Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 6, the House Rules Package for the 110th Congress. With the passage of this resolution, we are committing ourselves to restore honest leadership, civility, and fiscal responsibility to the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a commitment that we owe to our constituents and to our Nation. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the House of Representatives was transformed from the people's House into a legislative body where those who could afford to make their influence felt far too often held sway. Legislation was enacted that benefited the wealthy few instead of the vast majority. Legislation was enacted-- often in the middle of the night--without time for review or careful consideration. Legislation was enacted to benefit those who could afford to pay for fancy meals and golf vacations while legislation that would improve wages and the quality of life for working Americans was ignored. The process was abused, votes were held open, and amendments were prohibited from being offered. The losers have been the American public. Perhaps the single best example of these abuses is the Medicare Modernization Act, a law which actually prohibits Medicare from negotiating for drug savings, as the VA and large employers do today, and by doing so guarantees that senior citizens and persons with disabilities will pay more than they should for the drugs that they need. This law would not have been enacted if pharmaceutical companies had not been allowed to use undue influence, if Democratic conferees had not been locked out of the negotiations, if Members had not been intimidated on the House floor, and if the final vote had not been held open for nearly 3 hours to change the outcome. During the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will eliminate this prohibition and require that Medicare use its bargaining clout on behalf of consumers. Today, we are taking steps to make sure that the procedural abuses that were used to enact that prohibition will become a relic of the past. We also begin the 110th Congress by putting our financial house in order. The past 6 years of fiscal mismanagement has turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into an over $3 trillion deficit. The passage of H. Res. 6 will help us get our current debt and financial crisis under control while allowing us to make the investments needed for American families and our economic future. With the restoration of pay-as-you-go budgeting, Congress will not be able to increase the deficit and make future generations of Americans carry a debt load so that today's wealthy can get tax cuts like the ones passed over the past few years. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, those tax cuts, which primarily benefit the very rich, are the main cause of our country's fiscal reversal. Reining in the spiraling debt will give us a chance to invest in our communities, create jobs, provide retirement security, and stimulate our economy. Transparency requirements for earmarks will also help us make certain that taxpayers' dollars are put to good use while eliminating wasteful spending. I believe that district-specific earmarks on appropriations or other legislation should not be provided unless they directly improve our communities. Requiring better disclosure of sponsorship of earmarks and ensuring that Members have no personal financial interest in the request will help us guarantee that the funding is targeted to essential infrastructure improvements, community development, vital research, and other important programs. Congress has a long history of providing earmarks for such projects, and I support their continued funding and eliminating the abuses of earmarks like the ``Bridge to Nowhere.'' H. Res. 6 is the first action of the 110th Congress. By its passage, we are demonstrating to the American public that we are going to return the House of Representatives to its rightful role as being the people's House--not just in procedures but also in policy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, now begins a new day for America. During the first ``100 Hours'' of the 110th Congress, Democrats will answer the voters' call for change. We will restore honesty, openness, and civility to Congress, require Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, lower the cost of higher education, raise the minimum wage, invest in `` saving embryonic stem cell research and alternative energy, and strengthen our homeland security. The election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is a historic moment--a testament to Nancy's able, dedicated, and unifying leadership. I am confident that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), and Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (D- CT) will lead us in a new direction that makes our country stronger and more just. While we will make great strides during the first ``100 Hours,'' it's just a downpayment. Even greater change is on the horizon. On November 7th, Americans demonstrated that they will not wait for change in Iraq. Three thousand of our troops have lost their lives and civil war is spreading. Even the Republican co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, warned 'We can no longer afford to stay the course.' I will work with members of both parties to pressure the Bush Administration to begin to draw down troops as quickly as possible so that a diplomatic course may be pursued. While corporations and the few at the top have profited from tax breaks and giveaways, the majority of workers and families in our country have been left behind. My fight to provide opportunity and economic security for the majority of Americans continues. I will work provide good jobs with strong benefits, to end waste and abuse in the government contracting process, and to protect consumers from corporate wrongdoing. The challenges facing our great nation are many. With a focus on our most urgent priorities, Democrats will lead the United States to thrive again, as a force for good that provides opportunity for all.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1091, which condemns in the strongest terms Iran's commitment to hold an international Holocaust denial conference on December 11-12, 2006. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution. I have the honor of representing one of the world's largest communities of Holocaust survivors in the United States. It is on their behalf, and on behalf of all of their friends and family who perished at the hands ofthe Nazis and their collaborators during World War II, that I make this statement today. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's current intent to host an international Holocaust denial conference is only the latest abominable act he has taken in a series of anti-Semitic Holocaust denial statements and actions since he rose to power. Those of us who understand history and humanity will not let President Ahmadinejad's efforts to diminish what was one of mankind's worst disasters go unanswered. No rational person can deny the systematic state-sponsored murder of 6,000,000 Jews and other targeted groups by Nazi Gennany and its collaborators during World War II. The Holocaust happened. It was the worst crime and the largest mass murder of the last century. It is a fact. President Ahmadinejad's past and present declarations and actions-- spewing outrageous anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, remaining a primary source of funding, training, and support for terrorist groups, and openly threatening Israel and the United States--prove President Ahmadinejad is on a crusade of hatred and are deeply troubling acts. I hope other governments, especially those in Middle East and Islamic world, and those on the UN Security Council will join me in speaking out against this hateful and untruthful rhetoric. President Ahmadinejad's assault on the truth is an insult to all. After the Holocaust the Jewish people vowed to ``Never Forget.'' We will never forget. And the world must never forget. And we will never bow to the ignorance, threats, bigotry and fanaticism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--a man whose actions and words are an insult to the great Persian people. I thank my colleagues who will vote unanimously to pass H. Res. 1091.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and treasured friend, Lane Evans. As the 109th Congress comes to an end so, too, does the remarkable 24-year tenure in the House of Representatives of one of the bravest and most decent members to have served in this body. I had the privilege of working in Lane Evans' first campaign in 1982. At the time Lane declared his candidacy, he was considered a sacrificial lamb running against a well-entrenched Republican incumbent. His was a pipe dream--except to the many labor union workers, consumer and civil rights activists, and ordinary residents of this western Illinois district who saw something special in this young, legal assistance attorney. When the incumbent lost his primary election to a State Representative from the far right wing of the party, Lane Evans' campaign gained momentum and this young Democrat become the Congressman, the first Democrat to do so since the Civil War. In the first campaign, Lane spent lots of time with his young volunteers. After all, he wasn't much older than they. He sported a Beatle-like bowl hair cut that he maintained until rather recently, resisting all good-natured recommendations for a style update. He was modest, unassuming, friendly, and also inspiring. He showed a humble respect for each and every voter, addressing them in the soft-spoken, sincere manner that he never lost. The quiet strength that came from being a United States Marine during the Vietnam era always shone through. From the first day and throughout his career in the House, Lane Evans remained true to his core progressive beliefs. The working and retired men and women of his district and the veterans throughout the nation could always count on Lane Evans being there for them--no excuses, no exceptions. Environmentalists named him an ``Environmental Hero.'' There were those who encouraged Lane to trim his positions in order to ensure his reelection. In the end, his consistency proved to be a great asset, appreciated by his constituents who always knew exactly where he stood and who trusted that Lane would not bend with the changes in the polls. As the Ranking Democrat of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Lane Evans is recognized as the leading advocate of veterans in Congress, responsible for legislation to compensate veterans and their families for the effects of Agent Orange, help Persian Gulf and women veterans, and those now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The veterans' service organizations have honored Lane with their highest awards. Lane Evans has always been a leader in the fight for universal health care. Parkinson's disease has forced him to end his productive service in the House. Even now, however, he acknowledges how fortunate he is to be able to afford the best care, while so many Americans are not. He has become an advocate for expanding funding for research into the cure for Parkinson's and many other diseases that might benefit from government-funded embryonic stem cell research. As in all things at all times, Lane Evans is handling this newest challenge with courage and dignity. On a personal note, Lane Evans has been a close and dear friend to me and my husband, Bob Creamer, since that very first campaign in 1982. That friendship, through thick and thin, has been and will always be so precious to us. We are grateful to Lane for being such an important part of our lives. We love him very much. Lane Evans will be sorely missed on a day-to-day basis in this House of Representatives, but his legacy will ever be reflected in the improved lives of the veterans of the United States and all the working families who will continue to benefit from his outstanding service.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There are many glaring problems with this bill. It gives the President unilateral discretion to interpret the meaning and application of provisions in the Geneva Convention that relate to torture, which could result in the allowance of humiliating and degrading interrogation practices. It redefines the definition of an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' to include any individual who ``materially'' and ``purposefully'' supported hostilities against the United States. This new definition is so broadly worded; it could include someone who made an economic contribution to an organization that they did not know was on a terror-watch list. It still allows into evidence information that was obtained through torture and coercion, as long as it was obtained before the passage of the Detainee Torture Act. Perhaps most damaging is the stripping of the United States courts' habeas corpus jurisdiction to review detentions, eliminating one of the most fundamental and important precepts of our American Constitutional tradition. The court-stripping provisions included in this legislation would do serious harm to the longstanding rule that the government cannot just imprison people without giving them the opportunity for a fair and impartial determination that the detention is in accordance with the Constitution. Consider the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen. During a layover in New York on his way home to Canada, United States authorities seized him and shipped him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year. He was subjected to extensive interrogations, during which he was beaten and whipped. He was imprisoned in a 6-foot underground cell. The Canadian Government conducted an investigation into the case and found that Mr. Arar was placed on a terrorist watch-list based on inaccurate, unsubstantiated and unreliable evidence. Since being released, he has been cleared of all charges. This case illustrates why the right of habeas corpus is so vital to our rule of law. Individuals must always have an avenue to challenge their detention. If not, innocent people can be unlawfully detained and indefinitely imprisoned based upon insubstantial or even erroneous evidence. In a letter to Members of Congress commenting on the habeas stripping provisions, former Judge Advocate Generals John Hutson, Donald Guter, and David Brahms stated, ``it is critical to these detainees, who have not been charged with any crime, that Congress not strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear their pending habeas cases. The habeas cases are the only avenue open for them to challenge the bases of their detention--potentially life imprisonment--as `enemy combatants.' '' In another letter to Members of Congress, 9 former Federal judges also expressed concerns. They warn that ``. . . depriving the courts of habeas jurisdiction will jeopardize the Judiciary's ability to ensure that Executive detentions are not grounded on torture or other abuse . . . Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the Federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees.'' Thomas Sullivan, a former United States attorney in Chicago who has represented Guantanamo Bay detainees, testified at a recent Senate hearing that he believed that if this legislation is ``passed with these habeas-stripping provisions in it, then after I am dead and the members of this Senate are dead, an apology will be made, just as we did for the incarceration of the Japanese citizens in the Second World War.'' (``Security and War Take Center Stage as Campaign Break Nears,'' New York Times, September 26, 2006) Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we should work to protect Constitutional rights, not deny them. As the former Judge Advocate Generals wrote in their letter to Members of Congress, ``. . . the writ of habeas corpus embodies principles fundamental to our Nation. It is the essence of the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor executive may deprive a person of liberty without some independent review to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law and fact. That right must be preserved.'' H.R. 6166 has serious consequences for the safety of our brave military men and women and for our Nation. If the United States supports stripping detainees of fundamental legal protections, other countries will feel justified in doing the same thing. Allowing questionable interrogation techniques--practices that could actually violate the Geneva Convention--would have dangerous implications for the treatment of American soldiers who are captured abroad. It will also make the enemy fight harder because capture or surrender could have such dire consequences. In fact, there are fewer people surrendering to American troops now than in at the start of the war in Iraq. While there are those who argue that the erosion of civil liberties is needed to protect our Nation, I believe it will actually have the opposite effect and will make our country less safe. The most important asset the United States has in the world community is our commitment to the rule of law and fair treatment. By denying habeas corpus rights and giving the President unfettered discretion in defining torture, we are sending out a signal to the world that the United States will no longer serve as the world's standard in our commitment to human rights, civil rights and the rule of law. It will erode our international reputation as a moral Nation that is an example of democracy and freedom, and it will undermine our leadership role in the world community. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6166.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as the summer vacation season comes to a close and the winter heating season begins, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to consider the need for a serious investment in alternative energy policies. With global warming, unrest in the Middle East and stagnating wages that are stretched thin by high fuel bills, both the environment and our country stand to gain from increased and aggressive promotion of renewables and energy efficiency. Important steps have already been taken by state and city governments to support the use of renewable energy sources. The Apollo Alliance, an organization that promotes policies which meet the concerns of green environmentalists and blue-collar workers alike, has cited Chicago, Illinois, as being one of several forward-thinking cities that has already acted to put numerous energy-efficient policies in place. Noted by the Alliance were Chicago's comprehensive solar power, environmentally-friendly public transportation, location efficient mortgages, and green roofs initiatives. As what the Alliance calls a ``model'' solar-powered community, Chicago is working to promote photovoltaic cells and has attracted the solar manufacturer Solargenix to the city; a facility that employs 15 people full-time and manufactures 30-40 solar collectors a day. Solar factories such as Solargenix's and a recently-built photovoltaic field which will be used to help generate electricity (``Solar Panels Could Power Backup Plant,'' Chicago Tribune, September 21, 2006) contribute to the city's already-installed 2 MW of solar power. Illinois is one of the country's top five ethanol-producing states, and it is no surprise that Chicago has environmentally-friendly transportation policies as well. In addition to ethanol, the city is exploring another alternative: the hydrogen fuel cell. As Merriman Curhan Ford & Co. mentioned in their May 2005 industry report, fuel cell buses already run on the streets of Chicago. Such public buses are doubly efficient: decreasing the amount of cars on the road, as well as not producing any negative greenhouse gases themselves. The Apollo Alliance explains the Chicago Transit Authority takes its concerns for the environment even further, partnering with the Park District and 48 other municipalities to purchase green power. Commonwealth Edison, the awarded bidder, with the help of the Environmental Resource Trust (ERT), plans to sell ``green tickets'' certified by the ERT and to create a fund to further finance the resource and development of renewable energies with the proceeds. Simply encouraging citizens to use public transportation can greatly decrease the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from a given city, no matter what fuel is used in such transportation. Chicago has found that location efficient mortgages (LEM), mortgages that allow the purchaser to take out greater amounts of money, borrowing against the future money he or she will save by using public transportation, are particularly efficient in this respect. To further promote such mortgages and energy efficiency, Chicago also offered the first 100 LEM borrowers a voucher for $900 toward the purchase of an EnergyStar refrigerator or washer/dryer set. Chicago's Department of Environment also participates in green city planning through the creation of the City Hall Rooftop Garden Pilot Project in 2000 as part of the EPA's Urban Heat Island Initiative. This green roof project helps alleviate Chicago's carbon emissions by requiring a certain percentage of roof space be allocated to green roofs. The program's pilot project, the City Hall's garden, has successfully dropped the temperature on the roof surface and the surrounding air temperature--lowering cooling costs and demand for electricity in the summer and providing insulation to reduce heat energy needs in the winter. Green roofs also improve air quality by absorbing and converting carbon dioxide, producing oxygen, and removing airborne particulates. The Apollo Alliance has recognized the many steps that Chicago has taken to make our Nation energy-independent and environmentally- friendly. We need to build and expand on their success. We need a 21st century energy policy that uses wind power, solar power, biomass, and geothermal energy in our homes and businesses; and ethanol and hydrogen-driven vehicles on our streets. City planning must be rethought to prevent urban sprawl and encourage the use of public transportation. Chicago and other cities have shown us that we can take a new direction on our energy and environmental future--it is time that Congress act forcefully to do so as well.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. I believe that President Bush's secret warrantless wiretapping program was a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and violated the civil rights that make this country so strong and respected. Once this program was unveiled, the Administration's response was not to change the program to comply with American law but to change American law to comply with this program. As a result, we have the bill before us--legislation that would make truly far-reaching changes to FISA and will have alarming consequences for democracy and civil liberties. H.R. 5825 expands the definition of ``electronic surveillance'' to include Americans' international emails and phone calls. It authorizes the warrantless electronic surveillance and physical searches of Americans' emails and phone calls for 60-days after an ``armed attack'' or 60 days before and after an ``imminent attack'' against the United States. Those 60-day periods can be indefinitely renewed. Moreover, ``imminent attack'' is defined as an ``attack likely to cause death, serious injury, or substantial economic damage.'' What is ``substantial economic damage?'' This definition is so sweeping that hacking into a computer could fit. This bill also strips all courts of jurisdiction over surveillance cases, preventing anyone from seeking redress for illegal or unconstitutional electronic surveillance. All of us want to be protected from terrorists, but we can protect our Nation without expanding the FISA law so broadly that innocent people can be spied on by their own government without reasonable justification, trampling on our civil liberties. The FISA law already has measures that take into account the need for emergency surveillance, and the need for urgency cannot be used as a rationale for going around America's law. FISA allows wiretapping without a court order in an emergency; the court must simply be notified within 72 hours. The government is aware of this emergency power and has used it repeatedly. Mr. Speaker, the United States is a Nation built upon its adherence to the laws. And no one--not even a U.S. president--is above the law. Our system of checks and balances must be maintained if American democracy is to be preserved. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' to H.R. 5825.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, there is no question where the loyalty of Washington Republicans rests when it comes to prescription drug coverage for America's seniors. Their loyalty rests in the boardrooms of the Nation's huge pharmaceutical companies. One need only look to last Friday for proof. In pharmacies around the country, many seniors heard the bad news. Their drug purchases would not be covered under Medicare part D because they had reached the ``donut hole.'' These seniors lost coverage because they had already spent $2,250 on their prescriptions, and they won't qualify again until their expenses reach $5,100 for the year. I heard from my constituent, Pauline, who said: ``I'm sure somewhere along the way the `donut hole' phenomenon was described, but obviously was passed over in the tons of Medicare D explanations. All I know is that last month what I paid was $20 and it now costs me $96, and that was only on one prescription. What adds insult to injury is that we must now pay the premium, too, while we lose our benefits. Prior to Medicare part D, it was costing me approximately $400 for all my prescriptions; so I am now faced with full freight, inflated pharmacy bills due to the `donut hole.' '' Actually, Pauline will never get out of the donut hole. It is really a black hole for her. So shame on Congress, Mr. Speaker, if it recesses before requiring the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, H. Res. 723, which calls on President Bush to take immediate steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, and H. Res. 992, which urges the President to appoint a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan. I am proud to be a cosponsor of all three bills. Congress must act now to address what I believe to be the most disastrous humanitarian situation on the planet. We must make it an immediate priority--not just a legislative priority but a priority of conscience--to protect the lives of the men, women, and children who are suffering every day in Darfur, and in refugee camps just over the Sudanese border in Chad. The situation in Darfur has become exceedingly dire. In direct violation of the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and numerous UN Security Council resolutions, the Sudanese government has begun to deploy some 26,000 troops to the Darfur region. This has coincided with a sharp increase in attacks on civilians and humanitarian aid workers, renewed aerial bombardment, and the all but complete deterioration of the fragile DPA. The Congress must use every tool at our disposal to end the horror that continues in Darfur. The American people want us to act. From coast to coast, we have seen massive demonstrations on behalf of peace in Darfur. American Jewish groups, faith groups of all denominations, the Save Darfur Coalition and others are far beyond this Congress in their awareness and attention to this critical situation. We must honor their hard work by passing H.R. 3127, H. Res. 723, and H. Res. 992 today. I was one of several members of Congress who worked to have the situation in Darfur officially classified a ``genocide'' by the United States Congress. I visited Darfur and I have seen the situation with my own eyes. I carry my experience in Darfur with me every day. The people of Darfur have suffered for far too long. After each genocide of the last century, Rwanda being the most recent, we vowed ``never again.'' Yet, we have become witness to another genocide. The time to act is now. I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3127, H. Res. 723, and H. Res. 992.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of last Friday, September 22, ``Donut Hole'' Day. Donut Hole Day was not a happy day but a marker to remind policymakers about the problems that the Part D plan is imposing on America's seniors and people with disabilities this year. September 22 was the day when the average person with Medicare fell into the Part D donut hole--a black hole of coverage for those whose annual drug costs fall between $2,250 and $5,100. The donut hole is a $2,850 gap in coverage when people with private Part D plans continue to pay insurance premiums even though they receive no coverage. September 22 was also the day that senior citizens and persons with disabilities came together in events across the country to demand an affordable drug benefit in Medicare. Nearly 7 million senior citizens and people with disabilities are expected to enter the donut hole. A Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that, of the people who will fall into the donut hole, 1.9 million (28 percent) have incomes less than 150 percent of poverty; 2.9 million (42 percent) are in fair or poor health; and 3.8 million (55 percent) are women. The donut hole is an unprecedented phenomenon. This type of coverage gap is not found in the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan or in any other private plan. It is an insurance mechanism especially crafted for people with Medicare. An analysis from an August report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research concludes that if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices in the same way as the Veterans Administration, the savings would have been more than enough to eliminate the donut hole gap in coverage. In fact, the close to $50 billion that could be saved in the first full year of the program is more than twice the size of the donut hole. The real winners in the Part D program are the drug and insurance companies. In a report released this week by the Committee on Government Reform Democratic staff shows that profits grew by over $8 billion (27 percent) for the ten largest pharmaceutical manufacturers in the first half of this year. The losers in the Part D program are people with Medicare. The prices charged by the top Part D plans in my Congressional District were 79 percent higher than the prices negotiated by the Federal government. A recent Merrill Lynch analysis found that in 2006 prices for popular brand-name drugs had increased by 8.6 percent over the last year, twice as fast as the overall information rate. The donut hole puts seniors and people disabilities' health at grave risk. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that seniors' behaviors change when faced with a prescription drug benefit cap after which they have to pay the full costs of their drugs--and the donut hole is a cap. The study found that found that seniors who confront a cap are more likely to skip doses of treatments, less likely to visit hospital emergency departments, and, sadly, sometimes more likely to die sooner. Their annual mortality rate was 22 percent higher than those without such a cap on benefits. Representatives Marion Berry of Arkansas, Tom Allen of Maine and I introduced H.R. 752, the Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would take Medicare in a new direction by siding with senior citizens and people with disabilities--not the drug companies. This bill would give people with Medicare the choice of enrolling in a Medicare-administered drug benefit and we would force drug companies to lower their prices by requiring Medicare to negotiate for deep discounts. The savings could be used to fill the donut hole. Ms. Pauline Metzger-Aronson wrote to me earlier this year to tell me that she fell into the donut hole in June. She will pay a monthly premium for the rest of the year, although she will not receive any benefits because she will not climb out of the donut hole. She told me that the saying, ``As you amble through life, whatever be your goal: Keep your eye on the donut and not upon the hole'' had new meaning because ``some of us seniors have reached the point where the donut is gone and we are now forced to look into the hole.'' H.R. 752 would help Ms. Metzger-Aronson and many others. It is a step in the right direction which will put America's seniors and people with disabilities first. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the so-called Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. Beginning in 2008, this bill imposes a requirement that eligible voters must present a government-issued photo identification and beginning in 2010, eligible voters must present a government-issued photo identification that would prove they are a citizen. Proponents of this bill claim that requiring a photo identification and proof of citizenship to vote will combat voter fraud. But, too often, anecdotal stories are put forth as evidence to prove the claim they are using to make the case for this bill. However, there is no concrete evidence to back up the need for this proposal. According to Demos and People for the American Way, to date there have been no major studies to document actual election fraud in the United States. Furthermore, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, nationally since October 2002, only ``86 individuals have been convicted of federal crimes relating to election fraud, while 196,139,871 ballots have been cast in federal general elections.'' There needs to be more safeguards to protect the integrity of the electoral process, but this can only be done by addressing actual problems that are currently undermining voting rights, almost all of which have the effect of disenfranchising eligible voters. The bill doesn't address voter intimidation and discrimination at the polls and it doesn't take into account the costs to states to implement the requirements of H.R. 4844, making it an unfunded mandate. This bill is not just guilty of being a solution in search of problem. It actually will create a problem. The real impact of this bill will undoubtedly be an increase in voter disenfranchisement, because the burden and cost involved in obtaining the identification required would likely discourage many Americans from voting, an essential Constitutional right. Also, even though H.R. 4844 has a provision that requires states to give free photo identification to those who cannot afford them, it does not take into account the time and cost that eligible voters would incur to get the supporting documents needed to obtain this required identification. Essentially this forces people to pay for their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Mr. Speaker, the burden that this legislation creates falls squarely on the shoulders of seniors, and the disabled. The AARP is strongly opposed to this bill because of the disproportionate impact it has on seniors. Many seniors no longer drive and therefore do not have a driver's license, many were born at home by midwives and do not have a birth certificate, and have limited mobility, making it extremely difficult for them to obtain a government-issued identification to meet this bill's requirements. Even those who wish to vote by provisional ballot are required to present the required identification for their vote to be counted. Elections should be open to all eligible voters and as Members of Congress we should be enacting legislation that encourages more Americans to vote, not erecting new barriers to voting. Laws such as the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted to create a more inclusive democracy by making voting easier. H.R. 4844 will seriously undermine that goal and will be a disservice to the memories of those courageous civil rights heroes who fought for its implementation. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4844.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, let me close by saying this: this is really a jobs bill and a truth-in-labeling bill. It is a win-win-win situation: good for the consumers, good for the manufacturers, good for the garment workers. And I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4583, the Wool Suit Fabric Labeling Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act; and I want to thank Representative Blackburn, the lead sponsor of H.R. 4583. It was a pleasure to work with her and her staff on a bill that would help consumers, American workers, and manufacturers in the wool products industry. Our bill would update the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 to include the internationally recognized standards for wool fiber content of the various ``super'' grade fabric, and ensure that any clothing labeled as cashmere actually includes hair from the cashmere goat. Although quite simple and straightforward, our bill is very important to the U.S. wool products industry. With the increase in imports from China, the domestic apparel manufacturers and textile mills face significant challenges to maintaining employment and production. By requiring clothing to be labeled properly, our bill will help level the playing field. It will ensure that consumers are better informed about the products they are buying, and it will put an end to mislabeled wool and cashmere products in the United States. No longer will imported suits of a lower quality be able to claim they are the same high quality as those bearing the ``made in the U.S.A.'' label. This bill updates the outdated law that does not recognize the different levels of yarn fineness. We have a great tradition of wool suit craftsmanship in the United States. By updating the Wool Products Labeling Act, H.R. 4583 will help ensure the health and vitality of the U.S. apparel and textile industry which includes members of my union, UNITE HERE!, and two Chicago-based manufacturers, Hartmarx and Oxxford Clothes. The passage of our bill will ensure that the U.S. tailored clothing industry can continue to thrive in the international marketplace. H.R. 4583 is supported both by the wool suit manufacturers and the Garment Workers Union, UNITE HERE!, as well as the U.S. textile industry. I urge my colleagues to support it as well, and I look forward to the passage of this bill today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We are having a very important debate in this country on how we deal with terrorist prisoners or so-called terrorist prisoners and the way that we try them and the way that we present evidence. Many of you will remember that in the Oklahoma City bombing when Timothy McVeigh was captured no one in the United States of America said, We are not going to give him all the rights under our Constitution, we are not going to show him the evidence that we have against him; we are going to deny him all his full rights to a jury trial. If you think about it, no matter how heinous the crime is, when it occurs here, Americans say we have the rule of law, that is who we are. And no matter how horrible and horrifying it is, each individual has a process. It seems to me that when we deal with this war on terrorism that we are talking about so much, that we owe it to ourselves as a country that established the rule of law that we make sure that those who are accused get the charges against them and the right to defend themselves.

Mrs. SCHAKOWSKY

Mrs. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice goes to New York for the opening of the 61st United Nations General Assembly she is expected to meet with Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov of Azerbaijan. His country is becoming an important geo- strategic player in the Caspian region and Central Asia. It has worked closely with the United States on the critical oil pipeline from the Caspian to the Mediterranean and other issues. There are some important obstacles to realizing the full potential of our strategic relationship with Azerbaijan. Of particular concern is the deteriorating human rights situation and the growing number of political prisoners in that country's jails. During her confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations earlier this year, Ambassador Anne Derse stressed the importance the United States attaches to freedom, democracy and human rights as high priorities in our relationship with Azerbaijan. The Bush administration's emphasis on the critical importance for nurturing democracy, not only in bringing freedom to people but in helping make this a safer world at a time of growing threat from Islamofascism, is of particular concern in Central Asia. Azerbaijan is a secular Muslim state, thus making the development of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law ever more critical in such an unstable region of the world. Azerbaijan is also an important American interest in energy and security cooperation. As our economic and political cooperation grow, our relations with Azerbaijan become more critical. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has spoken of his commitment to democracy but, unfortunately, the gap between promise and performance is widening, not shrinking. I am particularly concerned about the need for an independent judiciary, commitment to the rule of law and a transparent justice system. An alarming number of political prisoners are held in Azeri jails, most notably former Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev and his brother Rafiq Aliyev (The brothers are no relation to President Aliyev). Farad Aliyev was arrested on trumped-up political charges of planning a coup, and to that was later added a charge of murdering the editor of Monitor magazine, Elmar Huseynov. The actual confessed murderer, Haji Mammadov, a former official of the Interior Ministry's Criminal Investigation Department, reportedly accused Farhad Aliyev of ordering the killing. Independent media reports demonstrate that the accusation is not taken seriously and believed to have been pushed on the killer, perhaps in a deal for a lighter sentence, as part of the government's desire to strengthen its weak case against Aliyev and eliminate a potential rival for the president. Mr. Speaker, I urge Secretary of State Rice to take up this matter at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Mammadyarov and stress that the United States seeks assurances that all political prisoners are allowed free access to counsel of their choice, are safe and provided all necessary health care, receive humane treatment and, if it goes that far, receive a free, fair and public trial. More appropriately, they should be freed at once as a demonstration of Azerbaijan's commitment to democratic reform and respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Azeri Democracy Initiative, a non-partisan, international non- profit organization headquartered in Washington and dedicated to strengthening U.S.-Azerbaijan ties on a basis of shared values, has joined in calling on the European Court of Human Rights to investigate the politically-motivated arrest of Farhad Aliyev, the reformist former Minister of Economic Development of Azerbaijan. The case before the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was filed by a group of British lawyers and alleges human rights abuses. They pointed out that Azerbaijan, as a member of the Council of Europe, is legally obligated to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights as a condition of membership of the Council of Europe. Lord Lester QC, one of Europe's leading barristers on human rights issues, said the brothers were detained arbitrarily, put in solitary confinement and held ``without justification''. He has been denied access to the men. ``The Aliyev cases illustrate how far the Republic of Azerbaijan has to change before it can be regarded as a truly democratic state respecting the European rule of law and the fundamental human rights and freedoms of its citizens,'' Lord Lester added. Many members of the brothers' families, business associates and acquaintances have been ``harassed, arrested and persecuted following Farhad and Rafiq's arrests,'' according to Lucy James, one of the London attorneys. ``Many have been detained on trumped up charges or without charge'' and many have reportedly lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Secretary of State and Ambassador Derse in Baku to raise this critical human rights issue at the highest levels and call for the freedom of political prisoners.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. How safe is America today from terrorist attacks? Here are some of the results from Foreign Policy magazine's recently published ``Terrorism Index,'' a survey of over 100 top national security experts from across the political spectrum, with the results weighted to ensure balance between conservatives and liberals. Among the key findings are, one, 84 percent of the experts said we are losing the war on terror. Eighty-six percent said that the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States and the American people. Ninety-three percent said the war in Afghanistan had a positive impact on the war on terror, but 87 percent said the war in Iraq had a negative impact on the war on terror. It is clear to the American people now that this country is moving in the wrong direction, the wrong direction in the war in Iraq; and it is time for a new direction. The Democrats offer a new direction for America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, last month, the 9th Congressional District of Illinois mourned the loss of a dedicated and extraordinary public servant. Mary Anderson Bain brought her many talents, a firmly- rooted commitment to the New Deal principles of expanding opportunities to all, and a deep love of the arts to a career that has enriched our Nation. Mary Bain is known by many of us from her long service with Representative Sid Yates, and she was one of the first women chiefs of staff when she accepted that position in 1975. Mrs. Bain was gracious and charming, but she was also politically-savvy and focused when it came to contributing to the well-being of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois and promoting the interests that she and Representative Yates shared. The two of them were a finely-tuned team who, together, were able to do great things. In 2003, Mary Bain received the Heritage Defender Award, an award that recognized her many achievements: helping to create a cultural heritage grants program for the National Park Service and a conservation program at the Institute of Library and Museum Services and to ensure funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Gallery, and the Kennedy Center. At the awards ceremony, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, ``Not only did Mary Bain save national treasures, she is a national treasure.'' Mrs. Bain served the Nation but she started her public service in Illinois, first as a junior high school English teacher and later as the Illinois administrator of the National Youth Administration, a depression-era New Deal initiative. She was one of the youngest and one of the few women leaders. Part of the Works Progress Administration, the NYA provided young men and women with small work study payments so that they could afford to get an education. It provided an opportunity for a generation of young people who would otherwise have lost hope and their chance for a better future. Mary Bain followed two guiding principles throughout her life. One was the belief that publicly-accountable government could make a positive difference in people's lives, whether it is in preserving the environment, providing education opportunities and financial security or expanding our cultural life. She was proud to be a liberal and made no bones about it. The second was her commitment to sharing what she had learned from her decades of public service with others. There are many people in Washington and Illinois who were mentored by Mary Bain-- staff, House members, activists and advocates. I will always be grateful for her generosity in helping me when I was elected to succeed Representative Yates. And, like so many others, I will always be grateful for her lifetime of accomplishments.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to point out there is a book called, ``Alternatives to Auction and Slaughter: A Guide for Equine Owners (A Better Way),'' that lists all kinds of places that welcome animals that are at the end of their lives and are unwanted. Quite frankly, I find really disingenuous those on the other side who oppose this legislation who say those of us who support ending horse slaughter are actually going to be hurting horses more, that we somehow don't get it. I think that is very disrespectful to the well over 500 organizations that support this bill, including the American Horse Defense Fund, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Protection Institute, the Humane Society of the United States. Clearly, I could go on and on. These are organizations that are in business for the sole purpose of making sure that animals are treated humanely. They are not mistaken in supporting this legislation. Those of us who truly care about the welfare of horses should support this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?