Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for gathering us together to call for some accountability, some of the remarks of the majority leader of the House, but actually to make an even more important point, I think. When I was elected to this great body in 1998 and came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999, I was under no illusion that the elected Members would agree on every issue. I looked forward to the vigorous debate that would take place between Republicans and Democrats and even among Members of my own party and would expect that since free and open debate is not only a tradition of this Congress, it is, perhaps, the most highly-valued principle of our great democracy. The very first amendment to our Constitution is freedom of speech, our precious right to say exactly what we believe, even when those words challenge those who are in power. Maybe I should say particularly when those words challenge people that are in power. Voltaire's words, quote, ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'' is the spirit of the first amendment. And all of our great Presidents have defended that right to speak one's mind in this great country. And one of those eloquent statements was made by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, who said, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.'' Very strong words. But now in an environment in which one party dominates the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency, and even the Supreme Court, those who challenge the policy decisions of the Republicans are being accused of being unpatriotic, of aiding and abetting terrorists, disloyalty to the Commander in Chief, of needing to apologize for voicing their views. And leading that effort has been the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). And I think it is time to call him to account for his hypocritical comments and his effort to stifle important and legitimate debate. We are now engaged in war, in a war in Iraq. And our young men and women as well as innocent Iraqis are dying every day. There is nothing more serious than this. Many of us have been critical of the decision to engage in a preemptive war of choice, not necessity, of the poor planning, of the lack of proper equipment provided to our troops, of the lack of accountability of the billions of dollars being spent, more than a billion per week, much of which has gone to friends of this administration and not to provide things like clean water and modern body armor to our troops. There are legitimate issues to raise whether one agrees or not. But rather than deal with the substance, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has, to put it bluntly, slimed the questioners. On March 20 of this year, Mr. DeLay said, quote, ``This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our Commander in Chief,'' unquote. But in May of 1999 while our troops were there fighting against genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, that same gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, quote, ``It is a flawed policy, and it was flawed to go in. I think this President is one of the least effective Presidents of my lifetime. He has hollowed out our forces while running around the world with these adventures.'' It was perfectly fine then for him to make this critical and, I would argue, somewhat intemperate comment about his Commander in Chief in 1999 while our troops were engaged in conflict. But not now. Oh, no. Last week during the debate on handing another $87 billion to this administration that cannot seem to provide enough fresh water or sunscreen to our troops, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``Let me just say that the old debating tactics of `I support the troops but' is just not going to cut it this time. If you support the war, and you support the troops, you must, you must vote for this bill.'' Well, that is a very, very different story, again, from what he said in 1999. Our leader, the Republican majority leader, came to the floor of this house, stood probably over there, and said to this body, quote, ``This is a very difficult speech for me to make because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing, but, I cannot support a failed foreign policy.'' Now last week, he is saying ``no buts,'' and in 1999 he was all about ``but he could not support a failed foreign policy.'' Mr. DeLay can say what he wants because that is his right, not only as the majority leader or an elected Representative, but because that is the right of every American. But I have the right and we have the right, and I think an obligation, to demand that he act in the spirit of the oath that he took to uphold the Constitution, to take responsibility for the hypocritical and, I would say, unpatriotic remarks he has made for the purpose of demeaning and defeating his critics and critics of the failed policies of the Republican administration and Republican Congressional leaders. I urge him, once again, to heed the wise words of the President from his own party, Teddy Roosevelt and let me repeat that quote, he said, Teddy Roosevelt, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today I am reintroducing the ``Save Our Homes Act.'' I want to thank my colleagues Maxine Waters, Bernard Sanders, Julia Carson, James McGovern, Peter DeFazio, Luis Gutierrez, Louise Slaughter, Barbara Lee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Donald Payne, Major Owens, Henry Waxman, Frank Pallone, Lynn Woolsey, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Madeleine Bordallo, Raul Grijalva, George Miller, Dennis Kucinich, Bobby Rush, Marcy Kaptur, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Chris Bell, Gene Green, Michael Honda, Donna Christensen, and Robert Brady for joining me today as original cosponsors of this legislation. The Save Our Homes Act would help protect homebuyers from unscrupulous lenders and brokers by creating strong new protections for homeowners throughout the country. The Save Our Homes Act provides a floor, not a ceiling for consumer protections. Strong States and local anti-predatory lending laws would not be preempted by this legislation. The Save Our Homes Act is supported by leading consumer rights organizations, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), National People's Action, and National Community Reinvestment Coalition. This is the strongest anti-predatory lending bill in Congress The Coalition for Responsible Lending estimates that homeowners lose $9.1 billion annually due to predatory loans. In Chicago, foreclosures increased by 74 percent between 1993 and 2001. Remarkably, over that same time period, foreclosures in the subprime market increased by 500 percent. Half of all the foreclosures occurred within 2 years of origination, signaling fraudulent and abusive lending practices. Under the leadership of Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich, Illinois and the City of Chicago have passed tough anti-predatory lending laws. Nevertheless, under current Federal law, State and local governments cannot stop some abusive lending practices. In addition, most States do not have strong anti-predatory lending laws. My legislation would close these loopholes and ensure that all homeowners, in every State, are protected from predatory lenders and brokers. We are all united in support of homeownership. However, supporting homeownership is not enough; we need to make sure people are able to stay in their homes. That is why we need to crackdown on predatory lenders and brokers. Predatory lenders and brokers are out to make a fast buck on the backs of the elderly, homeowners in financial distress, low-income families and people of color. Predatory lenders are thieves, preying on consumers who are house rich, but cash poor. They don't wear ski masks or hold a gun to your head. They come knocking on your door with neckties and loan papers, charge you credit card high interest rates, and steal the equity, that you've built in your home. People living in underserved communities have a difficult time obtaining conventional loans. Despite all the progress that has been made, redlining continues to be a major problem. In 2000, HUD completed a study that found that borrowers in upper income African American neighborhoods, who would easily qualify for conventional, low rate loans, were twice as likely as homeowners in low-income white neighborhoods to receive subprime refinance loans. Of course, not all subprime lending is abusive and predatory. Responsible subprime lending expands homeownership opportunities for those who cannot qualify for conventional loans. However, it is clear that abusive practices are a major problem in the subprime industry. People who turn to subprime lenders are more likely to obtain abusive loans. That is why homeowners who are forced to turn to the subprime market need strong, Federal protections. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation, the Save Our Homes Act, into law.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Dr. Tonda Hughes, who was recently named to the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame for her scientific contributions and advocacy in lesbian health. Dr. Hughes has spent over a decade conducting research on the health needs of lesbian women. She is currently conducting the first long-term assessment of lesbian women's drinking patterns, the results of which will have important policy implications for treatment and prevention. Lesbian health has been largely ignored by scientists, and Dr. Hughes' work represents much-needed efforts to better the lives of lesbian Americans and all Americans. Dr. Hughes is an associate professor of nursing at the University of Illinois at Chicago and is the director of research for the University's Center of Excellence in Women's Health. She has published professional journal articles, book chapters, and government monographs. In addition to her scholarly work, Dr. Hughes serves on advisory boards for several Chicago-area health foundations. Each year since 1991, the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame has honored members of the Chicago lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. The only municipal hall of fame of its kind, the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame recognizes members of the Chicago community whose volunteer and professional activities have enriched the lives of gay and lesbian residents and the city of Chicago as a whole. I congratulate Dr. Tonda Hughes for this honor and applaud her important research and the beneficial effects her work has had on the well-being of lesbian women in Chicago and beyond.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the record a resolution passed by the City Council of Chicago calling on Congress to actively work for the repeal of sections of the PATRIOT Act that ``violate fundamental rights and liberties as stated in the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.'' This resolution was passed on October 1, 2003. I supported this resolution and I want to thank Aldermen Helen Shiller, Joe Moore, Freddrenna Lyle, and Ricardo Munoz for introducing it. I would also like to recognize and thank the City Council of Evanston and the President and Board of Trustees of Wilmette for passing similar resolutions. I voted against the PATRIOT Act two years ago and I continue to remain skeptical of its effectiveness at keeping us safe. I believe the PATRIOT Act violates our civil liberties, our right to due process, and unnecessarily targets immigrants. Therefore, I am pleased to join with the Chicago City Council in affirming the rights of all people living within Chicago and the country and in saying that we must repeal the PATRIOT Act. The following is the resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Chicago: Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Related Executive Orders Whereas, the City of Chicago houses a diverse population, including citizens of other nations, whose contributions to the community are vital to its character and function; and Whereas, the United States Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights including: freedom of religion, speech, assembly and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to any person; equality before the law and the presumption of innocence; access to counsel in judicial proceedings; and a fair, speedy and public trial; and Whereas, the USA PATRIOT Act signed by George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, in the opinion of many American, contains a number of provisions that undermine the above mentioned rights and which fundamentally alter our civil liberties without increasing our security; and Whereas, examples of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and Executive orders that may undermine the constitution and the rights and civil liberties of Chicago residents include: A significant expansion of the government's ability to access sensitive medical, mental health, financial and educational records about individuals; and lowers the burden of proof required to conduct secret searches and telephone and Internet surveillance Giving law enforcement expanded authority to obtain library records, and prohibits librarians from informing patrons of monitoring or information requests Giving the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups, including religious and political organizations, as ``terrorist organizations'' Granting the Attorney General the power to subject citizens of other nations to indefinite detention or deportation even if they have not committed a crime Authorizing eavesdropping on confidential communications between lawyers and their clients in federal custody Limiting disclosure of public documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act; and Whereas, the Department of Justice interpretations of this Act and these Executive Orders particularly target immigrants, including Hispanics, people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent and citizens of other nations, thereby potentially encouraging racial profiling by law enforcement and the unintended consequence of increase in hate crimes by individuals in our community; and Whereas, almost 200 other cities throughout the country have enacted resolutions reaffirming support for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of government policies that threaten these values, and are demanding accountability from federal agencies regarding the use of these new powers; now therefore be it Resolved, That the City of Chicago joins the almost 200 other U.S. cities and affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, and also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of the fundamental civil rights and liberties of the people of Chicago, the United States and the World; and be it further Resolved, That the City of Chicago affirms the rights of all people, including United States citizens and citizens of other nations, living within the City in accordance with the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution by lawfully resisting every effort to erode those rights and protections including: freedom of religion, speech, assembly and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to any person; equality before the law and the presumption of innocence; access to counsel in judicial proceedings; and fair, speedy and public trial; and be it further Resolved, that the members of the City Council of the City of Chicago call on our United States Representatives and Senators to monitor the implementation of the U.S. Patriot Act and the Orders in furtherance thereof and actively work for the repeal of only those sections of the Act and those orders that violate fundamental rights and liberties as stated in the US Constitution and its Amendments by sending a copy of this resolution to the Illinois delegation to Congress.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join many of my colleagues, patriots all, who are refusing to be rubber stamps for President Bush's failed policy in Iraq, who say ``no'' to an $87 billion blank check for an ongoing war and occupation with no end in sight and no plan to get there. I support our troops, and I am proud of their professionalism, dedication, skill and sacrifice. But because Americans awaken nearly every day to hear the name of another dead soldier, because I have met with our brave patriot soldiers who are now recovering from devastating wounds at Walter Reed, and because more than a billion is being borrowed every week to finance this war of choice, I feel an obligation to demand accountability before another cent is authorized at this time. I, for one, will not be an enabler to an administration that clearly cannot be trusted with our treasure, our lives, and those of the Iraqi people. The most galling part of this debate is that the Bush administration and Republican leaders are blackmailing Members of Congress to vote for this blank check with the threat of being accused of not supporting our troops. Yet it is they who are guilty of tragically disregarding troop safety and comfort and betraying our veterans. I, personally, have talked to mothers and relatives who are sending their soldiers huge packages every week that include items like sunscreen and insect repellant, shampoo, and sanitary napkins because the administration did not make plans to provide these items. Worse, over 40,000 of our soldiers were sent to war without modern body armor, without quality boots, without jammers that block the signals between bombs and detonators. Fully 46 percent of the spare parts needed by the Army are not available. Now, some will say that is why we need more money, but General Myers said it is not lack of money that they do not have flak jackets. He says it is lack of capacity to manufacture these vests. I say it is lack of priorities. Newly released information today says that the money is not needed until May or June. I say vote no.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This motion is not about giving senior citizens more than they already have; this is about preventing something from being taken away from 4 million seniors. As my colleague stated, the entire Medicare bill is subject to a $400 billion spending limit because of the insistence of the Republican leadership. If we are going to provide the funding necessary so that 4 million retirees do not lose their coverage, we need to find the money somewhere. We can take it from the health savings accounts, or we can reduce the meager drug benefit even more, or we can cut provider payments. My motion says that taking it from the health savings accounts is the best of all of the options that the other side has given us. We know what this motion means. It is a choice whether we vote to protect retiree health coverage, or we are going to vote for health savings accounts that will not meet their goal of covering the uninsured. More important, the retirees who have employer-sponsored insurance and do not want to lose it know what this vote is about. They will be watching us. I urge support for the motion to instruct.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a State in which 134,000 retirees may lose their employer-provided prescription drug benefit.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this motion to instruct.

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a State in which 74,000 retirees could lose their benefits.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a State in which 243,000 retirees are projected to lose their employer provided prescription drugs.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a State in which 280,000 retirees are projected to lose their employer-provided prescription drug coverage.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a State in which 143,000 retirees are projected to lose their prescription drug coverage.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is left on my side.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just briefly respond that the purpose of this motion to instruct is to prevent 163,000 people from our State of Illinois from losing their coverage because their employers stop providing the benefit for prescription drugs for the retirees. So that is the point. It is to solve a problem that will cause millions of retirees and persons with disabilities to lose their benefit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a State where 385,000 retirees are projected to lose their prescription drug coverage.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, to strike the health savings security accounts. The $174 billion saved should be used to provide employer subsidies in order to prevent over 4 million retirees from losing their existing drug benefits. Many of us believe that the House Medicare bill does not go far enough in providing an affordable and adequate prescription drug benefit to the 13 million senior citizens and persons with disabilities who lack coverage. There are, however, 12 million retirees who today enjoy better coverage through employer-sponsored insurance than the benefit included in H.R. 1. I suspect that very few of us would be willing to say that those 12 million retirees should lose the better coverage they have today. In fact, one of the selling points of this bill is supposed to be that enrollment in the Medicare benefit is purely voluntary, that retirees can keep their existing coverage if they want; but, unfortunately, this is not the case. We know that from the July 22 Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 1 that one in three out of those 12 million retirees would be worse off if we pass this bill. I want to repeat that. According to the CBO, one out of three of those 12 million retirees would be worse off if we pass this Medicare bill. It seems to me that our theme ought to be at least first do no harm; but 32 percent of retirees with employer-sponsored insurance would lose that coverage, according not just to the CBO but to studies like the one recently released by Ken Thorpe, a health policy expert now working at Emory University. He agrees with the CBO figures and has given us state-by-state figures about the impacts of H.R. 1. According to Dr. Thorpe's analysis, 163,000 retirees in my State and in the State of the gentleman who takes the opposite view would lose their coverage and be forced to pay more for their medications if H.R. 1 passes. In every State across our great Nation, there are retirees and retiree families who would be worse off under this bill: 252,000 in Florida; 45,000 in Iowa; 218,000 in Michigan; 55,000 in Louisiana, and on and on the litany of retirees who would do worse under this Medicare bill. The devastating impact this bill would have on these 12 million retirees and their families is probably unintended. Many of my colleagues may not have known about this problem when H.R. 1 passed this body by a single vote; but now we know about those impacts, and it is up to us to fix this problem. Again, it may have been unintentional, but we now know that this bill includes perverse incentives that actually encourage employers to drop coverage and that penalize employers that have done the right thing, those employers who are struggling to pay for drug benefits for retirees and who want to continue to meet their commitment. We have heard about this problem not just from groups like the AARP and the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Consumers Union, the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the American Foundation for the Blind. The analysis is coming from the Congressional Budget Office and the Heritage Foundation. These concerns are, as my colleagues know, echoed by individual retirees across the country. Many of us have held town meetings on Medicare, have talked with senior groups and heard from individual retirees. Again and again, we hear concern that H.R. 1 will take away the benefits that they worked so very, very hard to earn. As Francis Meehling, age 76, told a New York Times reporter, ``Congress says the new benefits are voluntary, but many people would lose the coverage they have.'' Once a retiree loses his or her coverage, the choice to enroll in an inadequate Medicare drug plan is no longer voluntary because there is no other option available. Let us be very clear. Unless we fix this problem, we will have taken away choice from 4 million retirees and their families. My motion to instruct conferees is a way to find the resources necessary to provide the financial incentives to solve this problem. Because we are faced with a $400 billion cap on Medicare spending, which is imposed by the other side of the aisle, we have few choices. We can find the money by reducing the already meager Medicare benefit, we can cut Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, or we could use the money going for health savings accounts, $174 billion, so that 4 million retirees do not lose their current benefits. I have lots of concerns with the health savings accounts themselves because few of the uninsured have incomes high enough to take advantage of the health savings accounts, and I do not believe they will meet their purported goal of providing coverage to the uninsured. At a time when States are struggling financially, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says savings accounts will drain $20 billion to $30 billion from State treasuries. It is really not my point today to argue that point. I urge even my colleagues who support savings accounts to support this motion. We have limited choices about where to get the money to prevent 4 million retirees from losing their coverage; and again, I am sure that none of my colleagues want a single one of their constituents to be worse off because of passage of this bill. The example of the catastrophic health care bill of 1989 continues to loom over us, and I have issued a friendly warning about it in the past. That is the time when the angry senior citizens charged the then- chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means and surrounded his car and demanded that that bill be repealed. In recent weeks, I have heard from so-called experts that this bill will not result in a rerun of major grass roots opposition created by the catastrophic bill because they say this is a voluntary bill and no one will be worse off because this Medicare drug benefit is not mandatory but voluntary; but that is really not true because I caution my colleagues to listen again to the words of senior citizen Francis Meehling who says, ``Congress says the new benefits are voluntary but many people would lose the coverage they have.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed to reject division B of the House bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I just got the good news that in the first inning the Cubs versus Marlins, that the Cubs are three to nothing, scored three runs. So Chicago fans are very, very happy after waiting since 1908 to win a World Series. We think this is the year, and it would be great if it were the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox. But I am here for another purpose this evening, and that is, I wanted to read some of the letters that have come from constituents of mine regarding the war in Iraq, the ongoing war in Iraq, as has the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and others. The letters and e-mails that have been largely generated by moveon.org, that has an online petition asking people, and hundreds of thousands have responded to sign on to their online petition, that says that Congress must withhold the $87 billion requested by President Bush until he dismisses the team responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, starting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and ends the U.S. occupation of Iraq by transferring authority for rebuilding to the United Nations. I know that the writers of these letters did not mean just a kind of shuffling of the players, that is, to move Condoleezza Rice up one and Donald Rumsfeld down one, but rather, that the team that has gotten us into this situation in which day after day Americans wake up to news of more of our troops being killed and still no plan. These are the sentiments that are expressed in these letters from my constituents. David from Chicago says, ``Do not authorize the spending of any additional American citizens' money on this madness until the people in charge make a drastic personnel change, draft a complete and detailed game plan directly involving the United Nations, and apologies made to all peoples and nations caught up in this disgraceful and bloody mess!'' Dorothy from Evanston says, ``Please zip the open purse closed before our billions and billions of dollars go into the quagmire which is Iraq, largely because of the policies of Secretary Rumsfeld, and President Bush's espousal of same. Secretary Rumsfeld ought to be removed from office as quickly as possible, and we should ask the United Nations to join us as full partners, in authority as in other ways, in trying to normalize Iraq. Thank you very much.'' Mary from Chicago says, ``I am appalled at the amount of money this administration paid to companies that have such close ties to Bush and his friends. As this atrocity drags out, it is clear that their agenda has always been to get their hands on Iraqi oil and they don't mind sacrificing our servicemen and -women to do it. It is an insult to those men and women, to the American people, and to the world to give this administration the money they have the audacity to demand. If you give it to them, why not make the check directly payable to Halliburton care of Dick Cheney? Please do not give your stamp of approval by voting to give this money, especially before all of the 'players' in this disaster are held accountable for their lies and deception.'' David from Chicago says, ``The people of Iraq deserve our continued commitment to helping them redevelop their country. However, we must recognize that we can't do it alone and that the United Nations must be legitimately engaged in leading us out of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld and his team are clearly unwilling and/or incapable of taking this course and therefore are unfit to continue in their current role.'' Another David from Chicago says, ``I hear story after story of parents of our men and women serving in Iraq sending regular care packages with things like sunscreen because their children are not being provided these items by the military. It is clear that the money being sent is not being targeted to those in the service and apparently not to the Iraqi people who still lack power, food, water and medical facilities. It does appear that Halliburton is profiting quite nicely from its no-bid contract.'' Catherine from Chicago, ``I have already voiced my opinion on the issue of the $87 billion in aid to Iraq in phone calls to my representatives in Congress. This is an outrageous, egregious use of American and my tax dollars. I support appropriate aid. This is a completely inappropriate boondoggle turning into a disaster!'' Keith from Chicago says, ``Please do not fund another cent for the occupation of Iraq. It is immoral to expect future generations to pay for a war that does virtually nothing to make Americans or other peoples safe from terrorism.'' Jonathan says, who is from Chicago, ``Don't reward failure! The war in Iraq was won handily, but the Defense Department's hamfisted attempts to run things in Iraq, over the objections of the more experienced State Department, has been dismal and embarrassing. By all means, fund the continue rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but not while the architects of the current mess are still choosing how to spend the money.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out loudly in opposition to the conference report on S. 3 and to urge my colleagues to vote against the report. Once again, we have before us an unconstitutional and harmful bill. This bill would prevent doctors from being able to perform medically- necessary abortions. The government would prohibit doctors from acting to protect her patient's health, intruding into the doctor-patient relationship. The Supreme Court recognized this inequity and has already made such a law unconstitutional. The leadership in this body insists that we ignore the Constitution and vote on this bill. Proponents of this bill refused to allow an exception for cases in which the mother's health was seriously at risk, and they refused to include language affirming the long-standing Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. Let's forget about the rhetoric we've been hearing from the proponents of this bill and talk about the truth. For us to be true to the Constitution, to be true to the sentiments of equality and freedom, women and must have control over their bodies. Instead, proponents of this bill, including the Bush Administration, are using this bill as part of a broader agenda to take away a women's Constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. This assault on a woman's right to control her body and her health must stop. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Conference Report.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for offering this motion and for standing up for senior citizens and persons with disabilities. We just heard that a motion that would put the money into closing the huge gap in coverage that seniors citizens are going to face if this so-called Medicare prescription drug benefit passes, that it would be somehow a violation of the budget agreement, that, instead, we would rather have some sort of another tax shelter that takes another $74 billion away in lost revenue is typical of the kind of proposals and the solution that have been offered. Yes, the budget resolution says that we can give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans; and now the way we are going to deal with the prescription drug plan is we are going to allow, again, people who have more money to be able to put it in a tax shelter so that they do not have to pay taxes on it. What the Democrats are talking about, what the gentleman from New York is talking about is let us look at what the problem is. Senior citizens, persons with disabilities cannot afford the prescription drugs that they need. So if we have $174 billion that we can use, why not just close that gap? That is the choice. The choice is between a $174 billion tax shelter, unavailable to lower-income people, or using $174 billion to try and redirect that so that Medicare beneficiaries get the coverage that they need. It is really as simple as that. One thing that has not been noted in this $174 billion tax shelter, that is the money lost to the Federal Government, is that it is also going to add about $20 billion to $30 billion in lost revenue to the States, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Those lost revenues could further exacerbate the health care problem for low- income people. It might force States to make cutbacks in critical health programs, hurting, once again, the uninsured and the underinsured. This kind of health savings account, this tax shelter, will also erode on-the-job coverage, because it will encourage employers to replace existing health coverage with high-deductible coverage. And it will especially hurt low-income families who cannot afford to pay those high deductibles, who cannot afford to contribute to a health savings account. What they are designed to do is to provide tax shelters and not to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. It is also very important to note, by the way, that the hole that exists in coverage for senior citizens and persons with disabilities for their prescription drugs does not exist in the health plan that is offered to Members of Congress. So if we want to make sure that President Bush is accurate when he tells senior citizens that he wants to give them what we have, what we have in our Federal employee plan, then we have to fill that gap. The hole in coverage right now is big enough so that 48 percent of seniors and persons with disabilities fall right in it. We also know that nearly half of the Medicare beneficiaries live on less than $18,000 a year. Many of them are low-income women living alone; and for them, a $2,900 coverage gap is an insurmountable barrier to care. That is what we have got right now. We will have senior citizens going to the pharmacy and saying I want the same medicine as I ordered last month, and the pharmacist will say, Mrs. Jones, that will cost you $75. What do you mean, I thought I had a prescription drug coverage? Oh, it has run out for awhile now. You already have used it up. We will not pick it up again until you spend another $2,900. Hello, people cannot afford that, nor can they afford a $174 billion tax shelter that will provide help only to those who really can afford it, not to the millions and millions of seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs. This is the choice that we have in front of us today. Let us do the right thing and support the Bishop motion to instruct.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I wanted to join my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who, along with him, I have been reading some letters and e-mails from constituents regarding their view on the ongoing war in Iraq, and their views about the request for $87 billion. A number of these e-mails that I have gotten have been generated by moveon.org that has an online petition where hundreds of thousands of people have signed on, and many of them have written comments regarding their unwillingness to spend $87 billion, particularly while the leadership team that got us into Iraq is still in place, and as long as we fail to internationalize the effort in rebuilding Iraq. So I thought it would be useful to read some of the letters and the e-mails that I have gotten. Rebecca from Park Ridge says, ``This Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our tax dollars are used well, but President Bush is demanding another enormous blank check. Congress must withhold the $87 billion requested by President Bush until he dismisses the team responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, starting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and end the U.S. occupation of Iraq by transferring authority for rebuilding to the United Nations.'' Doralee of Evanston says, ``I beseech you as moral people who care about the survival of this world to deny Bush's request for $87 billion and fire Rumsfeld and develop a whole new approach to restoring Iraq by involving the United Nations. This is such a serious matter that you cannot give Bush blanket authority anymore. He has not handled this situation in a competent manner.'' And Barbara from Wilmette says, ``I was stunned and disheartened to read that President Bush is asking for $87 billion from Congress for an occupation in Iraq that has only lead to the death of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians and further bitterness of the Iraqi people toward the United States.'' Oletta from Chicago says, ``This war has been fiscally and morally mismanaged and should not garner any further financing without an exact budget and defined timelines. Don't let Bush and his administration continue to bankrupt America because he still doesn't know what he is doing or is going to do.'' Pamela says, and she is from Chicago, ``I believe we need to invest in rebuilding Iraq and protecting our troops, but we need to do it in a sensible way, in concert with the world, and in a way that benefits the people of Iraq. So, the quid pro quo for the money is a change in policy and in leadership.'' Cecelia, also from Chicago says, ``I don't begrudge funding, as long as I feel that the war is properly managed. I don't. Our soldiers are vulnerable, the Iraqis seem to hate us, the terrorists are picking us off, and we don't seem to have a plan to change any of this. Firing Rumsfeld would be a start.'' David from Chicago says, ``I hear story after story of parents of our men and women serving in Iraq sending regular care packages with things like sun screen because their children are not being provided these items by the military. It is clear that the money being spent is not being targeted to those in the service and apparently not to the Iraqi people who still lack power, water, food, and medical facility. It does appear that Halliburton is profiting quite nicely from its no-bid contract. I object to sending more money until Mr. Rumsfeld is removed and we get an accounting of how the money is being spent and who is getting their pockets lined with it.'' Janice from Chicago says, ``Congress must withhold the $87 billion requested by the President until he dismisses the team responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, starting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and ends the U.S. occupation by transferring authority for rebuilding to the United Nations.'' Jonathan from Chicago says, ``Don't reward failure. The war in Iraq was won handily, but the Defense Department's hamfisted attempts to run things in Iraq, over the objections of the more experienced State Department, has been dismal and embarrassing. By all means, fund the continued rebuilding efforts in Iraq, but not while the architects of the current mess are still choosing how to spend our money.'' And David from Chicago says, ``Please make sure we don't alienate the rest of the world more than we already have. Please make this administration admit that it has made a misstep by not involving the world community in the Iraq situation from the outset.'' Jeffrey from Chicago said, ``This is outrageous, given the fiscal crisis our States are in, and the fact that the money would go a long way to shore up education or help programs that confront the issues of homelessness or poverty. Get up and do something about this. I'm keeping track.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the first day in which residents of Cook County, Illinois will have the opportunity to register their domestic partnerships with the Bureau of Vital Records. This is an important first step towards full equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and I am proud to stand in solidarity with them on this historic day. This day does not just represent a political victory for the LGBT community or a day in which, finally, same sex partners will be able to obtain proof of their relationships in an effort to get health and other benefits. It is also a day when friends and family will come together to celebrate two people's love and commitment to each other. It is a day on which a couple who committed themselves to one another years ago can finally make it official. I would like to recognize and congratulate a few of my friends and constituents who will be registering: Gary Cozette and Joe Lada, Brandon Neese and David Wick, Mary Morten and Willa Taylor, Jackie Kaplan and Ann Perkins, Kelly Cassidy and Alex Silets, Gail Morse and Lauren Verdich, Phil Burgess and Jim Nutter, Mark Ishaug and Micah Krohn, and Michael Bauer and Roger Simon. It is my hope, however, that our progress will not stop here. It is my hope that one day all couples in all states and counties will have the opportunity to register their partnerships and receive all the legal benefits currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. No one should ever have to spend time convincing a doctor to be allowed to see her partner in her hospital bed. No one should ever again have to go without health insurance if his partner's employer provides it. No one should be separated from a life partner because immigration laws don't recognize the relationship. So, congratulations to all the couples celebrating today. This is a major victory in the fight for equality and justice.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my concerns about H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. I support extending the moratorium on internet access taxes, but this legislation goes far beyond that. It will costs cities around the country millions of dollars. This bill could have a lasting impact on our states and localities ability to collect existing telecommunications taxes. Illinois and Chicago do not charge internet access taxes, however, the bill's definition of ``internet service'' is so broad and open ended that it could prevent state and local governments from collect existing telecommunication taxes. I am afraid that localities and states will not be allowed to charge existing taxes on voice and fax transmissions that are bundled with internet service. In the City of Chicago, for example, the expansion of the term ``internet access'' could mean millions of dollars in tax revenue annually, which is currently used to pay for first responders, education, and other essential services. Declining federal support and the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration have placed an awful burden on states and localities across the country. In the past few years Chicago and Illinois have been forced to cut funding for essential services. This legislation could make a bad situation worse. Extending the moratorium on internet access taxes is prudent public policy. Nonetheless, I am concerned that the bill's definition of ``internet access'' would have a detrimental impact on cities and states across the country. The rights of our states and localities to collect existing telecommunications should not be placed in jeopardy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, but, more importantly, today I thank him for his nearly decade- long leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the full committee ranking Democratic Member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their outstanding leadership in quickly advancing this pro-consumer legislation. Yesterday's decision by the Federal District Judge blocking the FTC from implementing its national do-not-call registry was, I believe, incorrect. Earlier this session we passed the National Do-Not-Call Implementation Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. The new law explicitly gave the FTC the authority to collect fees and create a national do-not-call list. I am actually confident that the court's decision would have eventually been overturned on appeal. But, fortunately, we are not waiting for that process to occur. Today we are removing any uncertainty about Congress' intent. With the passage of this legislation, the Federal Trade Commission will be able to add more people to their list, and they will be able to implement its do-not- call registry without interruption or delay. Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate the very precious time that we have at home with our families after a long day at work, but who has not been interrupted by an unwanted telemarketer? We all know from personal experience how intrusive these calls can be. I think it is important to note that it will not block the calls from companies with whom you already do business. I received a telemarketing call from a credit card company offering me a deal that could lower my rate, et cetera. I was happy to get that call, and we actually made that change. Those calls will be able to continue. But we all know the calls. My last name is ``Schakowsky.'' My key is when they say, ``Is Mrs. Schakowsky home,'' or all kinds of funny names, I just say ``no,'' and hang up. We all have our strategies for dealing with those. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this pro-consumer legislation.