Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment with the wholly inadequate level of funding in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005 for grants to combat violence against women. Women in this country are in the midst of a crisis, continuing to be terrorized by sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking, and the situation is not getting much better. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least one out of every six women and girls in the United States will have been beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. So what is the Republican leadership's response? According to this bill, it is to cut funding for grants to states to combat violence against women. This bill closely follows the President's request and cuts VAWA funding by 1 percent from last year's levels down to $383.5 million. Funding for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs in the Department of Justice, programs which serve to protect older and disabled women from violence, to provide transitional housing for women fleeing abusive partners, to protect students on campus from sexual assault, to reduce stalking, remains $55 million short of full funding. this is simply unacceptable. We have the money in this country to help every women who is raped, to provide counseling and services to every family trying to overcome domestic violence, to train police officers to help victims of stalking--yet the President's budget chooses not to do this. Instead, the Republican majority chooses to spend more of our money on tax cuts for the wealthy. I go back to my district and I see women who have worked so hard to survive domestic abuse and sexual assault. I meet families who have lost a mother or a sister to domestic violence. When they ask me--what is my government doing to help me? What is my government doing to make sure this doesn't happen to another woman?--I will have to tell them that the government is not doing nearly enough. The Republican leadership is cutting funding for programs to prevent violence against women. This is a disgrace.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by several of my colleagues to do a short series of 5-minutes to help shed light on President Bush's record on women. We are very grateful to the National Women's Law Center that produced a report called ``Slip-sliding Away: The Erosion of Hard-won Gains For Women Under the Bush Administration,'' and the National Center For Research on Women that wrote a report called ``Missing: Information About Women's Lives.'' They compiled reports on the actions taken by the Bush administration that have eroded hard-won gains for women. These are rights and guarantees for equality that my colleagues and I, and those who came before us, have worked for years to gain in order that our daughters and our granddaughters would not have to endure inequality, violence, or lack of opportunity. During the last 3\1/2\ years, so many of those gains have been rolled back, chipped away and, in some cases, obliterated all together. My colleagues will elaborate on some of these actions, but let me at least provide my colleagues with a list of the administration's actions. I have only 5 minutes, so this list will be a sample rather than an exhaustive list. Despite a persistent wage gap and barriers to equal opportunity like sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, the Bush administration has advocated policies that make the situation worse for women at work. The Bush administration has completely eliminated the Equal Pay Matters initiative. The Department of Justice has weakened enforcement of the laws against job discrimination and abandoned pending sex discrimination suits without notice or explanation. The Department of Labor repealed regulations that allowed paid family leave to be made available through State unemployment compensation funds. The Bush administration has proposed new regulations that would deprive millions of women the right to overtime pay. The Bush administration has been proactive in undermining title IX, a program that promotes equality for girls in education and sports, a landmark piece of legislation that our late dear colleague, Patsy Mink, had so much to do with passing. The Department of Education ``archived'' a guidance on sexual harassment in violation of title IX, making this guidance unavailable to victims of harassment, parents, schools, and the public. The administration has tried to eliminate funding for the Women's Education Equity Act, which provides curricula and materials to help schools comply with Title IX and research on model programs to promote gender equity. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to strike down the use of affirmative action to achieve diversity in higher education, while the Department of Education encouraged colleges and universities to avoid using affirmative action instead of guiding them on ways they can permissibly do so. The Department of Education has proposed removing existing safeguards that ensure all girl and all boy classes and schools do not perpetuate stereotypes and second-class status for girls. President Bush's most recent budget proposal would result in 300,000 children losing child care assistance by 2009. The Bush administration has proposed modifications to the welfare law that would impose harsh new work requirements on mothers in poverty while opposing increases in their child care assistance. The Bush administration has proposed privatizing Social Security which would hit older women especially hard by siphoning money out of the system, thus reducing benefits for poor women. The administration has proposed eliminating the savers credit that gives additional tax credits to low and moderate income individuals and families who contribute to retirement accounts. At the same time, the President has proposed weakening the protections for low and moderate income individuals in employer pension plans. President Bush signed a Medicare bill that prohibits the government from using its bargaining power to get lower costs on prescription drugs hurting the 80 percent of older women who use prescription drugs every day. The Bush administration has proposed changes in Medicaid that would result in the denial of health care coverage to many poor women who are now eligible for Medicaid. President Bush, for the first time since Roe versus Wade, was decided in 1973 signed into law a bill that unconstitutionally restricts a women's right to choose and that blatantly disregards any consideration for possible threats to a woman's health. President Bush has cut millions of dollars in funding for international women's family planning which is used to promote maternal and infant health and reduce unwanted pregnancies and infant death. Too bad I could not get through the long list which was just a summary in itself of the ways that women's rights have been eroded under this administration.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, when we as Members of Congress choose to look the other way at wrongdoing, when the agreed-upon standards of ethics of this body are seriously violated and no one makes a peep, the credibility of this institution is seriously damaged. One of my colleagues has filed a complaint with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Ethics Committee. He has raised serious questions about Majority Leader Tom DeLay's conduct, questions related to bribery, extortion, fraud, money laundering, and abuse of power. Some Republicans have tried to dismiss this complaint as mere partisan politics rather than respond to the substance of the charges. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) threatened that as a result of this complaint from now on it is a matter of, quote, you kill my dog, I'll kill your cat. This House has a duty to investigate wrongdoing, and we should do it immediately and seriously; and we should do it without killing dogs or cats.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, can I just say it another way? The vast majority of Americans are not asking for special favors. The American ethic of working hard and taking personal responsibility is alive and well. Americans want to work and take care of their families. But they expect just a little bit of help from the government, that when they get sick, they are not going to go bankrupt, that the school that they send their children to and they pay taxes for will provide a quality education; that when they retire, they will be able to retire in some dignity. The reverse of what the gentleman is saying is that Americans do not want that much from government, but they are not getting even the helping hand that they expect, deserve, and in fact, they have paid for.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, for organizing this Special Order so that Democrats can talk again about a topic that the White House and President Bush would much rather we do not discuss in public, especially during an election year, and that is the middle-class squeeze. I do come from Illinois, another Midwestern State that has been very, very hard hit by the unemployment that has been exacerbated by this Bush administration. I want to tell my colleagues about a piece of information that came our way. My husband has a pilot's license to fly private planes. We certainly do not own one, but he gets a magazine called ``Flying'' that had in it this brochure that had these screaming headlines on it that said it was time to benefit from the new tax law by buying a private plane. For about $360,000, you can take advantage of this new bonus depreciation program, a 50 percent bonus depreciation program; and you would be able, if you bought this, a mere $360,000 plane, you could write off in the first year $260,000.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman think they would be interested in this plane?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the thing that is really great about this deal is if you take this first year $260,000, these planes last a long time, maybe the useful life is 20 to 25 years, and it really does not depreciate in value all that much. So you could take this first- year write-off, and then a couple of years later you could sell it and make a whole bunch of money. This is the kind of deal and this is the kind of constituent that this Bush administration has helped. And how many people are really in the position, certainly not many in Illinois, not very many people I know to take advantage of this great tax break. As I said, the thing they seem to be missing here is now Republicans are talking about this roaring-back economy. Okay, ``back,'' implying that we have fallen a long way, baby, and now that more jobs are being created, they are saying, is this not a miracle of the Bush administration. But let us remember, we are barely halfway back. We are talking about still this President being the first on record since the Great Depression to go without creating a new net private sector job. Mr. Speaker, 1.9 million Americans who had jobs in 2001 still do not have jobs today. So this kind of playing with the numbers like, is this not great, I have been trying to figure out, it is sort of like an arsonist who burns down the houses and then says, oh, look, they are building all of these new houses, or they are building these houses, we are coming back. No, you do not want to see the house burn down. Then of course, if you are lucky enough to be one of the people who is getting a job in this resurging economy, your pay is going to be less, on average; in fact, about $9,000 less is the average for the new jobs. Your benefits are going to be limited, and your wages are likely to grow at only about 2 percent a year. And then, over the last 3 years, there has been a $2,050 increase in child care costs, a $2,630 increase in family health care premiums, a $938 rise in the cost of gas per household with teenagers, and that has barely started. We will have to make a new calculation soon. And a $1,207 increase in college tuition, which my colleague talked so eloquently about and, at the same time, median family income has dropped nearly $1,500. So the real question that should be asked, the question that was asked in a past campaign really is, Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? I want to tell my colleagues that in Illinois that the answer is absolutely no. I wanted to tell my colleagues some of the numbers in Illinois, about our job loss. Personal bankruptcies in Illinois. Instead of buying fancy airplanes, what we find is that personal bankruptcies in Illinois are at an all-time high: 13,739 people declared bankruptcy in 2003, a 42 percent increase from 2000. A lot of these bankruptcies are caused because of health care costs. You cannot afford to be sick in America anymore if you are an average working family. Most of the people, in fact, who do not have health insurance actually are holding a job. Over 70 percent of the uninsured live in a family with at least one full- time worker. And then we have 44 million people, 15 percent of the U.S. population that lacks health insurance coverage of any kind over the entire year. And the number of uninsured has been steadily increasing at about 1 million people. So those folks now who used to have kind of a middle-class life, many are without health insurance, getting lower wages, no benefits; and they are often the ones who are actually standing in that line waiting to supplement their food at the end of the month, because ends just do not meet. And if it is a senior citizen who is on a fixed income, then they are trying to figure out how to buy their medication. They know that this prescription drug card is certainly not going to provide the answer to them. Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? And for the vast majority of Americans, obviously not the ones that the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Commerce or the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States hang out with, or obviously have much occasion to run into at all when they are on the trail at these $1,000- and $2,000-a-plate dinners that the President is going to these days; it is about time that he took a look and saw that the middle class is being squeezed out of existence.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It is generous of the gentleman to say that all administrations make mistakes and that even you have made a mistake. But I just want to remind the gentleman that the President could not think of a single mistake when asked at a press conference if there were any mistakes that he has made in his presidency. He said that none came to mind. He thought there probably were some but he could not even think of one. It seems to me that just condoning, or in the case of the gentleman you talked about, the employee of this administration who says that people in food lines are just maybe looking for an easy way out, I would say that statement is a mistake and that the person that made that statement who is in a position of authority in a department that gives out food stamps that is supposed to help poor people with feeding programs, that is a mistake and he should be fired.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Actually, it was reported in Newsweek and other places that there had been a Defense Department study that showed that perhaps as many as a quarter of those troops in battle that were killed or injured would not have been had they had the proper equipment, 25 percent. So we are talking about more than a few dozen.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over the fact that we are taking the time to once again vote on legislation that is good, but not great. I would like to ask my colleagues why, if we are going to do the same job again, we are not taking the opportunity to do it better? I support the Teacher Training Enhancement Act, H.R. 4409, and I voted for this legislation the first time it was offered on the House floor as H.R. 438, the Teacher Training and Recruitment Act. By extending loan forgiveness for up to $17,500 for qualified math and science teachers in secondary schools and special education and reading teachers in elementary schools who work for five years in low-income areas, H.R. 4409 will help those schools attract qualified teachers. But, this legislation could be significantly improved by expanding loan forgiveness to all teachers in high poverty schools, head start teachers and teachers in extremely rural school districts. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a promise to parents and children that there would be a qualified teacher in every classroom. In the 1999-2000 school year, over a fifth of secondary school students took at least one class from a teacher who neither majored nor minored in the subject they are teaching; over a third received instruction in at least one class from a teacher who was not certified in the subject taught and did not have a major in that subject. There is an extreme shortage of qualified teachers across all of the academic disciplines, especially in areas that are economically depressed. Unfortunately, this legislation only provides assistance to math, science and special education teachers. While there are shortages in these fields on a national basis and they need and deserve our support, our most disadvantaged school districts and communities need highly qualified teachers in all subjects and early education. We should be taking advantage of our second chances. As long as we are going to take the time to re-vote on legislation, I urge my colleagues to take the time to ensure that we are passing the best legislation possible. Our constituents deserve nothing less.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, it was a famous American who once asked, ``Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?'' To most Americans, the answer is ``no.'' That is not just me saying it. A Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going here at home. There is a reason why a majority of Americans believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction under the leadership of President Bush. Median income has dropped 3.3 percent since President Bush was elected. Two million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush got his. Three-and-a-half million people have moved onto the poverty rolls since President Bush moved into the White House. Four million more people are uninsured since President Bush was sworn in. Our constituents are being gouged at the gas pump while President Bush fills his campaign coffers with checks from big oil and big gas. Consumer confidence, which was at 115.7 in January 2001, was at 92.9 last month. College tuition, up 14 percent in 1 year. We are not better off.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, we have been asked to vote on a lot of really bad ideas presented by the majority, but I have to say this is clearly one of the worst. This bill, regardless what the gentleman says, would require doctors and nurses to be part of enforcing Federal immigration laws while threatening the health and well-being of our communities. But do not take my word for it. The American Medical Association says ``This bill would effectively turn physicians and other health care providers into Border Patrol agents. By requiring physicians to report patients and perhaps withhold necessary care, this bill would, in effect, require physicians to violate the Hippocratic Oath. Finally, by discouraging undocumented individuals from seeking medical care for problems that might cause harm to others, such as communicable diseases, this bill would have very negative effects on existing public health efforts.'' I know the gentleman goes to great lengths to say what is not in his bill is not in his bill, but these are the experts that are required to actually carry out this law. This bill is so ill-advised, it could allow for a woman in active labor to be deported. That is not America. We should vote ``no'' on the legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. Fifty years ago today, Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that, under the Constitution, education is ``a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' That ruling paved the way for the end of legal segregation; it affirmed the truth that we all knew in our hearts--that separate can never be equal. In only 2,000 words, Chief Justice Warren changed the course of our nation for the better. It took the Chief Justice only a few minutes to read the ruling, but his words are still echoing in every classroom throughout the country. His words reverberated through the Supreme Court's marble halls and flowed into public school hallways. Those words continued to carry across the land by drawing power from the hope they gave to the people who heard them. They were a promise that every child would have the same opportunity to receive an education and, even more importantly, that every person would have the opportunity to shape and contribute to our society's future. The Brown v. Board of Education ruling was a crucial step on our way to becoming a more just society. We still have a very long way to go, but we cannot let the length of the road ahead of us discourage us. The Brown v. Board of Education ruling put the power of the law behind the fight for racial equality. It was a legal ruling that did so much more than end legal segregation in schools; it promised all Americans the right to participate in the ``American dream.'' The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) carefully formed a strategy to boldly challenge the constitutionality of segregation. Linda Brown represented the millions of children suffering from the effects of segregation, and her father, Oliver Brown, represented the millions of parents who believed that their children deserved better. Civil rights advocates used the Supreme Court's ruling on education to challenge discrimination in transportation, voting practices, housing and other parts of our society. The effort to win legal rights also gave birth to Dr. Martin Luther King's powerful dream of an America where all people are free from the scars of discrimination. Today, we celebrate the courage and conviction of those who stood up for their rights and helped to bring about the great victory of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Today we also must join together to reaffirm our commitment to equality and to work so that all Americans have a real opportunity to reach their full potential. The goal of achieving equal opportunity requires us to continue to fight for justice and equality. It also requires that we expand opportunity by providing adequate funding for quality, public education; creating good jobs; ending health disparities; and guaranteeing full access to the ballot booth in practice as well as in theory. Today, we have much to celebrate but we also have much left to achieve.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 10-16 as ``Cover the Uninsured Week.'' This is an important opportunity to put the spotlight on those individuals without access to coverage as well as those with inadequate coverage. Over 44 million people--15% of the U.S. population--lack health insurance coverage of any kind over the entire year. It has been said many times, but it must be said yet again--the United States is the only industrialized nation which fails to provide universal health care to its people. I hope the ``Cover the Uninsured Week'' will not just stimulate discussion, but action, so that soon that statement will no longer be true. Individuals without health insurance are more likely than insured Americans to postpone health care, not getting the care they need and not filling prescriptions. Access to health insurance also has a major impact on the financial well-being of families--over a third of the uninsured had a serious problem paying medical bills in the past year and nearly a quarter was contacted by a collection agency. The alarming fact is that this disturbing trend is only worsening. Throughout most of the 1990s, the number of uninsured has been steadily increasing by about 1 million people every year. This problem persists despite the fact that a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 78 percent of all Americans believe that the government has a responsibility to expand health insurance coverage to more Americans. This strong sense of national support for expanding health care to the uninsured is a mandate to the government to act now on this urgent problem that is profoundly affecting the ability of Americans to live healthy and productive lives. The lack of affordable health care and the national epidemic of the uninsured is not a problem with a single face. The uninsured are a diverse group of people--they are young professionals, small business owners, laborers and service employees. They are children, parents, and the near elderly. Any working person in this country can end up being uninsured at some point in their life. Today, I would like to look beyond the numbers and present before you snapshots of two people from my state of Illinois who are living without insurance. Jocelyn Graf of Oak Park, Illinois had to give up her health insurance when she started her own small English language training business and discovered that she could not afford the insurance plans available on the market. Jocelyn has received discounted medical care with assistance from the Campaign for Better Health Care. Jocelyn explained that she has been willing to risk living without insurance because she is young and healthy, but the lack of coverage would have been harder to deal with if she had ongoing health needs or was injured. Uyles Singleton of Chicago, Illinois worked for an envelope manufacturing company for 35 years. When the company went out of business last July, Uyles had only one month's notice his employer coverage insurance, which provided him and his wife access to medical care. Uyles quickly discovered that he could not afford to pay the exorbitantly high insurance premiums and now has to pay for all of his medical and prescription drug expenses out-of-pocket. Uyles pays $300 a month for his monthly medications to treat a chronic condition and can no longer afford to visit his regular primary care physician. In February, Uyles went to Cook County Hospital after separating his shoulder where he was x-rayed, but was not treated because he was unable to pay for the costs of care. Unfortunately, the problem runs much deeper than just the uninsured. Perhaps the sleeping giant of our health care coverage crisis is the population of Americans who are underinsured and lack access to urgent and necessary care. If you have a chronic medical condition and your employer changes health insurance providers or you change jobs and your new policy does not cover a preexisting condition, then you or your family may experience a serious gap in coverage. If you are in need of mental health coverage that your insurance does not cover, you will be unable to access appropriate care. And if you are self-employed or unemployed for even a small stretch of time, you may find yourself priced out of the health insurance market or paying high premiums for an insurance policy that may only cover catastrophic costs. Even temporary gaps in coverage affect the health and financial stability of the so-called ``insured population.'' A 2002 Kaiser Foundation study found that 38 percent of insured individuals report that they or their families experienced at least one problem accessing medical services in the past year, nearly one-fifth (18 percent) reported that they postponed seeking medical care and 15 percent had a problem paying medical bills. These numbers have real meaning to the people I represent. I have been contacted by a constituent who, although being insured, suffers from breast cancer, a condition not covered by her insurance provider. The very expensive cost of fighting this disease falls squarely on her shoulders with no help from her insurer. I am greatly troubled by the many constituents that I have heard from who struggle to pay the high premiums for their insurance, only to have to ration the medical care they need for themselves and their children because of deductibles that reach $5,000. Insurance available in today's market is clearly not a full-proof guarantee that people can access the care they need. Given the very thin line distinguishing the underinsured from the uninsured, Congress needs to act to guarantee comprehensive, quality care for both the uninsured and the badly insured. Any of us could become uninsured and face similar problems in obtaining medical care. Action on this critical issue is long since overdue. I urge my colleagues in Congress to not delay. We must act to make health care a right entitled to each and every single American.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to out-of- control medical malpractice premiums but also in opposition to H.R. 4280. Once again, we are being asked to vote on a bill that claims to be a solution to a very real problem but which will simply not do the job of lowering premiums. Once again, we are being asked to vote on legislation that ignores the major component in the medical malpractice insurance crisis--insurance. A study of the medical malpractice situation in my State of Illinois found last year that there was little, if any, correlation between medical sea -HMOOsmalpractice payments and medical malpractice premiums. The Americans for Insurance Reform report found that the amount of jury awards and settlements has actually declined since 1991, below the rate of medical inflation. In constant dollars, the amount of medical malpractice jury awards and settlements per doctor has decreased over the past decade in Illinois. As providers in my State know all too well, their medical malpractice premiums are going in the opposite direction. Instead of tracking payouts, they are tracking economic conditions and insurance company investment decisions. Imposing arbitrary caps on non-economic damages-- which would especially limit potential payments to injured infants and senior citizens--is not the answer when the problem is poor investment choices by insurance companies and economic conditions. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I had the opportunity to participate in hearings on H.R. 5, last year's medical malpractice bill. We never heard a medical malpractice insurer testify that passage of that bill would lower premiums or that the Federal government should even be allowed to track the effects on medical malpractice premiums if H.R. 5 were to pass. That failure was no surprise given multiple statements made by medical malpractice insurance company officials before State legislatures around the country, that tort reform will not lower rates. Even Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, has said that ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.'' Victor Schwartz, general counsel of ATRA, has said, ``(M)any tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and ``I've never said that in 30 years.'' Caps won't make medical malpractice premiums affordable but there are other proposals that would make a real difference in providing affordable coverage. As a member of the House Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force, I had hoped that we would take the opportunity to explore those opportunities instead of being presented with the same bill that we voted on last year, the same bill that the insurance industry itself says won't lower premiums. Here are many ideas that I believe are worthy of consideration but that, unfortunately, are not included in H.R. 4280. We know that insurance reform in California requiring a premium rollback and improving review had a positive impact in lowering medical malpractice premiums--after tort reform did not. We could have created a Commission on Medical Malpractice Insurance to investigate the real causes for premium increases and consider solutions such as mandatory loss-ratio requirements, experience rating, and a Federal reinsurance mechanism. We could have established a certification mechanism to make sure that cases are meritorious, expand Rule 11 sanctions for anyone who falsifies information as part of that process, and encourage arbitration while requiring that savings are passed through by insurers in the form of lower premiums. We could have repealed the McCarran- Ferguson Act that shields medical malpractice insurers from Federal antitrust laws. We could have provided a tax deduction to help health care providers and professionals faced with sharp premium increases. Instead of considering those initiatives, we are being asked to once again pass legislation that restricts the rights of injured patients and their families to seek legal remedies, not just against doctors, but against HMOs and other insurers, nursing homes, medical labs, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and others. For the first time, the Federal government would intrude on what has always been a State authority to take away consumer rights. Yet, the insurance industry itself refuses to say whether doing so will have the effect of lowering rates. It is the wrong answer to a very real problem. In the future, I hope that we will be given the chance to look at ways to address insurances industry practices and reduce the incidences of medial malpractice by improving health care quality. In the meantime, we should reject this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the brave men and women who served our nation during World War Il and to wholeheartedly support H. Con. Res. 409. The National World War II Memorial will be officially dedicated on May 29 to honor the 16,000,000 veterans who served in the United States Armed Forces duirng World War II and the millions of Americans who supported the war effort on the home front. Even today, we deeply appreciate the great service and sacrifice that those men and women gave in defense of our nation and the world. The soldiers of World War II fought against unimaginable tyranny. They gave their blood, sweat, tears, and for many, their lives, to protect and preserve the American way of life. Veterans who served our country in World War II deserve a tribute to illustrate their valor and courage. The National World War II Memorial is a fitting and lasting tribute and only a down-payment to a debt we can never repay in full. But to truly honor this nation's Greatest Generation, we must do more than just offer kind words and lasting memorials. It's time for Congress to live up to its promise to care for their health and well- being. It is time that we start adequately funding our veterans' health care system. Today, only 1 in 4 World War II veterans are still surviving. Every day, 1,100 more die. Those surviving veterans are aging and their medical needs are increasing. It is a great dishonor to turn our back on those veterans; it is a great dishonor to make those men and women wait for needed health care and an even greater dishonor to turn them away from Veterans' Administration facilities. There is a growing crisis in veterans' medical care: more than 30,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an appointment at Veterans' Administration hospitals. Some are even dying before they see a doctor. In his 2005 budget, the President recommended a less than 2 percent increase in funding for veterans' medical care--not even enough to cover the cost of inflation. The President's budget also slashes $294 million in funding for long-term care for America's veterans, which will reduce the number of patients treated by more than 8,000. That is not acceptable. While the House-passed budget does provide $1.2 billion above the President's wholly inadequate budget request, it is still $1.3 billion below the amount of funding suggested on a bipartisan basis by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and $2 billion below the amount recommended by the Independent Budget. The House-passed budget will not give the VA the resources it needs to reduce the backlog of patients or improve the quality of care. It will not end the Survivor Benefit Penalty or end the disability tax for the two-thirds of disabled veterans whose pension and disability payments are still offset. It will not give our World War II veterans the care they deserve. Democrats have offered a plan that will give veterans the care they deserve. I urge my Colleagues to join me in honoring the sacrifice of World War II veterans by voting for this resolution. I also urge us to further honor those brave men and women by committing enough funding to meet their needs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, well, it is obvious from this resolution to me that the days of the ``buck stops here'' are dead and gone. Oh, yes, it takes occasion to single out those individuals who do have blame for abusing in the most horrendous way our prisoners. But nowhere in here does it say that those who are in the leadership of this mission in Iraq hold any responsibility whatsoever. I looked through this carefully, and it seems that they want to limit it to a few individuals that they will go after. And by the way, not just the right individuals. There is no mention in this of the private military contractors, individuals who for profit are in those prisons that we know are under investigation, may even have been giving orders, companies like Titan and CACI that were hired to be in those prisons that are not part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Where are we going to point our fingers at them and hold them accountable?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman on the issue of lead in the drinking water, in fact, it was the Committee on Government Reform that held hearings on this. Also, this legislation we were considering today was, in fact, the first markup of the 108th Congress in the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. There are so many issues on the environmental agenda. Since we have so few opportunities to discuss those on the floor of the House since they are so rare to come before us, I wanted to just mention, bring to the attention of this body, that there is a very important third edition of the National Resource Defense Council book called ``Rewriting the Rules: The Bush Administration's Assault on the Environment'' which documents more than 150 assaults on our environmental safeguards between January 2003 and March 2004. Among the most troubling Bush administration environmental actions include: In November 2003, the Bush administration proposed to legalize the release of inadequately treated sewage into waterways as long as it is diluted with treated sewage, a process the agency has euphemistically labeled ``blending.'' In April 2003, in a sweeping legal settlement with then-Utah governor and current EPA administrator Mike Leavitt, the administration renounced the government's authority to conduct wilderness inventories on public lands or to protect more areas for their wilderness values. The sudden settlement involved no public comment or open deliberations, and threatens to open millions of acres of wilderness public lands to drilling, mining, road building and other development. The Bush administration has refused to regulate mercury through the same tough approach used for other hazardous air pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires the plants meet maximum achievable control technology standards for hazardous air pollutants. The Bush administration's proposal allows more mercury to be admitted, and gives industry decades longer to comply. Furthermore, in January 2004, it was revealed that at least a dozen paragraphs of the Bush administration's mercury proposal were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from memos sent by a law firm that represents the utility industry. Eric Schaeffer, the EPA's head of civil enforcement, handed in his resignation after President Bush announced the ``Clear Skies'' initiative. His letter of resignation said he was ``tired of fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce.'' In February, 2004, 63 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of ``deliberately and systematically'' distorting scientific fact and misleading the public in order to further its own partisan political objectives. In a damning report, the scientists detailed numerous examples of the administration's abuse of science, censoring government studies, gagging agency scientists, refusing to confer with or ignoring independent experts, appointing unqualified or industry-connected individuals to Federal advisory committees, disbanding those government panels offering unwanted information, and misinterpreting information to fit predetermined policy objectives. Having said all that, I would like to say that I think H.R. 2771, limited though it is, is an important step in providing clean, safe drinking water in New York City. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 2771, a bill passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program for 7 years. I am not opposed to demonstration projects for monitoring New York City watershed, but it seems odd that of the more than a dozen core provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act that expired in 2003, the House leadership has managed to find time for consideration of the management of one bill which singles out a small demonstration grant program that benefits only one State for a 7-year reauthorization. During the Committee on Energy and Commerce's consideration of this bill, Democratic members questioned the wisdom of reauthorizing a provision that President Bush did not include in his 2005 budget. Given that, the subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with oversight over this legislation, requested that the Bush administration provide the committee with a witness who could explain the administration's position on the bill, and explain why the President chose not to request funding for the program. The administration did not provide the committee with such a witness or with the requested information. The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, sent a letter to Administrator Leavitt asking those questions and requesting that he provide an answer by last Friday, April 30, so the House Members could make an informed vote on the bill. Administrator Leavitt still has not responded to that request. Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows: House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, April 12, 2004. Hon. Michael R. Leavitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC Dear Administrator Leavitt: The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing and markup on Friday, April 2, 2004, on H.R. 2771, a bill to reauthorize financial assistance to the State of New York for demonstration projects implemented as part of the New York City Watershed Protection Program. The legislation would reauthorize Section 1443(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act to extend the annual authorization of $15,000,000 to the year 2010. None of the other thirteen provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act whose annual authorizations expired in 2003 would be extended or reauthorized. The Committee majority staff informed the minority staff that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was unable to provide a witness at the hearing to testify on the President's budget requests for the New York Watershed Program. The EPA witness from Region 2 who did appear at the hearing was also unable to provide the Administration's position on H.R. 2771. Therefore, I request a response to the following questions not later than close of business on Friday, April 30, 2004: 1. Does the Administration support H.R. 2771? 2. Please explain why President Bush's budget for FY 2005 did not contain any requested funding to implement Section 1443(d), the New York Watershed Protection Program. In addition, please explain why none of President Bush's previous budgets for FY 2002, FY 2003, or FY 2004 contained any funding requests to provide financial assistance to the State of New York for the demonstration projects authorized by Section 1443(d). 3. Is it correct that the first financial assistance provided by the EPA from appropriations earmarks to the State of New York for the demonstration projects authorized by Section 1443(d) was on or about September 30, 1997? Is it also correct that the report from the Governor of New York on the results of projects assisted as required by Section 1443(d)(2) was due to be submitted to the EPA Administrator on or about September 30, 2002? Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me or have your staff contact Dick Frandsen, Senior Minority Counsel, at 202-225-3641. Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member. Hilda L. Solis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Democratic members expressed concern over the fact that H.R. 2771 seeks to reauthorize the program for an additional 6 years beyond the Senate companion to this bill. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) offered an amendment to H.R. 2771 during the markup of the bill, a markup that would have reauthorized the bill for one additional year. This 1-year authorization would have ensured authorized funding of the New York City Watershed Project during the appropriations process. The amendment would have also allowed us to revisit the New York City Watershed Bill during a comprehensive review of the entire Safe Drinking Water Act next year. Every day we open the newspapers to read about the health concerns of families of Washington, D.C. and members in Washington, D.C. as they deal with excessive levels of lead in their drinking water. Each of us has heard from our local communities about the urgent need to upgrade our Nation's aging water infrastructure. There is an unquestionable need in all of our States for additional resources to ensure compliance with drinking water standards and make critical infrastructure improvements. Among the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act that have expired is the State Revolving Loan Fund, which funds critical water infrastructure and compliance needs throughout our country. President Bush's budget requested only $850 million for this critical program, $150 million less than the level authorized by the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. If we authorized and fully funded that provision, each of our States would receive an additional 1 to $15 million. Local governments, States, drinking water suppliers and the EPA, all agree there is a tremendous resource gap which will continue to grow for drinking water infrastructure funding needed to protect the public health. This matter calls for corrective legislation. Of course, we support efforts to maintain the availability of safe drinking water in New York. But we should give all the expired provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act the same attention we are giving H.R. 2771 so that families throughout the country can have access to safe drinking water. Mr. Speaker, we have the time here to name post offices and to commend athletic teams and organizations, and when we do get around to environmental concerns, we only take a teenie weenie bite at the apple. We should give the same amount of attention to the funding needs of all our environment programs. The President's FY 2005 budget cut $2.3 billion in funding for programs that protect public health and the environment. The FY 2005 budget for the EPA is 7.2 percent below the FY 2004 enacted level. Furthermore, the President does not reinstate the Superfund taxes in his FY 2005 budget, a move that would force taxpayers to foot the bill for hazardous cleanup and would deviate from the long-standing ``polluter pays'' principle of the Superfund. The President does include, however, expected revenues from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil and gas exploration despite strong opposition in Congress to this plan. We should also act to make sure people across the country have clean air to breathe. The Bush administration has severely loosened the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This administration's new source review regulations allows plants to indefinitely continue to put large amounts of dangerous pollutants in the air. This administration has also proposed mercury regulations that would allow as much as 3 times more mercury to release from power plants than would be released under current law. We could spend our time passing legislation like the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) Clean Smoke Stacks Act, H.R. 2042, to drastically curb emissions of sulpher dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and mercury from power plants. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Centro Romero, a community-based organization that has been serving Salvadoran immigrants in the Chicago communities of Rogers Park, Edgewater, Ravenswood, and Uptown. Since its founding in 1984, Centro Romero has served Latino immigrant and refugee populations by providing services to adults and children to help them overcome barriers of integrating into U.S. society. last year, Centro Romero served over 5,600 clients through its adult education, women's empowerment, youth learning and leadership and legal assistance programs. Centro Romero was founded by a group of Salvadoran refugees living in Chicago who wanted to assist other incoming Central American refugees arriving in the United States to seek safe haven from the political and civil repression and human rights abuses that were plaguing the region during the 1970s and 1980s. Centro Romero is named in honor of Archbishop Oscar Romero, a Salvadoran Roman Catholic cleric, on behalf of his service of the poor and oppressed people. Archbishop Romero was assassinated in 1980 for his outspoken denunciations of the ruling elite and his defense of human and civil rights during El Salvador's civil war. Centro Romero began its work in Chicago communities by providing basic services such as food, job placement, housing orientation and immigration procedures. Today, Centro Romero provides these services and has added a women's program and youth program to address additional needs in the growing Latino community. Today, in the House of Representatives, I would like to extend my congratulations and appreciation from the grateful communities of Chicago to the dedicated staff and volunteers of Centro Romero for their many contributions providing vital information and essential services for the Latino communities. All of us who live in the Chicago area are fortunate to have Centro Romero in our midst and we all benefit from its unparalleled commitment to improving our community.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said earlier, he referred back to the prime time press conference that the President had some weeks ago where he could not think of any mistakes he had made in response to a question. So some of us have been offering ideas so at the next, if he has one, prime time press conference he would not have to fumble for an answer. I have to say that with the year anniversary of ``mission accomplished,'' that speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier, that he might want to think about some mistakes that have been made regarding the war in Iraq. Whether one is for or against the war in Iraq, here is something to consider. I wanted to use not my own words, but I wanted to refer to the Newsweek of May 3 and just read a couple of sections here. ``For the Bush administration,'' this is all a quote, ``it has been a mantra, one the President intones repeatedly: America's troops will get whatever they need to do the job. But as Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low intensity combat and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels, many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer. Especially tanks, Bradleys, and other heavy vehicles, even in some cases body armor. That has been the tragic lesson of April, a month in which a record 115 U.S. soldiers have died so far, and 879 others have been wounded, 560 of them fairly seriously. ``Soldiers in Iraq complain that Washington has been too slow to acknowledge that the Iraqi insurgency consists of more than `dead- enders.' And even at the Pentagon many officers say Rumsfeld and his brass have been too reluctant to modify their long-term plans for a lighter military. On the battlefield, that has translated into a lack of armor. Perhaps the most telling example: a year ago the Pentagon had more than 400 main battle tanks in Iraq; as of recently, a senior defense official told Newsweek, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks.)'' How about this: ``According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15, (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled grenade attacks. Almost all of those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested.'' I want to repeat that: ``One in four of those killed in combat might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds such as the loss of limbs.'' I guess it was a week ago Sunday I attended a meeting in my district of 500 people organized by Military Families Speak Out, who have a website that has actually provided a lot of comfort to some of the families who feel quite alone in this situation, Military Families Speak Out. There was an aunt of a soldier who went down in an Illinois National Guard Chinook helicopter on November 2, 2003. This helicopter was not equipped with the latest automatic antimissile blocking system. That is partly because the National Guard is lower down the list on who gets the really good equipment. Finally, let me quote from a letter from a soldier that was in the Peoria Journal Star, actually. He said, ``Our unit's tour of duty in Iraq has been extended past our one-year mark. This is not in line with what our supposed leaders have proposed. ``Let your readers know as well that this unit does not have the extra armor that is now required for vehicle convoys.'' This is April 24, 2004. ``Even though we have been here for over a year, we still do not have the right protection from roadside bombs or small-arms fire. Our doors are basically just two sides of sheet metal.'' He says, ``I would like to get home and continue my life, as our Congressmen are doing with theirs. Members of,'' and he mentions his company, ``have done our time here in Iraq with honor, and now we are ready to go home.'' So, Mr. President, it seems to me that the mistake was made and is still being made, and cries out for a remedy. The least we ought to do is what you promised, and that is that our troops will have everything they need. They still do not. They must. And that is the least that we can do for our soldiers. For those of us who were against the war from the beginning or those who supported the war, all of us support our troops. It is a mistake not to.