Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, once upon a time in 1989, a group of very angry seniors chased their Congressman, the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, into his car because they wanted him to know that they did not like the catastrophic health care bill. This happens to be the picture that appeared on the front page of the Chicago Tribune in August of 1989. This was a bill that passed this body with overwhelming bipartisan support and all of the national senior citizens organizations supported the bill. There was only one problem. No one had checked in with rank-and-file seniors around the country who sat down with their calculators and they figured out what the benefit would be that they would get and how much it would cost them, and they did not like the answer. Now, I show you this photo not to revive the debate on catastrophic because within a couple of months the bill was repealed, something very unusual and usually very difficult. I show you this photo as a friendly warning. If you pass H.R. 1 tonight, you better also go out and buy some running shoes because senior citizens are too smart to be fooled by Republican speeches or anybody else's speeches. They will figure out on their own what this bill does, which is, as the current chairman of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means hopes, destroy Medicare as we know it. Seniors will get out their calculators and figure it out.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It is obvious that the Republicans cannot do two important things at one time. Remember the 12 million children whose tax credit was dumped from the tax bill to make room for millionaires, including 1 million children of families in the military? Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republican leader announced that they were just too busy. He said, We have a problem with simple logistics. That is why we cannot take care of the 12 million children. He was referring to how busy the Republicans are steamrolling through a bill that turns Medicare into a voucher program, throws money at HMOs, lets drug companies continue to gouge, and leaves seniors with thousands of dollars in drug bills. The majority leader, the President, and everybody in this body knows that we could resolve the child tax credit issue in a matter of hours. All that has to happen is for the Republican leadership to stop holding these children hostage, demanding a ransom of $82 billion unpaid-for tax package. All it takes is for the House to accept the Senate bill, as a majority of the House voted to do. All it would take would be for President Bush to interrupt his whirlwind fund-raising tour long enough to demand immediate enactment of the Senate bill. Surely we can find a couple of hours here so that 12 million children are not left behind.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, in 1989, there was a bill that had passed the United States Congress and was signed into law called the catastrophic health care bill, and it had bipartisan support, and all of the national organizations of senior citizens supported that legislation, and it was supposed to provide catastrophic coverage to senior citizens for health care. One problem, no one had really checked with rank and file senior citizens to find out if they wanted this legislation that caused them to have the highest effective tax rate of any Americans, to pay for benefits that they thought simply were not worth it. In other words, the senior citizens sat down with their calculators and figured out they were not interested in this legislation that had passed. This is a photo that appeared on the front page of the Chicago Tribune in August of 1989. Here we see some senior citizens who are clearly very angry, with signs surrounding an automobile in which was the chairman of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means. These senior citizens were not exactly in a friendly mood and were telling this chairman in no uncertain terms that they wanted the repeal of the catastrophic health care bill. It was not very long afterwards that this sparked a rebellion of senior citizens across the country, and in a rare occurrence in this body the catastrophic health care bill was repealed. I think this should serve as a warning to all of my colleagues. Check with the senior citizens. You can sit here all day and all night and say the problem is that Medicare is outdated, that it is antiquated or you can say what the Chairman of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means of today said, To those who say that the bill proposed by the Republicans would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is we certainly hope so. Seniors listen: We certainly hope so. Mr. Speaker, I hope the seniors are listening. Old fashioned Medicare is not very good, says the chairman, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. You better check with those seniors, because what they tell us is they like Medicare. They want Medicare. The only thing wrong with Medicare is that it does not cover enough, like prescription drugs, but what they like about it is that it is a known benefit, it is a known premium, and it is there for them when they need it. Another word that is used all the time is choice. We are going to give senior citizens choices now. Well, I have to tell my colleagues, in all the years that I was the executive director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens and in all the years that I was in the State legislature and now in Congress, never has a senior citizen come up to me and said, Congresswoman, what I want is a choice of HMOs, a choice of insurance companies, send me those brochures so I can pick, tell those insurance agents to get me on the phone so they can pitch their insurance company to me. Seniors want the kind of choice they get under Medicare, a choice of doctors, a choice of hospitals, a choice of specialists. That is the kind of choices that they want. In fact, the only choice under this Republican bill is the choice that HMOs and insurers get, not senior citizens, because private drug plans, HMOs, get to choose what premiums to charge. There is no uniform benefit of premium under Medicare. Private drug plans get to choose the copayments that they will charge. Private drug plans get to choose what pharmacies are in their network. They get to choose what drugs are covered. So if you want to give the HMOs and the insurance companies that kind of choice, then this bill is for you, but if you want to give senior citizens what they really want, then you are going to expand Medicare the way the Democrats have proposed, by giving them a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that they can count on, that they know what the premium is. This legislation that is passed in the House is going to do exactly what the chairman said. It is going to destroy Medicare. It will be the end of Medicare. That is what happens in 2010 with this bill. So if you do not want to be chased down the street, then all of us better say no to the Republican bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which would adopt a Motion to Go to Conference on H.R. 1308, The All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003. Here we go again. President Bush and the House Republican leadership are once again showing their contempt for working families that are struggling to make ends meet in our sluggish economy. This rule is a shameful effort to deny assistance to the 6.5 million families and their 12 million children who earn between $10,500 to $26,000 a year. Nearly 674,000 children and 378,000 families, or one in four children back in my home state of Illinois, would have qualified for this aid Nationwide, one million of these kids are the children of veterans or active members of the armed forces. Is this how the Republican leaderships and the Bush Administration wish to repay the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to serve their country? We should defeat this rule and immediately adopt the Senate- passed legislation which would provide immediate aid to these hard working families. Just a few weeks ago, President Bush and Republican leaders passed another job killing tax bill that provided even more tax cuts for millionaires. Behind closed doors, Vice President Cheney and Republican leaders in Congress deliberately left millions of children behind to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and tax dodging corporations. This was not an accident or an oversight. A House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson confessed, ``Adjustments had to be made.'' Of course, no adjustments had to be made to the nearly $604,000 tax break recieved by Vice President Cheney or the $332,000 given to Treasury Secretary John Snow. In fact, the total tax savings for President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the Cabinet could be up to $3.2 million. The Bush Administration showed their true colors. This callous decision outraged the American public. People all around the country demanded fairness. The United States Senate was shamed into passing a Democratic proposal to provide those low-income families with their well-deserved child tax credit that was removed in a secret deal by Vice President Cheney. Instead of doing the right thing and passing the Senate bill, the House Republican leadership is trying to pass another budget busting $82 billion tax bill that will increase our growing national debt. When President Bush took office we had a $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus. We now have a $2 trillion deficit over the same period of time. According to CBO, the President's tax cut not the war on terrorism accounts for the growth in deficit. This bill is a gimmick. It is a delay tactic. The Republican leadership knows that this price tag is unacceptable to many in the Senate. No wonder the House Republican leadership is not even allowing members of the people's house an opportunity to offer any amendments today. If they allowed amendments we might pass child care tax credit for the 12 million children of the working class who have been sacrificed to make room for the Bush class. This begs the question, why do President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and House Republicans have so much contempt for working families? The House Republican Leadership opposes the Senate bill because the lower income hard working families do not deserve a tax cut, they say, because they do not pay taxes. That is a lie and an insult to the millions who are teacher aids, home heath care workers, and child care providers. They pay sales tax, they pay excise taxes, they pay taxes on gasoline, and they pay a payroll tax, they pay taxes for which there is never a cut, never a special break. These are also the same families that struggle to pay their rent and provide for their children. We should help these families immediately. Put the interests of working families before the needs of the Bush class. Vote instead for hard working families. Defeat this rule.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1115, the so-called Class Action Fairness Act. This bill is actually unfair to consumers because it would make it more difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming for Americans with legitimate claims to access justice in class-action lawsuits. Instead, this bill rewards corporate wrongdoers and companies that fail to avoid dangerous practices and refuse to remove faulty products from store shelves. Class action suits are an invaluable asset to consumers and all who engage in business of any kind. No one is immune from potentially being treated unfairly, being discriminated against, being taken advantage of, or being cheated. However, those who are victims are often those with no voice and no resources to fight back. But class action suits allow them to join with hundreds of others who have suffered the same harm and, together, become a strong voice for justice. In many cases, class action lawsuits are the only way that those who have been harmed can be heard and have their day in court. Unfortunately, this bill would make most class action suits and the empowerment they provide to consumers a thing of the past. We've seen this bill repeatedly in the past, and we're seeing it again today because the Republicans will stop at nothing to protect their big money corporate supporters--those who get them elected--from being held accountable for their actions. This is especially evident in the bill before us today which goes further than the Republican class action bills of the past by making the legislation retroactive! If passed, this bill would apply to pending class actions, including the cases against Enron and WorldCom for financial fraud, Dow Chemical for environmental damage, Wal-Mart for employment discrimination, and Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories and others for autism and other neurological damage. This bill would change the rules midstream. While a class action has been filed against Enron by retirees, this class has yet to be certified. Under this bill, Enron for the first time would be given the opportunity to make an immediate appeal of any court decision granting class certification. The result could be a hold on all proceedings, including investigations to make discoveries of evidence, while the appeal was pending. This is an unwarranted, expensive, and wasteful use of time, and all while Enron retirees sit and wait for a decision regarding their retirement funds. This is not compassionate and not fair. This bill looks the other way as workers are taken advantage of by big corporations, as patients are abused by HMOs, and as the environment continues to suffer damage from big polluters. In such a claim, it is critical that people have access to justice. This bill takes away that access and protects those who will continue to do harm. Republicans are committing fraud against the American people by proposing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1115.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is stunning to me that whenever Democrats stand up on behalf of working families that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle start shaking their finger and saying, oh, the tax-and-spend Democrats. It is really amazing and takes an incredible amount of nerve for the Republicans to still want to wear that jacket of fiscal responsibility and to invoke it when we start talking about working families like this. Let us remember that the President was handed a $5 trillion surplus, surpluses as far as the eye could see. That is gone, blew that; and now we are at about a, according to the former Secretary, they are charging about a $4 trillion projected deficit, a debt, on top of that, and in a very short time we are almost $1 trillion in deficit. That means more money spent than we have brought in. They like to talk about the war: Oh, we had to spend all that money on homeland security. And indeed, we did, but let us remember that most of that deficit is caused because we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. Now the excuse is, well, this family, the Johnstons who make only $19,000, they do not deserve a tax cut, they say, because they do not pay tax. Hello, these are people who are paying a payroll tax. They pay sales tax, they pay excise taxes, like taxes on the gasoline they buy to get to their jobs, and they pay a payroll tax. Think for a minute. What are the only taxes that have not been reduced? We are not talking about dividend taxes, most of the people who clip coupons, the taxes that they pay. We are not talking about the taxes on high incomes. We are talking about the taxes that everyday working people pay. That is what we are trying to do with the child tax credit, for families like that, so that they can take it and buy formula or baby food for this baby, so that they can provide for her. And that is what we are trying to do. My colleagues notice this family is not smiling, but I want to show them the face of some people who are, in fact, smiling. Why are they smiling? A report by the Committee on Government Reform minority staff on the tax bill found that Treasury Secretary Snow's estimated dividend and capital tax savings is between $331,000 and $842,000. That is a 1- year tax cut. No wonder he is smiling. Secretary Evans could see between $68,000 and $595,000 in tax savings. Vice President Cheney, who is not in the picture but is probably smiling at some undisclosed location, will reap $116,000 a year from the dividend capital gains provisions in the tax cut. In fact, the total tax savings for President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the Cabinet could be up to $3.2 million. If I were a member of the Cabinet, I would probably be smiling, too. In my State, 674,000 children and 378,000 families are not smiling. Nearly 1 in 4 families in Illinois were left behind. Now, of course, they say if we take care of them we are just tax-and-spend. Tell me that we do not have enough money when we are giving tax breaks like that to not only the wealthiest in the private sector but these individuals who are serving us now as members of the Cabinet. Behind closed doors in final negotiations of the tax cut bill for millionaires, the White House and Republican leaders exterminated the child tax credit provision that would have helped families like the Johnstons and others making between $10,500 and $26,625. That is the people that we are talking about, people who in their lifetime it will take years and years and years to earn what these individuals will get in 1 year in a tax cut. By eliminating that provision, Republicans were guaranteeing that millionaires like Secretary Snow and Secretary Evans get their full tax cut. It did not take long for the American people to find out that their neighbors and their friends got the short end of the Republican tax cut stick, and that is why the United States Senate was shamed into passing a Democratic proposal to provide those low-income families with their well-deserved child tax credit that was removed in a secret deal by Vice President Cheney. They passed a restoration of the tax cut for those lower-income families, working families by, 94-2. But what are we hearing on this side? Majority Leader DeLay said, ``It ain't going to happen.'' Well, I want to say that I think it ought to happen, I think it will happen, and we need to make it happen.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for her eloquent statement on behalf of the people who are left out of the Republican tax cut bill and the people who like the Narvaez family in my district are working hard every single day. This is Maria Narvaez and her daughters Alma and Elia. She has another daughter too. She is standing in front of a community organization called Family Matters in my district and all of us would hope that to every Member of Congress that families really do matter. To Ms. Narvaez, they really do. She works also in a day care center taking care of other people's children, and for all of her full-time work she earns $20,000. When the tax cut bill passed the Senate originally, it had a refundable tax credit. She would have gotten up to another $400, which may not mean much to some people, but could mean a lot to Maria and her daughters and her son, who are pictured there. She would have taken that money and gone right out and maybe paid a few bills or bought some extra food for the family or some clothes. Money would have gone directly into the economy and would have helped to create more jobs and stimulate growth. But instead, what the House Republicans said is that she and her family are just simply not wealthy enough to have a tax cut because in the dead of night what happened to that Senate provision that would have given her a tax cut that would have given her a rebate, Vice President Cheney went in and said, wait a minute, and he helped negotiate this, the bill that was passed goes too high. It spends too much money. So somebody is going to have to be cut out. And in the dark of night, in a secret negotiating deal, it was families like the Narvaez family who were cut out. It is not just her. I talked to a mother of a Marine yesterday. I had breakfast with her. And she was telling me, he is in Iraq right now but she was telling me that when she went to visit him at his base there was a church nearby that had a big box in front of it and she said what is that box? And that is for donations of clothing for the military families. Understand that I am not talking about the generals and I am not talking about the people that are sitting at the Pentagon. I am talking about the young men and women, the privates, the privates first class who are over in Iraq who are risking their lives every day, some of them losing their lives, and we do not know how many have been injured in that war, those people also have been cut out of this bill, and this is what the majority leader said. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, said there are a lot of other things that are more important; and what that must mean is that it is more important to give an average of $90,000 tax cut to millionaires, and it is more important to pass a tax dividend cut, the taxes we pay on dividends, to cut that, than to ensure families who are making less than $26,000 to have a few extra dollars to spend on their families. And the reality is that if Congress does not act by the end of June, 6.5 million low-income families will not receive their refund checks at the same time as the middle-class families do. So we are under a time frame here. It is not something that we can just chat about. Who does benefit then from the tax cut bill? Let us talk about who actually gets a benefit. Vice President Cheney who negotiated that deal that cut this family out will reap about $116,000 a year from the dividend and capital gains provisions in the tax bill. Maria will have to work about 10 years in order to have an income that equals the 1-year tax cut that the Vice President will get, and that is not the only thing. John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury, will get in 1 year a tax cut about $332,000. She will have to work 16 years to get that. Let us talk about fairness here. Let us talk about what is good for the economy and good for families. Let us do what the Senate did when they fixed it. Let us give a tax cut to working families.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 8, a resolution to raise awareness and encourage prevention of sexual assault. There is no crime that is more personal, more intrusive, or more painful than rape, and it must be a priority of this Congress and this Administration to work toward an end to this violence. Unfortunately, while this resolution is a nice demonstration of sympathy and support from the Congress, it is woefully inadequate. While I strongly support its passage, the Republican Leadership should allow the House to consider legislation to provide real relief to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. It is my hope that this resolution will be followed by consideration of H.R. 1267, the Domestic Violence Screening, Treatment, and Protection Act; H.R. 1046, the Debbie Smith Act dealing with the DNA evidence backlog; H.R. 394, the Violence Against Women Civil Rights Restoration Act; and many others. We have come a long way in the last 30 years since women started speaking up and speaking out against sexual assault. We are now better able to treat rape victims in emergency rooms; law enforcement has access to tools to teach them how to respond to the crime of sexual assault; and there are social and mental health services available to women who are survivors of rape. I am grateful for this progress. However, as we've raised awareness of this violence, we have also learned that it reaches far deeper into every aspect of our society than we wanted to admit or acknowledge. It is far more likely that perpetrators know their victims and aren't just strangers in the bushes. And women aren't the only victims--one in 33 men have been victims of rape or attempted rape. Furthermore, teens are twice as likely as any other age group to be victims of crime--nearly one-third of all sexual assault victims are raped between the ages of 12 and 17, and one in five girls becomes a victim of violence in dating relationships. We've also heard a lot this year about women at the Air Force Academy who have been victims of sexual assault. It is a disgrace that so many women have been re-victimized and silenced as a result of our military's reaction to these violent crimes. We must work hard to change the culture in every branch and at every level of the military from one that accepts violence against women to one that condemns such violence and treats victims, and all women, with respect and equality. But what we haven't heard much about is that men in the military are also victims of sexual assault. A special report appeared in January 2003 and revealed that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs began collecting nationwide data on the extent to which men have been sexually traumatized in the armed services. The preliminary results are that nearly 22,500 male veterans--more than one of every 100 former soldiers, sailors and airmen treated by the VA--reported being sexually traumatized by peers or superiors during their military careers. This once again shows that sexual violence is about humiliation, degradation, and control. We must commit ourselves to ending violence against women this month and every month. We must fully fund all Violence Against Women Act programs. We must speak up when we hear people speak about sexual violence in a dismissive or harmful way. We must educate our sons to be nonviolent and to treat women with respect. I believe that if we commit ourselves, we can end violence against women. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 8.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 925, a bill to designate a U.S. Post Office in Chicago, IL the ``Cesar Chavez Post Office.'' I can think of no one more deserving of such an honor than the great civil rights leader, Cesar Chavez. I want to commend my colleague, Representative Gutierrez, for his leadership in bringing this legislation before the House and I am proud to join him as an original cosponsor. Cesar Chavez was an organizer, an activist, a protestor, a farm worker, a peace-lover, a father, and a son. Raised in a family of farm workers forced to migrate throughout the Southwest, Chavez was led by his compassion, his ability to inspire others to action, and his deep sense of fairness and equality to organize and establish what is today the United Farmworkers of America. Because of his efforts, many farm workers today enjoy higher pay, family health coverage, pension benefits, and other contract protections. While we still have a long way to go in giving farm workers the fair pay and healthy work conditions they deserve, Cesar Chavez laid the foundation toward accomplishing those important goals. Cesar Chavez understood what it took to create a movement and he dedicated every part of his life to setting an example and leading the way. As a child and young man, he experienced firsthand the harsh working conditions of farm workers--the long hours, poverty wages, harassment, and abuse--as well as the limited access to education and health care. Understanding and addressing the roots of the problem, Chavez was able to make a lasting and significant impact. He conducted voter registration drives and campaigns against racial and economic discrimination. He led boycotts and pickets and hunger strikes. His nonviolent methods echoed those of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. He showed us all how critical it is to organize people, to unify them for a cause, and to help them believe in themselves and their ability to make a difference. Cesar Chavez continues to be an example for us today. He taught us that ``Si se puede,'' or ``Yes we can.'' We can--and we must--help those with no voice, help those who are discriminated against, help those who are taken advantage of, and help those who live in poverty and are struggling to survive. If Cesar Chavez were alive today, I am sure he would still be leading the fight for fairness and equality for workers and their families. We must not let his legacy die; we must not let his great strides forward become giant steps backward. We must continue to work for what is right. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 925.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it seems as if we have hit a nerve here. We are supposedly talking about a bill that would make it easier to get checks, and the Republicans are clearly embarrassed that there is a whole lot of people, in fact 12 million children, whose families are not going to get checks. They know darn well that that provision that would have sent the check was in the legislation in the Senate, and in a late-night deal that money was taken out. Here is one of the families. They live in my district. It is Maria, that is the mom, Alma and Elia Narvaez. They are not going to get a check. They are one of the 6.8 million families that thought they were going to get one, but they are not. Along with them, as has been pointed out, there are going to be a million children whose families were going to get checks of people in the military, our young men and women who went off to serve, the low-level private first class. They are not going to get a check. So it is not just an uproar from this side of the aisle; there is an uproar going on in the country right now. We read about it in the press, and we hear about it from our constituents. So who is getting the money? They are talking about it only goes to taxpayers and ask these people if they pay taxes, but who is getting the money? Well, let us look at the Bush cabinet. We are talking about Treasury Secretary John Snow. He was the CEO of the CSX Corporation, a corporation that paid no Federal income tax in 2001, 2000, and 1998. Do Members know how much he is going to get in a tax break? He is going to get $330,000 a year in dividend capital gains tax cuts. That is more than Maria Narvaez makes in 16 years. That is his tax cut for 1 year, what she makes in 16 years. Think about it another way, what the Secretary of the Treasury gets, $330,000 in 1 year in a tax break, 1,000 families could get a check. Members decide what is fair.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today I am reintroducing the Inclusive Home Design Act. I want to thank my colleagues Barbara Lee and Louise Slaughter for joining me today as original cosponsors of this legislation. I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us. I also want to thank my friend Marca Bristow of Access Living for her dedication and outstanding leadership. Finally, I want to offer my gratitude to all of the architects and community leaders who worked with me to craft this legislation. The Inclusive Home Design Act will greatly increase the number of homes that are accessible to people with disabilities. It is supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America and countless other national and local disabilities rights organizations. The Inclusive Home Design Act requires all newly-built single family homes receiving federal funds to meet three specific standards: an accessible route, or ``zero step,'' into the home, "32" clearance doorways on the main level, and one wheel chair accessible bathroom. These nationally mandated standards for homes built with federal dollars will close a major loophole in our current housing laws. Under current law, 95 percent of federally supported homes do not have to meet any accessibility standard. This creates unnecessary barriers for disabled veterans and other people with mobility impairments. It defies logic to build new homes that block people out when it's so easy and cheap to build new homes that let people in. Many states and localities have already incorporated visitability standards. This list includes Naperville, Bollingbrook, and Champagne, Illinois, Atlanta, Vermont, Texas, Kansas, Arizona and others. Also the United Kingdom passed a law in March 1998 mandating that every new home become accessible. A federal law will build on the momentum that has already been created here and abroad. The proposed legislation is based on the concept of Visitability, an affordable, sustainable and inclusive design approach for integrating basic accessibility features into all newly built homes and housing. Architects and builders will have latitude in how they comply with the act. For example, the zero step entrance can be placed at the front, side, or back of the home. The accessible route can even go through an attached garage. When homes are accessible, it benefits not only today's disability community, but also all of us who are friends and family members of people with disabilities. Often, the prohibitive cost of making an existing home accessible deprives seniors of their independence and pushes them into nursing homes. It generally costs thousands of dollars for a homeowner to retrofit their home. However, on average experts estimate that it only costs $300 to $400 to add visitability features into a new home. In addition, the zero step entrance requirements can be waived if the terrain makes compliance impractical. By making new homes accessible, we guarantee that many seniors can age at home instead of moving into expensive assisted living facilities. This will save taxpayer money and it will help improve the quality of life of our senior citizens. As the population becomes older, this will become more important. Fifty-eight percent of people over eighty years old suffer from physical impairments. In 2000, there were 30.5 million people between 65-84 years old. This number will grow to 47 million by 2020. Today, over 4.3 million individuals are over 85. By 2020, this number is projected to grow to 6.8 million. There is no question that the Inclusive Home Design Act will enable many of our seniors to remain at home. Homes that meet visitability standards are essential for people with disabilities and sensible because 3 out of 10 people will face a disability before they are 67, practical, and cost effective. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation, the Inclusive Home Design Act, into law.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for my annual statement in opposition to this bill. Republicans say they are for smaller government. In reality, they want to make government just small enough to fit inside our bedroom. This bill forces government to step between pregnant mothers and their doctors, interfering with the doctor's ability to make the safest and healthiest decisions for the mother, never mind that this bill is certifiably unconstitutional. Proponents of this bill should be ashamed to go home to their wives, their daughters, nieces, sisters, and women constituents and explain to them why they voted for a bill that not only blatantly disregards their health, but tries to claim that it is not an issue; explain to them why they voted for a bill that would criminalize the behavior of their doctors, who acted in their best interests, because the law said that their health did not matter. This bill is not about late-term abortion or even a so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' procedure, which has no medical definition in this bill. This bill is about banning safe abortion procedures that sometimes are the safest method of previability, second-trimester abortions. For us to be true to the Constitution, to be true to the sentiments of equality and freedom, women 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 woman'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 H.R. 760.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, meet the Narvaez family. Maria Guadalupe Narvaez and her two daughters, Alma and Elia. Maria also has a son. Ms. Narvaez works very hard to take care of her children. As a day care teacher at the Howard Area Community Center in Chicago, which is my District, she takes good care of other people's children, too. She cares for other people's children as if they were her own. In this picture, she is standing in front of a sign at Family Matters, a community organization in my District that helps hardworking families with a variety of services. Sadly, the Narvaez family does not matter much to the Republican leadership. For those of us on this side of the aisle, though, her family does matter. So, too, do the families of the 12 million other children who were tossed aside by the Republican tax bill negotiators. About 1 million of those 12 million children who were left out live with parents who are serving on active military duty, our veterans, or who have spouses serving in the Armed Forces, the very people that this House today earlier paid verbal tribute to, even as they were dumped from the tax cut bill. By the way, the tax credit we are talking about, this refundable tax credit was started in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Those children would have benefited in 2003 from the child tax credit provisions that the Republicans stripped from their bill in order to provide even more giveaways to millionaires. Denying Ms. Narvaez and her three children and our heroic families from their child tax credit is unfair. It is mean-spirited and it is bad for the economy. After all, Mrs. Narvaez is not likely to invest her money in Bermuda tax havens. If the Republicans had given her the child tax credit she deserves, she would be buying shoes and clothes and other necessities for her children from local businesses. The money would have gone straight into circulation, helping the economy and creating jobs. The Narvaez family matters to me. If it were up to me, they would get the child tax credit that they need and deserve. Unfortunately, the decision was not up to me. Maria and Alma and Elia were not ignored by accident. They were deliberately and callously determined to be unimportant. They were included. They had been in the tax bill that was in the United States Senate until it became clear that the tax cuts had gone too high. So instead of saying, okay, well, what can we do to bring that dollar figure down, maybe we ought to slightly reduce the tax break that we give to millionaires; oh, no, this is the family that they decided to go after and millions of others like them. The Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), yesterday made it perfectly clear what his priorities and values were. He said very succinctly, ``There are a lot of other things that are more important.'' According to him, low income children do not deserve to be a priority because their families pay little or no income taxes, even if they work every day, even if they are good and productive members of their community, and even though they do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes. Families matter to Democrats, including families living in the majority leader's District, that he and his party and his President have so shamefully, or should I say shamelessly, chosen to leave behind. So what is more important to the majority Republican leader? How about providing tax breaks to special interests and to members of the Bush cabinet. Treasury Secretary John Snow was the CEO of CSX Corporation, a corporation that paid no Federal income taxes, zero, in 2001, 2000 and 1998. John Snow would get at least $330,000 a year in dividend and capital gains tax cuts, more than Maria Guadalupe Narvaez would earn in 16 years at her current salary. That is how much his tax break is worth. Most Americans think it is wrong to allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing profits in offshore tax havens, but to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), it is more important to protect corporate tax evaders than to provide a little relief, a little help to Alma, Elia and Maria. The Republicans took care of those who they cared about most and tossed aside those they do not care about at all. It is time for us to change the priorities of this country and give this deserving family the help that they need and want.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I choose to vote present on H. Con. Res. 177. I support our brave soldiers who served or are currently serving in the war against terrorism. Whether they are in Iraq, In Afghanistan, or here at home, I praise our courageous men and women for risking their lives to defend our country and our freedom. However, I believe that the war on Iraq was unnecessary. I cannot vote in favor of a resolution that commends the President for putting American soldiers' lives in harm's way because of bad policy and misguided decision making. I will continue to support efforts that support our troops, their families, and our veterans. Each one of them is an American hero and each one of them makes me proud to be an American.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. This amendment not only stands in stark contrast to what the flag represents, but this debate today is keeping the House from addressing more urgent matters facing our country. The flag is a symbol of American greatness. It inspires awe and pride and is the official emblem of our nation. And, above all, it stands for freedom; the freedom we are guaranteed by being lucky enough to live in America. Ironically, this amendment would punish those who exercise that freedom. In our country, dissenting views are allowed and tolerated, even expressions as offensive as flag desecration. To take away this fundamental freedom of expression is to dishonor the flag and the liberty it represents. Furthermore, this amendment is uncalled for. At this time when there are so many issues that this House should be addressing--when American soldiers continue to die every day in Iraq, when millions of low-income families are being left behind by the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration, when seniors across America can't afford their prescription drugs and millions more lack any health care coverage, and when millions of schoolchildren lack such basic resources as textbooks and safe classrooms--the House is instead debating a bill that is unnecessary, controversial, vague, and, if passed, would undermine our democracy. Webster's dictionary defines ``desecrate'' as ``violating the sanctity of'' and ``treating disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously.'' This bill does not specifically define ``desecration.'' Therefore, if the amendment were to be passed, we would then be forced to discuss whether flag desecration included printing the flag on clothing or dropping small plastic flags on the ground after parades; we would have to discuss if the ``protected flags'' had size regulations or had to be made of specific material; we would have to decide if flags on personal property were ``protected''; and on and on. These debates are necessary. Instead of debating what freedoms we should be infringing upon and taking away, this House of Representatives should be doing everything it can to protect people's freedoms, especially our freedom of speech, and be working toward solutions to the problems that plague our constituents every day. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 4.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I received the following e-mail from one of my constituents. It says: ``Dear Janice Schakowsky, our government should stand for basic fairness and justice. That's why I do not understand why families earning between $10,000 and $26,000 per year would be excluded from receiving the $400 per child tax refund that wealthier families will receive this summer just so millionaires can get bigger tax cuts. As a constituent, I ask you to please amend President Bush's unfair tax cut plan to include these poor families and their 12 million kids. To leave the tax cut as it is brings too much shame upon this great Nation. Sincerely.'' My constituent is correct. This is a shameful moment in our great Nation, and we should not rest until we undo the tremendous wrong committed by the Republican leadership and the Bush administration. This is no time for business as usual. This is a time to reverse the damage done by the disgusting choices made by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There are those who may tell us that the decision to leave 12 million children in low-income working families on the cutting room floor was just a mistake, but that would be a lie. As The Washington Post editorialized yesterday, ``Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight $350 billion ceiling.'' In fact, this was a deliberate, mean-spirited action committed in the name of protecting special interests instead of our Nation's children. In fact, a House Republican Ways and Means Committee spokesperson confessed that, ``Well, adjustments had to be made.'' Let us be clear about what happened. Behind closed doors, Republican leaders got together with the administration and decided who was going to be thrown overboard and who would be brought to shore. There were no Democratic Members in that room. There were certainly no children or working families in the room. And the decision was made to throw children and working families, including military families, overboard and to save the dividend tax cuts for millionaires while restoring the ability of corporations to unpatriotically stash their profits in Bermuda. Compassion for millionaires and corporate traders, contempt for low-income children and their parents. As Warren Buffett has said, ``If this is class warfare, then my class is winning.'' There are other winners besides Warren Buffett. Not surprisingly, the Bush Cabinet members who worked so hard to sell this tax cut, job-killing bill are also winners. According to a report just completed by the Committee on Government Reform minority staff, Vice President Dick Cheney, the President's key tax negotiator, will reap $116,002 a year from the dividend/capital gains provisions in this bill. John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, will get over $332,000 a year. Donald Rumsfeld, who gave Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, a multimillion-dollar sweetheart contract, wins big, too, as much as $604,000 a year. No wonder they all worked so hard to sell such a defective product. We know who the winners are; and now we know at least some of the losers, 12 million children and working families. In my State of Illinois, nearly one in four children, 674,000 children in 378,000 families, were tossed aside so that Cabinet secretaries, billionaires, and corporations like Enron could be protected. We were not given time to read the Republican tax cut, job-killing bill before the vote; and I do not blame my colleagues for trying to push their bill through before we and the American public could learn what it included. I would be ashamed, too, if I decided to give Cabinet members, wealthy Members of Congress, and rich campaign contributors life jackets rather than women and children. And no wonder the Members on my side of the aisle were not given an opportunity to offer even one single amendment. What if we had learned the truth and tried to correct it? Now we have learned the truth, and it is time to right an incredible wrong. Bob Herbert labeled this as a ``quintessential example of what the Bush administration and its legislative cronies are about. The fat cats will get their tax cuts. But in the new American plutocracy, there won't even be crumbs left over for the working folks at the bottom of the pyramid to scramble after.'' Now the actions of the Bush administration and Republican tax decision-makers are out in the open. And now it is our responsibility to act by passing the Rangel-DeLauro bill. Children and working families should be our first priority, not tossed out, given crumbs or thrown overboard. We must make the commitment to act this month.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day, we will somberly celebrate the lives of a new generation of fallen heroes and honor American soldiers who paid the ultimate price in battle. We can only offer our gratitude as a small measure of comfort to the families of the young American men and women who will not be returning home from Afghanistan or Iraq. Like those Americans before them, these brave men and women heeded our Nation's call to duty and followed their Commander-in-Chief's orders to go to battle, willingly and dutifully. They sacrificed their lives in wars and conflicts that their comrades are still fighting today. As we pay tribute to the lost soldiers, we hope for the safe return of the men and women still on the battlefield, overseas and in hostile territory. To serve their country, they left behind families and loved ones, jobs and communities. But like millions of American soldiers through the years, they will be back on U.S. soil soon enough. It is our duty to live up to the promises that we made to each and every one of those soldiers and to every veteran who served his or her nation. Unfortunately, the painful truth is veterans' critical needs are being ignored each day. It is shameful that 200,000 veterans must wait 6 months or more for their first appointment at a VA medical facility. It is disgraceful that the current Republican budget calls for cutting veterans' health care by $6.2 billion over the next ten years. It is unpatriotic to burden our retired soldiers and their families with extra costs for prescription drugs and doctor visits. Is this what our soldiers have to look forward to? A litany of broken promises? Congress and the President must keep their promises to the nation's veterans and make adequate investments in veterans' health care. Because of President Bush's budget priorities and tax breaks for millionaires, veterans will continue to suffer the consequences. Democrats have offered a plan to roll back health care cost increases imposed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, expand health care access for veterans and educational opportunities for reservists, and provide cash bonuses to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, families of those killed on active duty would receive higher benefits under the Democratic proposal. Our brave men and women have met all kinds of threats and have defeated unspeakable dangers, but they must not be forced to fight for what is rightfully theirs here at home. Our veterans may be gone from the military, but they must not be forgotten.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to stand before my colleagues and celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Asian and Pacific Americans have been a part of this country for over 200 years, with one of the first Asian American communities, the Filipino community, being established in the Louisiana Bayou in 1763. Since that date, the Asian Pacific American community has come a long way. According to Census projections, Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) will account for 6.5 percent of the nation's population by the year 2025, and by 2050 they will account for 9.3 percent. Consequently, by 2050 about one out of every 11 Americans will trace their heritage to API roots. As this community continues to grow, it is important for all of us to continue to learn from each other. In the 9th Congressional District, I am very fortunate to represent a vibrant and productive Asian Pacific American community that totals over 70,000 people. The community is very diverse, including Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos, and Samoans. Ranging from doctors to teachers to small business owners, each member of the API community enhances our district and makes it a better place to live and work for all of my constituents. Whether I am marching in Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sikh parades on Devon Street or celebrating the Lunar New Year on Argyle Street, I cannot help but feel a sense of pride when I see so many different cultures all tied to the single bond of being American. Congress recognizes the importance of the Asian Pacific American community and displays this through the numerous Caucuses representing many nations, ranging from India to Cambodia. Congressional staffers have also done their part to educate themselves about the Asian Pacific American community through staff organizations such as CAPASA, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Staff Association, and SAACSA, the South Asian American Congressional Staff Association, of which I am proud to be a sponsor. As a Member of Congress, I will continue to utilize these resources to work with community leaders on key issues such as education and immigration, as well as encourage more Asian Americans to enter the public sector at the local, state and federal levels. The rich cultural history and traditions of Asian pacific communities enrich all of our lives and contribute to the American culture. Now more than ever, we need to work side by side with community leaders to help educate those outside the community that Asian Pacific Americans are, first and foremost, Americans who share the same core values and beliefs as all communities in this country. The Asian Pacific American community has come so far in such a short period of time, and I am confident that it will only continue to grow and thrive while maintaining its many cultures and values.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this critical bill. This important legislation integrates prevention, care, and treatment. By passing the conference report on H.R. 1298 we can directly improve and extend the lives of millions worldwide. I think every member owes a special thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee and to the Gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their outstanding leadership on this landmark legislation. I want to express my most sincere gratitude to the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, my colleague from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). He has demonstrated incredible leadership and a commitment to placing science above ideology by supporting a bill that will provide the resources necessary to promote effective strategies and technologies in the battle against HIV/AIDS. These technologies include the use of condoms, a measure that is effective in preventing transmission of the virus and should be used more frequently. This bill provides for education on the use of condoms, along with the teaching of abstinence and faithfulness to one's spouse. We must never allow our own personal ideologies to get in the way of our efforts to save lives. Another meaningful aspect of this legislation is that it contributes to the Global Fund, indicating the interest of this Nation and this body in working with the international community to fight this global problem. I hope that such cooperation will be extended to other healthcare matters and critical issues currently facing this Nation. The provision of aid to Haiti is of particular interest to me. I recently visited Haiti. It is the fourth poorest country in the world. The average Haitian lives on $1.39 dollars a day. I was shocked by the suffering I witnessed during my visit. Ninety perrcent of all HIV and AIDS infections in the Caribbean are in Haiti. Tragically, death from HIV/AIDS has left 163,000 children in Haiti orphaned. In Haiti, where only 1 in every 10,000 citizens has access to a physician, and where cases of TB are more than ten times as high as those in other Latin American countries, the population will benefit profoundly from this legislation. AIDS has ravaged the globe, causing unprecedented death and suffering, and the virus is a global threat that must be addressed as such. We have had significant discussion about the need to undertake all possible actions at our disposal when addressing emerging threats. AIDS is indeed a well established threat to the health and security of the world. The fight against HIV/AIDS is a fight for humanity. In addressing this worldwide pandemic, we must also work together to provide countries with life-saving and extending drugs. These drugs are the difference between a baby in Africa having a chance to know his or her mother or father or being orphaned before they can speak or walk. We cannot allow pharmaceutical companies or government policies to construct barriers to treatment, such as complicated trade strategies and patent practices that make it difficult or impossible for nations to obtain the medicines they need to treat their populations at a price they can afford. We must make sure our dollars are stretched as far as they can go by lowering the price of drugs. We must also demand that the international community, including the corporate community, matches our efforts. Finally, this measure is only an authorization bill. It is a critically important step. But it will be meaningless unless all members follow through on the commitment we are making today and adequately fund this measure through the appropriations process. I pledge my support to that effort. Passage of H.R. 1298 is long overdue. I urge all members to support this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1588. This bill allows the Department of Defense to severely alter the current civil service system, to trample over environmental laws, and to develop more nuclear weapons while providing more money to the DOD, despite the fact that it still cannot pass an audit. It strips away the fundamental rights from almost 700,000 civilian employees at the Department of Defense (DOD). These rights include collective bargaining, due process and appeal rights, and the congressionally passed annual pay raise. This bill also exempts the Department of Defense from public health and environmental laws, dramatically weakening protections for marine mammals and endangered species and undermining the role of states that administer pollution control laws. Finally, this bill promotes unnecessary irresponsible funding for the development of more nuclear weapons such as the infamous ``bunker buster'', and authorizes over $9 billion for ballistic missile defense programs--a program that will not work. I also want to mention my support of the Sanchez amendment, which simply gives American women overseas the same legal abortion rights they would receive if they were home. The current ban on abortions at overseas U.S. military facilities denies women who have volunteered to serve this country a right they would ordinarily have if they were not overseas. This sends the wrong message to women who believe in the freedoms for which this country stands and want to serve this country to preserve those freedoms. H.R. 1588 will authorize over $400 billion to the Department of Defense, $20.6 billion more than the President's budget request for FY2004. U.S. taxpayers will pay $15.7 billion for nuclear weapons in FY2004. For that same amount of money, we could have provided health care to 2,803,167 more people, including 132,473 in my home state of Illinois. I support efforts to provide our military with the necessary funding needed to defend our country and to increase the salaries of our men and women in the Armed Forces but I am not willing to compromise the environment, workers' rights, and domestic priorities, such as education and health care, to achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I do not doubt for a minute that the Republicans would have been perfectly happy, probably preferred, to go home for a week letting unemployment benefits expire; give tax cuts to the rich today, that is the number one priority, $350 billion, most of which goes to the richest Americans, and zip to the unemployed. Actually, they did it at Christmastime, right before Christmas, let those benefits expire. But after the Democrats pushed and pushed, and maybe there was some polling done, they decided to not only do something for the Bush class but to do something for the middle class and for the unemployed workers, $5 billion compared to $350 billion. Okay, we are grateful for that. But over a $100,000 tax cut to Secretary of the Treasury Snow and still zero dollars for the more than one million workers who are still out of work, 53,000 in Illinois. Some over on the other side of the aisle have fretted about, oh, unemployment benefits, they just encourage people to stay home and not look for a job. How dare they? These people want a job, and this administration and its economic plan has been nothing but a job-killer, a job-killer. We have seen the loss of over 2.5 million jobs since this President has come in. The economy is going down. These people want to work. People in my own family who have been laid off, they want nothing more than a good job. These people do not want unemployment insurance benefits. They want a job. But at the very least, we should be making sure that all those people who play by the rules, are looking for a job every day, get something. On this floor of this House we should be able to debate alternatives. We are just cut off. Why? Because our alternative is better. It addresses the need for the American people, and that is exactly what the Republicans do not want to hear. They do not want to give anyone a chance to vote on our better plan. We should be voting no on the rule.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the so-called Jobs Growth Tax Act. This legislation embraces President Bush's failed economic policies that have damaged the economy. This legislation is in fact a job killing package put forth by the Republican job killing machine that has already cost our country over 2 million jobs and $7 trillion. When President Bush first came to office to promote his $1.2 trillion tax cut he promised that it would create jobs and help strengthen our economy. Now 2 years later, it is clear that the President has failed to deliver on his promises. The numbers prove that his economic policies have completely failed our country. Since President Bush came to office we have lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. Illinois has lost over 109,000 jobs since Bush took office--93,000 from the Chicago area. Nationwide, the number of people who have been out of work for 6 months or more has tripled under the President's leadership. Our State and local governments are paying the price for the President's failures. States budget shortfalls are expected to reach as high as $80 billion in 2004. In Illinois the figure is $5 billion, it may actually be higher. State and local governments have been forced to raise sales and property taxes to keep their schools open and to pay for the most basic of services. Working families and seniors are forced to pay more in taxes to pay for Republican tax cuts. When President Bush took office we had a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. We now have a $2 trillion deficit over the same period of time. According to CBO, the President's tax cut not the war on terrorism accounts for the growth in deficit. Corporate greed and conflicts of interest have hurt our economy. Approximately $4.6 trillion in stock market wealth has evaporated since President Bush took office. Many workers and retirees have lost all their savings. Meanwhile, politically connected CEO's have escaped with billions. Corporate fraud and greed have undermined confidence in our financial markets. Given all of these facts, it should come as no surprise that consumer confidence is at its lowest level in a decade. It should also come as no surprise that the chairman of SEC, Secretary of the Treasury, and director of the OMB have all stepped down. So how do the President and Republican leaders in Congress respond to this crisis? By proposing more of the same failed policies that put us in this predicament in the first place. It is often said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result. History has proven time and time again that the Republican tax plan will do nothing to help those who really need it and it will fail to give the economy the immediate boost it needs. The proposal to lower taxes on dividends will only generate nine cents of stimulus for every dollar spent. This is a sham growth package. It will cost us in dollars and in jobs. Over 400 economists oppose cutting taxes on dividends, including many Nobel laureates. Republicans and Democrats alike have criticized the proposal to lower taxes on dividends. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Volker and former Treasury Secretaries Peter G. Peterson and Robert Rubin have called the proposal to reduce taxes in dividends, ``ill-logical'' and ``not useful for short-term fiscal stimulus . . . nor would (the tax cuts) spur long-term economic growth.'' Meanwhile this legislation fails to embrace policies that will stimulate the economy. For example, extending unemployment produces at least $1.73 of spending for every dollar spent. But this plan provides no aid for the unemployed who have exhausted their benefits. In contrast, the Democratic alternative, which the Republican majority did not allow us to debate a few weeks ago an alternative that would include $27 billion for extending unemployment. Our plan would create 1 million jobs over 10 years without increasing debt. This conference report does little to help working families. According to the Wall Street Journal, 53 percent of taxpayers would get less than $100. This legislation provides only $20 billion for the States over the next 2 years. When this bill was passed a few weeks ago, House Democrats wanted to provide $44 billion in State aid for health care, education, infrastructure improvements and homeland security. Once again, we were denied an opportunity to vote on our plan, and the American people will pay the price. The Republican plan does nothing to close corporate loopholes. Corporate taxes are only 1.3 percent of GDP. This is the lowest they have been since the early 1980s. Last year, less than half of actual total corporate profits were subject to corporate income tax. CSX, under Treasury Secretary Snow's leadership, paid no Federal income taxes on its $934 million in profits; instead it got a tax rebate of $164 million. And Secretary Snow will benefit from this legislation to the tune of $100,000. This conference report is yet another reckless plan to cut taxes for the rich and do nothing for the rest. It is class warfare with the Bush class waging war against the middle class. This ill-conceived plan will place more of a burden on working families who are struggling to make ends meet to pay for housing, prescription drugs, and other necessities. I agree with my Republican colleague, Steve LaTourette, who recently said, ``Nobody in my district is screaming for tax cuts, they are screaming for a prescription drug benefit.'' In the 9th Congressional District my constituents will tell you they want jobs and prescription drug coverage any day over tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that you cannot have it both ways. By spending money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of earners and tax dodging corporations we will raise the debt and have less money to pay for prescription drugs, veterans' health, and keeping Social Security solvent. I urge all my colleagues to vote against this conference report and to instead support the Democratic plan to create jobs and spur economic growth. Democrats want to help our economy by putting money in the hands of people that will spend it. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this conference report.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Absolutely. This was a paid-for ad.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for giving me this opportunity because it is not every day that we get to come down to the floor of the House and defend the essentials of our democracy, to talk about defending the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. It is the very core values of this country that we are talking about today. This is definitely the most important telecommunications issue of our time and, more than that, whether or not ordinary people are going to have access to divergent views. This is a value that our country has embraced from its beginning that we should have the opportunity to hear different voices, to get different opinions and make up our own mind. So I am here today to call on Federal Communications Commission, its Chairman Mr. Powell, and President Bush to listen to the American people, to support media diversity and localism, and to not allow even more concentration of the media. The Bush administration and the FCC have tuned out public voices and tuned in Rupert Murdoch. I suppose the gentleman will probably talk about him, and media barons, because people need to know who is controlling the messages that they hear when they want to get the news, when they want to know what is going on in the world and in our country. People in my district and around the country are demanding that the FCC hear their voices. That is why just last week the Chicago City Council unanimously approved, by a vote of 50 to 0, a resolution that urges the FCC to strengthen existing media ownership rules, not to weaken them. Today and yesterday I received 1,000 e-mails from my constituents. I am going to read one of them: Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky, Congress shall pass no law restricting the right to free speech. Letting one big business control all available news organs for any locality is a monopoly. Since when do corporations have a right to control our free speech? Since when do their rights trump the average citizen's? Is the Bush administration trying every means conceivable to control our means of debate dissent? I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to promote a diverse balance and competitive media. Please stop the FCC rule change on June 2nd. We allow media companies to use the airwaves in exchange for their assurance that they are serving the public interest, and it is the FCC's job to make sure that is so. Please hold the FCC to its mandate and oppose the rule change. This is from one woman in my district. But imagine now two full reams of paper from individuals in my district with the very same message. They are sounding the alarm. A free and open media is essential to our democracy. It promotes civic discussion, encourages public participation and policy debates, ensures representation of ideological, cultural and geographic diversity. I cannot overstate the importance of the FCC's review of media ownership rules in deciding whether the principles of the first amendment will be embraced in everyday reality, or only in theory. Media ownership concentration is already a major threat to our democracy. In the last 25 years, the number of TV station owners has declined from 540 to 460, and the number of TV newsrooms has dropped almost 15 percent. Three-quarters of cable channels are owned by only six corporate entities, four of which are major TV networks. Seventy percent of all markets have four or fewer sources of original TV news production. In 1965, there were 860 owners of daily newspapers. Today there are less than 300. The Supreme Court has maintained that the first amendment is designed to achieve the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources. Media ownership diversity is critical to ensuring that we protect the first amendment. Over the years, the courts have supported the belief of Congress that independent ownership of media outlets results in more diverse media voices, greater competition, and more local content. Over the last few years, we have seen considerable ownership consolidation in the media, while, at the same time, we have seen important public interest protections eliminated. For the first 50 years after the enactment of the 1934 Communications Act, people had a right to petition the FCC if they found coverage to be one-sided. We called that the Fairness Doctrine. It required broadcasters to cover issues of public importance and to do so fairly, until, in 1987, under immense pressure from the media, it was eliminated. Eliminating the law of the Fairness Doctrine, a major blow to consumers, was supposed to be alleviated by a blossoming of independent local outlets that would expand diversity by increasing competition. In other words, consumers would no longer be able to use the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that their views were represented on a specific media outlet, but the thought was we would be able to present those views through competing media in the same market. Unfortunately, the public is now faced with increased concentration, not increased competition, and no longer has the Fairness Doctrine to fall back on. The FCC should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. At the very least they should not even allow more ownership concentration that makes the loss of the Fairness Doctrine more onerous. Greater media ownership concentration limits the public's access to diverse viewpoints. Radio provides an example of what can happen when media ownership rules are abolished. In 1996, Congress eliminated the national ownership caps for radio. The result? Greater consolidation in the radio industry. In almost half of the largest markets, the three largest corporations control 80 percent of the radio audience. This has made it harder for diverse opinions to be heard. Just last month, Clear Channel refused to air an advertisement in which I was inviting people to an event that was organized for people who opposed the war in Iraq. It was a gathering, and I wanted a commercial to air on the radio to see if people wanted to come. Clear Channel refused to put that advertisement on the air.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is exactly right. This was not a public service announcement. This was not asking a favor of the radio station. This was we want to buy an ad that invites people to a public gathering on the issue of most importance in the country at the time, and we were not able to buy that ad. They would not sell it to us, even as its affiliates were organizing pro-war rallies around the country on the air. Yesterday, as has been pointed out, 11 Members of the United States House of Representatives, the Democratic whip, the Democratic leader of our caucus, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has been organizing around this issue of media concentration, an expert on the subject, held a press conference, and nobody came. There was not one TV camera, not one radio station. Two small print outlets came, we are grateful to them; but clearly, a decision was made not to cover this. And I want to challenge those media giants who did not come to explain how that blackout was not motivated by a conflict of interest.