Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman Dingell as well as the Democratic leadership for working so hard to bring the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill before us today. H.R. 976 is not a compromise that was easily come by, and it's important to recognize the hard work that has gone into it. Let's be clear, today each of us is either voting for providing healthcare to more uninsured children, or voting against covering more uninsured kids. This bill is not the bill that I would have written, nor is it as good as the bill that passed the House. But it will cover the 6.6 million children currently covered by CHIP and will reach an additional 4 million kids. It also provides children with dental coverage and finally puts mental health services on par with other medical benefits covered under the program. This bill will also improve quality improvement, outreach, and enrollment efforts under CHIP, and will target those most in need. It is a good bill that we think will get to the President's desk. Thus, I think the commitment this bill makes to our children should be celebrated. Yet, we need to push further and pass several provisions that were in the house bill, including meaningful improvements in access to basic health services, including granting access to our legal immigrant children, more affordable prescription drug costs and benefits for senior citizens and people with disabilities, and adequate reimbursements for physicians that provide critical care to the Medicare population. Incredibly, President Bush has pledged to veto this compromise, bipartisan, bicameral measure. The President and the Congressional Republican leadership say that we cannot afford it. We can't afford to cover children, but we can afford the war in Iraq. The bill to provide health care to children will cost $35 billion over the next 5 years-- but we will spend over $50 billion in the next 5 months in Iraq. While this bill could have been so much more to so many of our constituents, it does bring us a necessary, moderate expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Dingell and Chairman Pallone, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey and Congresswoman Eshoo and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and their hardworking staffs for bringing this landmark bill to the floor today. This bill strikes to the heart of some of FDA's most troubling issues by granting additional authorities to the Food and Drug Administration that are critical to enhancing drug safety. This bill gives consumers a larger role in deciding how user fees are spent to enhance drug safety, a huge victory for consumer protection. It will take steps to enhance the kind of information that will be available to patients and their families as they make personal decisions regarding their health care. I am particularly pleased by the inclusion of an amendment I offered that will improve consumer's awareness of the MedWatch program, one of FDA's best but least known ways of monitoring adverse drug events once a product has been approved. Consumer reports of bad effects signal to FDA when prescription drugs pose a threat. The success of this program is crucial to postmarketing surveillance. Unfortunately, 9 out of 10 Americans are unaware that the MedWatch program exists, yet adverse drug and device reactions account for as many as 100,000 deaths every year. My amendment requires that printed prescription drug ads include information on how to report side effects to the FDA's MedWatch program, both on the Internet and through a 1-800 number. It also requires the FDA to do a study on how we can best include this important information on the TV ads that have become so pervasive and influential in our society. So, again, I thank the chairman and staff for working with me to include this language. This bill makes a strong statement about the importance of protecting people who rely on prescription medications to get through their day and remain active members of society. I am encouraged by the steps it takes toward a safer, more transparent Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, today is an important day in that we are going to hear the anticipated progress report, so-called, by General Petraeus, who will be testifying in a short while before the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, and the case that is going to be made is that there has been just enough progress to warrant staying the course in Iraq. On August 6, I was in Iraq. What I learned from that visit that day was that in fact that the President's surge has failed and that there is no end in sight for the war in Iraq. I learned that first by talking with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq that day who said that the night before that former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi had pulled his people out of the Parliament, and the week before the Sunnis had left, and then what was remaining of the Parliament was on vacation. And he said that there wasn't going to be any political settlement by this September, nor would there be by next September, and he didn't say which September. The point of that is the reason for the surge was promoted by the President and by General Petraeus as creating the space for political settlements in Iraq, which have not only not happened but we have even seen steps backwards. But what is really important today is that people examine the so-called evidence that progress has been made, and that is why I brought a few charts here. The first one says, is there really less violence in Iraq? Let's look at what is counted, but, even more importantly, what isn't counted. In the evidence that progress has been made, not counted includes Shiite on Shiite violence which is happening in the south in the Basra area, Sunni on Sunni violence. Car bombings aren't counted. And get this one, this isn't a joke. People shot in the front of the head are not counted; people shot in the back of the head are counted. I thought at first that was just an exaggerated joke. It is true. And, finally, the large-scale bombing like the one that killed 500 ethnic Yazidies in August is not counted. So clearly these numbers are very clearly cherry picked. Then, if you look at a fact that is important to many Americans, every month in 2007, including the months, of the surge has seen more U.S. military casualties than the same month in 2006. In other words, more and more of our young men are dying. And while the Parliament was on vacation as some commentators said because, after all, it is so hot, about 120 degrees, our young men and women were fighting and dying in their body armor and helmets and heavy packs and weapons out in that 120 degree heat, dying at numbers greater than ever. And, of course, not included in those numbers has been not only the the number of U.S. troops that have died, but the dollars that have been spent. These are the dollars that we know about right now. Per year, not overall in the war, but per year $120 million; per month $10 million. Actually, I have heard $12 million is the new number. Per week, over $2 million. Per day, $329,000. Per hour, we are doing this for 1 hour right now, almost $14 million an hour. And over $228,000, almost $229,000 a minute is being spent in Iraq. And yet, the political reconciliation which was the goal of expanding the numbers of troops that we have in Iraq has not achieved that; that it has actually gone backwards. And so right now I think what we are seeing is a dog and pony show. The good news is that a lot of people, unlike the lead-up to the war in the first place, aren't buying it. The front page of U.S.A. Today records 60 percent of Americans seek a date for a pullout: Public wary of report on Iraq, polls show. And there have been many other reports. The Jones report that says it is not working. Check the information and be skeptical about the progress. Let's get out of Iraq.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bid farewell to one of the most creative, competent, caring and clever Hill staffers, my Legislative Director, Diane Beedle. For four years, Diane has moved a legislative agenda that addresses issues as diverse as the safety of children's products, outsourcing of American jobs, immigrant rights, data security and identity theft, new telecommunications technologies, private military contracts, ending horse slaughter, auto safety, energy independence, expanding health care, preventing cancer, and ending the war in Iraq. She prepared me for all of the many hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee including, of course, the priority sporting hearings--boxing, steroids, and college bowl games, and far more. As if that weren't enough, Diane was responsible for identifying and securing funding for projects important to the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. There is less flooding, better law enforcement, improved transportation, and better services for vulnerable people because of Diane's work. How does she do it all? As Kim, our office manager and executive assistant/scheduler said, ``She rose to the challenges and opportunities that the LD position offered, and she is very organized and methodical as well as being a very positive and nurturing presence in the office.'' Diane has a gift for negotiating. I have watched her push my position as far as she could and then a little further, her demeanor always pleasant, her counter proposals always workable, her objections irrefutable. She won the respect and friendship of staff across party and ideological lines. I will truly miss her bargaining skills. Diane is able to translate complicated issues into language comprehensible to her boss and to constituents. I receive many kudos for letters Diane has written that are clear and directly responsive to the concerns of individual district residents, and not just ``thank you for your interest'' letters and she has prepared me for meetings on issues that would otherwise be too ``high tech'' for me. On top of all that, Diane has been a leader in the office, providing help to her co-workers in the office in many different ways. Kevin (though officially one of the beautiful people on Capitol Hill and quite slim) has an astonishing capacity for food. Diane affectionately calls him the ``human garbage disposal'' (in a good way), yet still treats him and the rest of the office with her wonderful baked goods, lemon bars being a specialty. Our chief of staff especially appreciated Diane's magic with naming bills. Her favorite: the Stop Attempted Fraud against Everyone's Cell and Land Line--a bill title that is instantly forgettable until you realize the acronym is the SAFE CALL ACT. Megan described what Diane has meant not only to her but to other staff members. ``Diane has always been an excellent mentor to me, teaching me how to make the most of contacts and pointing me toward good legislative ideas.'' She also mentioned what we all know: Diane is an excellent punster. Diane is leaving us now, soon to be embracing a new role in her life--that of Mom. Hearing the good news, everyone in the office wanted to help Diane and her husband Adrian by suggesting some really great baby names. Peter, a new father himself and Diane's ``work husband,'' brought in baby naming books. We had a Name the Baby list put up with interesting ideas such as Noble Eagle, Sparky and Porterhouse, and some more suitable boy names including Mason, Lucas, Oliver, Cooper, Oscar, Lucca, Gideon and Felix. Disregarding our suggestions in total, they chose Franklin. We all look forward to many visits from Diane, Adrian, Baby Franklin and Suki the dog, who we will also miss very much. All of us love Diane very much, thank her for her service and wish her and her growing family the best of everything.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Udall- Platts amendment. This amendment allows the United States to adopt a renewable portfolio standard of 15 percent by 2020 that fulfills our obligation as the world's lone superpower to be at the forefront in protecting the environment. The need for a renewable portfolio standard is clear. With only 5 percent of the world population, the United States produces nearly 25 percent of annual global heat-trapping emissions. Electricity generation accounts for fully one-third of these emissions. We have a responsibility and a compelling interest to significantly reduce these harmful emissions. Renewable electricity standards offer a smart, affordable climate solution with a proven track record. Passing a renewable fuel standard not only reduces our nation's harmful impact on the environment, it also makes us more secure. Today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of its oil from the Middle East and politically unstable nations such as Algeria, Nigeria and Venezuela. As alarming as this statistics is, evidence suggests that unless we change our behavior, the situation will only become more dire. In fact, a recent study found that if the United States continues its current consumption without increasing its domestic production, by 2010 we will have to import 75 percent of our fuel. To prevent this sort of prediction from becoming a reality, it is crucial, that the United States takes steps to decrease its dependence on foreign oil. The 15 by 20 principle is the answer to this challenge. It can be achieved by tapping a multitude of natural resources. We can harvest the sun and wind to produce new energy. We can grow a wide variety of crops to produce ethanol and biodiesel and we can utilize livestock wastes to produce biogas and generate new power sources. In addition to the advantages that renewable energy holds in terms of environmental and national security issues, there is also a strong economic incentive as well. Many renewable energy facilities are located near key regions across rural America. These facilities provide good jobs, often near small towns which have suffered from population declines. Currently, renewable energy accounts for about 14 percent of the world's energy consumption. While this number is encouraging, the United States lags behind. According to a September 2006 report by the Center for American Progress, just over 6 percent of our electricity needs come from renewable energy sources. We can do better, and, Americans want us to do better. I believe that setting a goal of 15 percent of America's total energy needs from renewable sources by 2020 sets us on the right path. I strongly endorse this amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. This bill is an offense to the Constitution that we are sworn to protect. Let me tell you what we are voting on tonight. If we pass this bill, we are voting for the warrantless, that means no court order, warrantless surveillance of our phone calls, a warrantless collection of personal data, e-mails, and Internet usage, the evisceration of the power of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, and making it little more than a rubber stamp for Alberto Gonzales. Are these the principles our Nation was built on? Our Founding Fathers knew better. John Adams: ``A Constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.'' We have Thomas Jefferson: ``I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.'' And, finally, Ben Franklin: ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' We can have liberty and safety. The House Democrats offered that plan. We should heed the word of our Founding Fathers and reject this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great milestone for one of my constituents, Bella Zelda ``Jeanette'' Kolber. On Sunday, August 5, Mrs. Kolber will mark her 100th birthday, an event that her entire family and many friends are looking forward to celebrating with her. Born at home on August 5, 1907 to Pearl and Louis Cohn, the first of their six children, Mrs. Kolber has lived in the Ninth Congressional District for decades and the city of Chicago her entire life. As a child, Mrs. Kolber attended Von Humboldt Elementary School and Wells High School in Chicago. In 1934, Mrs. Kolber married her beloved Leo ``Lefty'' Kolber. After the birth of their two children, Lois and Marshall, she became an active volunteer with the Bernard Moos PTA and was the PTA president in 1951. Mrs. Kolber enjoyed a long working career. She worked for many years at the Heineman's silk company. She also worked at Marshall Field for almost 20 years in the personal shopping department. After being forced to retire from Marshall Field, due to her age, she was hired by Lord & Taylor, where she worked almost 20 more years, and achieved the highest honors--gold and diamond awards for her outstanding work there. Mrs. Kolber is an avid ballroom dancer. She has danced all over Chicago, winning trophies at numerous contests throughout the years. From Daley Plaza to the Aragon Theater and the Levy Center to outdoor music festivals and family events, she's never resisted a chance to get up and move to the music. And she's still dancing. On the occasion of her 100th birthday this year Mrs. Kolber has decided she wants to officially correct an error that occurred years ago. She was erroneously given the name ``Jeanette'' upon entering elementary school, by a teacher who simply did not like her given name. As a result, throughout her life Mrs. Kolber has gone by ``Jeanette,'' but has recently asked to be referred to by her given name, Bella Zelda. And so, I am pleased to stand up before the U.S. House of Representatives to honor and recognize Mrs. Kolber and to officially recognize her given name. Above all else in her life, Mrs. Kolber is devoted to her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and her dear extended family and friends. She has done more than her share of caring for and giving to them over the years. Mrs. Kolber brings great joy and inspiration to her family and close friends and I am proud to join them in celebrating this remarkable woman on the occasion of her 100th birthday. Happy 100th birthday and keep dancing, Mrs. Bella Zelda Kolber.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, 9 million children in this country lack health insurance coverage, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that 91 percent of voters support extending to SCHIP coverage to 5 million more children. That is 5 million more children according to the Congressional Budget Office, and that Governors from both sides of the aisle are supporting this legislation across the country. The real surprise is that our President has threatened to veto this bill, a bill to cover children and to improve Medicare for our Nation's seniors and for people with disabilities. My question is, why are the President and so many of our colleagues saying ``no'' to basic health care to children, for adequate payments to doctors, for protecting Medicare? In yesterday's New York Times, I think Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head when he said that President Bush must fear the intent of this bill, which is to cover more children, because he fears that it actually might work. That if America sees government helping children, they will wonder why we can't do the same for everyone. The President said he opposes expanding children's health care because it will hurt private insurance companies. Astounding. Forget uninsured kids. The President is the champion of insurance companies. And people across the aisle are saying it is really about seniors when they are talking about the Medicare Advantage programs. But let's be clear. The Medicare Advantage HMOs are reaping overpayments of up to 40 percent. The overpayments are being subsidized by 80 percent of the seniors and disabled people who are not in Medicare Advantage plans through higher part B premiums. I want to urge the former Speaker of the House to cease giving patently false information about the Illinois SCHIP program which insures far more children than their parents. Let's be on the side of children.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of section 10404 of the 2007 Farm Bill, which would provide $35 million in funding over the next five years for farmers' markets through the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program. This provision also designates that 10 percent of the funding will be used to support the use of Electronic Benefits Transfer, EBT, technology at farmers' markets. I want to thank Representative Kagen for his leadership and his amendment to the bill that strengthens our nation's farmers' markets and provides much needed resources for food stamp recipients to use their benefits at farmers' markets. I also appreciate his working with me on this issue. As someone who regularly shops at a farmers' market in my hometown of Evanston, IL, I have seen first hand that farmers' markets are a positive force wherever they crop up, providing consumers with fresh food options, preserving family farms, increasing health and nutrition and connecting urban and rural Americans. Direct marketing of farm products has ballooned in recent years from 1,755 farmers markets in 1994 to over 4,385 in 2006. These markets average $245,000 per year in revenue, with the typical farmer netting about $7,108. Even though farmers' markets are highly seasonal, 25 percent of vendors rely on them as their sole source of farm-based income. Even as farmers' markets are expanding to unprecedented numbers, the 2006 USDA Farmers' Market Survey found that only 6 percent of these markets have implemented EBT technology. In my home city of Chicago, we only have one farmers' market that can accept EBT cards: the Logan Square market became the first farmers' market in Illinois just last month. However, at a time when obesity, food insecurity and chronic illnesses impact millions of low-income Americans, most still cannot use their food stamp benefits to purchase nutritious food at farmers' markets. This past May, I participated in the Food Stamp Challenge and lived on the national average food stamp benefit for one week. Even though the $3 per day allotment was inadequate, I had the good fortune of access to nearby grocery stores. Millions of Americans, however, have no grocery stores near their homes and live in what are known as ``food deserts.'' In fact, a 2004 study by Mississippi State University found that in the midwest, 34 percent of Americans live in food deserts, with this percentage approaching 50 percent in western States. Investments in farmers' markets are a low-cost solution to the crisis of food deserts and provide new options for Americans who currently have limited access to healthy food. In 2006, USDA received over $15 million in grant applications from farmers' markets across the country under the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program and with only $1 million in available funds, it was only able to meet a fraction of the need. That represents a tremendous missed opportunity to improve the health of Americans. Today's raising of funding of the Farmer Marketing Assistance Program to $35 million over 5 years will help us get closer to meeting the need we know is out there. I urge my colleagues to pass the 2007 Farm Bill, which includes the Kagen Amendment, and to retain this important measure in Conference.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the Congress named the humanitarian crisis in Darfur as genocide. Naming is really important, because once we've acknowledged the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives that have been lost there, we have a responsibility to act. And yet the disastrous crisis continues on today. I visited Darfur. I've seen the situation on the ground. And now the high-tech GPS satellites and mass media allow everyone to bear witness to the tragedies in Darfur; the burnt holes where villages used to be, the mass migrations of internally displaced, starving children, victims of rape. I want to thank the student groups, the faith organizations and the Americans around the country who have worked to raise this issue's profile and to keep Darfur on the agenda. Last month, the Sudanese Government allowed a combined U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force. The Democratic majority approved $949 million in humanitarian aid, but we have to go further. Let this be the last time we mark the anniversary of genocide.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support H.R. 2929, a bill to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for their persistent leadership on this important issue. The House passed the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq this month to get our troops out of Iraq by April. The question now is not whether we will redeploy our troops, but when and how. This resolution makes it emphatically clear to the Iraqi people and to President Bush that we do not intend to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. The United States must not be seen as an occupier. Otherwise, our presence there will be used to recruit insurgents, to keep Iraq entrenched in violence and to create an even more dangerous environment for our troops. This House, too, has already expressed its opposition to permanent bases, but today, we do it clearly with bipartisan support and send a very clear statement. I urge all of our colleagues to listen to the will of the American people, of the Iraqi people, and to support H.R. 2929.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Let me just give you a few numbers here: 30 million, that's the number of people who depend on the Great Lakes for our drinking water; 20 percent, that's the percent of fresh surface water on the entire planet that is represented by the Great Lakes; $6 billion, that's the amount of money that BP earned in the last quarter. BP is one of the most profitable companies on the entire planet, and a company that has spent a considerable amount of money promoting its green image. I want to quote to you from a Chicago Tribune Voice of the People article that was written by a BP Whiting Refinery individual, and he talks about, he minimizes the problem. He says: ``Of the 23 substances regulated in the permit, ammonia and total suspended solids are the only two limits that will increase when compared to the current permit.'' No problem, only two out of 23. And later, consistent with BP's bragging about its environmental excellence says about itself: ``This is just one of the ways we have demonstrated our focus on continual improvement in environmental performance. Our commitment to continuous improvement will carry on as we modernize the refinery.'' Meantime, increasing the amount of ammonia and the amount of total suspended solid waste. What's the consequence of those emissions? The health consequences can't be understated. Dumping ammonia represents a direct threat to the health of millions of Americans living in the Great Lakes region. For example, ammonia in the water promotes algae blooms that can kill fish and trigger beach closings. So here is another number: 1,585 pounds of ammonia, a 54-percent increase every day, every day into our precious Lake Michigan. And 4,925 pounds of liquid waste consisting of suspended particulate matter, a 35-percent increase every day into Lake Michigan. In addition to putting our health at risk, the decision to allow BP to increase their dumpage also puts the lake ecosystem in jeopardy. Increasing the amount of liquid waste consisting of suspended particulate matter dumped into the lake each day endangers the marine life by making the water cloudy, thereby making it more difficult for fish to find ample amounts of oxygen. This is a big deal. This is a serious problem, and it is incredible that the Environmental Protection Agency and BP and the State of Indiana would allow it. It is an outrage. We can stop it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents who continue to receive inadequate health coverage in our broken health care system. With the recent release of Michael Moore's documentary, ``Sicko,'' attention is being brought to the many problems perpetuated by our health care system, especially those that result from a desire on the part of insurers to maximize their profits. The movie strikes a chord with my constituents who know that, in a Nation in which over 45 million citizens are uninsured, even those with health insurance are at risk for not getting the health care they need. Although those who support the status quo have been quick to criticize the movie, its popularity in my district underscores its resonance with my constituents who are dissatisfied with a system that has failed them over and over again and who are demanding comprehensive change. I am deeply troubled by recent comments from health insurance companies and their defenders arguing that wait times under universal health care systems are disproportionately longer than those in our private health system. Such comments gloss over the realities faced by my constituents, who continue to call and write my office frustrated that pre-existing conditions, pre-approval, and prohibitive costs have made long wait-times commonplace for them. Recent statistics from the Institution of Healthcare Improvement reveal that Americans nationwide are waiting an average of 70 days to see a provider. In many circumstances, people who are initially diagnosed with cancer are waiting over a month. Is this the best we can do for our citizens in the richest, most prosperous nation in the world? When we compare ourselves to nations with national health care, the statistics paint a much different picture than the critics would like us to believe. According to a recent article in Business Week (``The Doctor Will See You--In Three Months''--July 9, 2007), ``both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems.'' In addition, a Commonwealth Fund study that compared the U.S. health-care system to five industrialized countries with national health coverage showed that waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all of the other countries but one. Only 47 percent of U.S. patients can get a same or next-day appointment for a basic medical problem, and 26 percent of U.S. adults have gone to an emergency room in the past 2 years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor when needed. As long as Congress ignores this issue, our constituents will continue to wait for medical care that should be provided to them expeditiously. It is disappointing that this problem has been left on the backbumer for so long, and I hope that this reinvigorated health- care discussion will allow us as Members to seize the opportunity to do what is right for our constituents. I strongly urge Members to read the attached Business Week article and a recent column by Paul Krugman that describe the health-care waiting game that so many of our constituents face on a regular basis. [From Business Week, July 9, 2007] The Doctor Will See You--In Three Months (By Catherine Arnst) The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the arrival of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which compares the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say, U.S. patients at least don't have to endure the endless waits for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans spells it out in a rebuttal to Sicko: ``The American people do not support a government takeover of the entire health-care system because they know that means long waits for rationed care.'' In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. ``I completely freaked out,'' Susan says. ``I couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head.'' After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. ``The system is clearly broken,'' she laments. It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. ``Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care,'' says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy. All this time spent ``queuing,'' as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one- third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries. There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada. The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. ``Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference,'' he says. The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close. Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged. But the market is beginning to address the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart, Pathmark, and other stores-- so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS's Minute Clinics says it all: ``You're sick. We're quick.'' How the U.S. Stacks Up: Able To Get Appointment Same or Next Day for Medical Problem Percent New Zealand..........................................................81 Germany..............................................................63 Britain..............................................................61 Australia............................................................56 U.S...................................................................7 Canada...............................................................36 Data: Commonwealth Fund

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 294, which commends the Kingdom of Lesotho for the enactment of a law to improve the status of married women and ensure the access of married women to property rights. Lesotho has made incredible progress towards gender equality, and I hope this Congress will recognize these steps forward. This landlocked country of about 12,000 square miles has achieved a significant milestone towards gender equality by legally eliminating any deprivation of property rights for women. It gives me great pride to recognize not only the Kingdom of Lesotho, but also the idea that gender equality can be achieved in developing countries. Through the diligent efforts of many women's rights organizations, as well as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the women of Lesotho now can turn to their court to protect their rights. I am especially proud that this resolution includes continued support for International Women's Day, which we celebrate annually on March 8. Earlier this year the House passed House Resolution 149, legislation I introduced that supports the goals of International Women's Day. International Women's Day recognizes and honors the women around the world who have fought and continue to struggle for equality in the face of adversity. What is happening in Lesotho is a manifestation of the actions of those persistent women. I want to again congratulate the Kingdom of Lesotho for enacting this crucial legislation and proving again that gender discrimination is simply unacceptable. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Lesotho.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah for the past year. On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah terrorists crossed into Israel and attacked two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) armored jeeps as they were patrolling Israel's northern border. One year ago today, those terrorists killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped Eldad and Ehud, as mentioned above. We mourn the passing of the three Israeli soldiers who were killed a year ago, and to honor their legacies, we must continue in our work to secure the release of Eldan Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. As their families pray for their swift return, the United States must continue to forge ahead in our efforts to bring about their release. Madam Speaker, Hezbollah has tried to make Eldad and Ehud into bargaining chips. But they are not political chess pieces, things that can be swapped for political gain. They are human beings with names, lives, and families who miss them. They have families who wait every day for news of their circumstances, who have waited every day for a year now without receiving word that Eldad and Ehud are safe. Unfortunately, Eldad and Ehud are not alone among Israel's missing soldiers. Three weeks before their capture, Hamas kidnapped IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit. The Shalit family has met with many communities across the United States, urging people to remember their son and speak out on his behalf. To honor those who died a year ago, and the soldiers held captive, we must let the perpetrators of these terrible acts know that we have not forgotten what they have done. In March we passed H. Res. 107, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah, and now we continue to express our deepest sympathies to the families of the missing soldiers, and we must pledge to continue the fight to bring them home. I join with those across Israel and the United States to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Eldad, Ehud and Gilad. As the leader of the democratic world, America stands with Israel in its refusal to let these soldiers be forgotten.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam speaker, I would like to submit this insightful editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times for the record. The Sun-Times has accurately and incisively captured the frustrations of the residents of the Chicagoland area, and of Americans around the country. They are tired of this ill-planned and ill-executed war, and they believe that it is time to ``set a date to bring our troops home.'' [From the Chicago Sun-Times, July 16, 2007] Deadline in Iraq: It's Time To Set a Date To Bring Our Troops Home Americans of all political leanings want to understand when our involvement in Iraq will end. We have waited patiently for the positive results the president has repeatedly promised. We have looked for improvements following shifts in military strategy, the approval of benchmarks, the last-ditch surge. No matter how much wishful thinking President Bush indulged in last week in finding ``a cause for optimism'' in the White House report on progress in Iraq, Americans heard little to give them confidence that things are improving. The president should face reality and put before the American people a plan to conclude our direct involvement in Iraq. We need to understand the end game. Are Iraq's political leaders any closer to resolving their deep, divisive differences? Are they any closer to providing security and basic services for the people? No, on both counts. There has been no real progress toward meeting eight of 18 crucial benchmarks. There is, however, progress in Congress toward forcing Bush's hand. The Democratic controlled House voted to require the United States to withdraw most combat troops from Iraq by April 1. Then two leading Republican senators, John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, called for Bush to present a contingency plan for Iraq to Congress by Oct. 16. Threatened with opposition from more Republicans, the president is pulling out all political stops to keep ahead of that trend. At his worst, he has resorted to recycling cheap scare tactics--warning that the terrorist threat to Americans, on American soil, will increase dramatically the minute we pull soldiers from Iraq. In lashing Congress for trying to ``run the war,'' Bush might have been lashing Americans who expressed their ardent opposition to the war at the polls last November. He wants us to wait until Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker release their progress report on Iraq in September before reaching any conclusions. Our concern is if their findings don't jibe with his policy, the president will come up with more reasons for Americans to withhold judgment. To wait some more. Some have argued that setting a deadline will give the enemy a target date, allowing the enemy to lie in wait. But not having a plan risks further inciting Americans against the war. It could lead an exasperated Congress to make rash ultimatums that would put soldiers more at risk than if the president initiated a rational plan now. The president has had more than enough time to develop and articulate an exit strategy in Iraq. Everyone wants to minimize the mess we'll leave behind. If April 1 doesn't work for the president, what date will? How long does he envision that we'll have to stay? The answer can no longer be ``indefinitely.'' The American people need a plan, and they need it now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 1.5 million families who are living with autism in this country today. The Waters family, from my district is one of those families. They know firsthand about the difficulties of raising a child with autism. They have risen to the challenge, however, raising a beautiful, 6-year-old daughter, Candace. They have also dedicated their work to raising awareness about their daughter's condition and building a support network for other families around the country living with autism. Robert and Sandy Waters have created a radio show on Autism One Radio, a nonprofit, charity organization that was created by a small group of parents of children with autism. The Waters' radio show, ``The Candy Store,'' provides music, art, inspiration, and information to inspire, educate, and help parents guide their children. They have written a song titled ``Faith, Love, and Hope'' for their daughter. The song has inspired and influenced parents, organizations, and politicians around the world. People like Robert and Sandy Waters play an increasingly important role, as autism is one of the fastest-growing developmental disabilities in the world, and affects 1 in every 150 children born today. With proper education, training, and community living options, however, individuals with autism can lead productive lives, contribute to their communities, and reach their fullest potential. Unfortunately, however, understanding, services, and research lag behind the needs of our Nation's families. With further research, scientists hope to establish biomedical markers and environmental links that will allow for earlier diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, researchers intend to look into the possibility of a vaccine and attempt to find the treatment programs that are most successful. As research opens up new treatment possibilities, we must also provide education in order to change public perception of autism and those individuals living with the disease. Again, I would like to commend the work of the Waters family. I urge all citizens to become educated about autism and join in the effort to increase awareness and support for those living with this condition.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. I agree with the 70 percent of Americans who want our troops out of Iraq. And I agree with the comprehensive report called ``Strategic Reset'' from the Center for American Progress, written by three authors, one of whom is Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense. They write, ``The current Iraq strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants, the United States distracted and pinned down by Iraq's internal conflicts, trapped in a quagmire that has become the perfect rallying cry and recruitment tool for al Qaeda. The United States has no good options, given the strategic and tactical mistakes made in Iraq since 2002, but simply staying the course with an indefinite military presence is not advancing U.S. interests.'' Today we will vote to change the course to bring our troops home by April of 2008. I will proudly vote in favor of that bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, today's passage of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Act (SERVA) will improve greatly the housing voucher system--which is already successful and has been described by the Administration as one of the federal government's most effective programs. Safe and affordable housing is one of my priorities and should be a national priority. Section 8 vouchers are a great tool for getting families into decent homes. Studies have shown that Section 8 vouchers reduce homelessness, overcrowding, and frequent moves from apartment to apartment. Affordable housing is critical to strong families and communities, and vouchers have allowed families to move to lower- poverty neighborhoods with better schools and less exposure to crime. H.R. 1851 will only increase the success of Section 8 vouchers, which currently provides housing assistance to more than 2 million families, by making the program more efficient and more effective. From 2004 to 2006, voucher funds were allocated using a series of ineffectual formulas that gave some agencies less funding than they needed to cover the costs of their vouchers--forcing them to cut back for needy families--while other agencies were given more funds than they could use. This resulted in $1.4 billion of unused funds and, more importantly, 150,000 more low-income families without vouchers. SERVA would base funding on the actual cost of each agency's vouchers in the previous year. This will allow housing agencies, apartment owners, and families with vouchers to be confident that the program will be funded on a regular basis. Moreover, SERVA will establish incentives encouraging agencies to serve as many families as their funding permits, rather than accumulating large balances of unspent funds. In addition to establishing such a stable, efficient and equitable voucher funding policy, SERVA will additionally remove barriers to voucher ``portability'', as well as streamline the rules for determining tenants' rent payment. It will authorize 100,000 new vouchers over five years' time, and include provisions to encourage economic self-sufficiency. It will also allow families to use housing vouchers as a down payment on a first-time home purchase, gives a limited number of Public Housing Agencies some flexibility to experiment with development and rent policies, and makes it easier for housing agencies to attach vouchers to housing units. These reforms will provide vital rental assistance for seniors and the disabled as well as low-income families, as well as provide a welcome opportunity for low-income families to achieve the American Dream of home ownership. By reforming an already highly successful program, we can improve the quality of life for many American families, elderly, and disabled citizen all over the country by offering them more and better choices of communities to live in.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this is such an exciting day. Today, we say to the nearly 200,000 students every year who do not attend college for financial reasons, you deserve better. You deserve better than outdated financial aid packages, crippling debt, and empty promises of support once you graduate. Today we are delivering on that promise. Higher education has become increasingly important in this country and around the world, yet it has been rapidly slipping from the grasp of thousands and thousands of students every year. Over the past several years, states have cut higher education funding and in many cases, passed that cost on to students. Student loans, which for two-thirds of our students average $20,000, not only affect student's financial viability down the road, they effect the range of opportunities that are available to new graduates as they seek out professions that will enable them to repay their loans. Education is supposed to be the gateway to opportunity, not the path to financial ruin. One of the most important provisions of H.R. 2669 is an expansion of eligibility and an increase in the Pell grant scholarship to $5,200 over the next 5 years. This bill will also encourage and enable graduates to go into the public service fields they're interested in-- and which our country so desperately needs--by providing loan forgiveness for first responders, early childhood educators, librarians, nurses, public defenders, and public prosecutors. These professions are some of the most important to our communities, yet they are chronically undersupported. This bill will also provide tuition assistance to students who commit to teaching in public schools, high-poverty communities, and high-need subject areas. It also makes a landmark investment in Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Tribally Controlled, Native or Predominately Black Institutions. By redirecting excessive Federal subsidies for lenders in the student loan industry, these new commitments will come at no additional cost to taxpayers. It's time that taxpayer dollars go towards our student's future--and the future of our competitiveness as a nation. I urge my colleagues to support this remarkable legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, It is my honor to recognize and pay tribute to Anne Theresa Hawk, who celebrated her 100th birthday on June 29, 2007. Anne was born on June 29, 1907 in Cloverdale, OH. She spent her childhood on a farm in Gainesville, TX, where she attended school in a one-room schoolhouse. The eighth of nine children, Anne is the last surviving member of her family. Chicago has been Anne's home since she was 22 years old and it is also the place where she met her husband and where they raised their beautiful family. A loving caregiver, she has selflessly dedicated her love and energy to her three children, six grandchildren, and three great grandchildren. Over time, Anne has become quite a formidable scrabble player. She is also a writer, and she penned a memoir of her childhood in Texas called Hills Are for Climbing. On behalf of the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, it is my privilege to congratulate Anne Theresa Hawk on this momentous occasion. You are a true inspiration, an asset to the community, and a wonderful woman. I wish you continued good health and happiness.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Emanuel's amendment to allocate only the budget of the Senate president to Mr. Cheney. We have known for the Vice President to go to undisclosed locations, but never to an undisclosed branch of government. I turned to my Constitution for some help. It looks to me like article II does include the Vice President in the executive. The Senate itself seems confused, having subpoenaed Vice President Cheney yesterday for records on the administration's spying program. The other body doesn't seem to appear to embrace Vice President Cheney as one of its own. The Vice President can't have it both ways. This amendment helps him sort it out. We will defund his executive office, leaving him with a vastly reduced budget but giving him what he wants, at least on some undisclosed days.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, June 23, 2007 marked a significant event in American history; the 35th anniversary of the passage of Title IX of the Higher Education Act. In celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Title IX law, I am pleased to honor the principle of equal opportunity before the law and applaud the amazing contributions made by women. Title IX's impact on college sports has been well documented. However, its influence on women extends well beyond the playing field and into the classroom. When the law was passed in 1972, 46 percent of female high school students enrolled in college immediately after graduating. In 2005, that figure had risen to 70 percent and the share of bachelor's degrees earned by women had increased from 44 to 57 percent. Title IX has also affected my life in a very personal way. I have seen how Title IX has changed the experiences of the women in my own family. When I was in school, there was no Title IX and opportunities were limited. When my daughter, Mary, was in school, Title IX was in its infancy, but it opened the door to her and her classmates to a number of options in not only sports, but careers as well. I am so excited that now that my granddaughters, Isabel, Lucy, and Eve are growing up in a time when a whole new world is available to them. As a member of Congress I am dedicated to ensuring that Title IX remains in tact. We have made great progress as a Nation in the last 35 years; however, we must make certain that Title IX remains a bedrock principle in America. The progress we have seen in the country is just the beginning.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the 2007 graduating class of Senn High School. At a time when immigration reform is at the forefront of America's conscience it is important that we take a moment to recognize the important role immigrants have played in the growth of this country and the vital part they will continue to have in our development as a society. The graduates of Senn High School represent this bright future. Demonstrating that the American dream is alive and well, the graduating class is made up of students from 60 different countries and speaks 46 different languages. The diversity and richness that these students bring from their families' culture adds so much to our community. Like so many Americans, I am a first-generation American and I believe that we need to continue our tradition of welcoming immigrant groups from all over the world into our communities. I am so very proud of each and every one of these exemplary graduates, many of whom, in addition to be the first in the family to graduate from high school, plan to attend college as well. Madam Speaker, as we continue to debate the merits of immigration reform, I hope that we will not lose sight of what is truly important, and that is the profound impact that immigrants have on all of us, making this country a richer and better place to live.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Lewis amendment. It is time to close the School of the Americas, or WHINSEC. After so many decades of human rights abuses and threats to democracy, the U.S. should not be giving a privileged position to Latin American militaries by maintaining a special school in the United States just for them. Nearly every month in Latin America, a perpetrator of human rights crimes, corruption, or drug-trafficking is found to have attended the School of the Americas. There's a reason that the SOA has been called the ``School of the Atrocities.'' WHINSEC, as well as current U.S. foreign policies, are making the United States lose ground with the people of Latin America. Our relations with Latin America are at their lowest ebb in several decades. The Abu Ghraib scandal, the doctrine of preemptive war, secret prisons and the debate over detentions in Guantanamo Bay are reported widely and critically in Latin American media. I have traveled to Latin America and seen for myself that the WHINSEC, as the direct heir of the School of the Americas, is viewed throughout Latin America as a symbol of the U.S. priority of strengthening brutal military regimes instead of encouraging development. Suspending part of the aid to the WHINSEC would show that the United States wants to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Such a move would be a significant and positive step forward in repairing our damaged image and credibility. It would also be a blow to those who have strengthened themselves politically by accusing the United States of hypocrisy on human rights and democracy. A more cooperative, less unilateral foreign policy, including the suspension of funding for WHINSEC, will clearly demonstrate our respect for international human rights standards and would help the United States regain influence and build connections in Latin America. The United States should work with Latin American nations on common solutions to common problems, and our programs should invest in helping Latin American communities help themselves. Instead of providing funds to train human rights abusers, we should provide assistance for clean water, vaccinations for children, micro-credit, technical assistance for small farmers and small business, shelter for refugees and generous disaster relief to build goodwill with our neighbors. Just last month Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica, announced that Costa Rica would no longer send its police to the WHINSEC for training. We should join Costa Rica (and other Latin American countries who have withdrawn their police from training at WHINSEC) in changing course by withdrawing funding from this criminal training ground.