Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, later this month, people in Chicago will gather to celebrate the life and achievements of William ``Les'' Brown. Les Brown had an enormous influence on the way our nation thinks about homelessness. He was a person of intelligence, creativity, passion and caring who showed that we can each make a difference in helping to create communities that provide support and opportunities for every individual. I am fortunate to have known and been inspired by Les and I, like many Chicagoans, will miss him. Les Brown was best known as the founder of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, formed in 1980 with the help of the Travelers and Immigrants Aid Society, the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, and other service providers. Karen Singer, executive director of the YWCA Evanston/North Shore, called him the ``moral compass'' of the movement to end homelessness. Ed Shurna, the current executive of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, acknowledges him as ``the chief strategist and idea man behind most of the Coalition's successes'' in providing housing, jobs programs and health care for the homeless. A social worker, former Air Force medical corpsman and a blues pianist, Les Brown used all of his skills to push for solutions. While others ignored the problem, he taught us that homelessness can be solved and that individuals living on the street deserve to be treated with dignity. In 1983, he organized the first national conference on homelessness in Chicago. In 1984, he underwent a heart transplant but never let that slow him down or limit his dedicated activism. For his entire life, he fought to keep this issue at the top of the political agenda, reminding us that the homeless are not nameless beings or numbers, but infants and children, working mothers and fathers, returning veterans and those living with illnesses who deserve our support and a safe, decent place to live. Les Brown grew up in rural Georgia, where he learned his values from his parents, who taught him the values of fairness and social justice. It was the love of the land that he developed in childhood that gave him the inspiration for ``Growing Home,'' an initiative that helps the homeless learn job skills at an organic farm in Marseilles, Illinois. According to Les, ``Homeless people often are without roots. They're not tied down, connected, not part of their family anymore. Our organic farming program is a way for them to connect with nature--to plant and nurture roots over a period of time. When you get involved in taking responsibility for caring for something, creating an environment that produces growth, then it helps you to build self-esteem and feel more connected.'' There are concrete reminders of Les Brown's accomplishments throughout the Chicagoland area--low-income housing units that would not have been built without him, organizations and coalitions that would not exist but for his leadership, initiatives like Growing Home that grew from his vision. Some of the best evidence of his legacy can be found in the people he touched and motivated and who will carryon his work. Les Brown had an enormous impact and influence on the people he met, creating a generation of advocates who will follow in his path. One of them, Fred Friedman, wrote the following in commemoration: Les Brown's Legacy Les Brown died the other day. I did not know him very well or very long but he was very dear to me. I first met Les when I was still living in a homeless shelter. As you might guess, it was at a meeting about homeless youth. Later, he was kind enough to see me in the office of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. I was trying to decide what, if anything, to do with my life. At that meeting, I told him that people, including myself, sometimes had trouble seeing me as anything other than a mentally ill homeless person. He said that he understood, and that some people had trouble seeing him as anything other than a person with a bad heart. I am sure that was a lie, Who could think Les had a bad heart? However, it was incredibly kind. I got to know him a little better at many endless Continuum (of Care) meetings. Eventually, he nominated me for the Governing Board of the Continuum. Still later, he, along with Paul Selden and I, founded Next Steps, NFP. Still later, I got to hear him play a mean Jazz piano. I do not know his family, or if he left any property to them, but I do know that he left me a great legacy. Les saw people without homes and tried to find them homes. He saw hungry people and tried to feed them. He saw people without power, and tried to empower them. He saw people without hope and tried to give them hope. He took his work, but not himself, seriously. He could disagree without being disagreeable. He understood that good people could disagree with him, and that he could be wrong. In short, Les left me a legacy of trying and working, even when trying and working seems silly. In other words, he left me legacy of hope. I promise to use that legacy to continue his fight, until no one goes to bed hungry, and everyone has a home and hope.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As the author of this legislation, and with the honor of representing the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, home to the headquarters of Rotary International, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 142, a bill marking 100 years of service to humanity by Rotarians around the world. I am so happy that the other body, under the leadership of our Illinois Senator, Richard Durbin, also passed an identical resolution. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform for their assistance in moving this bill to the floor, and my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), for his support of this legislation. The celebration of Rotary's centennial will culminate in the place where it all began, Chicago, during the organization's upcoming convention to be held in mid-June. There, Rotarians from all over the world will mark 100 years of service to humanity and to rededicate themselves to Rotary's ongoing mission of service above self. Rotary International was founded on February 23, 1905, in Chicago, Illinois. It is the world's first service club and one of the largest nonprofit service organizations in the world. Rotary provides humanitarian services, encourages high ethical standards in all vocations, and helps build good will and peace in the world. Approximately 1.2 million Rotarians belong to more than 31,000 Rotary clubs located in 167 countries. Approximately 400,000 Rotarians belong to clubs throughout the United States and in virtually every congressional district. The world's Rotary clubs meet weekly and are nonpolitical, nonreligious, and open to all cultures, all races, and all creeds. The main objective of Rotary is service in the community, in the workplace, and throughout the world. Rotarians develop community service projects that address many of today's most critical issues, such as children at risk, poverty and hunger, the environment, illiteracy, and violence. They also support programs for youth, educational opportunities, and international exchanges for students, teachers and other professionals, and vocational career development. The Rotary motto of ``Service Above Self'' is an example for all humanity, and certainly one for the Members of this body. Today, Rotarians are united in a campaign for the global eradication of polio. In the 1980s, Rotarians raised $240 million to immunize the children of the world. By the end of 2005, the Polio Plus program will have contributed $500 million to this cause. Rotary has provided an army of volunteers to promote and assist at national immunization days in polio endemic countries around the world. In 2000, I had the privilege of traveling to India with President Clinton and happened to be there on a weekend when Rotary was doing immunizations of children in India against polio. Along with many coalition partners, the Rotarians succeeded in immunizing approximately 125 million people in a weekend. Imagine the kind of volunteer effort it took for such a massive campaign and for such great results. Due in large part to Rotary's efforts, the number of polio cases has fallen from an estimated 350,000 in 1988 to less than 1,300 in 2004, a more than 99 percent decline in reported cases. More than 200 countries and territories are polio-free. From the launch of the global initiative in 1988 to the eradication target date of 2005, five million people who would otherwise have been paralyzed will be walking because they have been immunized against polio. It is my hope that today we will not only pass this resolution but that we will also dedicate ourselves to meeting Rotary International's call for adequate funding for the fight against polio in 2006. Rotary is seeking a total of $106.4 million for the polio eradication efforts of the CDC and $32 million for the polio eradication activities of USAID. This Congress should support Rotary's great work by providing those needed funds. Rotary International shares the mission that drives so many of us in this body. Rotary International promotes world understanding through international and humanitarian service programs and educational and cultural exchanges. It is supported solely by volunteer contributions from Rotarians and others who share its vision of a better world. Since 1947, the foundation has awarded more than $1.1 billion in humanitarian and educational grants. Again, I want to urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation in honoring the work and members of Rotary International for 100 years of service to humanity and for their role in improving the world. I hope over the next 100 years Rotary's membership will continue to grow and its great service will continue.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, this bill imposes a Federal parental notification requirement on the 27 States, including my own of Illinois, that either have no parental involvement law in effect, or require parental involvement but allow flexible alternatives, such as allowing an adult family member to be notified or give consent. Since Illinois has no parental involvement law in effect, the bill will impose tough and unrealistic requirements to Illinois providers for the first time. Under the bill, doctors will be asked to comply with other State laws, verify the information provided by patients, and obtain in-person parental consents, even if the parents were abusive or guilty of incest. To make matters worse, because this bill lacks an adequate exception for medical emergencies, Illinois doctors could be force to withhold needed medical treatment from their patients in order to comply with this Federal law. Young people from Missouri, Indiana, and other neighboring States often travel to Illinois for safe abortion care, frequently because the nearest abortion provider happens to be located in Illinois. Yet this legislation would criminalize responsible adults.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It is a direct attack on a woman's right to choose, it endangers women's health, and it forces young women facing unintended pregnancies to choose between dealing with it on their own or enlisting the help of a trusted adult who could possibly be put in jail as a result. This bill makes it a crime for anyone other than a parent, including a grandparent or a religious counselor, to accompany a minor across state lines for an abortion if the minor has not complied with her home state's mandated parental consent or notification law. This bill also makes it a federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a young woman who is a resident of another state unless the doctor notifies the young woman's parent in person at least 24 hours before the procedure. I agree that, whenever possible, minors should go to their parents for help in difficult situations. And research tells us that the majority of the time, young women do talk with their parents when making difficult decisions about pregnancy, whether their state requires parental consent for an abortion or not. Unfortunately, H.R. 748 ignores the reality of many situations where a young woman may choose not to go to her parents, possibly because she fears violence or because she was the victim of incest or because their parent is not available. Very often in those situations, young women seek help and guidance from other trusted adults in their lives, such as grandparents, aunts, and ministers. Yet, this law would deter many young women from seeking help and would instead tell them that they must deal with this situation on their own. The reality is that CIANA will not make more young women tell their parents about a pregnancy if they do not want to, nor will it reduce or prevent abortion. What it would do is endanger the health of young women who feel they have no other choice but to seek illegal or self- induced abortions and who will be limited in their options for receiving health care. The American Medical Association has noted that ``the desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths.'' The American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine all oppose this bill because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. The coalition of health groups in their letter urging Congress to oppose this bill state, ``Our primary responsibility must be to our patients. The potential health risks to adolescents if they are unable to obtain reproductive health services are so compelling that deference to parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed health care for patients who request confidentiality.'' This bill would force minors to delay urgent health care and, contrary to proponents' claims, infringe on the rights of parents. There is no exception to either the waiting period or the notification requirement in cases where a person is facing a serious but not life- threatening medical emergency. In a medical emergency, a young person would be forced to wait 24 hours for an abortion that could avert serious risks to her health. The abortion must be delayed even when the minor's parent accompanies her and requests medical help. Furthermore, many young women who obtain abortions outside of their home States do so for reasons that have nothing to do with avoiding their home States' laws. The most prevalent and compelling of these reasons is the lack of abortion providers. Only 13 percent of U.S. counties have an abortion provider. Several states, in fact, have only a single provider or a provider who may be located many hours away from a young woman's home. Lastly, CIANA violates the basic principle of federalism by attaching the laws of a woman's home State no matter where she travels in the Nation. The Supreme Court has held that States are required to make abortions available to visitors on the same legal terms under which they make them available to residents. Since Illinois has no parental involvement law in effect, this bill would impose tough and unrealistic requirements to Illinois providers for the first time. Under CIANA, doctors will be asked to comply with other State laws, verify the information provided by patients, and obtain in-person parental consent even if parents are abusive, guilty of incest or absent from the household. CIANA imposes a punitive and arbitrary federal parental notification requirement that will trump the public policy judgments of the 27 States that lack such requirements. It will mean that physicians who comply with their State's laws and provide medical care to their patients could be treated as criminals. Make no mistake, this law is a direct threat to a woman's right to make decisions about her reproductive health. We need to see this bill for what it really is--another attempt to chip away at Roe v. Wade and deny women choice. The Government cannot mandate healthy family communication where it does not already exist. We must face this reality and work to help teens receive the treatment, counseling, and support they need when it comes to reproductive health. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 748 because it would endanger young women's health and force them to be alone at a time when they are most vulnerable and most in need of support from a trusted adult.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a presentation by Charles Benton, chairman of the Benton Foundation, entitled, ``Where's the Public? Media Reform in the Digital Age,'' which he gave at the Engaging in Democracy Series at Ithaca College on January 25, 2005. It is my hope that Congress will address the problems of media consolidation that Mr. Benton discusses. It is our duty to ensure that the public airwaves are meeting the public need. ``I believe the future of media and communications in America is cause for serious concern. In April 2004, I delivered this message to the Council on Foundations, and I repeat it tonight. As we move from an analog world to a digital one, we are truly at a crossroads. At stake is who controls what we see, hear, and read. At stake is our ability to get our message out and make a difference. At stake is nothing less than the health of our democracy. We all have a stake in this debate. I come here three months after Representative Maurice Hinchey and Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps spoke to you about media concentration. Given Congressman Hinchey's representation of this district, I feel I'm visiting the people who brought the message of media ownership reform to Washington--perhaps you can think of this address as Washington reporting back. The debate over media ownership restrictions is just the tip of an iceberg that has jolted our time-honored communications policy priorities of competition, diversity and localism. Some would say we are now rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic . . . that media concentration and consolidation are inevitable, and we will drown in a sea of commercialism. But I see it differently. I believe we are embarking on a new journey--kept afloat--and indeed propelled--by the interest, enthusiasm, and energy of a new generation of people concerned about our media future. Collected in this hall tonight, I hope, are new enlistees in the battle to preserve, protect, and strengthen the public space in America's media environment. Beyond this hall, I hope this message is received by other committed people and organizations who will offer their time, talent, and resources to prevail in this ongoing fight. By law, as reaffirmed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. The government provides broadcasters on loan and free of charge exclusive access to a portion of the public airwaves--spectrum--for broadcasting in exchange for their commitment to serve the ``public interest, convenience and necessity.'' Under the '96 Act, the amount of spectrum given to television station owners was doubled. The policy rationale for this was to enable them to convert their signals from an analog to a digital format, thereby increasing the number and technical quality of their broadcast channels. For the spectrum needed for one analog channel, broadcasters can now simultaneously air six standard-quality digital channels or one or more high-quality high-definition channels. When at least 85 percent of homes in a broadcasting market can receive digital signals, the spectrum currently used for analog channels is to be returned to the government for public safety uses, with some spectrum to be auctioned off. Digital television and radio make broadcasting more competitive and valuable in the market, and should enable broadcasters to better serve basic public needs. Remember that broadcasters are supposed to serve as public trustees in their use of the publicly owned airwaves. That at least is the theory on how the system is supposed to work. Let's look now at the reality, starting with who owns the media. Today, five companies own the broadcast networks, own 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, and produce 75 percent of all prime time programming. People of color constitute over 30 percent of America, but they own only 4.2 percent of the nation's radio stations and around 1.5 percent of TV stations. The current media landscape already shortchanges our historical commitment to competition, diversity and localism, but in June 2003, a majority of FCC commissioners voted to further weaken it. The FCC decided to relax media concentration safeguards and open the door to a fundamental reshaping of the media landscape. The action would have significantly deregulated broadcast media ownership rules, removing restrictions on the number of outlets a broadcaster could own and control. It would also eliminate ``cross ownership'' rules that prevented newspapers from buying broadcast stations and vice versa in the same community. The debate leading up to the decision sparked an unprecedented outpouring of public concern over the future of media in America. Millions of Americans spoke out against relaxing the ownership rules--more than in any other FCC decision to date--yet the FCC acted to allow big media companies to get even bigger--reducing competition at the expense of the public's need for diverse and local content. The sense that the FCC no longer cares about protecting the public interest may have led broadcasters to believe they can get away with more commercialization without protecting the public interest. But in June of last year, the United States Court of Appeals in Philadelphia reversed the FCC's action. This is a big, big win for diversity, competition and localism in the media, the three stated goals of the FCC. The judges ruled that preserving democracy is more important than freeing big companies to grow bigger. Perhaps the most important part of the decision is the Court's holding that the FCC improperly applied a presumption in favor of deregulation in its review of the broadcast media ownership rules. Thus, it sent the case back to the FCC for better analysis of public impact. This court action gives the public the chance to argue that ownership rules are necessary for preserving local civic discourse. In November filings to the Supreme Court, Media General and a coalition of major TV network owners made clear that they are seriously considering challenging the Philadelphia court decision by attacking the bedrock legal rationale for regulating the nation's broadcasters-- Red Lion. In the landmark 1969 Red Lion decision, the court held that because broadcasters use a scarce government resource--the radio spectrum--to deliver programming over the air, the FCC is justified in its special regulation of the industry in the public interest. The scarcity argument justifies a range of FCC broadcast regulations, from ownership restrictions to prohibitions on indecent broadcasts. But Red Lion is used as a rationale for regulations that benefit broadcasters, too, including obligations of cable operators to carry the signals of local broadcasters. Why risk this important commercial benefit? Broadcasters appear sick and tired of FCC regulations limiting their ability to add broadcast stations to their portfolios, regulations punishing them for off-color programming that may seem tame on cable, and regulations requiring them to serve the public interest, not just their commercial interests. I am confident that even if the Supreme Court hears arguments launched by Media General and others against Red Lion and the ``scarcity rationale'' for broadcast regulation that the decision's underlying principles will prevail. The most important of these, according to the Supreme Court, is that the First Amendment rights of viewers are paramount. These giant companies claim that we live in a time of unprecedented media choice: hundreds of TV and radio stations provided by terrestrial broadcasters, cable operators, satellite radio and TV systems, national and local newspapers, and. the Internet. But who owns most of this media? You know the names: Time Warner, Fox, Viacom, Disney, GE Universal. Do we really have diverse, competing and local voices? Additionally, spectrum remains a scarce resource. Wireless telecommunications companies are willing to spend billions--some estimate up to $100 billion--to start providing services over spectrum currently used by broadcasters. Perhaps if broadcasters are willing to enter auctions for spectrum--like other users are forced to do these days--then they can be freed from what they call burdensome regulation. Until and unless they do so, they should be part of a constructive conversation to spell out their public interest obligations in the digital age. Some responsible broadcasters are doing just that. As long-time commercial broadcaster Jim Goodmon, who served with me on a Presidential Advisory Committee that examined and made recommendations on digital broadcasters' obligations, puts it, ``The broadcast company is fulfilling a contract between itself as the user of a public asset and the public body that owns the asset. As with all contracts, both parties to the agreement need to know exactly the responsibilities that they have to each other. With minimum standards spelled out, there is no question. As a broadcaster I would like to know what is expected of me in serving the public interest. Required minimum standards and a voluntary code provide the benefit of certainty to broadcasters. I like to know what the rules are.'' Scarcity is not the only argument for regulating broadcasting. Television is ubiquitous and has become the engine of our consumer society. As former FCC Commissioner, Nicholas Johnson, used to say, ``TV programs are the flypaper to get people to watch the ads.'' Its importance in our democracy is easily highlighted by the vast amounts spent by candidates and organizations on political advertising. It is through these ads, unfortunately, not broadcasters' programming, that most voters learn about candidates and issues. In exchange for the use of our scarce spectrum, broadcasters have a commitment to serve the ``public interest, convenience and necessity.'' These basic obligations, called public interest obligations, are critical tools that are designed to ensure that television, at least in part, serves fundamental public needs. Unfortunately the vision and the reality are often at odds. The FCC has been working on the transition to digital television, at the behest of the nation's broadcasters, for some 20 years. Absent so far has been a comprehensive proposal for establishing public interest obligations that match digital television's capacity. Americans everywhere have begun to realize that as broadcasters get bigger, the public's benefits are getting smaller. But there is more at stake than the impacts of media concentration and consolidation. Television has never played a more important role in our lives. But today's television is too often out of touch with today's realities: parents struggling to find educational programming for their children, voters struggling to find basic coverage of local campaigns and elections so vital to our democracy and the effective use of television for emergency alerts to serve needs of the disabled. In each case, broadcasters have too often lost touch with the needs of the people who own the airwaves. We have the right to demand and the FCC has the mandate to ensure that television and radio stations provide programming that is in the public's interest, not just in the owners' commercial interests. Public interest obligations are about whether our children can turn on a television and find at least three hours per week of truly educational content, about whether in an emergency our televisions can keep us alert and informed. It is about whether we can be active and intelligent participants in our democracy. It's about whether the blind and deaf can access closed captioning and video descriptors for digital works. And about whether we can work towards a day when the voices and views on our airwaves reflect the diversity of our country. A growing number of Americans are working to ensure these public interest goals are met not just because the law says we must, but because we will be richer as a nation when we do. I hope you will join that fight. The transition from analog to digital television does not just represent a technological change, but an important opportunity to reassess whether the public's airwaves are being used to meet the public's needs. Last year the Benton Foundation joined forces with two broad coalitions of organizations focused on delivering public dividends with the transition to digital television. Working with these groups, the FCC recently extended a requirement that broadcasters air a minimum of three hours a week of quality educational and instructional programming for children to all of their new digital channels. It is also exploring proposals that would benefit our democratic process and our society by requiring broadcasters to (1) Air a minimum of three hours per week of local civic or electoral affairs programming on the most-watched channel they operate; (2) Promote the FCC's often-stated goal of diverse viewpoints and voices on television by ensuring that independent producers provide a minimum of 25 percent of their most- watched channel's primetime schedule; and (3) Tell the public how they are serving the interests of their audiences by making this information available in a standardized hard copy and website formats. These really are minimal requirements, but nonetheless often opposed or ignored by the broadcasters. We are arguing that it's time to put the remote control back into the public's hands and once again give the public greater control over the kind of democracy they participate in, the children they raise, and the security they deserve. Congress, the courts, regulators and companies are continuing to make communications policy decisions. These decisions will have far-reaching consequences for competition and innovation and ultimately consumer well-being in the media marketplace. While public concern was raised over the FCC's media ownership decisions, too few individuals are aware that broadcasters are obligated to serve them--or that they can get involved in ensuring they do. For those who understand the crucial role of media in this democracy, our first task is to inform and educate the public about this debate and the right of all Americans to participate in it. In addition to a clearer television picture, consumers need a clearer regulatory picture for how the digital television transition will impact their lives. Consumers deserve to know how broadcasters will serve their day to day television needs--healthy programming for children, healthy programming for our democracy, and healthy programming for our communities. Citizens need as much information about the TV that comes into our living rooms, as about the food that comes into our kitchens. But to achieve these goals, parents, voters, community leaders, activists, and concerned citizens need to pick up the television policy remote control--and change the tune coming from policymakers in Washington. It takes letting policymakers know that you want reality based public interest obligations that can help make a difference in your lives. The first product of a coalition of national and local media advocates is a Citizens' Bill of Media Rights--a positive statement of principles and goals of a media reform movement. The Bill has recently been circulated for sign-on. If my message tonight makes you want to get involved, here's the first thing you can do: Read ``Citizens' Bill of Media Rights,'' go online, and sign-on. At the Benton Foundation, we are releasing the Citizen's Guide to the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters. Our guide will serve as a primer for the organizations and people considering taking the policy remote control out of the hands of media giants and their lobbyists and returning it where it belongs--in the hands of the American people, especially in your community. Action item two: check www.benton.org for the guide. This year in mid-May, activists, media creators, academics, and policy makers will meet for three days of learning, sharing, networking and momentum building at the 2nd 2005 National Conference for Media Reform in Saint Louis. Visit www.freepress.net for more information. Action item three: Meet Me In Saint Louis. There are many valuable resources for keeping up to date on what's going on in media policy--let me highlight two. At the Benton Foundation, we provide a service which summarizes the top communications policy stories of the day. The service, Communications- Related Headlines, is delivered via e-mail and is also available on our web site free of charge, www.benton.org. Action item four: subscribe to Headlines. HearUsNow.org follows Consumers Union's long tradition of promoting a fair and just marketplace by empowering consumers to fight for better and more affordable telephone, cable and Internet services or equipment. By focusing on major media, technology and communications issues and emphasizing local stories, HearUsNow.org will help explain increasingly complex issues and the connections between these issues, underscore what's at stake, and offer ways to make improvements. Action item five: Visit www.hearusnow.org. Obviously, when working against corporate interests ready to devote billions of dollars to their cause, even more resources will be needed to win the day. Last April, I delivered this message to an audience of philanthropists asking them to fund the ongoing efforts to shape our media future . . . to fund media policy research, education and advocacy. I am happy to say that there's hope coming from this important arena: The Arca Foundation board has committed $1 million-- $1.5 million per year for the next 3-5 years to a strategic media policy campaign for policy advocacy, organizing, research and content development. With Ford Foundation leadership, the Grantmakers in Film and Electronic Media's new Working Group on Electronic Media Policy was formed to respond to the burgeoning interest among grantmakers to build and share knowledge about key issues in media policy, as well as undertake targeted activities to help advance the dynamic media policy field. All participants hope that this funder cooperation will result in real capacity building for the media reform field. Several members of Congress, including Representative Hinchey, are forming a Congressional Media Reform Caucus this month to focus on media ownership, digital transition, and other media-related issues. Last year, Representative Hinchey introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act. This proposed legislation has three goals: (1) To curb the deregulatory zeal of the Republican majority at the FCC; (2) To restore the Fairness Doctrine; and (3) To reform the broadcast license renewal process and require broadcasters to report both on their public interest performance and their plans for doing so every two years. In today's political climate, the legislation may seem improbable. But most significantly, it provides a vision of where we'll be when we have true democratic media reform in this country. Again, we're at a crossroads. Left to its own designs, the majority at the FCC will fight to allow greater consolidation in media ownership while further weakening public interest obligations. With public pressure, with your participation, we may help the FCC envision a democratic media future. In this alternative vision, we, as Americans, could have a media environment that delivers a vigorous, uninhibited marketplace of ideas. In this alternative vision, we could have a media that reflects and responds to local communities. In this alternative vision, we could have a media environment that embraces and enhances the public interest. Wouldn't you like to be part of that debate and help shape this more democratic and more open media environment? If so, why not join us and get involved?''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, which is taking place this week, April 17 to 23, 2005. Despite remarkable advances in cancer research, prevention, and treatment, minority groups disproportionately fall victim to cancer. In honor of this year's National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, we must make a strong commitment to support public health programs dedicated not only to improving awareness in communities of color but to finding a cure for cancer and guaranteeing access to quality health care. Minority populations have higher chances of developing life- threatening diseases like cancer, and poorer chances of early diagnosis, optimal treatment, and survival. Minorities face significant barriers to accessing health care, including the lack of adequate health insurance; unequal access to research, clinical trials, and treatment; and cultural and linguistic barriers. This unequal treatment is an unacceptable form of discrimination. We must eliminate health disparities affecting minorities by breaking down the barriers to access to quality health care. Minority health disparities affect all Americans. While minorities make up only about one-third of the U.S. population, they represent more than half of uninsured Americans. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, by the year 2050 nearly 1 in 2 Americans will be a member of a racial or ethnic minority. It is critical that we act now to eliminate health disparities and to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. The cost of inaction will mean more preventable illnesses and deaths, higher health care costs, and lost productivity. As we recognize National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, I hope that we will also work to expand public outreach and education efforts, accelerate medical research, and strengthen Medicaid and other public health programs. Finally, we must also make a commitment to provide access to affordable, comprehensive and quality health care for all Americans, regardless of their race, gender, income or geographic location. As the only industrialized nation in the world that does not guarantee access to health care as a right, it is time for a change.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Steven Zourkas, devoted husband, father, brother, friend and dedicated public servant. Mr. Zourkas' commitment to the safety of residents defined his four-year tenure of outstanding public service as a police officer with the Village of Niles. He also served as an evidence technician with the North Regional Major Crimes Task Force. Mr. Zourkas graduated from Niles North High School. A former paramedic, Mr. Zourkas joined the Niles Police Department four years ago and rose to become one of the department's top auto accident investigators. The Niles Village Board recently honored Zourkas at their March 22, 2005, meeting for helping to solve a burglary. Friends and colleagues said they will remember Mr. Zourkas for his tremendous personality and utmost dedication to his job. Mr. Zourkas died after losing control of his police car to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Mr. Zourkas saved a man's life but in the process lost his own. Mr. Zourkas is believed to be the first Niles police officer to die in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and remembrance of Mr. Steven Zourkas. As a police officer, Mr. Zourkas dedicated his professional life to the safety of his officers and the security and safety of the entire Village of Niles. I extend my deepest condolences to his beloved wife, Ivy; his beloved sons, Andrew and John; his beloved parents, Anthony and Elaine Zourkas; his beloved brothers, Anthony and George; and also to his extended family and many friends. His courage and kindness will live on forever within the hearts and memories of his family, friends, and the public he so faithfully served. I commend my Colleagues' attention to the article remembering Mr. Zourkas, which was published in the Niles Journal on April 13, 2005. [From the Niles Journal, Apr. 13. 2005] ``He'll Be Sorely Missed''--Niles Police Remember First Officer To Die in Line of Duty (By Michael Sebastian) During a damp and cool Tuesday morning more than 250 squad cars from various Illinois police departments followed a somber procession through Niles to Elmwood Cemetery in River Grove where the first Village of Niles police officer to die in the line of duty was laid to rest. Niles police Officer Steven Zourkas, 33, was killed early last Friday (Apr. 8) while traveling in his squad car west along Golf Road. Zourkas was heading to a disturbance call that was reportedly between a cab driver and passenger at Omega Restaurant, 9100 W. Golf Rd., when he lost control of his squad car and crossed over into the east bound lanes of traffic on Golf Road. The car slid to a violent halt in the Highland Towers condominium parking lot after it turned over on its passenger side and struck two parked cars. The accident, which occurred in the 8800 block of Golf Road, snarled traffic last Friday morning for hours. Emergency workers crowded the scene as radio and television news helicopters hovered above. Officials said Officer Zourkas died at the scene from injuries associated with the accident. He was 33 years old and a member of the Niles Police Dept. for the past four years. He is survived by his wife and a five month old son. Officials would only say Zourkas was from a ``far northwest suburb.'' As accident investigators from the Cook County Sheriff's office continue to piece the morning's events together, reports have indicated that Zourkas swerved his squad car to avoid a pedestrian who was stepping off the curb on Golf Road as the officer approached. Although this could not be confirmed with police by press time, Niles Mayor Nicholas Blase said this pedestrian came to the Niles Police Dept. last week to tell officials he was the man that stepped from the curb. Niles police Sgt. James Elenz noted last week that Zourkas was among the department's top auto accident investigators. Flags have flown at half staff in Niles since the tragic accident occurred last Friday. Black and purple cloth is draped over the entrance to the Niles Police Station, at Touhy and Milwaukee Avenues, in honor of Zourkas. Niles police personnel are also wearing black armbands in memory of their fallen member. Friday's accident marks the first time in Village of Niles history that a police officer died in the line of duty. Village Manager Mary Kay Morrissey said social workers and grief counselors have been available to help those mourning Zourkas' death. Members of the second and third shifts have shuffled their schedules so the officers who worked with Zourkas during the first shift, which lasts into the morning's wee hours, can begin coping with the loss. According to Blase, a female officer at the department is continuing to help Zourkas' wife as she mourns the loss of her husband. ``He was one of those very well liked policeman-- exceptionally so,'' Mayor Blase said. Members of the police department are describing Zourkas as man with a tremendous personality who was very dedicated to his job. ``Everyone liked him,'' Blase said about Zourkas. ``He was a very able guy and because of that the tragedy intensifies. ``So many people are grieving. ``He'll be sorely missed.'' The funeral held Tuesday was an appropriate send-off for Zourkas, said Niles fire Deputy Chief Barry Mueller, who, along with numerous others from the village, attended the ceremonies. Two fire engines from Elmwood Park crossed their ladders at the entrance of the cemetery in River Grove. A large American flag was draped from the ladders. Later, about 25 bagpipers played, Mueller said. Village Manager Mary Kay Morrissey said being part of the enormous line of mourners driving from the funeral mass to the cemetery was unlike anything she'd ever seen before. Squad cars with their lights activated stretched as far as most in the procession line could see. Blase estimated that at least one hundred Illinois police departments, probably more, were represented during the funeral. Some downstate communities sent representatives to the ceremony, he said. Streets in each community the funeral procession passed were blocked by various police departments, officials said. Even ramps leading to and from I-90 were blocked to make way for the mourners. Morrissey praised the Niles Police Dept. for organizing the funeral during this difficult time. ``There's certain protocol you follow when someone is killed in action,'' Morrissey explained. ``I'm very proud of the way the police came together.'' Visitation took place at Colonial Wojciechowski Funeral Home, 8025 W. Golf Rd., on Monday (Apr. 11). Tuesday the line of mourners proceeded from the funeral home to St. Isaac Jogues Church at 8149 Golf Road for a funeral mass. Various lanes of traffic on Golf Road were blocked-off Tuesday from about Washington Avenue to Milwaukee Avenue, according to Morrissey. Streets leading into Golf Road were also closed, officials said. The funeral procession traveled from St. Isaac Jogues south along Milwaukee Avenue to Touhy Avenue so Zourkas could once more pass the Niles Police Dept. The car then drove along Touhy Avenue to Cumberland then south to Belmont Avenue and the cemetery.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) to offer this motion on behalf of our brave citizen soldiers who are risking their lives for us and then, as a thank you, risking their homes and their businesses, too. Our motion simply shields financially distressed National Guard and Reservists from the means test found in S. 256 while they are in service and for the 2 years after they have transitioned back to civilian life if a substantial portion of their debt is due to their service. This motion is a narrow protection for those who suffer financial hardship, financial disaster, as a direct result of serving our country. It builds on Senator Durbin's amendment to the Senate bankruptcy bill which exempts from the bill's means test disabled veterans if their debts were incurred primarily when they were on active duty or performing homeland defense duties. Regardless of Members' position on the overall bill, we owe it to those who risk their lives and their livelihoods to prevent financial catastrophe caused by their service. This motion is the least we can do to ease their pain. According to the National Guard, 4 out of 10 members of the guard and reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. Many left for the war thinking they would be deployed for 6 months and have ended up staying for a year or even longer and may be shipped out again. There is no reasonable way they could have financially anticipated and prepared for those extensions of their service. Their families struggle to pay the bills. Some face the reality of losing their homes, as this cartoon depicts: Tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree, and for some of those returning from Iraq, it is a foreclosure sign around their house. Many Guard and Reservists are self-employed or run small businesses and face the daunting task of reestablishing their businesses after their release from active duties. The 2 years after they return from service are the most difficult, and we owe it to them to provide a safe harbor from the means test. Since 9/11, approximately 470,000 Guard and Reservists have been called to active duty, tens of thousands more than once. Some of these patriotic Americans are facing financial crisis not because they are exploiting loopholes in the bankruptcy law, they are not scheming to avoid paying their debts, they are in a financial hole their country dug for them. Some will argue we do not need this motion because our solders are already covered by the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act, but that is not true. Even with that minimal help, many are forced to file for bankruptcy and the relief act provides no assistance once they file. It is hard enough under current law for them to pick up the pieces. The special circumstances and sacrifices of Guard and Reserve forces require that we not make recovery even harder for them. Soldiering is not their livelihood, but they take it on. They leave their day-to-day lives and jobs behind because their country asks them to do so. Exemption from the means test is the least we can do to tell our citizen soldiers and their families not only do we appreciate the physical and emotional risks they have taken, we recognize their financial risk. To do any less than this simple, narrow protection would be morally bankrupt. Disabled American Veterans, Washington, DC, April 1, 2005. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Conyers: The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is a nonprofit organization of more than one million veterans disabled during time of war or armed conflict. The DAV is the official voice of our nation's service-connected disabled veterans, their families, and survivors. On behalf of the DAV, I ask you please keep in mind the sacrifices of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces as you consider S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Returning service members often experience financial difficulties during their transition back to civilian life. They should be afforded protections to ensure that the already significant burdens upon military members and their families are not compounded by unintended consequences from this bill. Specifically, disabled veterans who incur debt during the initial 24 months following completion of active duty should not be subject to the bankruptcy means test. Such heroic citizens deserve the utmost consideration with regard to bankruptcy laws. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure better lives for America's service-connected disabled veterans and their families. Sincerely, Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a champion for our service men and women.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill puts credit card companies ahead of children.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the work of Dr. Frank Splitt, a McCormick Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University. As a member of The Drake Group, Dr. Splitt has worked to bring attention to the need for reform in college athletics. I would like to submit this article, ``Why Congress Should Review Policies that Facilitate the Growth and Corruption of Big-Time College Sports'' for the review of my colleagues. I hope that during this session of Congress we can begin to work to improve the system for the sake of our athletes, teachers, fans, and entire educational system. ``Why Congress Should Review Policies that Facilitate the Growth and Corruption of Big-Time College Sports'' by Dr. Frank Splitt Despite many wakeup calls and warnings over the years, the situation with big-time college sports is much worse than many could ever have imagined. Two questions loom large: What's going on? And, where are the people who are willing to speak the truth about the academic corruption spawned by the college-sports entertainment colossus and to do something about it? To find the answer to the first question, one need only look at the usual suspect--money. Big money, together with greed, avid sports fans, an apathetic public, and governmental policies make college sports a lucrative and growing tax-free business enterprise. Key enablers for the continuing growth of this business are higher education professionals in a state of denial over the unflattering reality of academic corruption, a relatively ineffectual NCAA, and facilitating government policies involving privacy law and the subsidy of athletic departments and favorable tax treatment of related projects. The Drake Group (TDG), a grass-roots faculty organization, provides a partial answer to the second question. It works on the premise that college sports aren't themselves evil, but rather, it's the related academic corruption that should be exposed and eliminated. TDG has sponsored the publication of two papers on college-sports reform, ``Reclaiming Academic Primacy in Higher Education,'' and a sequel, ``The Faculty-Driven Movement to Reform Big-Time College Sports,'' see www.ece.northwestern.edu/EXTERNAL/ Splitt/. The first paper served as another wakeup call to university presidents, trustees, administrators and faculties. The sequel focused on a TDG initiative to help restore academic integrity by working to change the Family Educational Rights and Privacy of 1974 (FERPA)--also known as the Buckley Amendment. As an unintended consequence of the Buckley Amendment, evidence of academic corruption and shenanigans in big-time college sports are hidden from real public scrutiny and the NCAA and schools (via waivers) can exploit and control their athletes while only releasing news favorable to themselves. In their Wisconsin Law Review article, ``Cleaning Up Buckley: How The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Shields Academic Corruption In College Athletics,'' Matthew Salzwedel and Jon Ericson make a compelling case for simple changes that would permit an appropriate level of disclosure. It is my view that those changes would lead to exposure of institutional misbehavior via publication of information about the academic courses that athletes take, as well as their choice of professors and academic majors. Over time, that disclosure would work to ensure that college athletes are getting a legitimate college education. Changes to the Buckley Amendment require governmental intervention. TDG made a formal request for a review of the amendment to LeRoy S. Rooker, Director of the U.S. Department of Education Family Policy Compliance Office. In his response, Director Rooker stated that TDG's concerns were largely those that can only be addressed by Congress. Follow up with the chairs of the appropriate Congressional Committees has been initiated by TDG. It should be clear that, no matter how bad college sports related scandals may become, how appropriate any one of a number of reform measures may be, or, how intense the urging of the Knight Commission, there is little likelihood that these kinds of measures would be adopted on a voluntary basis. The reason is simple: Universal adoption would likely prove to be successful in curbing the rampant excesses of the college sports and level the playing field, but put at risk the big, tax-free money flow into the NCAA cartel. Substantive reform measures all seem to make sense to the reform minded, but not to those that are to be reformed--setting the stage for endless debate. Nothing of consequence happens. The NCAA's proposed reforms in the wake of the University of Colorado-Boulder recruiting scandal came under critical review at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on May 18, 2004. That hearing, titled ``Supporting Our Intercollegiate Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA Reforms'' was called to examine the NCAA response to the recruiting practices and polices of intercollegiate athletics. The Subcommittee expressed concern that some of the NCAA's new proposals don't go far enough and mentioned a possible motivational tool for Congress to get what it wants: the tax-exempt status of NCAA programs. Those remarks spawn hope that the NCAA and its members will be forced to pay serious attention to reform and enforcement as well as tell the truth about their financial operations. With a public now fatigued with terrorist related threats and numbed by grievous wrongdoing, scandals, and cover ups in their financial and political worlds, the challenge for Congress is to take on the tasks of working for disclosure via ``cleaning up Buckley''--penetrating the closed society of higher education and its ``See no evil, Speak no evil, Hear no evil,'' modus operandi--and calling for an IRS audit of the NCAA cartel. When buttressed by compelling arguments for reform and intensive scrutiny by the media, these efforts can surmount the formidable barriers that have thus far shielded intercollegiate athletics from serious reform.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget of mass destruction and in support of the Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus alternative budgets which recognize the true needs and values of our Nation. We do not need to call in weapons inspectors to find the threat to the majority of Americans in this budget, nor do we need a warning system. We know exactly what, when, and where the damage will be because the Republican budget, once again, puts the tax cuts of the few above the needs of the many. Under the Republican budget, the vast majority of Americans are asked to sacrifice, with one exception: the wealthy who can most afford to give something up. Their tax cuts--the same tax cuts that brought us unprecedented deficits--are protected and even extended under this proposal. They will cost our country an additional $106 billion, of which 75 percent will go to people making over $200,000 a year. In order to pay for those tax cuts, the Republicans are literally proposing to take away food and health care from low-income families, kill 48 education programs by eliminating the $4.3 billion that funds them, slash veterans' health care--including cutting $9 million from medical and prosthetic research, and undermine community development in struggling neighborhoods by cutting $1.5 billion in grant programs. Despite Republican claims, these cuts will do nothing to help our country's bottom line, but they will be devastating for the children, working families, veterans and seniors who will be asked to go without. This is not only irresponsible, but immoral. In the that state of Illinois, we could see the Earned Income Tax Credit--the most effective anti-poverty program--cut by $164.2 million, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and child care grants lose $84.3 million, and Supplemental Security Income--which helps poor seniors and people with disabilities--slashed by $174 million. Thousands of vulnerable peoples' lives will be destroyed if the Republican budget passes. The House Republican budget is even worse than the President's proposal. For instance, they propose even greater cuts to Medicaid than under his plan. The $20 billion in Medicaid cuts included in this budget resolution are unwise, unjustifiable and almost certainly lethal. As health care costs continue to rise, the number of uninsured Americans exceeds 45 million, and employers continue to cut back on coverage, Medicaid has provided a guarantee of support for pregnant women and children, persons with disabilities, persons living with AIDS or mental illnesses, and senior citizens needing medical care or long term care services. Without those services, millions of Americans will no longer be able to get the physical health, mental health, and long term care services they need to remain healthy and productive. In my state of Illinois, Medicaid covers 40 percent of all births, 30 percent of all children, and 65 percent of all nursing home residents. In Illinois, under the leadership of our governor, we are working to expand Medicaid to cover more children and more families in face of a growing crisis in health care. This is not just the right thing to do, it is the cost-effective course to take. Medicaid costs less than private health insurance and its per capita costs are growing more slowly than private insurance premiums. But, if the Republican budget cuts re enacted, it may no longer be there for the millions of Americans who have no other source of care--other than bankrupting their families or mortgaging their futures to pay for their parents' long term care needs or their children's medical services. Budgets are not just about numbers, they are about values and priorities. Based on the Republicans' proposal, maintaining and making permanent tax cuts for millionaires has been and continues to be a higher priority than meeting the needs of the majority of Americans. And, they are shifting the responsibility of their fiscal mess onto the backs of our children who will see decreased services and will be asked to deal with deficits for years to come. The Democratic and CBC budgets recognize that this is the wrong thing to do and a great threat to our nation's future well-being and prosperity. It is time to reverse course so that we do not continue to mortgage our country's future and our children's prosperity in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich that we cannot afford and that they do not need. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican WMD and for the Democratic and CBC budgets.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding and giving me the opportunity to speak today. And I also wanted to particularly emphasize why Social Security has been so important and will continue to be to women. Like many of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, I had an open forum, a town meeting, on Social Security. Nearly 1,000 people showed up. We could not believe it. We had a room set for about 350. We hoped to fill it at 10 o'clock in the morning on a Monday. I did it along with my two Senators from Illinois, Senators Durbin and Obama, and then we had an overflow room and then an overflow for the overflow room and still had to turn people away, young people, older people, persons on disabilities. I want to tell my colleagues one story. It may not be obvious at first why this is a story about why Social Security is important to women. A friend of mine, someone I have known for a very long time, a gentleman, middle-aged, got up and talked about something I never knew before. And he was telling about how his first wife died at the age of 35 and left him with their three children, three young children. And he said how Social Security and those benefits made it possible for them to hold the family together and for those children to go on to college. But the other thing that he added, which was so poignant, was that that Social Security benefit enabled his wife, his deceased wife, to keep the promise that she had made to their children to always take care of them. And even now it brings tears to my eyes when I think of that. So that they could feel it was their mother that was helping enable them to go on to college to be the second generation. They are African- American, and for that family to go on to college. And I thought that was really moving. In Illinois, we have looked at some of the statistics about how women rely on Social Security more than men do. This is a little bit dryer but important nonetheless. In Illinois, 19 percent of adults receive Social Security benefits. Think of that. Nearly one in five adults, including 21 percent of women and 16 percent of men. About almost a million women and 718,000 men and 116,000 children rely on Social Security benefits. Women represent 5 percent of all the people 65 and older in Illinois who rely on Social Security benefits. And without those benefits, 55 percent of elderly women in Illinois would be poor. The typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in Illinois, the widow that is left, receives $921 per month. But if we calculate out what we know of the President's proposal, the plan he prefers, and we look down the future at what would the typical widow in Illinois get, that amounts to, instead of the $921 per month, $506 per month or a 45 percent cut in benefits. So it is no wonder that so many people, young people and older people, came out to this hearing because they are worried. And it was significant to me when young women stood up and said, Do you know who could reap the worst of this privatization plan, it is me, it is us. It is the young women. It is the young people. Because it is we who will see our benefits cut, who will see the debt that is mounting have to be paid off by us. At the same time we are looking for the jobs that have the benefits, that have the pension plans right now, trying to figure out how we are going to pay off those college loans, and we do not know what our future is going to be if that guaranteed benefit of Social Security is changed into a gamble.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is no wonder, then, that the women's organizations, bipartisan women's organizations, are opposing this privatization plan. The American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, who go through a very rigorous process in order to come to a position. They are raising all kinds of concerns and say that diverting money from the Social Security trust fund into private accounts could hasten the insolvency of the fund. The result could include a substantial increase in the deficit and significant cuts in some or all of the Social Security's retirement and disability and survivor benefits. The National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the Older Women's League, all these organizations are opposed to these risky privatization plans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read one of the statements of the bishops that I think sums up what the gentleman has been saying. The moral measure of any trade agreement should be how it affects the lives and dignities of poor families and vulnerable workers whose voices should receive special attention in this discussion.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and expertise on this issue. I tried to get his book at a book store near my home, and I could not find it there. So I hope the gentleman will help me find a copy of his book on trade. The real question is, what is the goal of our recent trade agreement? If it is to export jobs, to increase the trade deficit, to lower the wages of American workers, to fuel the race to the bottom for workers everywhere, to damage the global environment and to benefit multinational corporations that have really no loyalty to the United States, our economy or our workers, then you would rank our trade agreements as a huge success. And if you like NAFTA, then you will love CAFTA. But what I want to talk about a little bit tonight is the moral dimension of this question. On June 23 and 24, a delegation of six bishops representing the Catholic Church in Central America came to the United States and met with the bishop secretariat, the chairman of the Domestic and International Policy Committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and came up with a statement on CAFTA, and I just want to read a couple of things from that. Number one, I think it puts it in a context that sometimes we do not think about. Number one, it says according to our pastoral vision, which is inspired by the gospel and the church's social teaching, the human person must be at the center of all economic activity. Free trade agreements, such as CAFTA, should be a way of achieving authentic human development that upholds basic values such as human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity. Whether such treatments are ethical or not depends on how these values are pursued. A second point they made: If trade agreements are shaped by a proper moral perspective, they can promote human development while respecting the environment by fostering closer economic cooperation among and within countries and by raising standards of living especially for the poorest and most abandoned. Human solidarity must accompany economic integration so as to preserve community life, protect families and livelihoods, and defend local cultures. Then they say, in light of the values and principles that we have outlined, and there were more, as well as the situation of the people, we express some of our specific concerns about the potential impact of CAFTA on our countries, especially in Central America. If I could just for a minute say a couple of those. One, there has not been sufficient information and debate in our countries, they are talking about the Central American countries, about the various aspects of CAFTA and its impact on our societies. This troubles us deeply given the obvious imbalance in power and influence that exists between the United States and the Central American countries and the impact the agreement will have on our peoples, especially in Central America. This lack of dialoguing consensus regarding the treaty is also leading to growing discontent. In Central America this could lead to violence and other civic unrest which could further hinder true democratic reforms and respect for the rule of law. They are suggesting that CAFTA, among other things, could lead to violence and other civic unrest. Number two, they talk about in the area of agriculture that there is insufficient attention given to such sensitive issues as the potential impact of U.S. farm supports on Central American farm producers. And they talk about, number three, while certain labor and environmental provisions are included in the agreement, it is not clear that the enforcement mechanism within CAFTA will lead to stronger protection of fundamental worker rights and the environment. We are talking about leaders of the Catholic Church in Central America and in the United States who beg us to think about the impact on ordinary people in their countries, in our country, and the moral dimension that has to be considered when we look at important U.S. policy decisions like this. And I think that they have raised very, very important questions that deserve our great attention. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for letting me read some of this.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask a question, maybe my colleague does not know the answer to this, but when the Office of the Inspector General finds this kind of breach of the regulations and the rules, what happens? I mean is this, you were wrong to do this, does nothing happen?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was talking about how there are winners and losers, actually a very narrow band of winners with our trade policy, mostly the investors and the multinational corporations, but I notice that because of an inquiry that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) had made, that it was found that public dollars from the Agency for International Development, the USAID office were used to promote the President's trade policy, as I understand it, in violation of Federal and USAID lobbying restrictions, that a $700,000 taxpayer funded grant was actually given to business groups to promote CAFTA in violation of the regulations. I think that when there is a policy debate for the administration to unfairly use these taxpayer dollars to propagandize, to fund outside organizations, business organizations who stand to gain from the outcome, is really improper, if not illegal activities, and I really want to congratulate the gentleman for looking into this, because the taxpayers deserve a right to know.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Act. While I acknowledge and appreciate that this is a bipartisan effort in bringing this bill, I believe that this attempt to address the quality of broadcasting is both overreaching and off the mark and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. There is already a law on the books that addresses indecency, and my view is that we need to get a grip and not embrace a solution that could cause more harm than good. I believe that H.R. 310 is one of those solutions. H.R. 310 would essentially in my view put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech. If enacted, especially with the increased fines against individual artists, we will see self- and actual censorship reach new and undesirable heights. Even the threat of this legislation has already led to that kind of censorship. For instance, on Veterans Day of 2001 and 2002, ABC aired ``Saving Private Ryan,'' a movie about World War II, to honor those who served. In 2004, with the threat of almost identical legislation to the one we are considering hanging over their heads, 66 ABC affiliates refused to run the show. They were afraid that the award-winning salute to our veterans would be deemed indecent. They were concerned that it might trigger at least one incident, maybe three, of indecency because it is unclear whether saying one indecent word three times in the same broadcast might trigger license revocation proceedings. As we can see, the threats to our Constitution and to artistic expression are all too real with H.R. 310. Do we not want to have sensational performances, sensational in the best sense of the word? Do we want a blanding down? Once we do this kind of censorship, can political speech be far behind? I am concerned about the continual refusal to address what I believe is really behind the decline in broadcasting and that is the overconcentration of media ownership. Broadcasting content has been getting worse, not because of low fines and out-of-control talent, but because of the shift away from local control to ownership by media conglomerates that have no regard for the varying community standards. Additionally, much of the furor over indecency has been explained by a desire to protect our children. And there are many programs on TV that I believe are inappropriate for my little grandchildren, particularly the many which depict graphic violence over and over and over again. But I do not want H.R. 310 or Big Brother making that decision for me or their parents. If I could just say that I happen to be much more concerned about the first amendment than I am about my grandchildren seeing Janet Jackson's nipple. I would say, let us get a grip and we can do without this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical to the foundation of our democracy than the guaranteed right to vote. In the 2004 Presidential election, there were voters in every State, including the pivotal State of Ohio, who were denied that right; and each time it happened, the foundation is weakened. That is why I join my colleagues today in objecting to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes. I commend my colleagues in this House of the people and the Senate who are raising this objection for their courage, and I am proud to join them. There is little disagreement that irregularities did occur. The question is what are we going to do about it. It is simply not sufficient to tell the losers in this election to get over it, or to accuse them of sour grapes, or to say we are doing the best we can. It is our patriotic duty to stand up for every voter no matter his or her race or party affiliation and demand that Congress act to expand voter protection and guarantee voter rights. Once all the facts are determined, a national demand for electoral reform must force Congress to finally finish the job begun under the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, including voter-verified paper trail. We cannot simply sit back and accept the results as if nothing happened or possibly illegal activities had taken place in precincts throughout Ohio. Those Ohio election officials who denied voters provisional ballots, a portion of the voting reform bill that I championed, must be held accountable along with those who allowed machines to be tampered with, eligible voters to be purged illegally, and voters to be intimidated. This is our chance to demonstrate to our citizens and the world that Americans are constantly working to perfect our own democracy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's vote on H. Con. Res. 528 is about much more than just eliminating a provision that Republicans sneaked into the Omnibus Appropriations bill. While that provision would have eroded existing privacy protections of American taxpayers, today's vote also highlights the growing abuse of legislative power and abuse of the public trust by the Republican leadership. It is also about priorities and meeting our nation's needs. I opposed the massive spending bill when it was considered on the House floor on November 20, 2004, because I was certain that, without carefully examining it, I might be voting for inappropriate, irresponsible, or even embarrassing provisions. Sure enough, that is the case. The provision the Republicans inserted into the spending bill which would allow Members and staff on Congressional committees to ``sneak and peak'' at taxpayers' confidential tax filings, and, which H. Con. Res. 528 corrects, is just one example of the controversial changes and omissions included in the 3,000-page Omnibus package. The Omnibus Appropriations bill includes another serious threat to taxpayers' privacy, one that we are not fixing today. Behind closed doors, the Republicans stripped from the massive bill a House-passed amendment which would have prohibited the Internal Revenue Service from using private bounty-hunters to collect back taxes. That provision, which enjoyed strong-bipartisan support, would have prevented 2.6 million tax returns a year from being turned over to private debt collectors with personal financial stakes--receiving 25 cents on every dollar in making people ``pay up.'' This policy all but openly condones strong-arm collection tactics. Additionally, while IRS employees must respect taxpayer privacy or be liable, the bounty hunters will have no such restrictions. They are free to do as they please, and we have no reason to believe that they will not abuse the power the Republicans want to give them in order to increase their profits at the expense of taxpayer privacy. Furthermore, 6 million employees are in danger of seeing the 40-hour work week eroded because of another glaring omission from the Omnibus Appropriations bill. In a blow to America's workers, the Omnibus fails to include the Obey-Miller amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that passed the House. That bipartisan provision, which also passed the Senate, would have ensured that the Administration's new overtime rules do not harm Americans who depend on overtime to make ends meet, instead keeping in place a vital protection and keeping them from having to work longer hours for less pay. There are also provisions included in--or excluded from--the bill that would undermine a woman's right to choose, undercut environmental protections, and put workers' retirement security in jeopardy if their employers chose to convert from defined benefit to cash-balance plans. But, unfortunately, it is not only the policy riders and omissions that are harmful to millions within our country. The funding levels of too many vital programs are shameful and jeopardize our citizens and our future. For instance, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program, which has helped put thousands of police officers on our streets, is cut by roughly 20-percent. The Small Business Administration's budget is reduced by 18-percent. There is no funding for the 7(a) loan program, which is the SBA's flagship program for helping small businesses get access to capital. Although we are bringing home new veterans every day, the funding level for veterans' health care is at least $1.3 billion less than what the bipartisan Veterans' Affairs Committee says is needed just to maintain the current level of services. The President's own No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by $9.6 billion. Many key housing programs are slashed. Housing for the elderly was cut by $27 million, and housing for people with disabilities was cut by $9 million. Assistance for the homeless also saw a $9 million cut. Community Development Block Grants are funded at $212 million less than current levels. Contrary to Congress's call in 2002 to double the National Science Foundation's budget over the next five years, the omnibus cuts NSF's funding by $61 million below Fiscal Year 2004's level. While those cuts may seem small, they could truly decimate those programs, many which were already severely underfunded. At the same time that millionaires are not being asked to give up one penny of their tax cuts, investments that will make our country stronger are being cut. Despite its containing controversial changes to the law and gross underfunding of essential government services, facts only known to a handful of powerful Republicans, my colleagues and I were given only a few hours to read the bill which funds 13 government departments, dozens of domestic agencies, and is one of the largest government funding bills to come before Congress. Not even the most accomplished speed-reader could have gotten through the bill in time, which is exactly what its authors were counting on when they rammed the bill through in one day. Such treatment of a bill of such importance is a discredit to the institution of Congress and a serious disservice to our country. One resolution fixing one issue cannot make up for the abuse of power and the abuse of the American taxpayer, employee, student, senior, and family that H.R. 4818 embodies.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am deeply grateful to the gentleman for yielding me this time, for his tireless service to our country, for his friendship, and I wish him and his wife Kathy all the best in the future. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon-Hyde provisions. On this Saturday morning, millions of American women are going about their business, hopefully enjoying leisure time with their families and friends, preparing for Thanksgiving, completely unaware that their Congress, their leaders are stripping them of access to a constitutional right to reproductive health care. Physicians and hospitals, let us be clear, already have the right under the conscience clause to refuse to perform abortions. The Weldon-Hyde provision would allow HMOs or other health insurance companies--HMOs and health insurance companies--to decide for any reason whatsoever it will no longer pay for, provide information or make referrals for abortion services, even if the woman's life is in danger and she is a victim of rape or incest or even if the physician as a matter of his conscience wants to perform this medical service. Under this bill, it would be impossible for a State to ensure that poor women who are victims of rape or incest can access Medicaid- covered abortions in these narrow circumstances. This bill allows any health care entity to ignore all Federal, State and local laws pertaining to abortion services, information and referrals. While, again, there are no Federal laws that require any individual or hospital to provide abortions, there are Federal laws that women should be informed of their legal options, and this bill could overturn those options. This bill is a gag clause denying women even necessary information to make informed decisions. Will Rogers used to say, ``No man's house is safe. The legislature is in session.'' Women of child-bearing age, your body is not safe as long as this Republican-dominated Congress is in session.