Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, last November, the American people voted for change. They were frustrated with the direction our nation was taking and felt that we needed to set a new course. I am so proud to stand before you to say to my colleagues and most importantly the American people, that today we begin to chart that new course on energy policy. For the first time in over 30 years, the House of Representatives will pass a significant energy bill--one that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Our addiction to oil has compromised our national security and causes tremendous damage to our environment. While there are many things to be proud about in this bill, there are two that I would like to highlight. The first is the new fuel economy standard. Today, the average price of gasoline in the United States is well above three dollars. This puts a tremendous strain on the American people, who in many instances have no option aside from driving to get to work or bring their children to school. Today we pass a bill that raises fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for new cars. This provision alone will save American families between $700 and $1000 per year, by making their cars run more efficiently. It will also reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million gallons per day in 2020, approximately half of what we import from the Persian Gulf. This will reduce our dependence on oil which comes from the Middle East and politically unstable nations. In addition to raising CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act also makes a commitment to integrate renewable energy sources into our supply. This commitment comes at precisely the right moment for America. We are at the precipice of developing new technology that will allow our nation to produce alternative energy more efficiently. In order for this development to be realized, however, we must guarantee a demand for the product. That is why the inclusion of a renewable portfolio standard is so important. It creates the demand necessary to spur development. The bill requires utility companies to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This will mean major investment in products made throughout the country, like ethanol in my home state, wind farms in California, and solar harnessing technology in Florida that will create new jobs and facilitate economic growth. As important as the Energy Independence and Security Act is, it is just the first step and the road in front of us is long. We need an energy program that matches the scale of the threat we face. We will continue to build on the momentum we are creating and I look forward to the day when I can stand before you and say that the United States is completely energy independent. In conclusion I would like to thank the Speaker and Chairman Dingell for their leadership on this bill throughout the process. We would not be here today without them.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the time has come and gone for Congress to act to address the scourge of predatory lending. In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis that is rocking the economy, an estimated two million Americans will face home foreclosures in the next two and a half years. These problems have caused the housing market to fall into its worst slump in 16 years. The bill we are considering today, H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, takes important steps to ensure that the mortgage industry follows sound principles of consumer protection. Many of the foreclosures we have seen are the result of predatory practices, including ``redlining,'' poorly worded or confusing contracts, the steering of consumers to more expensive loan products, and mandating unfavorable terms that trap consumers into loans they cannot afford. The bill before us today begins to turn the tide. It includes provisions to ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold and receive clear disclosures about the loans they are offered, and that mortgage bankers and bank loan officers are all licensed or registered. All of these consumer protections will improve the options available to Illinois residents who seek a mortgage from a licensed mortgage lender. However, while this bill represents a good start, I am concerned about Title II of the bill, which contains a state-law preemption provision that could weaken the value of the protections I've listed. I strongly believe that the laws that the Congress pass should be a floor, not a ceiling; we should not punish a State that may have stronger laws than what the Congress is able to craft. Illinois' licensed mortgage brokers and loan originators meet some of the Nation's highest standards, and it is time for Congress to make sure all mortgage lenders meet standards at least as high--not to punish my home state. The preemption provision eliminates the ability of a homeowner to raise state-law claims against the securitizer--or actual owner--of the loan. If homeowners cannot sue the owners of the loans, in many cases they will have no remedy available to them at all: in many cases the original issuers of the mortgage have sold the loan, gone bankrupt, or have gone out of business. While the owners of the loans have the assets to provide relief to many victimized consumers, by preempting state law this bill ties the hands of consumers to take action against them. I am also concerned that this language does little to address the higher rates caused by so-called ``yield spread premiums,'' which might more accurately be referred to as kickbacks. This practice, which allows the broker to charge a more expensive rate to the consumer than the broker paid for the loan and pocket the difference, has encouraged brokers to sell the most costly loans possible. This loophole has no doubt contributed to record numbers of foreclosures we have been seeing, and it should be closed. The mortgage crisis has been building and we must do everything we can to address its devastating impact, especially felt in states like Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan. I am glad that Chairman Frank has indicated that he will work to improve the bill, and I look forward to working with him to correct the bill's deficiencies and enact the strongest possible protections for homeowners and tenants who are facing financial calamity.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the RESTORE Act because I believe that the way we conduct the fight against terrorism says a great deal about who we are as a people. We all want to keep the country safe from terrorism and to provide the necessary tools to our intelligence community, but I am not willing to sacrifice who we are and what we stand for just because this President says so. The President's Protect America Act cut the FISA Court out of the process. The RESTORE Act puts the court back in. Now, the court, not the President, will decide whether the constitutional legal requirements are met. The court will assess in advance a program of surveillance that may intercept the communications of Americans. The court will ensure that the system the NSA establishes will protect the rights of any Americans they come across. The RESTORE Act clarifies the Protect America Act cannot be used to conduct secret searches of Americans' homes, businesses, computers, and medical records. It reiterates the exclusivity of FISA, which would put an end to secret, warrantless spying programs. It makes clear that the President has to obey the laws. The RESTORE Act requires meaningful reporting to the Congress about the warrantless surveillance programs that have occurred since September 11, and it will require meaningful oversight in the future. The RESTORE Act will make America safer and keeps us true to who we are as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, far too often this country does too little to keep people out of the revolving door of our prison system. Rather than taking steps that will provide long-term, rehabilitative solutions that will lower recidivism rates, Congress has adopted short- term fixes like stricter sentencing standards that keep prisoners in prison longer and bring them back more frequently. Study after study has shown that this approach does not work, and yet we continue to build new prisons and fill them beyond capacity. That is why I support H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act of 2007, which provides a new direction for our criminal justice system, one that focuses on helping prisoners turn their lives around and become contributing members of society. Specifically, H.R. 1593 allocates $110 million to support a variety of prisoner re-entry programs which include mentorship, housing, drug treatment, education and job training. All of these programs are designed to assist former inmates as they transition back into society and provide the support they need to keep them from returning to prison. I support this bill because it will begin to reverse the misguided policy of instituting harsher laws that create longer mandatory sentences for crimes. This country sends more and more people to prison every year. A 2006 Justice Department report found that a record 7 million people, 1 in every 32 U.S. adults, were behind bars, on probation, or on parole last year. These statistics are especially troubling because not only does time spent in jail affect the prisoner; it also creates a vicious cycle that has a detrimental impact on their families. Research shows that children of incarcerated parents are three to six times more likely to exhibit violent or serious delinquent behavior than other children. While, I believe strongly in securing appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws, I also feel that it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that, when people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society. H.R. 1593 makes an important step toward changing our country's outlook on crime and punishment. I would like to thank my friend and colleague Danny Davis for his tenacity and hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Today the New York Times reports that at least 14 of the 17 shootings from the September 16 Blackwater incident in Iraq were unjustified and violated deadly force rules. Even though the FBI concluded that Blackwater, a for-profit contractor, used excessive force, there is no guarantee that anyone will be punished for these killings. On Monday, the front page of the New York Times ran a story titled ``Security Guard Fires From Convoy, Killing Iraqi Driver.'' The shooter was an employee of DynCorp, and the victim an Iraqi taxi driver. The details of the incident are still unclear, but one thing is certain. The problem of trigger-happy contractors isn't confined to one company; it applies to all private security contractors. The longer we wait to fix this problem, the worse the situation is going to get for the Iraqis and for our troops. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, H.R. 4102, to phase out unaccountable private security contractors before they do any more damage.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The war in Iraq is a disaster and it's time to bring our brave troops, the men and women who volunteered to serve their country for the right reasons but were sent to Iraq for the wrong reasons. It is time now for them to come home. For that reason, I support this bill which, for the first time, ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, beginning within 30 days of passage and to end in December 2008. I'm supporting this bill for another important reason. It establishes once and for all that the United States of America does not torture people. This bill is not confused about waterboarding. Waterboarding is clearly made illegal, as well as electric shocks and mock executions and every other gruesome interrogation method that is currently prohibited in the Army Field Manual. The American people elected the Democratic majority in this House last November because they're done with the war. They're sick and tired of losing American lives in Iraq. And they're sick and tired of losing vital programs at home to continue to finance this tragic war. This is a vote of conscience. I urge every one of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, in case there was any doubt that we need to get rid of private security contractors in Iraq, just look at yesterday's headline story in the Washington Post: ``How Blackwater Sniper Fire Felled 3 Iraqi Guards. Witnesses call shooting unprovoked, but State Department cleared its security team after a brief probe.'' That shooting took place February 7, and just yesterday we found out about it. Isn't it obvious that the State Department is unable or unwilling to control these armed mercenaries whose reckless behavior fans the flames of hatred against all Americans, including our young troops in harm's way? Isn't it obvious that for-profit companies like Blackwater who are being paid billions of taxpayer dollars have forfeited their right to work in Iraq? Defense Secretary Robert Gates said they are working ``at cross purposes to our larger mission in Iraq.'' I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, H.R. 4102, and begin now to phase out these unaccountable private security contractors before they do any more damage.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, throughout my career, I have fought for equal opportunity and rights for all of our fellow citizens. Today, I rise in support of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because I believe that discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, race and religion has no place in the United States. Yet, the fact remains discrimination exists. Throughout our Nation, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans face discrimination without the protection of Federal law and as a result, hard working, skilled employees can be fired simply because of their sexual orientation. I believe with every fiber of my being that this is wrong, that it is un-American. Performance at work should determine employment--not a person's sexual orientation which has no bearing on one's ability to do the job. I applaud my good friends and colleagues, Representative Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, for their tremendous leadership on this issue. While I support the bill before us today, I would like to take a moment to extend my sincerest regret that language from the original bill, which extended civil rights protections to transgender Americans, was excluded from the version we will vote on today. When I came to Congress in 1999, I implemented an office employment policy that went beyond current Federal law to add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing protections. Many employers--private and public--have already taken this long overdue step. In my home town of Chicago and in the State of Illinois, we gave already have in place laws that protect gender identity as well as sexual orientation. We must work for a Federal law that ensures every American is guaranteed the ability to get a job or promotion based on his or her ability. It has taken 33 years to pass legislation that bans discrimination in the workplace against individuals based on their sexual orientation. Today's vote is significant victory. But we must not let years pass before we make more improvements to Federal law to give transgender individuals the employment protections they deserve.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, on November 5, I was detained in my district due to travel delays, and missed the votes on passage of the Motion to Close Portions of the Conference to H.R. 3222, the FY08 Department of Defense Appropriations Conference; H.R. 513, the National Heroes Credit Protection Act; and H. Res. 744, recognizing the contributions of Native American veterans and calling upon the President to issue a proclamation urging the people of the United States to observe a day in honor of Native American veterans. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on passage of all three bills.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 852 men and women of the Armed Forces who have sacrificed their lives in Iraq this year. Tragically, this brings the total number of American troops killed in Iraq to 3,855. The sobering news that 2007 has been the deadliest for U.S. soldiers in Iraq so far is another reminder of the grave human costs of the President's misguided war strategy. The President's promises that his surge would reduce violence ring hollow, despite the increase in number of troops and the hard work of our men and women on the ground who are fighting in the midst of a civil war. Every month in 2007 has seen more U.S. casualties than the same month in 2006. And with two months left before the New Year, U.S. casualties may far exceed previous years. This grim milestone shared the headlines with another important headline this morning: According to an ABC News poll, fifty-nine percent of Americans do not think the United States is making significant progress restoring civil order in Iraq. A record six in ten want the level of U.S. forces in Iraq reduced. Congress must listen to the American people, who want the war in Iraq brought to an end. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against any additional funding for this war until it is tied to a firm date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. As we continue to debate the best way out of the war in Iraq, I hope that we remember the sacrifices Americans have made in blood and treasure. We must not let this war, and the tragic loss of life, continue.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize and congratulate Mike Joshi for running in (and completing) yesterday's 32nd Annual Marine Corps Marathon. Mike is the staff assistant in my Washington, DC office. He has shown great focus, commitment and dedication in the months leading up to yesterday's marathon. Mike is such a positive presence in the office and he has been such a good sport . . . allowing everyone in the office to ``participate'' in his training by sharing stories and updates from his evening and weekend runs. I am told that when his coworkers saw Mike at mile 13 (the half way point), he was smiling and looking so relaxed . . . like it was mile 3, not 13. The characteristics that carried him over the finish line will continue to serve him well in the race that is life. Congratulations Mike on this amazing accomplishment. Team Schakowsky is so proud of you.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, the day is finally here. Today, the American people will see what this body is really made of and where members stand on the issue of children's healthcare. Is this body willing to stand up to the President and override his veto? Or are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to fold like a house of cards and follow this President right off a cliff? The choice is easy--you are either for healthcare for 10 million children or you are not. You can equivocate all you want and come up with an excuse that is politically expedient, but when it comes down to it, there is no way to hide from your vote. When that voting board lights up this afternoon, we will know and remember those who let 10 million children and their families down. The President and most of the Republicans in Congress will tell you that we can't afford this bill, but don't let them fool you. This bill is fully paid for, unlike the half a trillion dollars that we have already spent in Iraq. And keep in mind, the members that vote against this bill today are going to turn right around and vote for $190 billion more dollars for the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it's the children that end up with the short end of the stick. The children the President is refusing to insure today are the same ones that will be forced to foot the bill for the war in Iraq tomorrow. But you have a chance to make things right today, to set the record straight. You can show your constituents and this country that you care about the millions of uninsured American children more than continuing this disastrous war. Please, don't let these children down. They need your vote. Vote to override this misguided veto.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate members of the Chicago Police Department, including Sergeant Brian Degenhardt, Officer Thomas Barker, and Officer James Conlan, for receiving the ``2007 Humane Law Enforcement Award'' last week from The Humane Society of the United States and the National District Attorneys Association. This award was presented to Chicago's Police Department for the creation of its Animal Crimes Unit, which focuses on tackling illegal animal fighting in urban Chicago, where dogfighting has unfortunately flourished in recent years. With its innovative focus on animal abuse prosecutions, the Animal Crimes Unit of the Chicago Police Department, overseen by Sergeant Degenhardt, now leads the way in combating dogfighting and serves as a model for tackling this insidious crime across the Nation. Although only one single officer in the city used to address crimes against animals in the past, there are now more than 8 specially-trained officers within the Animal Crimes Unit. In 2007 alone, officers Thomas Barker and James Conlan logged more than 40 arrests related to dogfighting and animal abuse, and they recovered more than 100 abused dogs. But the accomplishments of the Unit don't stop there. When Sergeant Degenhardt was making the case for the creation of the Animal Crimes Unit, he analyzed arrest records for the city between July 2001 and July 2004 and discovered that nearly 70 percent of the 300 individuals arrested for animal crimes were also arrested for other felonies. The methods used by the Animal Crimes Unit have also led to a reduction in other types of criminal activities, including human violence and drug dealing. I am pleased to join The Humane Society of the United States and the National District Attorneys Association in congratulating these individuals in honor of their dedicated work on behalf of animals.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia has offered a motion to recommit H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, to the Judiciary Committee and to modify the legislation with regard to intelligence activities. I will support this motion to recommit, but wish to clearly state my understanding of the motion. The motion to recommit would amend H.R. 2740 with a rule of construction, stating, ``nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect intelligence activities that are otherwise permissible prior to the enactment of this Act.'' This amendment does not change the force of the legislation, does not limit the scope of the MEJA jurisdiction, and does not grant immunity to anyone, including contractor employees of the intelligence community. I am voting in support of this motion because it simply restates existing law. Mr. Price's legislation would place contractor employees of non- defense related agencies under the extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States federal law, granting the Department of Justice authority to prosecute felony offenses committed by non-defense contractors. The motion to recommit restates what the underlying bill requires--that intelligence activities are subject to the requirements of MEJA. Nothing in this motion to recommit or the legislation should ever be construed to authorize, condone or legitimize the abuse of prisoners during detention or interrogations. It is with this understanding alone that I support this motion to recommit.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 961, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I'd first like to thank the chairman of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee, Mr. Rush, for his support and help. I also want to thank Mr. Stearns for his support of the legislation, as well as full committee Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton. It is clear that our system for recalling dangerous products is simply broken. It is failing American families. The recall system relies on the media to pick up the story and spread the word, but many times the stories are not picked up and the news does not reach the owners of defective products. In fact, some estimate that the recall effectiveness rate for products under jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a mere 16 percent. Notification targeted to owners of the product is rare, and many parents remain unaware of the dangers. And that's why I rise in strong support of H.R. 1699, the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, which I was proud to introduce with my good friend from Michigan, Congressman Upton. This bill will begin to close the significant gaps in the recall system by requiring that durable children's products such as cribs and strollers and high chairs come with a postage-paid postcard that parents or caregivers can mail in to be notified if a product is recalled for safety reasons. This legislation is a commonsense solution to a very real and pervasive problem. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among children. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 64,700 children under the age of 5 were treated in emergency rooms across the country for injuries associated with nursery products in 2003 at a cost of $2.5 billion, and that figure has almost certainly risen in the last 4 years. And even more tragically, an average of 50 children under the age of 5 die each year in incidents associated with nursery products, and about 16 of these deaths each year are associated with cribs. And this bill is a tribute to one such child. On May 12, 1998, 16- month-old Danny Keysar was strangled to death at his licensed day care facility when a portable crib collapsed, turning the horizontal side rail into a V-shaped wedge that squeezed his throat and strangled him. Imagine what Danny's parents must have felt when they learned that the crib that killed their son, a Playskool Travel-Lite crib, had been recalled by the government and the manufacturer 5 years earlier. And, sadly, Danny's parents aren't alone. More than 1.5 million portable cribs like the one that killed Danny were made with a similar design by different manufacturers. The crib that took Danny's life had already killed four children. A 10-month-old New Jersey baby became the sixth child to be strangled to death by the Playskool crib just 3 months after Danny died. Despite the recall, neither the day care center nor State inspectors who had been to the facility just a week before Danny's death knew that recalled products were being used there. And they are not to blame. It was not the State agency's mandate to inspect for recalled materials; and unless someone who worked in the center happened to catch the recall story on the news, there was virtually no way to know that the cribs they used were death traps. And, by the way, Illinois did change its law. But in case anyone might think this was an isolated incident, think again. In 2005 children's products were recalled on average two times a week. Just over 2 weeks ago, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the largest recall of full-sized cribs in the agency's history, recalling almost a million of the Nation's most popular cribs because of design flaws that have already killed at least three more children. And a week later, Kolcraft, the company that manufactured the Playskool crib that killed Danny Keysar, recalled 425,000 infant play yards following the death of a 10-month-old child. Congress needs to act to make sure that these kinds of senseless tragedies don't occur again. When Danny's parents, Linda Ginzel and Boaz Keysar, learned that the crib that had killed their son had been recalled in 1993, they turned their grief into action and founded Kids in Danger, a Chicago-based nonprofit that is dedicated to protecting children by improving children's product safety. It is because of their dedication that we are here today, and I am honored to represent them here today and thank them for their work. I hope with the passage of this legislation no more parents will have to endure what they did. I believe that H.R. 1699, which allows people to send in a card or e- mail to make sure that the manufacturer will let them know, just as is done with car seats in the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, a provision that has been so successful that there has been a tenfold increase in recalls and recall repair rates have gone up by 56 percent, that at a cost of a handful of pennies per card, this legislation will save lives of children. I would appreciate support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. First, I would like to thank my colleague from Virginia for his support of the amendment and just close with these remarks. U.S. taxpayers have paid billions to private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that Congress must know if they are engaging in criminal behavior that puts the U.S. Armed Forces and our mission at risk, and what the government is doing to address it. Congress and the American people are beginning to understand the vast impact that contractors are playing in our military operations. These private contractors are not, right now, accountable to the military, but their actions often put our brave military men and women at risk. Currently, the U.S. military is using an estimated 180,000 private contractors in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many are performing duties that are often considered inherently governmental functions, such as military operations, intelligence gathering, law enforcement, security and criminal justice functions. But despite the critical role that contractors are playing, Congress is unable to determine the full impact of contractors on U.S. military operations. We have all heard about the tragic incident in Iraq on September 16 when Blackwater employees reportedly killed 11 Iraqi civilians, and another unconscionable incident on Christmas Eve 2006 when a drunk Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi security guard for the Iraqi Vice President. He was flown out of the country within 36 hours and has faced no charge or punishment for his crime. We should be outraged that with incidents like these reported prominently in the press, and with the hundreds of thousands of contractors who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that only two have ever been charged with any crime. I urge support for the amendment.

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend Mr. Price for bringing this important legislation to the floor and would like to thank Chairman Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Scott and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this very important issue. My amendment would simply require the Department of Justice to issue descriptions of all charges that have been brought against contractors and contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan and a description of the legal actions taken by the U.S. Government against them as a result of those charges. H.R. 2740 requires the Department of Justice to issue a report that contains a list and descriptions of investigations that it is conducting into possible violations of U.S. law committed by contract personnel. This report must list the number of complaints it's received, the number of investigations it's begun, the number of criminal cases it has opened and the result of those cases. My amendment would expand that requirement a bit further to ensure that the report includes a description of the charges that have been brought against contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and a description of the legal action taken as a result of those charges. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the deed is done. The President just vetoed the Children's Health Insurance Program. He is asking for $190 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet vetoed $35 billion that would provide health care to 10 million low-income American children over the next 5 years. Let's be perfectly clear. The President is refusing to spend $7 billion a year on children's health while insisting on $10 billion a month in Iraq. The President and Republicans in Congress say that we can't afford this bill, but where were the fiscal conservatives when the President demanded hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq? He along with many of the Republicans in Congress are willing to throw these hundreds of billions of dollars into a disastrous war, and yet when it comes to providing health care to children, they say we don't have the money. The truth is we do have the money and, in fact, the children's health bill is fully paid for, unlike the half a trillion dollars we have already spent on this war. It is time for us to say you are either for covering uninsured American children or you are with a President who prefers to spend this money on an endless war.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I think the issue of providing health coverage to 10 million children is important enough to give our constituents adequate time to weigh in on it. Let them consider whether they want to spend $7 billion a year to provide health care to 10 million uninsured children, an amount equivalent to 2\1/2\ weeks spent on the Iraq war. Insure our children for $7 billion a year? President Bush runs for the veto pen. $10 billion a month for Iraq? The President asks for $190 billion more. I urge my colleagues to take this time to listen to their constituents. Look into the eyes of an uninsured child. That child could be sitting next to yours or your grandchild in school. And remember, unlike the war funding which is all on credit cards, this bill is actually paid for. This is an offer, as someone running for reelection, you can't afford to refuse.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in support of H. Res. 590, which supports the goals and ideals of domestic violence awareness month and expresses that Congress should continue to raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its devastating effects on families and communities. Domestic violence is a serious and pervasive problem in America and throughout the world. According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund, estimates on the number of incidents of violence against a current or former spouse range from 960,000 to 3 million each year; and more than 3 women are murdered by their husband or boyfriend in America every day. Without question, these statistics are alarming and must be taken seriously. I truly believe that together, we can eliminate domestic violence from homes across the country and ensure that our children grow up in a healthy and peaceful environment. In order to achieve this change, Congress must continue to pass laws that protect the rights of victims and punish their abusers. In 1994, Congress passed Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which provided an additional $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The results from this legislation are tangible and encouraging, between 1993 and 2004, domestic violence in the United States declined significantly, with nonfatal incidents dropping more than 50 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Nonfatal incidents of intimate partner violence fell from 5.8 per 1,000 residents in 1993 to 2.6 victimizations per 1,000 in 2005. In 2005, I worked with my colleagues to make further improvements to VAWA by also recognizing male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In its current form VAWA has so profoundly changed the way our Government prosecutes these crimes that the National Organization of Women heralded the bill as ``the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades.'' Today, as we recognize National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we must remember that there is still plenty of work to do to eradicate domestic violence from our homes and communities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 642, expressing sympathy to and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette. I would like to thank my friend, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, for bringing this resolution to the House floor. When Hurricane Dean, a category five hurricane, made landfall in Mexico's Yucatan in August, people around the world were stunned and saddened by the damage that massive storm left in its wake. The third strongest Atlantic hurricane ever at landfall, Dean ripped through Mexico, causing at least 42 deaths and $1.9 billion in damage. After Hurricane Dean, the region braced itself as Hurricane Felix gathered strength off the coast of Central America weeks later. Felix touched down between Nicaragua and Honduras on September 1, 2007 wreaking havoc and causing at least 122 deaths. Also on September 1st, Hurricane Henriette slammed into Mexico's Baja, the first time since 1949 that two Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes hit land on the same day. In the wake of these massive and destructive storms, Congress must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the regions affected. As the effects of the hurricanes continue to unfold and we must also encourage concerned U.S. citizens to donate their time and funds to hurricane relief. After Hurricane Mitch tore through Central America in 1999, I traveled to the Honduran town of Marcovia to help CARE bring relief to the thousands of affected families there. Hurricane Mitch killed more than 10,000 people, left hundreds of thousands homeless, and inflicted billions of dollars in economic losses throughout Central America. I urge my colleagues in Congress and the American people to reach out to the countries, communities and individuals affected by Hurricanes Dean, Felix and Henriette the way we reached out to the survivors of Hurricane Mitch. I am proud to support H. Res. 642 and I hope all of my colleagues will lend it their support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, Rush Limbaugh is at it again. Unable to defend an indefensible war in Iraq, he has once again resorted to ``sliming'' the messenger. In this case, unbelievably, the messengers he's going after are the brave men and women who have served their country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other wars. Men and women who serve in Iraq differ from Rush Limbaugh in two critical ways. First, unlike Mr. Limbaugh, they actually served in the military. Second, unlike Mr. Limbaugh, they understand that the war in Iraq is making our country less safe and destroying the military. How dare Rush Limbaugh label anyone who has served in the military as a ``phony soldier.'' How dare he say that his views in Iraq, formed in the comfort of his radio studio, are legitimate, while the views of those whose opinions were forged on the battlefield are not. Could Rush Limbaugh actually face soldiers who have risked their lives and tell them that their beliefs don't matter? These are soldiers like Brandon Friedman, a former rifle platoon leader in the Army's 101st Airborne Division who fought in Afghanistan in 2002 and commanded troops in Iraq. He says, ``The escalation of the war is failing and now the mission must change. The fact is,'' he says, ``the Iraq war has kept us from devoting assets we need to fight terrorists worldwide, as evidenced by the fact that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and al Qaeda has been able to rebuild. We need an effective strategy that takes the fight to our real enemies abroad, and the best way to do that is to get our troops out of the middle of the civil war in Iraq.'' Is Brandon Friedman a phony? Or Josh Gaines, who earned the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the National Defense Service Medal during his 2 years in Iraq, he believes the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. Is he a phony? Or retired General William Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. His advice: ``The sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the U.N. Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition, including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan to Pakistan.'' General Odom says: ``Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed. Thus those fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.'' Does Rush Limbaugh really want to look General Odom in the eye and call him a phony? I believe that we should all pay attention to the views of Brandon Friedman and Josh Gaines and General Odom whose beliefs, like their military experience, are real. And while we're at it, let's pay attention to the 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq who also think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four who say the troops should leave immediately, according to the Zogby poll. I guess they're all a bunch of phonies, according to Rush Limbaugh. Our military men and women deserve respect. Apparently, however, Mr. Limbaugh thinks they deserve to be smeared and belittled unless they happen to agree with him. I understand why Rush Limbaugh cannot debate this war on the merits, but bashing soldiers and veterans who disagree with him is unpatriotic and un-American.