and environmental programs. It caps the responsibility of corporate polluters and balances minimal cost savings on the back of our most precious natural resources. H.R. 2584, the funding bill for the Department of the Interior and Environmental Agencies, completely guts funding for public lands and public health programs that the American people care about and desperately need. A 64 percent cut to the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program and a 95 percent cut to the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Funds means we can expect a rapid increase in endangered and extinct species on Federal and non-Federal lands alike. An 80 percent reduction in the Land and Water Conservation Fund means we should not expect adequate maintenance of landmarks, including Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Yellowstone National Park; or California's Big Sur coast. A 40 percent cut to the National Landscape Conservation System means 27 million acres of national monuments, wilderness areas, scenic rivers, and other treasures will be inadequately protected. A 60 percent cut to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act means our birds, fish and wildlife resources will lose protections that keep these populations viable. A 55 percent reduction to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund means less protection for water quality improvement projects in the United States. And a prohibition of funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative means my home State of Illinois and the great Lake Michigan will lose millions of dollars in Federal assistance to promote good jobs and clean drinking water for millions of our citizens. While this bill severely cuts these and other priorities, it provides handouts to corporate polluters in the form of policy riders. These riders would threaten the enforcement of the public health and environmental laws which have protected our country for decades. One rider reverses a moratorium on uranium mining on the rim of the Grand Canyon, and would turn one of our Nation's most iconic landmarks into an eyesore. Another extends loopholes in the Clean Water Act, jeopardizing drinking water for 117 million Americans; and many others weaken the Clean Air Act and limit regulations against toxic air pollution, which saved an estimated 160,000 lives just last year. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act have protected American health and welfare for 40 years, and have been the catalyst for green energy investment and job creation. More than 80 percent of the American people believe the EPA should not be prevented from performing its duties, and the Gallup Poll reports that four out of five Americans are personally concerned about the water they drink, as well they should. Although this legislation is dead on arrival at the White House, it poses a fundamental debate about the type of country we want to hand over to our children and grandchildren. Do we want to be a Nation that oversees the disappearance of animal populations, wetlands and national parks because we aren't willing to ask for one penny more from millionaires and billionaires? Do we want to be a Nation that turns away from water treatment and infrastructure in the hopes that no one will notice? Do we want to be a Nation that values the profits of corporate polluters over the health of children? The Republican majority has clearly stated its position. I oppose this bill. The funding cuts and destructive policy riders that riddle this bill turn back the clock on vital environmental and health policies. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to uphold our commitment to clean air, clean water and preserved natural resources. This weekend, my granddaughter, who celebrated her 10th birthday, had her party on Lake Michigan and enjoyed the precious clean water. I urge my colleagues to vote against this attack on our American resources and our values. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Last year, John Carlson, a hedge fund manager, made about $5 billion and paid taxes at a lower rate than most Americans. Right now, the 400 richest Americans in our country control as much wealth as 150 million other Americans. We have a crisis, all right, in our country, and it's called a disappearing middle class. The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle going into poverty. We have a jobs crisis in our country. And poverty has taken an entirely new face as a result of the financial crisis, the recession, and our Nation's slow economic recovery. In Skokie, Illinois, a solid middle class suburb, now 40 percent of the kids who go to school there qualify for a reduced or free lunch. And the food pantry is bulging now with new people waiting in line. I went to a mortgage foreclosure workshop in suburban Des Plaines, Illinois, and I felt like I was watching the American Dream slip through the fingers of hardworking Americans. More than one in five children is now called ``food insecure,'' meaning they go to bed hungry some nights. And what have the Republicans decided to do? They decided to cut the programs that will help those people. That's how they want to reduce the deficit. They passed a bill called the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. And it cuts, and it caps, and it balances. It cuts Medicare. It caps Medicaid. And it balances the budget on the backs of the seniors, the poor, and the WIC program, taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. There is something very wrong and very un-American with the Republican proposal that makes it easier to cut Medicare than to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies; easier to cut Social Security than to ask for one penny more for the billionaires, like John Carlson, and easier to cut subsidies for food for little children than to cut subsidies for corporate jets. I heard from a woman who lives on $1,023 a month. That's her Social Security. And she doesn't have enough money to make it through the month and often goes hungry. Is this right in the richest country in the world? We can reduce our debt, but not on the backs of the middle class that are becoming poor and those who are already poor.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill cuts, caps, and balances all right; cuts Medicare, caps Medicaid, and balances the budget on the backs of our seniors, people with disabilities, and the middle class. When Willy Sutton was asked why do you rob banks, he said, because that's where the money is. Asking the elderly and people with disabilities to shoulder the responsibility for our national debt--really? Nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries have income at or below 200 percent of poverty. The median income for seniors is just over $19,000 a year. The Republican proposal will end the Medicare guarantee, double out-of-pocket costs for seniors and people with disabilities, and send them an invoice for $6,000. Of course we need to address our fiscal challenges, but not by ending Medicare in the process.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. This Republican bill cuts, caps, and balances all right--cuts Medicare, caps Medicaid, balances the budget on the backs of seniors. And Republicans like to say that the public supports a balanced budget amendment. But when you ask them if they support balancing the budget by making cuts to Medicare and Social Security, by a 2-1 margin, the American people say ``no.'' And what liberal media outlet conducted that poll? Fox News. There is something very, very wrong and un-American with the Republican proposal that makes it far easier to cut Medicare than to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies, easier to cut Social Security than ask for one penny more from millionaires and billionaires. Of course we need to address our economic challenges, but not by holding our country hostage and threatening to not pay our bills with catastrophic consequences that will hurt every American in order to push an extreme agenda that cuts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have a jobs crisis. We have a disappearing middle class crisis. And this illogical bill, which has no chance of becoming law, will make things much worse.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my ongoing concerns about human rights abuses in Colombia and to oppose any consideration of the pending United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement until tangible and sustained progress is seen on the ground. Colombia has a longstanding legacy of serious and pervasive human rights violations. Trade unionists, members of indigenous groups, and human rights defenders have been particular targets for violence. Despite some positive rhetoric by the Santos administration about improving protection of human rights, serious abuses continue. In one recent incident reported by Human Rights Watch, seven people were massacred in southern Colombia on July 2, reportedly by FARC guerrillas. On June 25, another eight people were killed also in the southern part of the country. In both cases, children were among those killed. According to Human Rights Watch, there were 17 such massacres between January and May, 2011, resulting in a total of 76 deaths--a 21 percent increase over the same time period in 2010. Several members of indigenous groups have been targeted and killed in recent weeks as well, ranging from children to prominent community leaders. Human Rights Watch reports that 14 members of indigenous communities have been killed in 2011 in Antioquia Department alone. Other indigenous leaders have been threatened, and dozens of families have been displaced. The Colombian Government has to act immediately to ensure a thorough investigation into these horrific crimes and to finally end the cycle of impunity. Further, the government must take immediate steps to protect indigenous communities and other particularly vulnerable groups, as human rights groups have repeatedly demanded. Labor leaders and trade unionists also continue to be victims of serious abuses. Though the recently agreed to Labor Action Plan commits the government, at least in writing, to take several important steps to prevent and punish these human rights violations, we have yet to see any sort of tangible progress on the ground. With recently published statistics showing that Colombia again led the world in trade unionist deaths in 2010, it is critical that we see a real reduction in violence before we even consider passing and implementing a trade deal. The Labor Action Plan is not legally binding under the FTA before us. If violence and impunity continue, the United States will have no mechanism for delaying or halting implementation of the free trade agreement. The Labor Action Plan fails to require sustained, meaningful and measurable results. Once we enact the FTA, we lose any ability to force the Colombian Government to produce tangible change. Mr. Speaker, I do not support the NAFTA-style trade model illustrated in the three pending Bush-negotiated free trade agreements because so- called free trade has proven destructive to the American economy and harmful to workers both in the United States and abroad. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that implementing the Colombia and South Korea free trade agreements would increase the U.S. trade deficit by $16.8 billion and eliminate or displace 214,000 U.S. jobs. Particularly at a time when we should be focused on job creation, I strongly oppose all three FTAs, which jeopardize more jobs. Finally, I find it particularly concerning that we are considering implementing an FTA with Colombia in the absence of demonstrated progress on human rights and workers rights. Mr. Speaker, we cannot turn a blind eye to ongoing abuses, and we should not consider the trade agreement until these issues are fully resolved.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is neither cooperative nor does it promote clean water. The American people expect and deserve protection from dirty air, tainted food, and polluted water. The problem with relinquishing federal authority over environmental regulations is that these threats don't stop at state borders. The EPA recently concluded an air pollution analysis demonstrating the upwind-downwind linkages between states. That study demonstrated that my home state of Illinois receives air pollution from more than 10 states as a result of wind patterns. Illinois shares water sources, including Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River, with 11 states. Much like with air, a patchwork of regulations will do nothing to ensure my constituents have access to clean water. H.R. 2018 removes any federal baseline for what constitutes a clean water program and leaves the process entirely under state control. It is a de facto repeal of the Clean Water Act. We know what will happen without reasonable oversight of our nation's water sources because we have seen it before. Prior to the 1972 Clean Water Act, American rivers and streams were treated like sewers and chemical pollution was so rampant that rivers caught fire. This bill would hand our waterways and drinking water sources back to corporate polluters. Promoters of corporate pollution regularly suggest that turning a blind eye to the destruction of our waterways, air supply, and food sources is in the economic best-interest of the country. Even if this were true, it would ignore the health and welfare of the American people. But it is not true. The Office of Management and Budget has demonstrated that the cost of implementing EPA rules over the last decade have cost as much as $29 billion, but the economic benefits of those regulations have reaped between $82 billion and $552 billion. The facts don't lie: EPA regulations save lives and stimulate economic growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 2018, a bill that offers no tangible benefits and a litany of irreversible costs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express my gratitude to President Obama for altering U.S. government policy to end the practice of denying condolence letters to the families of soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad. I strongly support that change, and I applaud President Obama for taking this important step. The men and women who commit suicide while serving our country on active duty overseas are casualties of war, and I strongly believe that they should be remembered as such. Those soldiers suffer the unseen wounds of war, which, though often ignored, can be devastating. Their sacrifice for our Nation should be honored and celebrated, and their surviving families and friends should know that we appreciate their loved ones' service. In his statement announcing the policy change, the President emphasized that these men and women suffered the consequences of war, and they did not receive the services and treatment that they needed. As the President emphasized, that needs to change. We need to do far more to help those who bear the burden of our wars, by ensuring that they have the physical and emotional support they need, access to quality mental health services, and assistance to help them and their families cope with the immense stress of war. By changing this policy, the President has taken an important step towards reducing the stigma surrounding the invisible injuries of war. We need to continue to work to ensure that soldiers know what services are available to them and feel comfortable seeking out the help that they need. The act of sending a condolence letter recognizes the tragic loss and enormous sacrifice of our military families. The mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters who lose a loved one to either a visible or unseen wound of war should know that we, as a country, mourn their losses. We should honor the sacrifice of all who give their lives in the service of our country.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the more people know about the Republican plan for Medicare, the less they like it. So it's no wonder that the Republicans are trying to prevent House Members from telling our constituents about the plan to end Medicare by actually censoring our mailings to our own districts. The Democrats aren't alone in saying the Republican plan ends Medicare. Tom Scully, former Bush administration head of Medicare, says the Republican plan ``gets rid of the current Medicare program'' and that it is ``a fundamental structural change in the program.'' It's so fundamental that beginning in 2022 the out-of-pocket costs for enrollees would double, and they would be forced to pick a private insurance plan without guaranteed benefits. Republicans can call their plan whatever they want--sorta-care, maybe-care, we don't care--but they can't call it Medicare. They can try all they want, but they can't keep seniors from learning the truth. This program that they introduced ends Medicare.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. It's still $2 billion lower than the President's request. We want to make sure the money is there at a time of high unemployment, of disappearing 401(k)s and savings. And the Emergency Food Assistance Program is cut by more than 20 percent, or $60 million. And TEFAP provides commodities to food banks to assist in relief efforts. And with unemployment still high, and I know this in my district, many people who used to contribute to food banks are now waiting in line to get the food to keep food on their tables. And with diminished Federal support, they may show up only to find empty shelves. And then we get to the WIC program. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and for the first time in American history, we will turn away eligible mothers and children from the program, an effective program. With it, infants and children can get a healthy start in life, and without it they can suffer from lifelong health problems. For every dollar spent, WIC provides health care savings of as much as $3--$3 for every $1 spent. So we talk a lot about children, we've talked a lot about seniors in this House, but let's be clear. The choice before us is not whether we have to deny children food in order to reduce the deficit. The choice is whether we will make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share so that low- income mothers, infants, and children will be fed. The choice is clear. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill. And like so many before me, I'm particularly opposed to cuts in funding to provide food and nutrition to American families, to pregnant women and infants and children and seniors and families struggling in this country to put food on the table at a time of rising unemployment and poverty. I have to tell you I am at a loss to understand why my Republican colleagues are so insistent in providing even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires that they are willing to take food from children. In the Republican world view, apparently, tax cuts to the very wealthy and subsidies to big oil companies and companies that send jobs overseas are a bigger priority than Medicare and Medicaid and education. And, again, in this bill they even take food out of the mouths of hungry children to give those tax breaks. Understand what this bill does. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides low-income seniors with emergency food and nutrition education, is cut by more than 20 percent, or $40 million. In this bill the Republicans will take food out of the mouths of hungry, poor, old people. The SNAP reserve fund will get $2 billion less. SNAP, formerly called food stamps, provides critical nutrition support to low-income families, and the reserve helps meet the demands created by unexpected participation in higher-than-projected food costs, food costs everybody knows are going way up. And with high unemployment and food prices rising, the reserve fund is more likely to be tapped than ever before, and depleting reserve funds will increase the likelihood of a food crisis in the United States of America. Let me tell you what these cuts mean to people in Illinois. Lorraine Dzieginski is 82 years old and started receiving Social Security benefits at age 65. Her monthly benefit is $695 a month. But this amount doesn't even cover her property taxes, her home insurance, her supplemental health insurance and utilities. That amounts to well over $700. She relies partially on the SNAP, or food stamp program, to feed herself. Her monthly benefit is $16, the minimum SNAP allotment. Republican cuts likely mean that other seniors like Ms. Dzieginski will be turned away from SNAP if they find themselves in that circumstance next year. Our seniors deserve better.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There is a lot of talk and legalese about what is going on today, but the reality is what the Republicans are trying to do underneath all of that legalese language is to enshrine in law the Republican Ryan budget. By voting for the rule, what you do is to put into force that budget. What does that budget do? It ends Medicare. Now, there are people who resent that term--that oh, no, we're really going to save it. Well, I'm going to tell you, when you take away the guaranteed benefits of Medicare--that's what seniors get right now--for people 55 and under, they are thrown into the not-so-loving arms of the insurance companies, and their costs will increase out of their own pockets by about $6,000. That's what the bill does. The bill also turns Medicaid upside down, which is not only the health care plan for poor children in the United States but also the largest payer for nursing homes and home health care. That is the single biggest part of Medicaid--paying for nursing home care and home health care. So it's another slap at the seniors. The other thing that the legislation does is to offer more tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. It lowers the tax rates for corporation, many of which aren't even paying any taxes right now, a couple of which got tax refunds from the government. You've got major companies paying fewer taxes than ordinary Americans. That's what this does.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The American people aren't stupid. They will understand that this is another doubling down on cutting Medicare. It will be apparent by the end of this day.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Last night's vote on raising the debt ceiling is further proof that the Republican majority plans to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage while they demand as ransom extreme cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. News flash: The American people simply won't sacrifice Medicare and Medicaid and the guaranteed benefits they provide. Seniors across the country are speaking out: Hands off Medicare, and, Don't slash Medicaid's health and long-term care benefits to pay for tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, Big Oil and companies that offshore jobs. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats are serious about responsible and real deficit reduction. The Republican plan actually increases unemployment and the deficits, ends Medicare, further erodes our middle class and hurts poor children, all to increase the fortunes of oil companies, millionaires and billionaires. This is a plan that goes against the majority of Americans, and we won't have it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Vicki Gottlich for her more than three decades of advocacy on behalf of senior citizens and their families. She has been a treasured resource for all of us concerned about protecting and strengthening Medicare and Medicaid and improving the wellbeing of older Americans. Along the way, she has also worked on issues that affect persons with disabilities and working families. Vicki is leaving the Center for Medicare Advocacy, where she has served as Senior Policy Attorney since January 2000. Before that, she worked as staff attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the managing attorney for the Prince George's County Senior Citizens Law Project, and the associate director of the National Law Center's Institute of Law and Aging at George Washington University. In each of those roles, Vicki demonstrated her absolute commitment to improving the lives of senior citizens. In my work as co-chair of the Seniors Task Force and a member of the House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, I am able to work with many skilled policy analysts. Vicki is certainly one of the very best. She has provided my office with in-depth and cogent analyses of legislative proposals and regulations for years. We have come to rely heavily on Vicky's knowledge and experience and she has always been available to answer questions, provide recommendations or undertake research. Vicki, though, brings more than policy astuteness to her work. She always keeps her eye on the real-life impacts that policies have on our constituents and their families. A typical conversation with Vicki will include plenty of discussion about legal points and policy precedents, but it will also include numerous examples of the specific problems facing actual people and how solutions can be crafted to solve those problems. I want to thank Vicki for sharing her wisdom and skills over the past years. I wish her well in her new role at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at CMS, where she will continue to work to improve access to affordable health care for all Americans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I do not support S. 990, which extends three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions. There is a much better way to safeguard our national security without jeopardizing the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. This legislation reauthorizes these sections of the PATRIOT Act without making necessary improvements, and it fails to even address other problematic practices, including the use of National Security Letters. Among the provisions included in this extension is Section 215, which expands the government's ability to private, confidential records, without showing probable cause or direct connection to a foreign power or agent. This includes library, and bookstore records, as well as highly personal information such as medical records. In addition to my concerns about what is in this bill, I am concerned about what is not in it. Instead of engaging in a real debate about reforming the PATRIOT Act, we are simply continuing the bad policies of the past. Tonight's bill fails to address the widespread use (and abuse) of National Security Letters. The National Security Letters provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which drastically expand government authority to demand private records without prior court approval, have been used hundreds of thousands of times since 2001. There is another way to protect our citizens, without treading on their rights. Congressman Conyers has offered an alternative proposal, H.R. 1805, laying out a compromise approach to improving the PATRIOT Act. I am a cosponsor. Congressman Conyers' legislation, which has the support of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community, as well as bipartisan Senate support, reauthorizes the three expiring provisions for two and a half years, rather than the six-year extension in S. 990. It makes critical improvements to prevent the abuse of fundamental civil liberties, including tightening the requirements on roving wiretaps (and eliminating the so-called ``John Doe Roving Wiretap,'' under which the government can obtain surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped). In addition, for the first time, Congressman Conyers' bill sunsets the use of National Security Letters (NSL) and makes a number of changes to abusive NSL practices. H.R. 1805 strengthens the factual basis required for use of an NSL, clarifies the standards for including a gag order in an NSL, and improves public reporting on the number of NSLs issued each year. I do not believe that these invasive authorities should be extended in the absence of real improvement in the civil liberties protections. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that we can protect our citizens without treading on their rights. We do not have to choose between our security and our values. Instead, we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence community the tools they require while also protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. May I ask how much time remains?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 344, had I been present, I would have voted, ``no.'' Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to speak in favor of the amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. For those who are interested in fiscal responsibility, this amendment would freeze Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able to pass an audit--able to pass an audit. This freeze could be waived by the President if it would harm our national security. And my amendment excludes spending for Wounded Warriors and defense personnel accounts as well as for overseas contingency operations. Though defense spending currently accounts for over 20 percent of our Federal budget, DOD remains one of the few Federal agencies unable to pass an independent audit. This leaves the Pentagon vulnerable to serious waste and fraud. A recent GAO review of selected major weapons systems found that $70 billion had been lost through waste, mainly due to ``poor management and execution problems.'' Tens of billions more have been paid to fraudulent contractors. I remember back in 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld admitted that he could not account for $2.3 trillion in Pentagon expenditures. For over two decades, the Pentagon has been under obligation to face an audit, and currently it must be auditable by September 2017. But recent status reports have raised serious concerns that this goal will not be met. Waste and fraud in the Pentagon have serious consequences, both for our fiscal stability and our national security. My amendment provides a real incentive for the Pentagon finally to pass an audit. It is irresponsible to continue what Secretary Gates has called the gusher of defense spending without ensuring that we know where taxpayer dollars are going. I believe this is a commonsense idea. It is also a bipartisan one. My amendment is very similar to a proposal that Senator Coburn made to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on which I also served last year. It is a constitutional requirement that ``a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.'' Well, these are very difficult financial times, and we're faced with difficult choices and the prospect of cutting critical government programs. This accounting of funds has become more important than ever, including the Pentagon. I yield 1 minute of my remaining time to the gentlewoman from California, Barbara Lee.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, since we agree, that the problem is that the Pentagon has never explained where its money is going, and because there are waivers within this, that anything declared in need of national defense, and we certainly take care of our troops, will be excluded from the legislation, that it is time, finally. It's not just the last year, the year before, the year before that. It's been about 20 years before the Pentagon itself has explained where all the money goes. And being such a huge part of our budget, it seems like now would be a good time, particularly because there are so many open doors left in this so that our national security and our troops are in no way jeopardized by my bill. I would really appreciate all of us being able to work together to make sure that the taxpayers know where this huge amount of money is going. The time is long overdue. I reserve the balance of my time.