Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's small businesses. Today we are marking the 50th anniversary of the SBA, an agency with the critical role in our country of supporting and promoting small businesses. Twenty-three million small businesses nationwide produce more than two-thirds of all new U.S. jobs; generate more than half of our Gross Domestic Product; represent 99.7 percent of all employers; and provide almost all workers with their first jobs. Small businesses in America form the backbone of the American economy and they are economic anchors in our communities. In my home State of Illinois, close to 98.2 percent of our almost 280,000 employer businesses are small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Currently, there are an estimated 6.2 million women-owned businesses in the United States, accounting for 28 percent of all privately held firms. These firms generate $1.15 trillion in sales and employ 9.2 million workers. Minority-owned businesses have quadrupled over the last decade. Minorities now own 15 percent of American businesses and 99 percent of these firms are small businesses. The fact that small businesses make a substantial contribution to our economy is undeniable. America's small businesses could also act as a driver for our weakened economy. But they are struggling. They are struggling to cover the soaring cost of providing their employees with healthcare and they are struggling to simply survive in the Bush economy. Only 3 percent of the benefits of the $350 billion tax cut package that President Bush sold as a ``job creation plan'' went to small businesses. Instead of benefiting those companies that create the most new jobs, the President's tax breaks go into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans. We should do more than mark the 50th anniversary of the SBA. We should take immediate action to help our small businesses and their employees. We should pass this resolution today, but we must then follow through with real relief to small businesses. Our small business owners and employees know that if you expect to succeed, you don't keep your customers waiting. We can't allow President Bush to keep our small businesses waiting much longer.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 352, a resolution honoring the March on Washington of August 28, 1963, a turning point in the long road to justice and equality. In the struggle for civil rights, the March will forever hold a place in American history, and in the eyes of the world, as a day that showed that individuals united can affect change and progress without violence. On that hot August day forty years ago, thousands of people converged on our nation's capital to stand up for civil rights, workers' rights, voting rights, equality in education, and fair pay. They marched for equality with a unified message that they as African-Americans would no longer wait patiently for civil rights to be delivered and practiced in society, but that they were demanding that the federal government take bold steps to ensure that the Constitution's promise was delivered to all Americans; that they would no longer be second-class citizens. The words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. continue to resonate today and to serve as an inspiration for his generation and future generations to create a society in which all are treated equally because we are all created equal. I want to especially commend the work of Congressman John Lewis, my friend and colleague, who spoke on that day and who continues to inspire others and to fight for justice everyday. The resolve of the speakers, the sheer number of marchers, the strong commitment to nonviolence, and the intensity of the sentiment on that day created an energy that spread throughout the country in the coming months and years. It allowed all Americans to see the struggle for civil rights articulated in a manner that was uninterrupted by violence and chaos and was highlighted by peace and unity and strength. The March gave life to a Movement that continues to manifest itself today. While the March was successful in helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the fight for justice and equality is far from over. Today we are fighting to hold on to our civil liberties as the Bush administration works to chip away at our right to privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion. Immigrants, the people who bring diversity and strength to our nation, must fight to live free from harassment as the administration advocates unfair and discriminatory policies against them. People of color continue to fight for the opportunity to get a good education and to be treated fairly by the criminal justice system while President Bush opposes affirmative action. Low-income working families fight for fair treatment under the tax code as Republican Congressional leaders continue to deny them the child tax credit. And many, including elderly adults, persons with disabilities, and people of color, continue to fight for the right to have their vote count while our nation's election system has yet to catch up and meet the needs of all of America's voters. Today, we remember the people who were at the March on Washington forty years ago--their perservance, their commitment to justice and nonviolence, their courage, their hope, and their success. But we must do more than just remember; we must use their example to continue the struggle today until Dr. King's dream of equality truly comes to life for all who live in the United States.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler- Velazquez amendment. The amendment restores $150 million in funding for the Section 8 voucher program. The underlying bill cuts funding for housing vouchers. If this bill is passed into law in its current form, 85,000 people will lose their vouchers, including over 3,200 families in Illinois. I strongly believe that we should expand, not reduce, funding for the Section 8 voucher program and low-income housing in general. The Nadler-Velazquez amendment would help restore voucher funding for thousands of families in need. In a letter I received today, several faith-based organizations wrote, ``As faith-based organizations, we are committed to strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing Congress' commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8 voucher program.'' I encourage my colleagues to read the full text of the letter and urge all members to support the amendment. July 25, 2003. To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Re: Funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher Program As members of the faith community, we are writing to express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing voucher program. Our organizations serve millions of low- income individuals and families who, despite their best efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs and to achieve economic stability. To many of those we assist, the lack of affordable housing presents a considerable obstacle, and the Section 8 voucher program offers in turn a critical form of assistance. Through our work, we are witness to the important role that housing vouchers play in preventing homelessness, and in helping low-income individuals and families to make progress towards economic stability. Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to increase the number of vouchers authorized and to fully fund all authorized vouchers. This commitment has been important, as the need for housing assistance has continued to expand. In most communities, there are long waiting lists for Section 8 vouchers, and it is estimated that only one third of eligible households receive voucher assistance. To our disappointment, however, Congress appears to be retreating from this commitment. In the appropriations law for 2003, Congress failed, for the first time in recent memory, to include funding for incremental Section 8 vouchers. This week, the House Appropriations Committee reported out a VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2004 that would, by its own estimate, fund only 96 percent of authorized Section 8 vouchers, and again includes no funding for incremental vouchers. Moreover, while we appreciate that the House Appropriations Committee has made a sincere effort to improve on the President's budget request for the voucher program, and we recognize that estimating future voucher costs is difficult, there is reason to believe that the Committee's estimate is overly optimistic. Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low. For example, in an analysis of the most recent voucher cost data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation in the House bill would be sufficient to renew only 91 percent of authorized vouchers, and is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be necessary to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004. A shortfall of this magnitude would have a destructive impact on thousands of vulnerable households--85,000 households, by CBPP's estimate--the great majority of which are working families, elderly, or disabled. We therefore urge you to renew Congress' commitment to fully fund the Section 8 voucher program. Specifically, we ask that you increase the Section 8 appropriation sufficiently to ensure that all authorized vouchers will be funded, and to make certain that no households using vouchers in the coming year will be denied funding. As faith-based organizations, we are committed to strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing Congress' commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8 voucher program. Sincerely, American Baptist Churches USA; Call to Renewal; Catholic Charities USA; The Episcopal Church, USA; McAuley Institute; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office; United Jewish Communities; Volunteers of America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees offered by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. The gentleman is not only well suited to offer this motion because of his position as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce; but in addition, his district was one of those most affected by the August 14 blackout. On August 14 I was in Israel watching CNN International very late at night when the first blackout was announced. And as one city after another was mentioned as being affected and thousands and thousands more people were being affected, my first thought, and I am sure that is true of many Americans, was, oh no, this feels like it was another terrorist attack. And while I was relieved, as many people were, of course, to find out that that was not the case, I was not really comforted then or now. Life as we know it virtually stops when we have this kind of catastrophic event. Life stops as we know it when the power goes out. Commerce and industry stop, elevators stop, subways stop, home respirators stop, water from the tap stopped in many places. And though Americans rose to the occasion, the vulnerability of our entire economy, our health and our safety was made devastatingly clear to each and every one of us. It became clear that our very national security is now depending on an unreliable electricity grid. Now, that is the bad news. The good news is that even before we know exactly every detail on how it happened, there are steps that we can take to make our system more reliable and our people more secure. And the further good news is that this is not bad news, this is good news; that there is a broad consensus around what to do. So let us do it. I do not find compelling at all that this is not the total answer to everything; that we have to worry about gas prices; that we have to worry about gasoline prices. Yes, we do. But we are facing a crisis that could cripple us right now. So let us do it. This is a simple, noncontroversial, constructive solution. And it does not mean that we have to deal with what we know to be controversial issues. Drilling in the Alaska wilderness is not going to prevent the kind of blackouts that can cripple our country. So why not deal with something clear and simple and constructive right now? So I would urge my colleagues to put aside what may be very partisan differences on things that we cannot agree on. We will deal with those. I am convinced that we can come to an agreement on those, and, yes, separate out now that which we can deal with that may avert a catastrophe that could cripple our Nation, jeopardize our security, and the health of our people. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to instruct that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has offered.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for making it very clear about whether or not we in this country really value work and ordinary workers. Today is the day, July 25, that millions of child tax credits are going to start to be delivered to families around the country. President Bush went to Philadelphia to highlight those checks, to claim credit for getting some extra money into the pockets of working families. My two children, each of whom have two children, are probably going to get checks in the mail, and I am happy about it. They are modest- income earners, and they are going to get their tax credit. But this family, the Narvaez family, Maria and two of her three children, she makes $20,000 a year. She works in a day-care center, she works 40 hours a week. She is not going to get a check in the mail. There is no check in the mail for her family. I want to tell Members that this hardworking woman, I would think, is as deserving of getting a check in the mail. Let us compare that to Vice President Cheney who made the deal in the dark of night to say well, let us see, the tax breaks went too high. It exceeded our budget; who are we going to cut out? I have got it: Let us cut out families like the Narvaez family. Vice President Cheney will see a tax break of about $116,000 for 1 year. I am not talking income, I am talking tax break. Mrs. Narvaez, Maria, would have to work 5.8 years to get as much as Vice President Cheney is going to get in 1 year in a tax break. Let us see, who is more deserving; how about all those people, millionaires who go to work; no, maybe it is millionaires whose work is to cut open those envelopes that have dividend checks in them. Those people, do they deserve it more than the Narvaez family? I do not think so. Let us pass this motion to instruct, and let us get a child tax credit to the Narvaez family.

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition and my outrage over the rule designed to govern the debate over the FY04 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This rule, by not allowing two amendments to be made in order, severely restricts the ability of this body to take care of its obligations. These two amendments, one by Representative Smith of New Jersey and Representative Evans of Illinois would have increased the funding for veterans' health care to the level that we promised in the budget resolution passed earlier this year. The other, by Representative Edwards of Texas, would have provided an additional $2.2 billion for VA medical care by reducing the recently-passed tax cuts for taxpayers with yearly incomes in excess of a million dollars. Both amendments were shut-down by the Rules Committee on a party line vote. I am shocked that the House Republican leadership would make such a choice, but I am not surprised. Repeatedly, we have seen the Republicans in this body choose to break their promises to millions of Americans so that they can give tax cuts to the already wealthy. They passed a Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill that left millions of children behind by failing to live up to their promise to provide enough funding to ensure that every child would receive a decent education. And now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have turned their backs on veterans so that they can give their rich friends a slap on the back. I have heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle speak at length about their deep respect for the service our veterans have performed for our country. But, I must ask if breaking promises to our veterans is the Republican way of showing them that respect. Is it respectful to mouth the words of respect while allowing our veterans to wait months for doctors' appointments and pay more for services? These amendments offered a very clear choice: would you rather provide enough money to ensure that veterans receive decent healthcare services or would you rather provide massive tax cuts that benefit millionaires? Who really cares about our nation's veterans? Who is really concerned about the people who have honorably served our country? Our veterans can not afford any more empty respect. I ask my colleagues to put the money where their mouths are and make the financial commitment to get veterans and their families the benefits they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, to work to fulfill our obligations to our veterans and to show them our real respect.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment that I am so proud to cosponsor along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has done so much on behalf of low-income families. The Bush administration's budget request for homeless programs was actually slashed in this appropriations bill. In this legislation, funding for homeless programs is $133 million below the administration's budget request, a total request that really does not even come close to addressing the critical problem of homelessness, and the growing problem of homelessness. A modest amendment would increase HUD's homeless assistance and prevention programs by $83 million to provide desperately needed services for 20,000 homeless children and adults. Homelessness does not discriminate. It affects people in rural and urban communities, and every single Member of Congress represents constituents who cannot afford a roof over their head. I do not care how wealthy Members think their district is, there are people who do not have a permanent residence. Despite stereotypes, 39 percent of the homeless are children, and half of all homeless women and children are the victims of domestic violence. Over the course of a year, 3.5 million people will experience homelessness in the United States. The underlying bill will actually increase the number of homeless people because it takes away vouchers from 85,000 families, including 3,200 families in Illinois. Our amendment would take $83 million from HUD's working capital fund and direct it right to homeless people. The working capital account, which the money comes from, helps pay for computer upgrades and consultants. While I am sure that the capital account is helpful for HUD, there is no doubt that it is more important to provide housing for those that need it the most. $83 million could fund transitional housing and supportive services that could permanently end homelessness for 20,000 children and adults. In 2002, Chicago alone had a 22 percent increase in requests for emergency shelter and a 35 percent increase in requests for shelter by families, compared to 2001. In Illinois, 1 million renters in need of housing assistance compete for 230,000 assisted housing units, while 80 percent of the shelters throughout the State reported an increase in family homelessness in the past year. As a result, families with children are being forced to choose between paying their rent, food, heat, and other necessities. This money would help emergency providers give aid to those who need it right now. The Bush administration itself has stated on several occasions that it wants to end homelessness, and it can. This is not some sort of a problem like a hurricane or a tornado. We can decide to end homelessness, but the problem is, we consistently underfund the housing programs. In communities like Chicago where our mayor, Mayor Daley, and community leaders have developed an historic 10-year plan to end homelessness, it will not succeed if it does not receive Federal support. I urge the support of this modest amendment to end homelessness.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that would help prevent needless death and injury of young children. My bill would require that infant and toddler products are tested before they reach the marketplace. This bill is long overdue. Many consumers believe that, because a product is on a shelf, it is safe. This is not always true. In most cases, manufacturers are not even required to test the safety of children's products, including baby carriers and high chairs, before putting them on the market. As a consequence, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an average of 65 children under the age of five die each year in incidences associated with nursery products. Furthermore, an estimated 69,500 children under the age of five were treated in U.S. hospital rooms in 2001 for injuries associated with nursery products. Unfortunately, issuing a voluntary recall once one or more children have been hurt often becomes the only way to know if a product is unsafe. This is unacceptable. Parents and caregivers must have assurance that when they buy a product, it will be safe. Therefore, this bill would not only require the CPSC to issue mandatory safety standards for infant and toddler products, but it would require the testing and certification of these products by an independent third party. Parents should not have to worry that the products they buy will threaten their children's health and safety. Nor should parents have to wait until they hear on the news that the carrier or crib or high chair that they use has been recalled before they become aware that their child could be in danger. Children's products were recalled, on average, nearly two times per week in 2002 and they accounted for over 11 million individual units. Instead of using recalls as the answer, we should require that the CPSC take steps to ensure that products do not present safety hazards to our children. I would like to recognize and thank Kids In Danger, an organization in Chicago dedicated to protecting children, for their invaluable input and expertise on children's product safety. It is past due that we give parents the security they deserve and children the safety they need. This bill will accomplish those goals.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the best early childhood education for their children.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Head Start and against H.R. 2210, the so-called ``School Readiness act of 2003''. The only thing this bill ``readies,'' is the dismantling of the successful, time-tested Head Start program. I am an avid supporter of Head Start and have been since its beginning in 1965 when I taught Head Start classes. The Head Start program was founded on the basic principle that children cannot learn when they are hungry or sick or when their parents are not actively involved in their lives. Currently, this program serves only 60 percent of eligible pre-schoolers, 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers, and 19 percent of migrant and seasonal farm workers. Congress should be working to strengthen the program and expand the ability of low-income families to access its benefits. Instead, this bill does not even authorize enough funds for the program to cover the cost of inflation. There is a major difference between what H.R. 2210 claims to do and what it actually does. H.R. 2210 promises quality improvements by increasing teacher credential requirements, but fails to provide any funds to increase teacher salary or assist teachers in obtaining education. Head Start teachers earn half of the average salary for kindergarten teachers--this bill allows only for a modest raise. The bill increases teacher credential requirements--requiring 50 percent of Head Start teachers to have a B.A. by 2008--while decreasing the amount of funds that are spent on training and technical assistance. Further placing the future of Head Start at risk, this bill would allow eight states to replace their successful Head Start programs with other unproven pre-school programs. At a time when our states are facing severe budget crises, this bill would turn complete control of the program over to the states. It allows states to set their own quality standards and to determine whether or not they meet those standards. It guts that Head Start program--allowing increases in class size, unproven curricula, and shorter programs that do not provide the crucial nutrition, health, and social services children need to succeed. More insidious than the full-frontal attack H.R. 2210 wages on Head Start is the attack it wages on civil rights. H.R. 2210 repeals long- standing civil rights protections to allow faith-based organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion. The bill allows these organizations to use Federal dollars to practice discriminatory hiring policies. This is an assault on two of our Nation's most fundamental principles: the separation of church and state and equal protection under the law. The Federal Government should never be in the business of permitting discrimination nor should it break down the historic separation of church and state. We must stand up for our nations neediest. Head Start provides children in difficult, often impoverished, situations the developmental tools needed to give them a head start in their lives--an equal starting place in life so they can catch up to their more fortunate peers. Children, and their families, cannot afford the loss of any of those services. We must reject H.R. 2210.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Access Act. Over 13 million senior citizens on Medicare and 42 million uninsured Americans have no access to prescription drug coverage. Millions of others have skimpy coverage that runs out quickly, leaving them to face months of bills that they must scramble to find the money to pay. The excessive price of prescription drugs creates financial crises for those who struggle to pay exorbitant bills and health crises for those who are forced to go without needed medications, to share drugs with family members, or to take half doses in an attempt to make their prescription last a little longer. I wish that we were on the floor tonight debating legislation to force U.S. drug manufacturers to charge reasonable prices for their products, products that are developed and tested with significant amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars. It is shameful that we--alone among the industrialized world--have left the pharmaceutical industry free to price gouge our constituents. We should be here tonight debating measures to ensure that health care consumers can go to their local pharmacy and get the drugs that they need at a price that they can afford. We should be passing legislation to make sure that American consumers here at home are not charged many times more than their neighbors in Canada for the same drugs. Unfortunately, the drug companies have used their financial clout to prevent those debates. Last year, drug companies spent over $91 million to lobby Congress. They hired 675 lobbyists--enough to provide each member of Congress with their own personal lobbyist with more to spare. They have spent millions of dollars on front groups to get their message out. Tragically for the American consumer, those investments have paid off. Last month, this body even passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that prohibits Medicare from using its power to negotiate for discounts or from interfering in any way to lower unconscionably high drug prices. Ironically, a number of my colleagues who support H.R. 2427 because it will give American consumers access to affordable drug prices established through negotiations by other governments, voted to prevent Medicare from using the same techniques. Tonight, the drug industry is now working to shut down the only remaining avenue open to senior citizens and other health care consumers. Having stopped access to affordable drugs here in the United States, the drug companies are now trying to block access to affordable drugs from Canada and other countries. Reimportation can and must be done safely. We all want to make sure that consumers get safe medications. H.R. 2427 provides access only to FDA-approved drugs manufactured in FDA-approved facilities. There are requirements that drugs must be packaged to prevent tampering. There is not a single documented death from imported drugs, and we have the means to maintain that record. We all know that the reason the drug industry is pulling out all the stops to prevent passage of the Pharmaceutical Access Act is not their concern about safety, it is their concern about their profits. We could put every safety protection in a reimportation bill and the U.S. drug industry will still oppose it. They will oppose any bill that prevents U.S. consumers from being held hostage to their price-gouging practices. If this body is unwilling to take on the drug industry here at home, the least that we can do is to ensure that U.S. consumers will have access to safe and affordable drugs through reimportation. We should pass H.R. 2427 but, in doing so, we should not be too quick to claim victory. We should not be proud of telling our constituents that they must rely on the actions of foreign governments to provide them with affordable medications. The real solution--the solution of which we could all be proud--would be if we were willing to join those governments in confronting the power and greed of the pharmaceutical industry.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues, concerned Americans, and unions that represent the hard-working people of America in opposition to the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements. Like many of my colleagues who stand in opposition today, I long for a trade agreement that I can support because I really believe in the essential nature of global trade. But I am sick of seeing one after another of these agreements that come before us actually hurting U.S. working men and women; and that is why they are opposed by unions like the Teamsters; the AFL/CIO; the Brotherhood of Boilermakers; electrical workers; auto workers; steel workers; UNITE!, of which I am a proud member; and the Machinists Union. I want to just list four of the many reasons that I am opposed to these trade agreements. They set a dangerous precedent for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, and the free trade agreement of the Americas. If passed, these agreements will put the United States on record as being indifferent to the gross violations of human labor rights that we know occur every day in Central America. Two, these trade agreements would not only result in job losses here at home but would do nothing to ensure workplace standards and environmental protections elsewhere. Under the agreements, Chile and Singapore would be allowed to set labor and environmental laws below international standards in order to attract investment. Three, under the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, corporations in Chile and Singapore would have the right to challenge environmental, health, labor and other public interest measures in this country on the grounds that these protections infringe on their profits. But perhaps most offensive of all to me is that for the first time these agreements will allow for U.S. companies to exploit foreign workers here in the United States. Corporations will no longer have to go overseas to do that. They can do it here. The agreements create new immigration provisions that allow U.S. corporations to import foreign workers to the U.S. to do blue and white collar jobs here in this country, but do not include prevailing wage requirements and other critical labor rights guarantees. Vote ``no.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment, and I thank my colleagues for their outstanding leadership on this critical issue. This amendment, let us be clear what it does, cuts a modest amount, $75 million in aid to Colombia's military, a military that our own State Department has certified is implicated in atrocities against the Colombian people. It redirects that aid to the fight against HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria. And after that $75 million is diverted, still there is $315.8 million in military aid and a total of $574 million, over a half a billion dollars in overall aid that will still go to Colombia. So this is a very modest proposal. To those who say we need to continue to fund Colombia's military at current levels because of the war on terror, I say you have not done your homework. A recent report prepared at the request of Colombia's President Uribe further documents the illicit ties between Colombia's military and the paramilitary forces in that country. This is a report prepared at the request of the President of Colombia. The paramilitaries and their organizations have been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States. They massacre civilians, and they ship drugs to the U.S. Instead of giving more money to a military known to collaborate with those the Bush administration calls terrorists, we should employ a different strategy, one that deprives a corrupt military and the terrorists with whom it collaborates of resources and American taxpayer dollars so that they cannot as easily continue their brutal abuse of the Colombian people. Why would any Member of this body want to make the mission of terrorists and criminals easier? The McGovern-Skelton amendment would redirect $75 million to the child survival and health account for programs that combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases. These are programs that are proven to be effective in improving and saving lives. Instead of wasting American dollars on an initiative that has destroyed lives and increased the suffering of innocent civilians in Colombia, I think our dollars would be better spent funding programs we know can save lives. Our dollars are better spent on programs that work, as opposed to Plan Colombia which has failed. After 3 years and over 3 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars, Plan Colombia has failed miserably. It has failed to strengthen Colombia's democratic institutions. Known human rights offenders continue to go unpunished and operate with impunity. It has failed to reduce drug production, use, and availability. Though it may have reduced by some the production in Colombia, as a region, the Andean region actually produces more coca. It has cost the lives of Americans, contractors, even missionaries. Plan Colombia has made a bad situation in Colombia even worse and has not provided any measurable benefit to the American people. Our aerial fumigation program in Colombia has caused untold environmental damage, poisoning and destroying legal crops, water sources, and harming the health of children and families. Trade unionists continue to be murdered. Last year, according to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, 85 percent of all trade union murders took place in Colombia. Aid to Colombia's military puts the blood of innocent civilians in that country on our hands. The number of people killed or disappeared per day, according to Amnesty International, increased from an average of 14 in 2000 to 20 in 2002. This is not what we should be calling progress. The number of people newly displaced by political violence increased 30 percent, from 317,340 in 2000 to 412,000 displaced people in 2002 alone, and nearly 3 million altogether since the violence has started. I have been to Colombia. I love Colombia and the Colombian people. And I know that the way to help them is not by putting money and resources in the hands of those who are implicated in their abuse and their murder. Escalating a civil war and providing aid to a military still rife with corruption is illegal, it is immoral, and it is inexcusable. But today we are not debating an end to the U.S. military aid to Colombia. As I said, still over half a billion dollars will go there even with the McGovern-Skelton amendment. I urge support of that modest and sensible amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I appreciate it very much, Madam Speaker. I once again this evening continue reading constituent mail that has come to the State of Illinois, 3,621 comments, that were actually made available to people by MoveOn.org, which had on the Web site a petition that said, ``We believe that Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.'' A number of times, the Speaker has cautioned Members who get up to be careful that we say proper things and do not impugn anybody's integrity on this floor. I agree that we ought to have a level of decorum. But I want to also read a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, because these are coming from constituents who only want to know the truth and want a process, an independent commission to make sure that we get the truth about why it is that the United States thought it was an imminent threat that we had to go to war. This quote, I think, is important for us to look at. This is from the former President, Theodore 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.'' So it is really in that spirit that many, many people, in fact, about 320,000 people who are also calling for an independent commission to investigate the truth about the rationale for going to war in Iraq who have sent letters. Here is one, from Darryl of Watseka, Illinois: ``As a father of one of our Nation's finest, I respectfully request that you demand an independent review of our government's actions leading up to the war in Iraq. The U.S., once a greatly respected Nation around the world, has now made a large part of the world not trust us. If we as a Nation do not question questionable acts of our own government, how can we go around the world telling other nations to create democracies when the one we have seems more like a dictatorship than a democracy? ``The current leadership of this great Nation and the media manipulated the general public into believing Iraq was a threat to us. If we don't question these actions, how can we question the actions of other nations? For years, the world has stated that the U.S. has a double set of standards, one for us and one for the rest of the world. Will we set a precedent of attacking other nations with false justification for the rest of the world? What are we teaching our children? It's okay if you don't like someone to attack them first because our government says it's okay. ``Before the war, President Bush and Colin Powell claimed that Iraq was a threat to our security with weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. Since the war, they have changed their tune and say that Iraq had a weapons program. That alone should make one want to question their actions. Don't let politics dictate your actions, let the facts. When I hear that other nations think President Bush is more of a threat to the world peace than Iraq was, it disturbs me. I love my country and believe that we can make a difference in the world, but if we don't question these actions, I highly doubt that the rest of the world will trust us again.'' Rodney from Sauk Village says: ``My youngest brother is in Baghdad in a rank heavy unit which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars per month in salary alone. Our men and women are still over there being killed but the President claims the war is over. I can't tell. I've always been of the belief that if you get tired of being treated a certain way, eventually you'll stand up and do something to change it. We need to be focusing on the wars at home like gang violence, AIDS and the homeless.'' Ronald from Malden says: ``I am a `never miss an election' independent who has never voted a straight party ticket. I seriously would like to know who misled us or the President or if our intelligence community is this poor. It appears there are no weapons of mass destruction or our great intelligence that told us all about them before the war certainly could have located at least a few of them by now. Billions of our tax dollars have been spent on this war and billions more will continue to go out every month for years now because of this while we cut domestic programs, spend billions on interest alone for the deficit to cut taxes, most to people who do not need it, and mortgage our children's future. Because of lies? Because of incompetency? I want to know what happened.'' Beth from Plano, Illinois: ``The public, especially the families of the women and men who have bravely entered into military service, worry, and justifiably so, that the war in Iraq is turning out to be a second Vietnam. We want to know whether this war was truly justified, or if President Bush and his administration merely embarked upon a reckless revenge match with disregard for the very citizens they have sworn to protect.'' Mary from Westmont, Illinois: ``I have a nephew in the military and a niece soon to follow. Why were our young men and women's lives threatened, lost?" This must be stopped.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to speak in support of my amendment to H.R. 1950, the State Department Authorization bill, which expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should provide adequate resources to United States Embassies and Consular Offices in order to meet the workload requirements for visa application processing. The State Department recently issued a rule requiring nearly all visa applicants who wish to come to the United States for travel, business, or study to have personal interviews at Embassies or Consular Offices. This rule will significantly increase the amount of work and time Embassies and Consulates must give to each visa applicant. In Fiscal Year 2002, nearly 5.8 million business and tourist visas were issued and it is estimated that, in some countries, as few as 20 percent of applicants were required to be interviewed. While I support necessary security precautions, this new rule will clearly result in months of backlogs that could seriously jeopardize American business, education, and tourism unless these offices are provided with adequate resources and personnel to handle the increased workload. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has expressed to U.S. Embassies and Consulates that he ``expects and accepts that many posts will face processing backlogs for the indefinite future.'' Furthermore, the message from the State Department in Washington, DC, is that, while posts can request more personnel, for the most part, they ``must implement the new interview guidelines using existing resources. Posts should not, repeat not, use overtime to deal with additional workload requirements.'' Requiring our Foreign Service officers to take on a vastly increased workload without also providing the resources necessary to support that work may actually undermine our national security. It is unclear that overworked staff who are forced to conduct personal interviews with thousands of visa applicants will be able to adequately identify terrorists and other potentially harmful visitors in what are reportedly two to three minute interviews. Instead, these workers will be more likely to miss important details in visa applications as they rush to keep up with additional work requirements. Only by providing sufficient resources to meet the new interview requirements can we ensure that the steps we take to implement more stringent security protections will effectively safeguard our Nation from those who may wish to do us harm. Furthermore, if we are to remain a respected nation and an ally to countries around the world, it is critical that people be able to travel to the United States for business and pleasure without unnecessary hurdles of burdens. It is also critical for our economy, which depends on tourism and on conducting business with foreign nationals in order to stay strong, that people be able to travel to the United States without unnecessary inconveniences. Long wait times and growing backlogs of visa applications will serve to do the opposite and discourage people from coming to the United States to spend money and conduct business. I have heard from my constituents of people missing business meetings, important family events, and opportunities to study at American universities because it took too long for their visa application to be processed. For example, we have heard about three month waiting periods in Israel, one of our closest allies, which prevented a young Israeli from coming to the U.S. to work as a camp counselor. In another example, a group of Indian performers who were set to tour the United States will miss their performance in Chicago this weekend because they were not approved in time. And three people from Jakarta will miss their business meeting next week because their visa was not accepted in time. Finally, a young man had to postpone a wedding reception he had been planning for months because visa backlogs prevented his fiancee from getting to the United States from South Korea in time. It is because of situations like these and countless others that we must provide our Embassies and Consulates with adequate resources to meet the needs of visa applicants. It is because of our national security interests that we must provide our Foreign Service officers the resources they need to do their jobs well. I am pleased that this amendment was accepted into the en bloc amendment, and I thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, a grass-roots organization called moveon.org has an online petition right now seeking an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration. I will read it. ``Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distorting of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'' They are supporting H.R. 2625, a bill sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), that would create an independent commission that would look into the intelligence that led up to certain representations that the Bush administration has made. People want answers to questions. So what we are doing for the next several nights, some of us, is reading some of these letters and comments that have come as a result of this on-line petition. These are the ones that have come from Illinois. Out of 320,000 people who signed the petition, there were thousands of comments. These are the ones from Illinois, and I would like to read just a few of them. I think my colleagues will find that what these letters do is question the intelligence that was provided, or question the representations that were made, but do not question the integrity. I think my colleagues will agree with that. I am reading now. ``My son is a reservist who has been called into active duty on account of the war on Iraq. This is the second time since 9/11 that he has had to put aside his college studies and go on the front line to serve our country. Considering his sacrifice alone, he and I need to know the truth about why he assisted in the war effort.'' That is from Patricia from Woodridge, Illinois. ``Two of my sons are in the military. They told me, ``Mom, we have to do what we are commanded. It is your responsibility to help make sure we are only asked to do what is morally and ethically right.' That is why I urge Congress to thoroughly investigate the events leading to the war in Iraq.'' That is from Marge in DeKalb, Illinois. ``Two of my best friends are sergeants in the U.S. Army. They signed up and put their lives on the line to protect and defend our country for people like me. We owe it to them to make sure that when we ask them to put their lives in danger the reasons are just, valid, and truthful. I cannot imagine how the families of the servicemen and women who died in Iraq must feel now, knowing that, perhaps, their sons, daughters, spouses, moms and dads died not because they were defending us against a true threat but because of political or financial reasons. Let us investigate this fully and give our service members the dignity they deserve,'' says Jennifer from Chicago. ``As the mother and mother-in-law of a son and son-in-law sent to Iraq to risk their lives, it is important to me that an independent commission investigate our actions in Iraq and the reasons presented for doing so. We may be the most powerful Nation the world has ever known, but we have acted like cowards and weaklings. We have an obligation to be an uplifting role model to other nations. Instead, this government has chosen to reiterate the bully mentality. We raise our children to find positive ways to resolve disagreements and conflicts. Why? This government says that being the biggest and toughest guys gives you the right to stomp on whoever you want. Who will our children listen to?'' From Marlena in Chicago. ``My father is a veteran,'' says Trisha from McHenry Illinois, ``like his brother, his father, and his uncles. My mother's brothers are veterans, like their uncles. While many prominent members of this administration can claim no legitimate military service, it is terrible to think that they may have sent our men and women to Iraq for false reasons and that you would let them get away with it. Our servicemen and women are risking their lives for us, and it is our duty to make sure it is not for reasons other than what this administration has led us to believe. Your duty in this matter is not to your political party. Your duty is to the American people and to the Armed Forces who serve this country. An independent, bipartisan commission is warranted in this matter.'' And Trisha adds, ``Also, if you are going to keep passing resolutions supporting our Armed Forces, please stop cutting their benefits, give them a raise, and be nicer to veterans.'' ``My brother is a member of the Illinois National Guard,'' says Penny from Freeport, ``and is currently serving our country in Iraq. I fear that he is risking his life under false pretenses. It is not only our right but our responsibility as American citizens to hold someone liable and seek the truth. We need to establish an investigative commission as soon as possible.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this and look forward to once again passing this motion to instruct. We actually on this side of the aisle take these motions to instruct very seriously. We think they do have some meaning or at least should have some meaning to the conferees, and I am disappointed to hear that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means thinks that you can just throw away this kind of vote. It does not matter that the majority of people on this floor voted for it. I brought a picture of the Johnston family. I have introduced the Johnstons to this Chamber before, but I think a lot of people have forgotten about them. Particularly the Republican majority has forgotten about them. This is a family that would benefit from the full thousand dollar child credit but will not be getting any check on July 25 when those checks go out, the same day, by the way, that we are scheduled to recesses for our August break. I would suggest that the child tax credit is something we should not go home without. We should not go home without it. We have just a few days. And, again, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means suggests that we are just not serious, that the July 18 date that we have in here could not be done, and all of us know that we could do it instantly. We could do it tonight. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it in a few minutes, just the way the Senate did. I think we ought to do a little look back at the real history of what happened here. The Senate had the child tax credit in their Jobs and Growth Bill, a $350 billion tax relief bill, most of which went to the wealthiest. No, it is true the House did not. But when the negotiation came on this big tax break mostly for millionaires, how, when that negotiation took place, it looked like, uh-oh, we have exceeded the $350 billion mark. Somebody is going to have to be thrown over the side. The Vice President of the United States, who, by the way benefitted to the tune of about $116,000 in tax relief in one year from that bill, this family would have to work approximately over 5 years to just meet what the tax cut was for the Vice President, he said, somebody has to go. We cannot provide all of this tax relief. And guess who went? Twelve million children, including this adorable baby, over a million children of veterans and other people in the military who are not going to get their full thousand dollar child tax credit, 6.5 million working families who earn a huge sum of money, between $10,500 and $26,625 per year, not nearly what the Vice President will make in just his tax break. We say in this Chamber all the time how much we value work. This is a working family. The working families we talked about, health aides, teacher aides, security guards, they take care of our parents and our children. Those are the families who are not going to get it. This is a very simple matter. You do not have to be a rocket scientist or an actuary or know math to figure out this is the kind of family who would benefit who is not going to because the Republican majority said no. But we value work. Somehow, though, the kind of work we value most is cutting open envelopes and taking out dividend checks, not the kind of work that people do 40 hours a week taking care of children, taking care of seniors, serving in our military, putting their lives on the line. We should vote and mean it for this motion to instruct.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, beginning tonight and for the rest of the evenings until we recess for our summer break, a number of us will be coming to the floor to read letters that have been written by ordinary Americans, letters that were sent to our districts and others in our States, letters and comments that were in response to an online petition by moveon.org which is a grassroots organization with more than 1.4 million members. Here is the petition which moveon.org has online: ``Congress should support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'' Over 320,000 people signed this online petition, and many of them wrote comments. In Illinois, 3,621 people wrote comments, and I have copies of those. I am going to read some of them. All of the people who wrote comments are supporting H.R. 2625 which was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to establish an independent commission to investigate intelligence claims that were made to the public by the administration to justify a preemptive war against Iraq. All of the ones I am going to read tonight were written by either people in the service or service related or veterans of U.S. wars. This is the first I will read. ``My wife is with Freeport's 333rd MP Company. She has been overseas since late April. She has been on active duty since February 9. She has not slept in her own bed next to her own husband in 4 months and 6 days. We still have no idea when this nightmare can be over for us. We understand a call to duty for our Nation. We truly do. However, she did not join the National Guard with an open-ended deployment and a war zone in mind. None of them did. We always thought the Guard was for short deployments and emergencies only. She tells me that morale with her soldiers is extremely low. There are short tempers, long days, fear, crying soldiers, and no idea when it can be over for them. That is the root of our anguish. These people have been uprooted from their lives and jobs, and they answered that call, yet no one can answer their most-asked question: When can I go home? ``The average soldier is not a stupid order taker. We have a highly intelligent military, and they realize what is going on back home with the controversy around the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I cannot speak for other soldiers, but it disturbs my wife deeply to think that she could be over there risking her life and living a daily heartbreak based on distorted testimony. It makes her feel like a pawn of political agenda, not an American doing good in the world. All of this together most certainly influences her ideas of retention. We need the truth, not someone's version of the truth, not some of the truth but all of the truth. And we need to know when we can be reunited to live our lives together.'' That is Ron Macek, Rockford, Illinois. This is another letter: ``I am a veteran and a former intelligence analyst who spent 3 years in the Middle East peering over Saddam's shoulder. It is always disturbing when political leaders distort intelligence information to justify pet policies. It discredits intelligence agencies and the analysts who dedicate their time and lives to protecting America. ``Good intelligence analysts are sure to express multiple possibilities for unexplained events. They are also careful to delineate between what they know and what they think. It is a mistake to turn an assessment into policy. It is a shame that some analysts will tell the administration what they want to hear just to appease leaders. An investigation into this matter will prevent this from happening again.'' John Laesch, Bloomington, Illinois. ``I am a veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. I have seen firsthand the price we pay when we commit blood and treasure into a foreign land. It is a terrible price that is never replaced. If there is the slightest suspicion that the war in Iraq was promoted under false pretenses, then we should know about it. Such an occurrence would be a terrible misuse of government resources and the American people's trust. I request that you support an independent commission to investigate the handling of this matter.'' Robert P. Harrison, Arlington Heights, Illinois. ``As a former Naval officer married to a retired Navy man and with a daughter currently serving in Qatar, I'm probably one of the last people you would normally see signing a petition of this nature. Nonetheless, here I am. I question this administration's motivations and feel that our Commander in Chief has a lack of respect and regard for those he has placed in harm's way in order to further a set of goals of his own. His taunt of `bring it on' is unsettling on its own, but coupled with the increasing evidence that our involvement was ill- advised and based on purposely unsubstantiated or twisted evidence only serves to increase my belief that the administration has an agenda wholly divorced from our national best interests.'' Pamela Faulkner from Illinois. More tomorrow.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, many questions are swirling around the country about whether President Bush and members of his Administration knowingly misled the American people into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security and that we had no choice but to invade and occupy that nation. That is why I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an editorial that appeared in today's Chicago Tribune, entitled ``Questioning the Case for War.'' The editorial states: ``Instead of dodging questions and branding critics `revisionist historians,' Bush must cooperate with congressional inquiries and diligently work to set the record straight. Bush has enjoyed the patience and the support of a majority of the American public. But that patience can run thin.'' It continues, ``The American people deserve a full accounting of the evidence. Were mistaken assertions based on faulty intelligence reports or was there a deliberate effort to trump up evidence to make the case for war?'' For the sake of his credibility, President Bush ``must put to rest any suspicions that Americans accepted an argument for war that was built on a lie,'' the editorial concludes. The American people deserve answers and that is why I strongly support H.R. 2625, a bill sponsored by Representative Waxman that would establish an independent commission to respond to the questions raised today by the Chicago Tribune. We need to get to the truth. President Bush's credibility and America's standing in the world are at stake. [From the Chicago Tribune, July 10, 2003] Questioning the Case for War Like any good salesman, President Bush highlighted the facts that made the most compelling case as he sold the American people on the urgent need for war against Iraq. In his State of the Union address in January, he spoke of 38,000 liters of the deadly botulinum toxin and as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent--all unaccounted for by Saddam Hussein. He spoke of Hussein's continued quest to build nuclear weapons. He and his administration made the case forcefully for months, at the United Nations and elsewhere, using an impressive array of intelligence reports and satellite photos. Many Americans were convinced, as was this editorial page. For several weeks, however, the case that Bush & Co. made has been coming under intense scrutiny, with suggestions that the president deliberately exaggerated some evidence or misrepresented intelligence reports to gild the arguments for war. After weeks of denying those charges, the White House acknowledged Monday that one of the president's points in his State of the Union address may have been mistaken. That claim: that Hussein had attempted to buy uranium for a nuclear weapon from a nation in Africa. White House officials wouldn't say how the president came to use the erroneous information or when he knew that the assertion was probably wrong. Bush and his team didn't fess up voluntarily. They were compelled to respond to an account in Sunday's New York Times by Joseph Wilson, a former American ambassador who was enlisted by the CIA last year to travel to Niger to investigate claims that Hussein had tried to buy the uranium. Wilson wrote that he found no evidence for those claims and shared his skepticism in briefings with the CIA and other agencies. Nevertheless, almost a year later, Bush cited that information in his speech. Top officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, deny that they or the president knew of Wilson's findings before he delivered the speech. But Wilson wrote that ``Based on my experience . . . I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.'' That is a logical--and deeply distrubing--conclusion. The African uranium claim is not the only statement in question. The president asserted that Hussein had attempted to buy high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. That claim was disputed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and now is widely viewed as doubtful. The Pentagon has acknowledged that a Defense Intelligence Agency study last December couldn't pinpoint evidence of Iraqi weapons sites, though administration pronouncements at the time seemed far more certain of their existence. With all those questions, it's natural to wonder what other errors--intentional or not--crept into the president's case for war. Prime Minister Tony Blair faces similar scrutiny in Britain. Bush insists that those who raise such questions are ignoring the preponderance of the evidence, which clearly showed Hussein posed a threat to the world. There was, indeed, a strong case, starting with Hussein's longstanding defiance of U.N. resolutions and cat-and-mouse game with U.N. weapons inspectors. Bush also complains that this debate is charged with political partisanship. Yes, in some quarters, it surely is. But Bush seriously miscalculates if he chalks up the rising din of questions only to those who opposed the war. This debate goes to the president's most precious asset: his credibility. The American people deserve a full accounting of the evidence. Were mistaken assertions based on faulty intelligence reports or was there a deliberate effort to trump up evidence to make the case for war? It's time for the administration to scrub down every piece of evidence it made public and level with the American public about what, if anything, was exaggerated to make the case for war. Instead of dodging questions and branding critics ``revisionist historians,'' Bush must cooperate with congressional inquiries and diligently work to set the record straight. Bush has enjoyed the patience and the support of a majority of the American public. But that patience can run thin. Americans know the hunt for weapons of mass destruction isn't over yet. They realize that no intelligence report is perfect; that such reports can be misleading or flat-out wrong. They understand that mistakenly using a faulty intelligence report does not automatically lead to the conclusion that much of the evidence for war was twisted or intentionally misused. But they also know a too-slick sales job when they see one. History is full of presidents who fudged facts to advance objectives--be it declaring a war or more mundane domestic matters. These questions will not fade. If anything, as the presidential campaign heats up, these kinds of questions will only grow louder. If some of the intelligence Bush used was faulty or incomplete--as it seems to have been--he should say so and explain why. If he made mistakes, he should admit them. Bluster and bravado will not suffice. He must put to rest any suspicions that Americans accepted an argument for war that was built on a lie.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor an exceptional advocate and friend from Chicago, Patty Crowley, who has dedicated herself to helping others and enriching our community. Mrs. Crowley is a longtime activist who unselfishly worked in support of worthy causes that helped advance women's rights, expand family programs, and increase housing opportunities. Born on July 24, 1913, Mrs. Crowley continues to be a strong voice in our community today. She embodies the true spirit of human kindness. In 1948, Mrs. Crowley and her husband Patrick co-founded the Christian Family Movement after a conference at the Vatican and served as co-presidents until 1970. Patty collaborated with Robert McClory to create the book Turning Point, which records the story of these events. Later, Mrs. Crowley turned her attention to other causes. In the 1980's, she became active in public housing causes. She served as director of Housing Opportunities and Maintenance for the Elderly until 1998, and worked closely with the Chicago Housing Board of Commissioners and the Jane Addams Advisory Council. In 1985, Patty co-founded Deborah's Place, a shelter that provides housing and supportive services to homeless women. She remains on the advisory council today. To commemorate her services, Deborah's Place will shortly be dedicating the Patty Crowley Apartments in her honor. Patty's commitment to serving others extended beyond her impressive record of activism in advocacy groups and service organizations. In addition to her public work, Mrs. Crowley and her husband served as foster parents to over a dozen children, as well as hosting international exchange students. On her 90th birthday, Patty Crowley's continued dedication to public service is an inspiration to each one of us and her lifetime achievements and commitment to activism are without match.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me time. Again, this is just a warning, a friendly warning to you that if you pass H.R. 1 tonight, you better also go out and get your running shoes because the seniors are too smart to be fooled by your proposal. And you can trash Medicare all you want. You can call it an outdated program, antiquated; but I do not know who you are talking to. I do believe that you love your mothers, but it is obvious to me that you do not call them enough. You do not go to senior centers enough. Not the ones I have gone to in my 5 years as director of the State Council of Senior Citizens. Seniors love their Medicare. The only thing they do not like is that it does not cover prescription drugs. And that is why if you are smart or out of shape and not able to be chased by seniors, you will vote for the Rangel-Dingell substitute. The Democratic substitute is what seniors have been asking for and what every politician has been promising them, an understandable, defined, dependable Medicare prescription drug benefit. It has all the features of Medicare that our seniors know and love, a set premium, no copayments. Vote for the substitute or start running.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the Republican bill that kills Medicare and fails to provide affordable prescription coverage to the elderly and people with disabilities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8 and in support of the Pomeroy substitute. The House Republican leadership and President Bush are once again putting the interests of the Bush class ahead of the needs of working families and our future well being. They are once again demonstrating that they have the wrong priorities. Providing tax relief for low wage hard working families remains a low priority for House Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead, they want to once again provide even more tax breaks for people who need it the least by eliminating that inheritance tax. Republicans are denying immediate assistance to 12 million children who come from families that earn between $10,500 to $26 a year, and where one million of the children have parents that currently serve or have served in the military. Nearly 674,000 children or one in four children back in my home state of Illinois would have qualified for this aid. This is an outrage. Talk about having your priorities backwards! Proponents of this legislation make baseless claims that it will help small businesses, farmers and working families. The claim that the estate tax puts small family farms out of business. The National Farmers Union disputes this assertion, ``There is no evidence that the estate tax has forced the liquidation of any farms, and existing estate tax already exempt 98 percent of all farms and ranches.'' The fact is that the estate tax currently affects only the richest 2 percent of estates, and the number dramatically shrinks as the exemption rises to $3.5 million in 2009. H.R. 8 eliminates the tax on the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans--people like Bill Gates and Ken Lay. In my home state of Illinois less than 2500 families would benefit from the repeal of the estate tax. The rest of the public would not benefit from it at all. In fact, it will hurt their future and further damage our struggling Bush economy, where 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost. H.R. 8 will hurt our economic future because it would add at least an additional trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next twenty years. The vast majority of Americans will have to make sacrifices to pay for this tax cut for millionaires. If this bill is enacted into law there will be less money available for Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs for seniors, not to mention homeland security and education. Mr. Speaker, how can it be that we do not have money to fund the Leave No Child Behind Act but we do have money to give more tax cuts for the super rich? How can this be? Let me be clear. I am a strong supporter of small businesses and family farms and I am not against reforming the estate tax. I believe that families with modest assets should be exempt from the estate tax. That is why I support the Pomeroy substitute which exempts estates worth less than $3 million for an individual and $6 million for families from the estate taxes. The substitute would exempt 99.65 percent of all estates. The Bush Administration and their Republican colleagues have a one track mind. They are once again attempting to lower taxes for the richest 1%. Just last month the Bush Administration and leaders in Congress passed tax cuts for millionaires and tax dodging corporations. President Bush made it a top priority and Vice President Cheney personally negotiated the final bill language with the Republican Congressional leadership. The tax bill passed last month will provide a $604,000 tax break for Vice President Cheney and $332,000 to Treasury Secretary John Snow. In total, it could provide up to $3.2 million in total tax savings for President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the Cabinet. I wonder how much the families of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the Cabinet would benefit from repeal of the estate tax? H.R. 8 undermines our basic sense of fairness. The legislation undermines progressive aspects of our tax code. It replaces it with a regressive tax code that puts more of a burden on middle and low wage families. A regressive tax code restricts opportunities for those who are not born into wealthy families. William Gates Sr., a supporter of the estate tax recently said, ``What makes America great is the broad ownership of property and enterprise. We all succeed to the extent that children are born without vast disparities in access to education, health care, and opportunity. We are weakened when our policy makers are more concerned with preserving existing wealth and power than creating avenues for new asset creation and opportunity.'' I couldn't agree with him more. Finally, the estate tax gives wealthy individuals an incentive to contribute to charity. Charitable organizations are very concerned about efforts to repeal the estate tax. According to the Joint Economic Committee Democrats, eliminating the estate tax could reduce contributions by 6 to 12 percent. This would reduce revenues for soup kitchens, AIDS prevention programs, and other vital community organizations that rely on charitable contributions to stay afloat. Support America's families. Oppose the underlying bill and support the Pomeroy substitute.