Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which would put an end to the deplorable practice of slaughtering American horses for consumption. As a strong supporter of animal rights, a horse lover, a former horse owner, I have joined with 202 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as a cosponsor of H.R. 503. 550 national and State organizations also support H.R. 503, and I have received over 900 communications from constituents in support of the bill. Congress has already expressed its desire to put an end to horse slaughter by voting to amend the fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations bill to ban the practice. That amendment passed by an overwhelming vote of 269-158 in the House, 69-28 in the Senate. However, the language that passed in both the House and Senate stating that no Federal dollars could be used to fund the inspection of horse slaughter plants, thus ending the practice, was stripped out. The Republican leadership, in an act of hubris, changed the language in conference to allow for flexibility in interpretation of that ban and allowed the plants to continue to operate. This is going against congressional intent and has been taken to the courts. Congress voted to put an end to horse slaughter in this country because horses are some of the most beautiful and beloved domesticated animals on Earth. Earlier this year the story of Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner that shattered his leg at the start of the Preakness, transfixed millions of Americans. Since his injury, the thoroughbred has received an incredible outpouring of letters, flowers, apples, and carrots from Americans across the country. Fans have even made pilgrimages to Barbaro's care facility in Pennsylvania to wish him well in his long recovery. Americans are rooting for Barbaro because they have been inspired by his strength, his beauty, and his strong personality. Americans have long appreciated horses for transport, on ranches, as police mounts, and as cherished companions. The American Horse Council reports that 1.9 million Americans currently own horses. Another 7.1 million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees, and volunteers, while tens of millions participate in horse events as spectators. These millions of Americans know that horses should be treated with dignity and respect in life and death. They are disgusted, as I am, that in 2005 over 90,000 horses were slaughtered at three American-based foreign-owned plants, and I stress foreign-owned plants, so that meat could be shipped to Europe and Asia for consumption as a delicacy. Horses bound for slaughter must endure inhumane conditions on the way to and during slaughter. Horses are shipped frequently for long distances in terrible conditions. They are crammed together in trucks built for cattle and pigs. Because of the cramped transport, they are often trampled and some horses arrive at the slaughterhouse seriously injured or dead. Once at the slaughterhouse, horses are often not rendered unconscious before they are killed, as mandated by Federal law. Most people assume that all or most of the horses bought for slaughter are old or injured. In fact, according to the USDA guidelines for handling and transporting equines for slaughter, 92.3 percent of horses that arrive at slaughter plants are in ``good'' condition, meaning they are not injured, lame, overweight, or underweight. Healthy animals, pets, and former race horses are all sent to slaughter. We may hear today that it is likened to being humane to animals in order to oppose this legislation. It could not be further from the truth. The humane vote is to vote in favor of this legislation to ban the inhumane slaughter of horses. Earlier I mentioned Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner. Ferdinand, the winner of the 1986 Derby, faced a very different fate. After his momentous Derby victory, Ferdinand was killed for food in a Japanese slaughterhouse in 2002. Just imagine if Barbaro faced the same end. Not surprisingly, a recent poll conducted by public opinion strategists found that 65 percent of Americans do not support horse slaughter, and 64 percent of Americans believe that horses are companions like dogs and cats and killing a horse to eat is not different than killing a cat or dog to eat. I am sure that other Members of this body have received hundreds of letters too from constituents who oppose horse slaughter and support H.R. 503. I think it is time to listen to the American public and finally end the barbaric practice of horse slaughter by passing H.R. 503. Let us not sign off on Barbaro burgers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 503. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the International AIDS Society meeting in Toronto last month focused the world's attention on ways to deal with the ongoing AIDS pandemic. Global health experts and advocates came together to discuss effective tactics and comprehensive strategies for improved prevention and therapies and, ultimately, a cure. I am particularly glad that the meeting highlighted the need for microbicides development, treatments that will allow vulnerable women to protect themselves and their families from infection. As we consider the recommendations made in Toronto, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a recent article, ``AIDS in 2006--Moving toward One World, One Hope?,'' published in the August 17 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine. Written by Dr. Paul Farmer and Dr. Jim Yong Kim, leading medical experts with years of front-line experience through their work at Partners in Health, they offer us important lessons that will help translate the optimism expressed in Toronto into the reality of improved global health. As they point out, an effective approach to the global AIDS epidemic (and to the global TB and malaria epidemics as well) will require strategies that address the global epidemic of poverty and the inequitable distribution of health care resources. Affordable drugs, viable public health systems, access to trained health care personnel, and the provision of nutrition and other ``wrap-around'' services that make the difference between life and death are all essential components for success. As Partners in Health has proven in Haiti and Rwanda, this comprehensive approach is not a pie-in-the-sky notion. It is completely achievable given a commitment to make and sustain the necessary investments. The work of nongovernmental organizations like Partners in Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundations HIV/ AIDS Initiative has allowed us to make incredible strides, but they cannot solve these problems alone. As Dr. Farmer and Dr. Kim caution us, ``Only the public sector, not nongovernmental organizations, can offer health care as a right.'' The U.S. government can and must take the lead in expanding our commitment to defeating the twin dangers of global pandemics and global poverty. By doing so, we will not only make the world healthier, we will make it safer. [From the New England Journal of Medicine, Aug. 17, 2006] AIDS in 2006--Moving Toward One World, One Hope? (By Jim Yong Kim and Paul Farmer) For the past two decades, AIDS experts--clinicians, epidemiologists, policymakers, activists, and scientists-- have gathered every two years to confer about what is now the world's leading infectious cause of death among young adults. This year, the International AIDS Society is hosting the meeting in Toronto from August 13 through 18. The last time the conference was held in Canada, in 1996, its theme was ``One World, One Hope.'' But it was evident to conferees from the poorer reaches of the world that the price tag of the era's great hope--combination antiretroviral therapy-- rendered it out of their reach. Indeed, some African participants that year made a banner reading ``One World, No Hope.'' Today, the global picture is quite different. The claims that have been made for the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy have proved to be well founded: in the United States, such therapy has prolonged life by an estimated 13 years--a success rate that would compare favorably with that of almost any treatment for cancer or complications of coronary artery disease. In addition, a number of lessons, with implications for policy and action, have emerged from efforts that are well under way in the developing world. During the past decade, we have gleaned these lessons from our work in setting global AIDS policies at the World Health Organization in Geneva and in implementing integrated programs for AIDS prevention and care in places such as rural Haiti and Rwanda. As vastly different as these places may be, they are part of one world, and we believe that ambitious policy goals, adequate funding, and knowledge about implementation can move us toward the elusive goal of shared hope. The first lesson is that charging for AIDS prevention and care will pose insurmountable problems for people living in poverty, since there will always be those unable to pay even modest amounts for services or medications, whether generic or branded. Like efforts to battle airborne tuberculosis, such services should be seen as a public good for public health. Policymakers and public health officials, especially in heavily burdened regions, should adopt universal-access plans and waive fees for HIV care. Initially, this approach will require sustained donor contributions, but many African countries have recently set targets for increased national investments in health, a pledge that could render ambitious programs sustainable in the long run. As local investments increase, the price of AIDS care is decreasing. The development of generic medications means that antiretroviral therapy can now cost less than 50 cents per day, and costs continue to decrease to affordable levels for public health officials in developing countries. All antiretroviral medications--first-line, second-line, and third-line--must be made available at such prices. Manufacturers of generic drugs in China, India, and other developing countries stand ready to provide the full range of drugs. Whether through negotiated agreements or use of the full flexibilities of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, full access to all available antiretroviral drugs must quickly become the standard in all countries. Second, the effective scale-up of pilot projects will require the strengthening and even rebuilding of health care systems, including those charged with delivering primary care. In the past, the lack of a health care infrastructure has been a barrier to antiretroviral therapy; we must now marshal AIDS resources, which are at last considerable, to rebuild public health systems in sub-Saharan Africa and other HIV-burdened regions. These efforts will not weaken efforts to address other problems--malaria and other diseases of poverty, maternal mortality, and insufficient vaccination coverage--if they are planned deliberately with the public sector in mind. Only the public sector, not nongovernmental organizations, can offer health care as a right. Third, a lack of trained health care personnel, most notably doctors, is invoked as a reason for the failure to treat AIDS in poor countries. The lack is real, and the brain drain continues. But one reason doctors flee Africa is that they lack the tools of their trade. AIDS funding offers us a chance not only to recruit physicians and nurses to underserved regions, but also to train community health care workers to supervise care, for AIDS and many other diseases, within their home villages and neighborhoods. Such training should be undertaken even in places where physicians are abundant, since community-based, closely supervised care represents the highest standard of care for chronic disease, whether in the First World or the Third. And community health care workers must be compensated for their labor if these programs are to be sustainable. Fourth, extreme poverty makes it difficult for many patients to comply with antiretroviral therapy. Indeed, poverty is far and away the greatest barrier to the scale-up of treatment and prevention programs. Our experience in Haiti and Rwanda has shown us that it is possible to remove many of the social and economic barriers to adherence but only with what are sometimes termed ``wrap-around services'': food supplements for the hungry, help with transportation to clinics, child care, and housing. In many rural regions of Africa, hunger is the major coexisting condition in patients with AIDS or tuberculosis, and these consumptive diseases cannot be treated effectively without food supplementation. Coordination among initiatives such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the World Food Program of the United Nations can help in the short term; fair-trade agreements and support of African farmers will help in the long run. Fifth, investments in efforts to combat the global epidemics of AIDS and tuberculosis are much more generous than they were five years ago, but funding must be increased and sustained if we are to slow these increasingly complex epidemics. One of the most ominous recent developments is the advent of highly drug-resistant strains of both causative pathogens. ``Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis'' has been reported in the United States, Eastern Europe, Asia, South Africa, and elsewhere; in each of these settings, the copresence of HIV has amplified local epidemics of these almost untreatable strains. Drug-resistant malaria is now common worldwide, extensively drug-resistant HIV disease will surely follow, and massive efforts to diagnose and treat these diseases ethically and effectively will be needed. We have already learned a great deal about how best to expand access to second-line antituberculous drugs while increasing control over their use; these lessons must be applied in the struggles against AIDS, malaria, and other infectious pathogens. Finally, there is a need for a renewed basic-science commitment to vaccine development, more reliable diagnostics (the 100-year-old tests widely used to diagnose tuberculosis are neither specific nor sensitive), and new classes of therapeutics. The research-based pharmaceutical industry has a critical role to play in drug development, even if the overall goal is a segmented market, with higher prices in developed countries and generic production with affordable prices in developing countries. There has been a heartening increase in basic-science investments for tuberculosis and malaria; funding for HIV research at the National Institutes of Health remains robust. Yet the fruits of such research will not arrive in time for those now living with, and dying from, AIDS and tuberculosis. New tools to prevent, diagnose, and treat the diseases of poverty will be added to the stockpile of other potentially lifesaving products that do not reach the poorest people, unless we develop an equity plan to provide them. Right now, our focus must be on improving access to the therapies that are available in high-income countries. The past few years have shown us that we can make these services available to millions, even in the poorest reaches of the world. The unglamorous and difficult process of increasing access to prevention and care needs to be our primary focus if we are to move toward the lofty goal of equitably distributed medical services in a world riven by inequality. Without such goals, the slogan ``One World, One Hope'' will remain nothing more than a dream.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of H.R. 5337 and want to add some important history and context to our discussion. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1988 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on which I sit. During its consideration, our committee produced the Exon-Florio provision which determines what can be bought in the United States by foreign entities, and it was included in the final version of the Omnibus Trade Act. Exon-Florio authorized the President to suspend or prohibit the acquisition of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity. Responsibility for executing Exon-Florio was delegated to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, the interagency committee that was formed to protect the United States' economic well-being and national security. In the past, the Energy and Commerce Committee has conducted numerous oversight hearings, aggressively evaluating how well CFIUS has complied with the requirements of Exon-Florio. When the Senate amended Exon- Florio and passed the Byrd amendment in 1993, members of Energy and Commerce were conferees for those provisions. While I am pleased that the Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a hearing on CFIUS and considered it in open markup, and while we support the legislation, we are disappointed that a number of the provisions we added to the bill are not in the version we are considering today. These are matters of the utmost importance to our economic and national security. As we proceed, I encourage my colleagues to be vigilant and consider these matters carefully. I look forward to continuing our work in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, consistent with its long-standing involvement with this issue, and working with my other colleagues in the House who have also put much thought and effort into this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican do-nothing Congress is unwilling to tackle the issues of importance to the American people. At a time when hardworking Americans are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet, at a time when a weak economy is creating very few jobs, at a time when gas prices are at record levels, the Republican do-nothing Congress has frittered away scarce time on meaningless and divisive proposals that were never even intended to become law. No wonder the American people are so disgusted with Washington. There is so much that this Congress should be doing, and yet the House Republicans refuse to act. We could raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years and give 7 million Americans a pay raise. We could give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate prescription drugs on behalf of America's seniors in order to fill the gap in coverage that millions of seniors will soon face in their drug coverage. We could finally go after Big Oil and guarantee the American consumer is not to be gouged at the pump. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot we could do. The problem is Republicans are out of ideas. It is time we lead America in a new direction.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brian Thorson, CRNA, MA. Mr. Thorson will soon complete his year as National President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that Mr. Thorson was tapped as the 2005-2006 President of this prestigious national organization, which I am proud to say is headquartered in Park Ridge, Illinois, in the Congressional district that I represent. Celebrating its 75th Anniversary, the AANA is the professional organization that represents more than 36,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) across the country. Founded in 1931, the AANA has ably served the interests of CRNAs and the patients who rely on them for quality care. CRNAs are anesthesia professionals who administer approximately 65 percent of all anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and, in some states, are the sole anesthesia providers in approximately 75 percent of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization services. Brian Thorson has done a remarkable job as National President of the AANA, bringing his training, skills and hands-on experience to the job. He was educated in the art and science of Nurse Anesthesia at the St. Paul-Ramsey School of Nurse Anesthesiology in St. Paul, Minnesota, and earned his Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) from Winona University in Winona, Minnesota. In addition, Mr. Thorson also holds a Master of Arts (MA) degree in Curriculum Development and Instruction from the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, and an additional Bachelors of Science from the College of Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, where he graduated summa cum laude. Currently, he is a Staff Anesthetist within the Department of Anesthesia at Hennepin County Medical Center, which provides anesthesia services in and around the Minneapolis area. In an effort to make certain that those citizens in the Minneapolis area are ensured access to needed care, Brian Thorson continues to shape the future of nurse anesthesia by serving as a Clinical Instructor and didactic faculty member at the Minneapolis School of Anesthesia in St. Louis Park, Minnesota and Saint Mary's University of Minnesota. Mr. Thorson held various leadership positions in the AANA as President-Elect, Treasurer, and Regional Director before becoming the National President of the AANA in 2005. In addition, Brian has served terms as President, President-Elect, Vice-President, Federal Political Director, and as a Member of the Board of Directors for the Minnesota Association of Nurse Anesthetists (MANA). He has also served as the anesthesia representative to both the Council of Minnesota Nursing Organizations and the Minnesota Organization of Leaders in Nursing. Adding to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Thorson has been recognized for speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years. He has taken his experience and knowledge from the workplace and AANA leadership roles to lecture on political and academic anesthesia- related topics before different professional groups. During his AANA presidency, Mr. Thorson has played important roles in advocating for the practice of nurse anesthesia and its patients before Medicare and other federal agencies. He has worked tirelessly to help ensure that CRNAs have a seat at the table in the development of a pay-for- performance reimbursement model, increased communication among AANA members, promoted anesthesia patient safety through vigorous participation in the interdisciplinary National Quality Forum (NQF), and advanced principles of wellness among practitioners in this high- stress profession. In addition, under Mr. Thorson's leadership and direction, AANA testified before three House subcommittees about the importance of nurse anesthesia education, the roles and contributions of CRNAs in the Veterans Affairs health system, and the dedication with which CRNAs have provided safe anesthesia care to members of the U.S. Armed Forces at home and abroad. Finally, Brian Thorson has fought hard to maintain equality in teaching and instruction so that all anesthesia professionals have the opportunity to provide the care patients need, without the system harmfully favoring one provider over another. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in recognizing the outgoing President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Mr. Brian Thorson, CRNA, MA, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2389, the so-called Pledge Protection Act. H.R. 2389 would strip all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of their ability to hear cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is a true expression of liberty and justice for all--cornerstones of our great Nation. However, H.R. 2389 would punish those who exercise that freedom. Basic due process demands an independent judicial forum capable of determining Federal constitutional rights. This legislation deprives the Federal courts of their ability to hear cases involving the fundamental free speech rights of students, parents, and other individuals. In our Country, dissenting views are supposed to be valued, allowed and tolerated. To take away this fundamental freedom of expression is to dishonor America and all Americans. At this time when American soldiers continue to die every day in Iraq, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda making gains in Afghanistan, when millions of Americans are suffering because the minimum wage has not been raised in almost a decade, when millions more lack any health care coverage, and when gas prices are skyrocketing, the Republican majority has decided that the House should instead debate a bill that is unnecessary and, if passed, would only serve to undermine our democracy. I am not afraid of those Americans who oppose parts of the Pledge having an opportunity to express those views. Healthy, controversial debates and a free society able to challenge the status quo are what make our country so strong and so great. What is scary are those who seek to use bills, such as the one before us today, to advance their ideology at the expense of freedom and liberty. That is something we should all oppose in the strongest terms. As Members of Congress we owe our constituents better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2389.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as a union member and as a Member of this body, and as someone who wants to expand U.S. trade relations, nonetheless I feel obligated to oppose this rule and the Oman Free Trade Agreement we will consider today. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans are again trying to force passage of a trade agreement that willfully undermines labor rights in Oman and economic and homeland security for hardworking Americans in this country. Democrats have called for such standards in every agreement negotiated by this administration, and each time we have been let down by the President and his allies here in Congress. In sending the Oman trade agreement to the Hill, the Bush administration has also astonishingly opted to send Congress an agreement in which he refused to include a prohibition on forced or slave labor. Is this how we spread democracy in the Middle East? Is this how the U.S. best improves the lives in the Middle East and advances our own security interests? Another bizarre decision the President made is to put in jeopardy the security of our ports and other critical landside homeland security functions. This Oman agreement explicitly paves the way for companies like Dubai Ports World to gain control of our ports. Those who disagree with this argument refuse to acknowledge that the fact that in the best-case scenario, with the President utilizing every national security waiver at his disposal, the final decision on such a matter will be left out of U.S. hands and left to an international tribunal. I would think the Republican leadership could at least agree that we should not outsource our core homeland security functions and decisions. In a country like Oman, where meager rights for workers fall well below the International Labor Organization's standards, where the Sultan can change any law by decree, and where there are no independent unions, Congress should be especially vigilant. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that any trade agreement with Oman, or any country, contains hard and fast labor standards. The Oman FTA does not. This is a loser on homeland security, for job security and for the best interests of Omanis. It should be defeated.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of a veto override for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It is clear that a majority of Americans and a bipartisan majority in Congress strongly support embryonic stem cell research because it could prove to be critical for some 128 million Americans who suffer from juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and other diseases. Stem cell research is essential for the future of medicine in America; one that should be allowed to transcend political lines so that critical gains can be made to save millions of human lives. One such life is that of my constituent, 24-year-old Bishoy Abo-Saif. In his letter to me, Bishoy described his daily struggle with cerebral palsy. He has been to Canada, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland and the Ukraine looking for alternative therapies for his disease. Nothing has worked. Even though he has accomplished academic goals, he still feels he is on the sidelines. As he stated to me, ``the wheelchair is always in the way.'' However, he said that, ``stem cell treatment is the only hope to overcome his condition.'' Most scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research offers the greatest hope to people like Bishoy. America has always been on the cutting edge of new innovation and now we stand on the brink of groundbreaking medical advancements that would dramatically alter the lives of people such as Bishoy. We must not prohibit this promising research. But the opponents of this measure have put forward disingenuous arguments that fly in the face of widely accepted scientific research and proven potential. They wrongly portray the decision on funding for additional stem cell research as a choice between one life or another. In fact, we are choosing between disposing of embryonic stem cells or using those cells to save countless lives and advance life-saving science in previously unrealized ways. It is incomprehensible that anyone would allow politics and personal preference to trump hard facts and science. And, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, I am deeply disappointed and dismayed over President Bush's decision to issue his first veto on this bill, dashing the hopes so many families who are battling critical illnesses have pinned on the promising potential of stem cell research. President Bush acted to snuff out the hopes of millions of Americans only to please a small right-wing constituency which has politicized this medical issue. Once again, the Bush administration has put politics before science sadly taking hope and health away from countless families. We should not delay or deny the potentially lifesaving research offered by stem cell technology. Bishoy and millions of other Americans are counting on us. As Bishoy stated in his letter, ``our hopes and dreams are in your hands, please do not shatter them. Allow me and others to regain what we have lost.'' I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the veto override to H.R. 810. Park Ridge, IL, July 17, 2006. Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky: My name is Bishoy Abo-Saif. I am 24 years old. Currently I am studying for my Master's degree in Social Work, at Dominican University, in River Forest, Illinois. However, I feel that I live in two completely different worlds. These two worlds could not be further apart. Since birth I have had severe physical limitations caused by a condition called Cerebral Palsy. I am one of the lucky few who is not affected cognitively by this devastating condition. I am writing to you today to implore you to support H.R. 810, for this piece of legislation is vital to millions of people who are afflicted with my condition and other neurological disorders. Since I was diagnosed, at 9 months of age, my parents' mission was to help me lead a normal life. Unfortunately, the many doctors we visited painted a very bleak picture. A picture, which had no light at the end of the tunnel. One doctor after the other kept telling my parents that I would never walk. Cerebral Palsy is a condition that affects people in different ways. It ranges from severe to mild. Despite the years spent in physical and occupational therapies, the progress is always minimal at best, much to the dismay of the patients and their families. In our efforts to beat the odds, we kept looking for alternative treatments outside the U.S. We went to Canada, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland and Ukraine. The success of these treatments was very limited. Many were not covered by our insurance and the trips were arduous. To this end, H.R. 810 holds the key to unlock the chains that trap me and others in my condition from experiencing life as it should be experienced. Ever since I was a child, I could not experience activities which other children take for granted. I never knew how it feels like to run or jump, or hit a ball. Even now despite the fact that I have accomplished academic goals, I still feel that I am on the sidelines, so to speak. The wheelchair is always in the way. Stem Cell treatment is the only hope to overcome this condition. Doctors have made great strides with animal experiments in the lab. It has been proven that Stem Cells have the ability to regenerate the damaged cells in the brain. Stem Cell treatment is the catalyst for great progress in the field of medicine. It is the answer to many unsolved medical conditions. This Congress has the opportunity to make history by voting for H.R. 810, which will make a real tangible difference in the lives of the millions for whom Stem Cell treatment is the only answer. People will be able to takes steps, regain function of their legs, hands, and affected parts of the brain will regenerate. People will become whole. Our hopes and dreams are in your hands; please do not shatter them. Allow me and others to regain what we have lost. H.R. 810 is an imperative piece of legislation which will change my life and the lives of millions of other people like me. Thank you. Yours truly, Bishoy Abo-Saif.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, as a Jew, as someone who loves Israel, and as a member of Congress, I stand in solidarity with the people of Israel. I remain committed to a peace process for Israel's security and for the future of the Middle East. Unfortunately, that peace process and the relative calm that has been the reality in the region in recent months were violently attacked at dawn on June 25th when a Hamas terror cell infiltrated Israel through a tunnel, murdered two Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped 19 year old Corporal Gilad Shalit. The operation was praised by the Hamas government. This came after Israel had fully withdrawn from Gaza in September 2005, a move that offered the Palestinian people the opportunity to begin the development of their future independent state. Then on July 12th, the Iran and Syria-supported Hezbollah terrorist organization crossed the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel under a barrage of rocket and missile salvos, initially killing two Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more. From positions in Lebanon, Hezbollah launched dozens of rockets laden with ball bearings indiscriminately at civilian communities in Israel. Israel fully withdrew from Lebanon in May of the year 2000. Last week's attack was so egregious that it prompted the leaders of Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to condemn Hezbollah's act of vicious terrorism. The premeditated, coordinated, and unprovoked terrorist attacks on Israel, from territory that Israel voluntarily conceded in an effort to promote peace and regional security, are absolutely indefensible. Hamas and Hezbollah bear direct responsibility for this current conflict. Hezbollah receives military, financial and political support from Iran and Syria, with Tehran providing the terrorist group with an estimated $100 million annually. Regular weapons shipments including Katyusha rockets, new long-range ballistic missiles, Chinese-made anti- ship missiles, mortars, anti-tank missiles, mines, explosives and small arms are sent to Hezbollah from Tehran through Damascus. Iran and Syria have provided Hezbollah with more than 10,000 rockets, including shorter-range Katyushas and more sophisticated longer-range weapons, which the terrorist group is now firing at major Israeli population centers across northern Israel and beyond. In fact, on July 14th, Hezbollah used a Silkworm cruise missile to attack an Israeli ship, killing four sailors and yesterday, rockets slammed into a Christian-Arab neighborhood of Nazareth, a city respected by people of all faiths around the world. Both Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have met with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in the past year to reaffirm their ties to the terrorist group. Ahmadinejad promised to continue to support Hezbollah's struggle against the ``enemies of Islam.'' Israeli and American officials believe Hezbollah would not have attacked Israel without a green light from its patrons in Damascus and Tehran, and the leaders of both countries have subsequently expressed strong support for the attacks on Israel. The United States Congress has already enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, all of which call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations. We must insist that President Bush bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran. Sadly and frighteningly, Hezbollah remains off the European Union's (EU) terrorist list. This means that European nationals continue to provide Hezbollah with material support to this day. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice must make an immediate push with our European allies to have Hezbollah added to the EU terrorist list. Israel has the responsibility to defend its citizens and cannot be expected to tolerate the violent provocations Hamas and Hezbollah committed this month. And while I am convinced that Israel is using every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties, it has become clear that the terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah stage their actions from within civilian communities, thereby intentionally putting civilians at risk. Israel must do what is necessary to defend itself while continuing to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. As the New York Times stated: ``Kidnapping Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for the release of Arab prisoners is horrible behavior for groups that claim international recognition and political legitimacy, as Hamas and Hezbollah do. The same applies to lobbing rockets over Israel's borders in the hope that they might kill unsuspecting civilians.'' It is long past due for the international community to implement fully UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted in September 2004, which calls for the Lebanese army to secure southern Lebanon's border and for Hezbollah to be disarmed and disbanded. Lebanon cannot be free and democratic so long as Hezbollah continues to operate as a state within a state, complete with its own army. Regarding the Palestinians, the peace process will continue to be under attack until Hamas denounces its violent charter, rejects terrorism, and recognizes Israel's right to exist and decides it is more important to build a Palestinian state than destroy the Jewish State. I encourage Israeli leaders to maintain a dialogue with moderates within the Palestinian Authority in order to keep hope of a two-state solution in the near future alive. But in the meantime, the United States must stand by its friend and ally, Israel, and the Bush Administration must actively engage itself in seeking a resolution to this situation. As a first step to restoring calm, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon must be returned unconditionally and unharmed, and the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and Hezbollah must end immediately. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 921.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the editorial in yesterday's USA Today, entitled ``Bush Readies First Veto, Dashing Hopes of Millions,'' says it all. The editorial begins: ``A quarter-century from now, when the benefits of embryonic stem cell research are finally realized, Americans are likely to shake their heads in astonishment at this week's events in Washington.'' But President Bush is not the only one to blame. House Republicans had a chance to join us in overriding the President's veto. They refused. Instead, they rubber-stamped the wishes of the President and, in doing so, dashed the hopes of millions of Americans. The legislation offered us a real opportunity to find cures for diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and MS that are currently afflicting millions of Americans. This research has been put on hold for far too long by an administration that chooses to stifle groundbreaking science. Mr. Speaker, this was a golden opportunity for this Congress to give scientists and researchers the tools they need to save lives. House Republicans refused to join us in moving this Nation forward. The stem cell vote yesterday is the latest example of why new leadership is needed to take our country in a new direction.

Mrs. SCHAKOWSKY

Mrs. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 911, a resolution strongest possible terms the July 11, 2006, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. I would like to express my condolences to the families of the victims and sympathy to the people of India in the aftermath of this deadly terrorist attack. The July 11th attack resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent civilians, and injuries to many more. I have traveled to India, and have been to Mumbai, and its people remain in my heart and mind. India is the largest democracy in the world and since its establishment, India has been threatened by terrorists trying to undermine its democratic principles. The security of India's democracy is not only important to India, but it is important to every American as well. I commend the courage of the people of Mumbai, who quickly responded to the attack by turning out to donate blood, taking bed sheets to turn into stretchers, and offering assistance and comfort to the victims of the attack. These same brave citizens resumed using the rail commuter system the very next day. It is an honor to represent Illinois' diverse 9th Congressional District where so many Indian-Americans reside. My sympathies go out to everyone affected by the Mumbai train bombings. I stand with India, the United States must stand with India, and I encourage this Congress to pass this important resolution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. If this amendment were to pass, it would mean the first time in history that the Constitution has been amended to include discrimination. I believe in marriage as a stabilizing force in our society, as a nurturing environment for our children, as a public expression of the most profound love and devotion of a commitment between two people to take responsibility for one another, in a legal and a personal sense, in sickness and in health. The vast majority of marriages are, and, of course always will be, between one man and one woman. But the same virtues of couplehood apply to any loving adults. Surely the 27-year relationship of my dear friends Michael and Roger does not threaten my marriage in any way. The loving family that Ann and Jackie expanded when they adopted David, giving him two adoring parents, is a good thing, regardless what anyone may say to the contrary, although they are free to say it. But nothing in the Constitution should be established to exclude them from the rights that they deserve. There are so many pressing issues right now that are working, that undermine families. Same-sex couples embrace the positive values of families. Let's spend our limited time here as lawmakers helping all American families, and not discriminating against any.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act. It was once said that ``a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.'' The amendments offered today by the majority seek to do precisely that; oppress the voting rights of minorities all over America to fairly and freely vote in elections. While I am pleased to see this important, critical, and bipartisan bill brought to the floor, I am disheartened to see amendments offered that would weaken the core of H.R. 9 and would take a step backward in the fight for equality. Since the birth of our Nation, no other right has been more important than having the ability to vote. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the denial of this right to minorities is a scar on our system of democracy. The passage of the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 broke down barriers that stood in the way of African-Americans and minorities to vote, and we must pass H.R. 9, without the gutting amendments, to ensure that these barriers of discrimination, intimidation, and inequality will never be built again. Just as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave voice to millions of African American and minority men and women, H.R. 9 will ensure that voice for millions more in generations to come. H.R. 9 would renew provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protect minority voters in States and districts that have a documented history of voter suppression. It would extend the provisions of this bill for an additional 25 years, require the U.S. Attorney General to send Federal observers to monitor elections to make sure that eligible African-American and other minority voters are permitted to vote, it would extend bilingual requirements, and it would prohibit the use of any kind of test or devices to deny an individual the right to vote. Each and every Member of the House has the unique opportunity today to continue the work of the great civil rights leaders of the past, Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hammer, and our own John Lewis, to overcome the ghosts of oppression and fight for a new day of equality and respect for every individual. I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to vote for H.R. 9 and oppose all amendments.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago's ``Ready When the Time Comes'' program. This program partners the Red Cross with corporate and community organizations to respond to disasters such as fires, storms, floods, and tornadoes. I would like to acknowledge Grainger, an Illinois-based company which has been the lead corporate sponsor of the Ready When the Time Comes program. The Ready When the Time Comes program allows Chicago area organizations and businesses to help their community before, during and after a disaster by supplying the Red Cross with volunteers. At the time of a disaster, the Red Cross will notify the company or organization and inform them of the role volunteers will have in the relief effort. Through Ready When the Time Comes, corporations allow their employees to receive free Red Cross training in disaster relief functions. In return, corporate partners commit to making their trained employees available for disaster service at least one day each year. During a large scale disaster, with a single phone call the Red Cross can deploy as many volunteers as needed. Throughout Chicago, Ready When the Time Comes volunteers have put their training to work responding to flooding, massive fires, heat emergencies, and even the terrorist attacks of September 11. Since February 2001, Grainger has provided the Chicago Red Cross with almost 200 volunteers for the Ready When the Time Comes program. Following Hurricane Katrina, corporate employees were called upon to staff phone centers in Chicago to answer questions from those seeking support and information. These volunteers also participated in the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications disaster preparedness drill in August 2005. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me to honor and recognize the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago's ``Ready When the Time Comes'' program. This program is a model on how easily partnerships can be developed to help safeguard our communities. I support the Red Cross's efforts to afford other organizations the opportunity to partner with them to actively contribute to recovery efforts.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of July holiday, Americans are still paying record prices at the pump to fuel their cars for summer road trips and vacations. And this Republican Congress is still dragging its feet and refusing to pass legislation that would actually do something to prevent these high prices, to prevent oil and gas companies from price gouging. For the past year, Democrats have sought to pass legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to hold oil and gas companies that gouge consumers accountable. The Senate hasn't even taken up the Republicans' own weaker price-gouging bill which passed the House in May. That means more toothless investigations, more corporate bandits getting off scot free. The FTC issued a report in May that exposed the need to pass legislation that clearly defines price-gouging offenses. Even in instances where the FTC has found that consumers have been abused at the pump, the FTC was powerless to prosecute the companies that engage in price gouging. The five largest oil and gas companies reported $110 billion in profits in 2005, and ExxonMobil reported the highest profit of any American company ever. There is a price-gouging problem. It is happening at the producer and refiner levels, not at the retail level. We should pass the Democrats' FREE Act and give consumers relief at the pump once and for all and do it now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore Exploration Act. This shortsighted initiative would feed America's oil addiction while threatening our coasts and eliminating one of our few remaining sources of fossil fuels. Since President Bush declared that the nation is addicted to oil in his State of the Union speech, the President and the Republican Congress have continued to advance the agenda of their big oil buddies. This legislation would ensure that the nation's increasing energy demand is fed with oil instead of investing in alternative energy sources and promoting efficiency. The United States holds only 2% of the world's remaining oil reserves, while the Persian Gulf states have 60 percent of that oil. Feeding the nation's oil addiction is a threat to the nation's security. This legislation limits states' abilities to protect their environment and their coastal residents. The energy companies already have access to 80% of our offshore oil and gas reserves. This legislation eliminates a 25-year, bi-partisan moratorium against offshore drilling that protects beaches and sensitive coastal areas. This bill makes it more difficult for states to prevent drilling off their coasts than to allow it, and limits their power to prevent new pipeline construction. It gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to threaten states with a loss of funding if they pass any law that restricts drilling. In order to reward the oil and gas industry, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress will make coastal states and their residents pay the price if we pass this legislation. This bill will not bring down gasoline prices in the near term or ever. Given the average time it takes to produce oil and gas from new wells offshore, no oil and gas would be brought to the market from these new projects until 2013. We have the renewable energy capability and the efficient technology to radically reduce our demand for oil and gas today. By increasing fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks to 33 miles per gallon by 2015, we could eliminate our imports of oil from the Persian Gulf. By spreading alternative fuels and biofuels across the country, we could radically reduce the largest source of our carbon emissions. And renewable energy sources like wind farms could be brought online and produce electricity in as little time as one year. This bill will add tens of billions of dollars to our record deficit by subsidizing the same oil and gas companies that are reporting record profits. Already, every man, woman and child in this country bares the burden of $30,000 of our current deficit. Now, this bill would allow oil and gas companies to pay billions of dollars less in royalty relief, compensates oil companies for any delays in their drilling projects with taxpayer money, and allows the Congress to divert revenue for new drilling projects. Oil companies should drill at their own expense, not taxpayer expense, and the federal government should vigilantly regulate all drilling projects. I urge all members to oppose this budget-busting, polluting legislation and encourage Congress to fight America's oil addiction rather than feed it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stearns Amendment. This amendment would set a dangerous precedent in the way that this Nation and Congress approach minority voting rights. Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act sets specific guidelines and requirements for providing bilingual ballots for political subdivisions with limited English-proficiency populations. The Stearns Amendment would essentially eliminate Section 203 and would discourage and disenfranchise entire populations of American citizens from voting. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to protect the right to vote for those in our Nation whose voices were not being heard, the very same voices that this amendment seeks to extinguish. Voting is one of the most important duties that citizens perform. It allows citizens to choose who will represent them and who will make decisions on important issues that will impact their everyday lives. Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the knowledge that no citizen's right to vote will be hindered. Any election reform should break down barriers that face minority voters, not increase them. The Stearns Amendment would instead build new barriers to democratic participation for American citizens. H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006 would extend Section 203 provisions for 25 years, until 2032. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Stearns Amendment, and urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with Democrats to enact H.R. 9 in order to protect the voting rights of all Americans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 4th of July and the 230th birthday of our great Nation, I am today introducing the Patriot Corporations of America Act which encourages corporations to invest in the American people and the American economy. It is time to rekindle the spirit of patriotism and create a new patriotic corporate ethic in America--one that unites workers and their employers in the mutual goal of building a stronger, more prosperous, more democratic business sector that can vigorously and proudly compete in the twenty-first- century global economy. Since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, we have benefited from the great work and contributions of countless American patriots and Congress has always undertaken efforts to honor those men and women. The Patriot Corporations of America Act continues that tradition by rewarding companies that commit to America and American workers. If you want to make Americans of all stripes mad, tell them about the billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks our government gives to companies that outsource jobs and relocate to avoid giving back to the our great country. A recent poll in Foreign Affairs magazine reported that nearly 90 percent of Americans worry about losing their jobs to corporate outsourcing. And, it is estimated that between $30 and $70 billion is hidden away in tax havens like Bermuda by corporate ex- patriots. To end this race to the bottom, to end the offshoring of jobs and research, Bill Edley, a former State Representative in Illinois, and political scientist Robin Johnson of Monmouth College, introduced a new idea of turning the tables around with the Patriot Corporations of America Act. It would reward companies, like New Maryland Clothing and Tama Manufacturing, that care about our Nation, our communities, and American workers. I am honored to be introducing this commonsense concept in the form of legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. In exchange for preferential treatment in government contracting and a 5 percent tax rate reduction, Patriot Corporations would be asked to pledge their allegiance to our country by producing at least 90 percent of their goods and doing at least 50 percent of their research and development in the United States. They would limit top managements' compensation to no greater than 100 times that of their lowest- compensated full-time workers. They would show their commitment to their workers by contributing at least 5 percent of payroll to portable pension funds and by paying for at least 70 percent of the cost of health insurance plans. Finally, Patriot Corporations would simply be required to comply with existing federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety, consumer protections and labor relations, including maintaining neutrality in employee organizing drives. Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Corporations for America Act would be revenue neutral. It would be paid for by closing corporate offshoring loopholes that that have been exploited and, if necessary, reining in some of the new tax breaks for millionaires. Patriot Corporations would create a new class of companies committed to uphold the dignity and prosperity of American workers as well as to selling their goods on the American market and around the world. Patriot Corporations are an expression of the American spirit of our fore fathers and mothers when they took that brave step of declaring our independence and creating the United States of America. I am honored to be introducing this bill today and I encourage my colleagues to join me in saluting American businesses and workers.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in order to bring to the attention of my colleagues a study released by Families USA on the new Plan D prescription drug plan, Big Dollars Little Sense: Rising Medicare Prescription Drug Prices. This report, which was released earlier this month, describes how private prescription drug plans have failed to secure cheaper drug prices for Medicare enrollees and have done nothing to stem the tide of rising drug prices. By comparing the prices under private Part D plans to the prices available to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system, the Families USA report shows that the private insurers are failing to provide needed cost savings to their customers. Between November 2005 and April 2006, private Part D insurers raised the prices on seventeen of the top twenty most frequently prescribed drugs to seniors significantly, while the same drugs under the VA plan experienced little or no increase at all. The median difference in price between the Part D and VA plans was 46 percent. In other words, seniors enrolled in Part D private plan are paying an average 46 percent more for those drugs than they would have if they had been able to receive VA-negotiated prices. As the study details: For each of the top twenty drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA. For Zocor (20 mg), a drug used to prevent coronary heart disease, the lowest VA price for a year's treatment was $127.44, while the lowest Part D plan price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,147.92 or 901 percent. For Zocor (40 mg), the lowest VA price for a year's treatment was $190.72, while the lowest Part D plan price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,084.60 or 569 percent. This difference is staggering, and it shows the difference between a publicly accountable plan that is committed to helping its beneficiaries and private plans that are committed to helping their profit margins. Big Dollars Little Sense debunks the myth that the price differences between the VA and private Part D plans has to do with the number of drugs covered. As the study states, the VA plan covers just as many drugs as the plans in Part D but is able to obtain ``large discounts simply by using the government's negotiating power.'' The VA utilizes the significant leverage it has in order to get cheaper drugs for its beneficiaries--an authority Medicare is explicitly prohibited from using under the Medicare law. Another discovery that the report made was that the private insurers have done almost nothing to protect seniors from rising drug prices. Over a six-month period between November 2005 to April 2006, drug prices for the top twenty drugs prescribed to seniors rose 3.8 percent. That increase was mirrored by the private drug plans, which raised their prices to their customers 3.7 percent. (Again, prices under the VA system either did not increase or increased at a far lesser rate.) The drug prices continue to rise and the private insurers simply pass that increase on to the seniors enrolled in their plan, making little effort to negotiate fairer prices. The Families USA report not only draws attention to the ineffectiveness of the private insurers but highlights the fact that there is no way to hold them accountable. Part D states that these plans are required to pass the discounts they receive on to Medicare beneficiaries but does not specify the proportion of the discount that must be passed on. The insurers could actually be getting huge discounts from the drug manufacturers and just keeping the difference, but we have no way of knowing. There is no disclosure and no accountability for the private providers who supply an essential benefit to the elderly in this country. This is a serious problem for seniors. Prices are higher than necessary, can increase over the course of the year, and can vary among plans. It is also a serious problem for taxpayers, who pay 75 percent of the cost of Part D premiums. Big Dollars Little Sense reports, too, that the median difference between the highest and lowest prices that Part D plans charged for the same drug was 36 percent. This is not just a question of picking the right plan during the enrollment period--since plans can change prices throughout the year but seniors are locked in, even a smart shopper can end up paying much more for their drugs than enrollees in other plans. This report concludes that seniors in this country would get a far better deal if they were able to benefit from Medicare price negotiation: Price data from the Part D plans from November 2005 and April 2006 show that these plans are failing to deliver on the promise that competition would bring prices down. The use of ``market power,'' lauded by Medicare officials and the Administration, has not resulted in drug prices that are comparable to the low prices negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Not only are Part D plan prices high, but these prices are increasing far more often than they are decreasing, and the plans are not containing drug price inflation. These disturbing price tends do not bode well for either Medicare consumers or taxpayers. The ``market power'' of the plans has not delivered the low prices promised to Medicare consumers. The law that established the Medicare prescription drug benefit, in prohibiting Medicare from using the negotiating clout of 43 million seniors and others in Medicare to obtain low drug prices, has given seniors and taxpayers a benefit that costs more than it should. When negotiations are divided among a multitude of plans, none seems to do as well as a single negotiator might. When it comes to reducing and containing drug prices, the Medicare drug program is an opportunity that has been badly squandered. A Medicare-administered plan with Medicare price negotiation would lower prices since the drug companies would be more likely to provide a good deal to an entity representing 43 million of their best customers. That is why I urge my colleagues to read this important report and to support H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would give seniors and persons with disabilities the ability to enroll in a Medicare-operated plan with lower prices.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in order to bring to the attention of my colleagues a study released by Families USA on the new Plan D prescription drug plan, ``Big Dollars Little Sense: Rising Medicare Prescription Drug Prices,'' This report, which was released earlier this month, describes how private prescription drug plans have failed to secure cheaper drug prices for Medicare enrollees and have done nothing to stem the tide of rising drug prices. By comparing the prices under private Part D plans to the prices available to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system, the Families USA report shows that the private insurers are failing to provide needed cost savings to their customers. Between November 2005 and April 2006, private Part D insurers raised the prices on seventeen of the top twenty most frequently prescribed drugs to seniors significantly, while the same drugs under the VA plan experienced little or no increase at all. The median difference in price between the Part D and VA plans was 46 percent. In other words, seniors enrolled in Part D private plan are paying an average 46 percent more for those drugs than they would have if they had been able to receive VA negotiated prices. As the study details: For each of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA . . . For Zocor (20 mg), a drug used to prevent coronary heart disease, the lowest VA price for a year's treatment was $127.44, while the lowest Part D plan price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,147.92 or 901 percent. For Zocor (40 mg), the lowest VA price for a year's treatment was $190.76, while the lowest Part D plan price was $1,275.36, a difference of $1,084.60 or 569 percent. This difference is staggering, and it shows the difference between a publicly-accountable plan that is committed to helping its beneficiaries and private plans that are committed to helping their profit margins, ``Big Dollars Little Sense,'' debunks the myth that the price difference between the VA and private Part D plans has to do with the number of drugs covered. As the study states, the VA plan covers just as many drugs as the plans in Part D but is able to obtain ``large discounts simply by using the government's negotiating power.'' The VA utilizes the significant leverage it has in order to get cheaper drugs for its beneficiaries--an authority Medicare is explicitly prohibited from using under the current Medicare law. Another discovery that the report made was that the private insurers have done almost nothing to protect seniors from rising drug prices. Over a six-month period between November 2005 to April 2006, drug prices for the top twenty drugs prescribed to seniors rose 3.8 percent. That increase was mirrored by the private drug plans, which raised their prices to their customers 3.7 percent. The plans were unable to moderate increases, unlike the VA, where prices either did not increase or increased at a far lesser rate. The drug prices continue to rise and the private insurers simply pass that increase on to the seniors enrolled in their plan, making little effort to negotiate fairer prices. The Families USA report not only draws attention to the ineffectiveness of the private insurers but highlights the fact that there is no way to hold them accountable. Part D states that these plans are required to pass the discounts they receive on to Medicare beneficiaries but does not specify the proportion of the discount that must be passed on. The insurers could actually be getting huge discounts from the drug manufacturers and just keeping the difference, but we have no way of knowing. There is no disclosure and no accountability for the private providers who supply an essential benefit to the elderly in this country. This is a serious problem for seniors. Prices are higher than necessary, can increase over the course of the year, and can vary among plans. It is also a serious problem for taxpayers, who pay 75 percent of the cost of Part D premiums. ``Big Dollars Little Sense,'' reports, too, that the median difference between the highest and lowest prices that Part D plans charged for the same drug was 36 percent. This is not just a question of picking the right plan during the enrollment period--since plans can change prices throughout the year but seniors are locked in, even a smart shopper can end up paying much more for their drugs than enrollees in other plans. This report concludes that seniors in this country would get a far better deal if they were able to benefit from Medicare price negotiation: Price data from the Part D plans from November 2005 and April 2006 show that these plans are failing to deliver on the promise that competition would bring prices down. The use of ``market power,'' lauded by Medicare officials and the Administration, has not resulted in drug prices that are comparable to the low prices negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Not only are Part D plan prices high, but these prices are increasing far more often than they are decreasing, and the plans are not containing drug price inflation. These disturbing price trends do not bode well for either Medicare consumers or taxpayers. The ``market power'' of the plans has not delivered the low prices promised to Medicare consumers. The law that established the Medicare prescription drug benefit, in prohibiting Medicare from using the negotiating clout of 43 million seniors and others in Medicare to obtain low drug prices, has given seniors and taxpayers a benefit that costs more than it should. When negotiations are divided among a multitude of plans, none seems to do as well as a single negotiator might. When it comes to reducing and containing drug prices, the Medicare drug program is an opportunity that has been badly squandered. A Medicare-administered plan with Medicare price negotiation would lower prices since the drug companies would be more likely to provide a good deal to an entity representing 43 million of their best customers. That is why I urge my colleagues to read this important report and to support H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would give seniors and persons with disabilities the ability to enroll in a Medicare-operated plan with lower prices.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to join in support of this important bipartisan Health Centers Renewal Act, H.R. 5573. Each and every day health centers provide high-quality primary and preventive care to our constituents. In Illinois, community, migrant, homeless and public housing health centers operate 268 primary care sites and serve close to 1 million patients every year. Community health centers do a great deal with limited resources. They provide critical medical care services to many who would otherwise have no other place to go or would end up in an emergency room. They provide early care and chronic disease treatment, keeping people healthy and productive. They are models of accountability and patient involvement. As the reauthorization bill points out, health centers are community- owned and patient-controlled, an important factor in their ability to reduce barriers to health care access and disparities in health care delivery. They are also extremely cost-effective. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Illinois health centers save over $34 million in State Medicaid expenditures alone. The cost of serving a patient in a health center is about one-third less than in other settings. As grateful as we are for all the work the community health centers do, it is also important that we recognize that they cannot solve the health care crisis facing our Nation by themselves. We need a vibrant Medicaid program and strategies to expand affordable access to health care for all, especially for the specialty care services that community health centers do not provide. Finally, I want to take a moment to recognize the outstanding work of the Illinois Primary Health Care Association, which represents the State's community health centers. The association provides important support, not just in advocacy, but in helping health centers learn about and enter the new world of health information technology, IT, assisting in the expansion and construction of new health centers, encouraging culturally appropriate care. We thank them for meeting the new challenges of a growing medically indigent population that is diverse in every conceivable way. I particularly want to thank the health centers that serve my district so well, centers operated by Access Community Health Network, Heartland Health Outreach, Heartland International Center, Howard Brown Health Center, the Chicago Department of Public Health, and the American Indian Health Service of Chicago. This reauthorization bill is important in making sure that they and other health centers around the country can continue to provide timely, high-quality care to those who would otherwise lack a source of care. I strongly urge support of H.R. 5573, and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for holding this Special Order tonight on the minimum wage. We are not the only ones that are up at this hour and doing our work. There are millions of Americans around the country who are working. Some of them are working in all-night diners serving people food, maybe taking care of a crying baby right now for someone else, maybe cleaning up after some elderly person, and many of them are doing that just to try and make ends meet and really aren't because they make the minimum wage, about 7 million hard-working people, and anybody who thinks a minimum wage worker doesn't work hard hasn't done a minimum-wage job. Sixty percent are women; many are the heads of households and have children themselves that they have a hard time buying food for or providing health care for. In fact, a lot of those people who often are held in some contempt when they go to the store with food stamps, and who feel some embarrassment they have to come to get help from the government, put their hand out for assistance, and who are we really helping? We are helping the employers. We are subsidizing those employers with taxpayer dollars who don't pay a living wage or even close to a living wage to many of those workers. Today the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a study entitled ``Buying Power of Minimum Wage at 51-Year Low.'' The title tells it all. It has been 10 years since the Congress voted to raise the minimum wage and nearly 9 years since its implementation. If we don't act this year, it will be the longest period of inaction and stagnation since the minimum wage was created. I know we have limited time, but I wanted to make a couple of points about what it really means to be on the minimum wage. According to a New York Times article reporting on a recent study by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, last year was the first year on record that a full-time worker making minimum wage could not afford a one-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country. Anywhere in the country. Over the past 9 years, the minimum wage has not increased, but average rents have gone up more than 28 percent. In Illinois where I live, you need to make $15.44 an hour. In Chicago, you need to make $17.44 an hour in order to pay a two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent. That is three times the minimum wage. In the 9 years that minimum wage hasn't increased, average health care premiums have risen over 75 percent. What hasn't risen? Everything has risen. All of the basics have risen, but the minimum wage has not. It is just shameful. Here we are talking about tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, talking about eliminating the estate tax for the Paris Hiltons of our country, and minimum-wage workers, people working right now at this late hour, make $5.15 an hour. We should all be ashamed. We can do that right away. We could do it tomorrow. We could raise the minimum wage and provide some level of dignity and relief for hard- working Americans, and we should do that. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, American seniors know that the Republican prescription drug plan that took effect earlier this year is deeply flawed. The plan is complex and confusing, unfair and unreliable. This is not the plan seniors wanted. They didn't ask for a plan that forced them to go outside of Medicare to choose from dozens of private insurance plans, or a plan that creates a giant gap in coverage that leaves them with no benefits but still requires them to pay monthly premiums. They didn't ask for a plan that slaps those who haven't yet selected a plan with a penalty that stays with them the rest of their lives. Democrats believe it is time that seniors receive a simple and affordable drug plan. We can make prescription drugs more affordable by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate lower prices with the drug companies just like the Veterans Administration does. We can make the plan simpler and more cost effective, creating a plan within the current Medicare system. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not satisfied with the status quo. We will fight to do more to help our seniors afford their prescription drugs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker there has been no organization, no strategy and no plan for the handling of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They have been in prison for years and years, with no hope of being formally charged. They are given none of the rights afforded prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention nor are they given the rights of criminal suspects in the U.S. justice system. In fact, out of the roughly 500 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, only four have been charged with war crimes. And, since these detainees are classified as enemy combatants, they can be held until the Iraq war is over. Since no one can accurately determine when the war will end, the prisoners could be detained for an indefinite amount of time. Mr. Speaker, I visited Guantanamo Bay in 2003. I saw firsthand the conditions of the prisoners and the facilities in which they were being held. These prisoners were being held in small cells for over a year without any hope of having their day in court--or even being formally charged with a war crime. With this desperate atmosphere, it is not surprising that there have been at least 41 unsuccessful suicide attempts by 25 detainees since the United States began taking prisoners to the base in January 2002. I find it inexcusable that my own country has not demonstrated more concern for the basic Constitutional rights of these prisoners. If there is legitimate evidence of crime, these prisoners deserve a speedy trial. Mr. Speaker, we must be a positive example to the world. We must prove to all those who would challenge our way of life that a worthy Democracy that upholds the rule of law even in the time of conflict, can exist. If we are to convince the world that terrorism is wrong and freedom is right and just, then as the most powerful voice of liberty, the United States of America must start acting as a leader and as an example.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5252, the Communication and Enhancement Act. The COPE Act would allow telephone companies to reap the rewards of the, cable business with few responsibilities and could also threaten the innovative nature of the Internet. I believe the passage of this bill would be a major setback for consumers, communities, and the public interest. I think we all agree that there is a need for consumer choice and competition in cable. Currently, most communities are served by the cable industry's quasi-monopolies. However, ``competition'' in cable shouldn't have the effect of, cutting consumer protections, reducing public broadcasting, and eliminating local rights. ``Competition'' shouldn't be about providing lucrative markets with several cable service options and leaving those in poorer neighborhoods with low- quality service and the potential for ever increasing cable raising rates. The COPE Act would put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of what our localities have been successfully handling for years. Do we really think the Federal Communications Commission will do a better job at resolving consumer complaints? Is the FCC going to come out to Skokie, Illinois and take care of problems that may arise concerning the town's public right-of-way? And, does the FCC have the resources--both in budget and personnel--to do so? I am also greatly concerned that there are not adequate protections in this bill for the Internet as we know it. The telecom industry has already told us that they plan to operate their own form of censorship, slowing down or speeding up delivery of content depending on it relationship to the provider. I am concerned that they could also start blocking email from advocacy groups they don't agree with and shutting down startups that may offer competition to products they provide. I understand that many argue that the cost of continuing with an open Internet will fall on the shoulder of consumers, and that the Titans of the Internet will get a free ride if we pass a net neutrality provision. However, while the COPE Act would allow the telcos to set up their tollbooths, there are no guarantees, no protections, nothing to stop the telcos from bilking consumers--even if the telcos were to charge Google and Yahoo. They could double dip--and why wouldn't they? One can say that it probably won't happen, but there is nothing in this bill to stop them. Mr. Speaker, the COPE Act is not the answer to lack of competition in cable service. I urge my colleagues to oppose its passage.