Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If I could just add, here is the final request I have, and it is so simple, that the Federal Communications Commission, before it makes a decision on June 2 to allow even greater concentration, would travel around the country and hold more public forums, listen to the people, give an opportunity to the 1,000 people that wrote to me and the thousands and millions more who want to participate in this decisionmaking, let their voices be heard. Finally, I want to say, let us consider, and I hope pass, House Resolution 218, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), which calls on the FCC not to weaken current ownership rules that protect media diversity, and also calls on the FCC to better examine and inform the public about the consequences of further media concentration and allow the public to comment on any proposed changes. This is the least we can do to protect freedom of speech.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague, the Mayor of Skokie, Illinois, George Van Dusen on his 60th birthday. Mayor Van Dusen has faithfully served the people of the Village of Skokie since 1984, first in the role of Trustee, and since 1999 as Mayor. Over the last several years, I have had the distinct pleasure of working with him on behalf of the people of Skokie. During his tenure as Mayor, Skokie has been recognized for excellence in education and public services. Skokie's Niles North High School was recently cited as one of the country's best high schools by both Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report magazine. In 2002, the Village was awarded the Governor's Hometown Award for municipal excellence and received an ``All American City'' finalist distinction from the National Civic League. Skokie is the first town in the United States to have nationally accredited Fire, Police and Public Works Departments. I am proud of Mayor Van Dusen and the Village of Skokie for all of their impressive accomplishments. I know there will be more achievements and milestones for the Village of Skokie to celebrate in the time to come. I look forward to joining Mayor Van Dusen to mark those meaningful dates as well.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of children with disabilities and their families and in opposition to H.R. 1350. They say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The fundamentals of IDEA are widely appreciated by parents. In an e-mail I received, it says, ``Do not dilute IDEA legislation in any way. Our family has personally benefited from almost every part of IDEA rights,'' says the father of an autistic son. We say, ``First, do no harm.'' Unfortunately, this legislation does do harm. It changes the features of the Individualized Education Program in a way that hurts children and makes it easier to kick children with disabilities out of their classrooms, even when they are doing their best to comply and to do everything right, and it may be the result of their disability. Third, it diminishes the legal rights of parents to get the best education for children. Finally, this legislation still is dismally underfunded. If we want to do something good for IDEA, we should provide full funding and vote against H.R. 1350.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank both the gentleman from Nevada and my colleague from California for offering this resolution in support of Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program. I feel so privileged to have not only heard the presentation, the incredible voice, and the power of Peter Yarrow, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) said, part of Peter, Paul and Mary group, sing this, but the way that it resonates in one's heart when you hear it, and I am sure in the minds of school children who welcome the words of tolerance and respect that are in this song written by Steve Seskin. The program is to create the sound emotional development, the personal growth, the physical safety of our children, to promote antibullying and compassion and tolerance among children. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) began to read some of the lyrics that are in this song, and we can just picture that wonderful voice of Peter Yarrow, so let me once again add a few more words in this song. ``Don't laugh at me, don't call me names, don't get your pleasure from my pain. In God's eyes we're all the same. Some day we'll all have perfect wings. Don't laugh at me. I'm fat, I'm thin, I'm short, I'm tall, I'm deaf, I'm blind. Hey aren't we all. Don't laugh at me. Don't call me names. Don't get your pleasure from my pain. In God's eyes we're all the same. Some day we'll all have perfect wings. Don't laugh at me.'' In 2002, Operation Respect began shifting its strategy from making presentations to a lot of these educational organizations to fostering systemic and sustainable implementation of its own programs as well as long-term comprehensive character education and social and emotional learning by opening State affiliates around the country. Now there are affiliates in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, where I am from, and Ohio. In Illinois, it is headed up by this wonderful woman, Flora LeZar, who was Executive Director of Operation Respect. She is helping, and I am working with them, to set up this program in Illinois identifying supporters in and around Chicago. And we are now in discussions with Columbia College's Office of Community Arts Partnerships, as well as an Evanston-based, that is my hometown, arts and education foundation, the Shanti Foundation, to partner in the implementation of ``Don't Laugh at Me'' in several Chicago public schools. I am looking forward to one of the schools in my district, an elementary school called Boone School, we are hoping that that school will have the benefit of the don't laugh at me program. Finally, let me just say this. Our world today is so marked by mistrust, where there is so much intolerance around the globe and here at home as well; a failure to really understand each other's cultures. In a country like the United States of America, which is so wonderful because of its diversity, because we have so many people and children with different values that come to our public schools, that is our strength. But we need to help develop an appreciation of that in our children. It prepares them to be adults and leaders in a world that embraces diversity, that understands the differences among people and then can work to bring us all together for a world of peace and harmony. So this is more than just a little program or one song, this is a philosophy of education and really a philosophy about the way that all of us should live our lives. So I congratulate Peter Yarrow and Operation Respect and the ``Don't Laugh at Me'' program. I am just happy to be able to support this resolution and to be part of advancing this effort.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, Twenty-four exceptional students from the 9th Congressional District are ready to compete against the smartest and the brightest from around the country in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution. The 24 students, all seniors from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, IL, have recently won the Illinois State competition and will represent our great State in the national finals. What does it take to make it into the finals of this prestigious contest? What does it take to make it this far? The answer is clear: Dedication, hard work, and countless hours reading, researching, and studying the great document that is the foundation of our democracy: the Constitution of the United States of America--the symbol of personal freedom and protection. Each year, the ``We the People'' foundation hosts district, State and national level Congressional-style hearings on the history and principles of Constitutional democracy in the United States. Participants are tested on their knowledge of the Constitution and its foundations and applications to our country. The ``We the People'' contest is an invaluable learning experience for Maine South High School students and other students from around the country. The program helps promote democracy and encourages civic participation in the issues of critical importance to our freedoms by young men and women and I am hopeful they will carry those lessons with them into the future. I would like to commend the students of Maine South High School's Constitution Team and their academic advisor Dan States for their hard work and great scholastic achievement and I wish them the best of luck in the national finals.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, 24 exceptional students from the 9th Congressional District are ready to compete against the smartest and the brightest from around the country in the National finals of the We the People...The Citizen and the Constitution. The 24 students, all seniors from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, IL, have recently won the Illinois State competition and will represent our great State in the national finals. What does it take to make it into the finals of this prestigious contest? What does it take to make it this far? The answer is clear: Dedication, hard work, and countless hours reading, researching, and studying the great document that is the foundation of our democracy: the Constitution of the United States of America--the symbol of personal freedom and protection. Each year, the ``We the People'' foundation hosts district, state and national level congressional-style hearings on the history and principles of Constitutional democracy in the United States. Participants are tested on their knowledge of the Constitution and its foundations and applications to our country. The ``We the People'' contest is an invaluable learning experience for Maine South high school students and other students from around the country. The program helps promote democracy and encourages civic participation in the issues of critical importance to our freedoms by young men and women and I am hopeful they will carry those lessons with them into the future. I would like to commend the students of Maine South High School's Constitution Team and their academic advisor Dan States for their hard work and great scholastic achievement, and I wish them the best of luck in the National Finals.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for media diversity and localism. 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. A free and open media is central to our democracy. It promotes civic discussion, encourages public participation in policy debates, and 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 every day reality, or only in theory. Clearly, this is the most important telecommunications issue of our time. The FCC has announced that it will release a proposal on June 2nd to possibly eliminate or weaken rules that would have major impact on television broadcast ownership concentrations. The rule that bars NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX from merging with each other and the rule that limits one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of households nationwide could disappear. The FCC is also examining rules that apply to local markets, including the rule that limits companies in the same market from owning two or more broadcast TV stations; the rule barring an entity from owning a local newspaper and television station in the same market; the rule capping the number of radio stations that an entity is allowed to own in a market at eight; and the rule restricting a single entity from owning more than one television and radio station in the same market, unless it is proven that there is sufficient diversity in the market. I am adamantly opposed to the FCC relaxing existing rules to allow greater media concentration. Existing rules have been put in place to ensure that local communities have access to varying viewpoints on local issues. These rules must be maintained and should be strengthened, instead of weakened. Nothing at all should be done until the public and members of Congress have a chance to evaluate and comment on any specific proposals to change the current media ownership rules. In my view, that requires ample opportunity to consider and prepare comments, as well as a sufficient number of local hearings to allow all constituencies and all parts of the Nation to voice their views. 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 enactment of the 1934 Communications Act, people had a right to petition the FCC if they found coverage to be one-sided. The ``fairness doctrine'' 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. The loss 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 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. 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 by 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 4 or fewer sources of original TV news production. In 1975, there were 860 owners of daily newspapers. There are less than 300 today. My constituents and many constituents across the Nation are frustrated that they are unable to hear different viewpoints and, increasingly, that they are unable to get their own viewpoints to others because of barriers to the visual and print media. I believe that there is significant argument for the FCC to recommend reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. At the very least, they should not allow even more ownership concentration that makes the loss of the fairness doctrine even 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 has been greater consolidation in the radio industry. In 1995, Clear Channel owned 1.3 percent of radio stations; today it owns 20.2 percent. 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 Congressman Danny Davis and I expressed our opposition to waging war in Iraq. Clear Channel refused to put the advertisement on the air. Fortunately, several independent stations did. Clear Channel, which owns 1200 stations across the country, has refused to air songs by the Dixie Chicks who have spoken against war in Iraq, it has put out a recommended ``do not play'' list that includes John Lennon's ``Imagine'' and 150 other songs, it has actively worked to support pro war rallies, and it has refused to play paid ads that do not reflect its own views. This is what happens when a few companies control the airwaves. The owners' bias is reflected in what they choose to put on the air and listeners are limited in what they are able to hear. Part of the problem is that many entities that own media outlets are more focused on their bottom line than the public good and the public's right to hear and express diverse views. The founder and CEO and Clear Channel said in a recent Fortune Magazine article, ``We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our consumers products.'' I appreciate Mr. Lowry's candor and I do not dispute his right to pursue profits. However, his statement clearly illustrates the problem. Greater media ownership concentration will hurt our democracy. We must maintain media diversity and localism. We cannot allow information to be monopolized, rationed or censored because a free and open media is absolutely critical to the functions of a democratic society. The stakes are high and the threat to free speech is all too real. I urge all the FCC Commissioners to hold and attend more public forums across the country on any specific proposed changes to existing rules, as a major part of their decision-making process.

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This bill unfairly grants the gun industry immunity and takes away an individual's or state's ability to hold gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations accountable to negligence and product liability standards that every other industry is subject to. The bill perpetuates the gun industry's disregard for public safety and holds up their ``see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil'' approach to gun manufacturing and distribution. The gun industry should be held accountable to its consumers and victims in the same way that every other industry is. As it is, guns are one of the few consumer products that are exempt from health and safety regulations. Furthermore, this bill would void a number of pending cases around the country which seek to hold the gun industry accountable for its actions. Specifically, if passed into law, this bill would nullify a case currently moving through the Illinois Supreme Court. The case was brought against a number of gun manufacturers, gun distributors, and gun dealers by the City of Chicago and Cook County who allege that these entities have created a public nuisance by making guns available to juveniles in the Chicago area. No one can dispute that kids have access to guns. A nationwide survey conducted by the Illinois based Teenage Research Unlimited found that 41 percent of teenagers surveyed reported that they could get a handgun if they really wanted to. Furthermore, the Chicago Police Department reported that, in 1999, 165 offenders under the age of 21 were charged with murders involving a firearm. One death by a handgun is too many. But when 666 people are murdered in one year in just one city, as was the case in Chicago in 2001, we must wake up to reality and demand that something be done. Unfortunately, this bill takes us backwards and gives immunity to the very industry that has the power to regulate the manufacturing and distribution of its products. I am disappointed that this bill is on the House floor today, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1036.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, Education Secretary Roderick Paige has lost credibility. Following his deeply troubling comments in Baptist Press proclaiming the importance of teaching Christian values in public schools, it is evident that Secretary Paige cannot be an unbiased advocate for all public school students. I am not concerned with Secretary Paige's personal religious beliefs. Many of us were raised in religious traditions and with faith-based values that have led many of us to serve in this body--the desire to help out those in need, to care for our neighbors, and to be good members of the global community. Secretary Paige's views, however, are offensive because they reflect on how he will undertake his Constitutional responsibility: to provide the best educational opportunities for all students in the United States. Our nation was built on the idea of separation of church and state. Article I of our great Constitution requires that there be no established religion. This was not an afterthought by the Founding Fathers--it was clearly and forcefully stated at the very outset. By expressing his preference for parochial education and criticizing public schools for not teaching religious values, Secretary Paige violated that founding principle. Secretary Paige has forcefully described his preference for schools that have ``a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community.'' He has described Christian schools and universities as having a ``strong value system'' that is ``not the case in a public school where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values.'' How then can the parents of children in public schools--which educate 90 percent of all children in our country--believe that Secretary Paige's bias against public education will not be reflected in his policies? How can they be assured that he will not direct funds and resources to the parochial schools to which he would prefer to send his children and away from the public schools that educate the vast majority of American children? Clearly, Secretary Paige is refusing to embrace the diversity reflected in our public schools. In a nation that is increasingly diverse, equating good values with Christian values is disrespectful to all non-Christian believers and to all non-believers. Personal faith must never be allowed to dictate government policy. Through his statements, Secretary Paige has shown that he cannot be relied upon to fulfill his responsibilities. He should resign voluntarily. If not, President Bush should demand his resignation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a serious problem that exists at several U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of Energy. It seeks to put Congress on record in support of strengthened protections against waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds at the Department of Energy. The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement more stringent procurement and inventory controls, including controls on the purchase card program, to prevent waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds by employees and contractors of the Department of Energy; and (2) the Department's Inspector General should continue to closely review purchase card purchases and other procurement and inventory practices at the Department. Since 1998, the Inspector General at the Department of Energy has conducted 20 reviews at 11 different sites. As a result of the reviews, it was found that the Department of Energy employees illegally misused government purchase cards to acquire such unofficial items as home improvement products, hunting equipment, electronics, lawn equipment, and power tools, all for personal, not official, use. The DOE Inspector General has also reported that Department of Energy employees have undertaken other complex and illegal schemes to acquire items for personal use, such as generating fraudulent invoices to mask making those purchases, providing kickbacks to suppliers who agreed to participate in quid pro quo schemes, circumventing Department policies and procedures by allowing employees to approve their own purchase card transactions, and acquiring goods for personal use that were delivered to nondepartment locations. Such problems have led the General Accounting Office ``to designate DOE contract management, defined broadly to include both contract administration and management of the projects, as a high-risk area for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.'' The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held two hearings this year to review illegal procurement practices at the Los Alamos National Laboratories. Thanks to brave whistleblowers and the Inspector General, Los Alamos personnel were caught using thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy items like sunglasses, hunting knives and, get this, lock-picking sets, golf equipment, sleeping bags, and more. One employee even attempted to purchase a Ford Mustang using her Federal Government purchase card. Another employee used her government purchase card at local casinos. While some of the more newsworthy examples are about the purchase card program, other problems exist with inventory and procurement control in general. The IG has also reported hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ``unlocated, lost, or stolen'' items, including desktop computers, laptop computers, cameras, computer printers, radio transceivers, video recorders, and telephones. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Passage of this noncontroversial amendment will put us all on record in support of additional efforts to root out this kind of shameful abuse of taxpayer funds. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the Schakowsky amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The fundamental premise to this amendment is flawed. We have not successfully ordered a new nuclear reactor in this country for over 20 years. Why? Because Wall Street investment bankers have done the numbers and found that the life-cycle cost of a nuclear plant far exceeds the costs of a modern combined-cycle natural gas turbine, a coal plant, or even a wind generator. The free market has said no to new nuclear reactors, and the gentleman's amendment is an attempt to overturn the verdict of the free market with governmental intervention into private electricity generation markets. I would suggest this is not the direction we should be moving in. We have deregulated electricity generation in many parts of the country. Why should we get the DOE into the business of generating electricity for the civilian power grid at a Federal facility? This amendment is clearly bad energy policy, but it is also bad nuclear nonproliferation policy. This country has long had a strong policy of maintaining a clear distinction between the civilian and military uses of nuclear energy. Eight years ago, in 1995, the House voted to kill funding for the so-called ``triple play'' reactor being planned for the DOE Savannah River site. This reactor would have burned fuel fabricated from dismantled nuclear weapons, produced tritium for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile, and generated electricity for the civilian electricity grid. At that time, the House recognized the need to maintain the historic separation between atoms for peace and atoms for war. Now is not the time to reverse that policy. We are nearing the end of a war whose principal objective has been to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a war in which our Armed Forces destroyed bomb factories while leaving civilian power plants standing. Let us not undermine our credibility as a world leader on nonproliferation by moving towards blurring the distinction between civilian and military nuclear programs. To pass this amendment would be to breach the 57-year separation between atoms for peace and atoms for war. We cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a bar stool. If we are mixing our civilian and military nuclear programs in the United States, then the rest of the world will not pay much heed to our admonitions to refrain from using their civilian nuclear energy programs for military purposes. Please vote ``no'' on the Barrett amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment, which saves oil by increasing fuel economy standards for autos and light trucks. Increasing the standard will reduce the amount of oil the Nation must now import. Research tells us by simply increasing average fuel efficiencies on cars, SUVs, and light trucks from 24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 51 billion barrels of oil, more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic. The technology is there. It is about time we utilize it. Our children are looking to us to leave them with a safe and healthy environment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey- Boehlert amendment, which saves oil by increasing fuel economy standards for autos and light trucks. This amendment requires the Department of Transportation to promulgate rules to ensure that the total amount of oil cars and light trucks will consume in the year 2010 will be 5 percent less than the total amount they would otherwise consume if the average fuel economy standards were to remain at 2004 levels. Raising the standard will ensure that such technology will lead to an improvement in the overall fleet rather than simply offsetting other less fuel efficient vehicles. Increasing the standard will reduce the amount of oil the nation must now import. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), by simply increasing average fuel efficiency on cars, SUVs, and light trucks from 24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade, we would save 51 billion barrels of oil--more than 15 times the likely yield from the Arctic. Plus you get oil savings as you ramp up to the full 40 mpg. Instead of investing in renewable energy sources and raising CAFE standards, the Bush Administration continues to increase our dependency on oil and ruin our environment. The environmental policies of the administration are detrimental to our environment, present and future, and they must be reversed. The National Academy of Sciences said in its 2001 Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards report that ``General economic conditions, and especially the globalization of the automobile industry, seem to have been far more important than fuel economy regulations in determining the profitability and employment shares of the domestic automakers and their competitors.'' They also stated that ``it is technically feasible and potentially economical to improve fuel economy without reducing vehicle weight or size and, therefore, without significantly affecting the safety of motor vehicle travel.'' The technology is there and it is about time we utilize it. Our children are looking to us to leave them with a safe and healthy environment and we need to start taking actions to meet this goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Boehlert amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this proconsumer substitute offered by the distinguished ranking member. This important amendment will help protect consumers from price gouging, collusion, blackouts, and anticompetitive practices in the electric energy market. This amendment preserves PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company. For the past 7 decades, PUHCA has helped prevent electric energy companies from ripping off consumers by manipulating the market. This is very important because energy is not just another commodity; it is a necessity, like food and shelter. Consumers need to be protected from unfair business practices. This amendment enhances FERC's antifraud authority, requires FERC to ensure that consumers are not charged exorbitant rates due to market manipulation. When they are overcharged, this amendment would guarantee a chance to recover meaningful refunds. This amendment is supported by all of the major consumer organizations. Do not turn your back on your constituents. Vote for the Dingell amendment. It is a vote for consumers, not energy executives.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill that would establish a program for transitional housing assistance for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Passage of this legislation is long overdue, as thousands of women and their children continue to suffer at the hands of their abusers simply because they have no where else to go. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my colleague from the other body, Senator Patrick Leahy, who is introducing identical legislation today. I would also like to commend the 25 bipartisan cosponsors who have joined me in seeking relief and assistance for abused women and children. No time is more appropriate than the present to introduce a bill that seeks to help those who have suffered violence in their personal lives and in their homes. Senator Leahy and I recognize and understand the complex issues facing women and their children who want nothing more than a safe and secure home. Transitional housing is often the link between emergency housing and a victim's ability to become self-sufficient. This bill opens the doors to new opportunities for survivors because, in addition to a roof and a bed, transitional housing programs also offer supportive services, such as counseling, job training, access to education, and child care. These tools are critical to allowing women to get back on their feet and to be able to support their children in a home that is free from violence. This bill would authorize $30 million for each fiscal year from 2004 through 2008. The program would be added to the Violence Against Women Act and would be funded through the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. With 50% of homeless women on the streets because of domestic violence, it is critical that we address the unique needs of this large and vulnerable population. The Violence Against Women Office has the unique understanding and ability to help these women and children. It is now essential that we not only pass this legislation but also appropriate $30 million for transitional housing assistance and provide this critically needed safety net for women seeking to escape abuse. The women and children of this country deserve nothing less.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one particular provision that I am very pleased to say has been included in this conference report, though there are several others I strongly support and others about which I have already expressed my concern. Section 611 establishes a program for transitional housing assistance for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. My colleague from the other body, the senior Senator from Vermont, and I have introduced companion legislation establishing a transitional housing grant program. Today, I want to acknowledge and thank the Senator for working so hard to successfully get the language from these bills included in the conference report. We are trying to protect children from violence. The AMBER Alert system is certainly one way to do it, but unfortunately, children are exposed to violence in their own homes. The transitional housing program is often the link between emergency housing and a victim's ability to become self-sufficient. Transitional housing not only provides a roof and a bed, but it offers supportive services, such as counseling, job training, access to education, and child care. These tools are critical to allowing women to get back on their feet and to be able to support their children in a home that is free from violence. And we are also then able to get children out of homes where they may have been the victims and or witnesses of abuse. Now, it is essential that we not only pass this bill, but that we have appropriate the $30 million provided in this legislation for transitional housing. The women and children of this country deserve nothing less, and I urge my colleagues to votes ``yes'' on this conference report.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed that we cannot just all agree that we must adequately fund our homeland security needs. The McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment moves us in the right direction, cutting $61 million in the bill for Colombia and redirecting resources to State and local first responders. I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Having traveled to Colombia, I know it is important for the United States to support our neighbor. However, I cannot support sending additional millions above the billions we have already sent to that country to be used for military equipment and military purposes in a failed counternarcotics and counterinsurgency effort. I cannot support this effort, because despite increased U.S. aid to Colombia, the violence in that country persists. According to the State Department, the Colombian Government is still implicated in gross human rights abuses. I certainly cannot support sending additional U.S. dollars to Colombia for the wrong reasons, before guaranteeing my constituents that our homeland security needs are met. We are far from being able to make that guarantee. As of today, every single municipality in my district has informed me that their homeland needs are desperately underfunded. One firefighter in my district told me that he prays every single day when he goes to work that no terrorist attack will occur, because the city he works in, despite all of its best efforts, does not have the necessary resources to respond. The war in Iraq has exacerbated the problem. Firefighters and police officers from my district have been deployed to the Persian Gulf and their departments do not have the funds to hire replacements. Coast Guard cutters controlling the Great Lakes for suspicious vessels have been redeployed to the Persian Gulf, and our public health infrastructure is not equipped to handle terrorist attacks that have been identified as greater threats to our security than Iraq or the war in Colombia. How dare we send more money to Colombia, ostensibly for its security, than we are sending to first responders in 49 States in our own Nation? I urge all Members to correct this misguided approach to national security. Support the McGovern-Skelton-DeLauro amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, not only for yielding to me, but for organizing this opportunity for us to come to the floor. Last Friday, I spoke to a group of veterans in my district. They were mostly World War II and Korean War veterans, and of course, I thanked them profusely for their service to our country. And they appreciated it, but what they wanted to know and where most of the questions were was, what is happening to our benefits? I told them about the President's budget proposal, and they did not appreciate that. We have all been making a lot of speeches lately and offering resolutions, and they are eloquent and they are flowery, and yes, they are heartfelt speeches and resolutions, expressing support for our troops; and I am not denying the sincerity or even the importance of making those supportive gestures. Speeches and resolutions do not provide health care, and they do not provide education, and they do not provide pensions, and they do not provide burial benefits. Budgets are a statement of values and priorities, and what the veterans are finding out is that they are not a priority in the President's budget and they are not a priority of the Republican leadership. And not only that, despite all the sacrifices that they have made and, as we speak, the sacrifices that are being made, they are being asked to sacrifice yet again in the form of a $28 billion cut in benefits and in health care. What we know when it comes to dollars and cents is that veterans across Illinois are going to suffer from President Bush's proposed budget. A report that was released by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Government Reform concluded that the changes, that is, the $28 billion in cuts, would cause over 65,000 Illinois veterans, including an estimated 36,000 veterans enrolled at VA facilities in the Chicago area, to be denied VA health care or to drop out of the VA system while increasing costs for thousands more. First, President Bush would halt enrollment to Priority 8 veterans, denying them access to VA care. The report found that as a result of this proposed suspension, 173,000 veterans nationwide would be denied care, including 7,160 in Illinois, of which 4,000 are in the Chicago area. Second, President Bush would require the VA to charge all Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans currently in the system a $250 annual enrollment fee in order to receive service. As a result of the fee, the VA estimates that 55 percent of enrolled Priority 7 and 8 veterans would be forced to drop out of the VA system nationwide, including 32,000 veterans in the Chicago area. Finally, a third set of provisions would increase copayments for Priority 7 and 8 veterans who do stay enrolled in the VA program. The copayments for primary care payments would increase by 33 percent from $15 per visit to $20 per visit. The copayments for prescription drugs would more than double, increasing from $7 to $15 for 30-day prescriptions. On average, the report concluded, veterans would have to pay a $97 a year increase in copayments, plus the new enrollment fee of $250. However, many veterans can see an increase of almost $600 a year. I did not support the Republican budget resolution and instead supported the Democratic substitute which would have restored funding for mandatory veterans benefits, including compensation for service- connected disabilities, burial benefits, pensions for permanently disabled, low-income veterans, education benefits, rehabilitation benefits and housing loan programs. Unfortunately, for our veterans and our soldiers currently in the U.S. Armed Forces, the Democratic substitute was voted down. While our veterans suffer, the administration continues to cut taxes that only favor the rich. While our veterans endure hardship, the administration continues to send our men and women into battle with no guarantees of a safe and healthy life for them and their families when they return home. Speeches and resolutions are fine, but they are woefully insufficient. Our veterans, those who have served in the past and the veterans of the future, who are risking their lives right now, as we speak, deserve better. It is time for the Republican leadership to put its money where its mouth is.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a silent killer lurking among us and our children. That killer comes in the form of food-borne illnesses and affects 76 million people each year. Of those individuals, approximately 325,000 will be hospitalized and more than 5,000 will die. While many adults will be fortunate to avoid the devastating, lasting effects of food-borne illness, our children are especially vulnerable and comprise nearly 40 percent of the victims. Each day, more than 27 million children eat lunches provided through the National School Lunch Act. Despite increased attention in recent years to the safety of those meals provided to our school children, there is evidence of serious problems with our school lunch system. Between 1990 and 2000, there were nearly 100 reported outbreaks of food-borne illness in schools affecting thousands of children, many of them resulting in significant health consequences. I attended a hearing last year examining food safety standards in our schools and found significant gaps in how we protect our children from these dangerous illnesses. Only 17 percent of the food served in our schools is subject to stringent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety guidelines for dangerous pathogens. Safety histories of the companies that supply food to our schools are not being shared with the school officials who purchase the food. If the USDA or FDA quickly announce that a manufacturer has produced tainted food, states often have no way to determine if they have that food in their schools' kitchens due to a complex web of food manufacturers, distributors and brokers. The federal government has no authority to mandate the recall of contaminated foods sold to schools. Today, along with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, I am introducing a bill that will address these concerns. The Safe School Food Act incorporates USDA safety guidelines into school procurement contracts to the maximum extent possible, giving the Secretary of Agriculture authority to require pathogen testing of foods purchased by schools, providing state education agencies with current vendor information, developing effective methods to share supplier safety information with schools, allowing for mandatory recall of any tainted food, and providing districts with tools and information on how to more safely prepare food served to our children. Our food supply has been identified as a possible target of terrorists and we need to protect it and protect our children. This is a very serious issue and we must do all we can to ensure the safety of our children. I urge my colleagues to support the Safe School Food Act and support the well-being of our children.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463) is being rushed to the House floor today for a vote under suspension, denying us the opportunity to amend this bill to ensure that the compensation we offer our first responders is both adequate and meaningful. I have serious concerns both about the deficiencies in H.R. 1463 and the process by which it was brought to the floor. This is an ill-considered bull that fails to provide adequate compensation for persons volunteering for the smallpox inoculation and, therefore, will undermine the very goal of encouraging first responders to participate in the vaccine program. Three recently immunized military personnel and civilian health care workers have died of fatal heart attacks and Federal health experts are investigating at least 15 more cases of possible cardiac reactions to the immunization. Given recent events such as these, the limitations of H.R. 1463 will likely result in even more refusals by first responders to volunteer for the smallpox vaccine. H.R. 1463 fails to offer meaningful compensation, does not have guaranteed funding, and attempts to coerce first responders into getting inoculated. It will not work. That is why it is opposed by many organizations representing first responders, including the American Nurses Association, International Union of Police Associations, International Association of Firefighters, American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union. H.R. 1463 is based on the false assumption that nurses, firefighters and other first responders will be compensated by other benefit programs, such as workers' compensation and health insurance. In the case of smallpox, however, there are no guarantees that a person injured by the smallpox vaccine will be covered by workers' compensation or will be adequately insured. In fact, there are only 14 States where it appears at all certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the State workers' compensation program, based on a recent survey by the AFL-CIO. As a result, those injured by the smallpox vaccine may receive far less total compensation than other first responders currently covered by their Public Safety Officers Benefit program. If, for example, under H.R. 1463, a 30-year-old nurse were permanently injured or killed as a result of the vaccine, she or her survivors would be eligible for a one-time lump sum payment of $262,100. This amount is equivalent to 5 years' pay for the average nurse. This is not adequate compensation for a nurse unable to work, her family or her survivors. Partial and temporary disabilities as a result of the smallpox vaccine are also arbitrarily capped with a lifetime payout at $262,100. Compensation should be provided to workers for the duration of disability or to survivors' families until the spouse remarries or the children are no longer minors. If workers are worried about their economic security, and that of their families, they for good reason will continue to be reluctant about getting the vaccination. Although the compensation offered through H.R. 1423 is scant at best, our first responders cannot even rely on benefits offered because there is no guaranteed funding. H.R. 1423 is funded by discretionary spending and would be subject to the annual appropriations process. Funding for compensation and medical care should be mandatory spending, similar to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for injuries due to childhood vaccines. Workers should not have to worry each year about whether there will be an adequate appropriation to provide promised benefits and medical care. As if lack of compensation and funding did not make this bill already untenable, H.R. 1423 attempts to coerce workers into getting the vaccine. Current workers must receive the vaccination within 180 days following the issuance of interim final regulations in order to be eligible for compensation. New hires must be vaccinated within 120 days of hire to be eligible. There is no exception in the event that the public health department is unable to meet the deadline or a worker has a temporary condition that prevents immediate vaccination, such as pregnancy or the presence of an infant at home. Smallpox vaccination should be voluntary. When legislation only allows first responders to be eligible for compensation if they are vaccinated within months of the bill's passage, we know that people on the front line are being manipulated into getting the vaccine and getting it quickly. Our first responders deserve better. They deserve a full and fair smallpox compensation package. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in H.R. 1463 because we are denied the opportunity to consider amendments. I oppose H.R. 1463 and look forward to voting on an effective alternative when the bill is brought under a rule that allows for a full and fair opportunity for amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. While there are some provisions in this bill which I oppose, I feel it is crucial that the House pass legislation as soon as possible that would help foster the establishment of a coordinated, national AMBER Alert system. I believe that the government must do all it can to facilitate the expansion of the AMBER Alert program which has been credited with recovering at least 27 children. I am proud to say that Illinois has a statewide AMBER Alert program. However, I am disappointed that the House leadership did not give us the opportunity to vote on a stand- alone AMBER Alert bill, H.R. 412, of which I am a cosponsor, and instead forced us to vote on a bill that includes controversial provisions. Specifically, this bill expands cases in which the death penalty can be imposed. I strongly oppose capital punishment, and therefore oppose this provision. In addition, this bill includes an amendment which I voted against which turns the Sentencing guidelines into little more than mandatory minimum sentencing laws by revising the standards and procedures under which a judge can depart from sentencing guidelines in order to account for specific circumstances. I oppose this provision because I strongly oppose mandatory minimum sentencing laws. This provision not only overturns an important Supreme Court decision which left some room for judicial discretion in sentencing, but, like other mandatory minimum sentencing laws, it takes away a judge's ability to be fair and exacts a one-size-fits-all standard on our judicial system. It is my hope that this bill will move to Conference with the Senate and that the majority of these controversial provisions will be stripped out in order to pass a clean AMBER Alert bill. We should not be tainting a bill that is intended to help recover missing children with provisions that threaten the fairness and justice of our judicial system. I urge my colleagues to put aside their own agendas to ensure that all states have the ability to start their own AMBER Alert programs and work together so that families of abducted children will have some hope of the real possibility that their child could soon be returned to them.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 14, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. There are provisions in this bill that will provide much needed resources for child abuse prevention, assistance for victims of child abuse and family violence, and adoption opportunities. In particular, I am very pleased that this bill authorizes $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for transitional housing for victims of domestic violence. It is my sincere hope that this bill will pass and the funding for transitional housing will be appropriated as soon as possible. Transitional housing has been shown to prevent domestic violence and mitigate its effects. Unfortunately, many women who leave their abusers lack adequate resources and, with a shortage of emergency shelter and transitional housing options, are forced to choose between abuse at home or life on the streets. Yet, despite the fact that 50 percent of homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence, there is currently no federal funding for transitional housing specifically for those victims. It is critical that transitional housing be available to all those fleeing domestic abuse if we want to see an end to this violence. Transitional housing resources and services provide a continuum between emergency shelter provisions and independent living. A stable, sustainable home base for women and their children in transitional housing allows women the opportunities to learn new job skills, participate in educational programs, work full-time jobs, and search for adequate child care in order to gain self-sufficiency. Without such resources, many women eventually return to situations where they are abused and even killed. In addition to supporting the funding for transitional housing as provided in H.R. 14, I am currently preparing to reintroduce the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims Housing Act. This bill would authorize $50 million a year to the Violence Against Women Office to award grants to provide transitional housing to women and their children escaping violence. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. However, supporting measures such as H.R. 14 and the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims Housing Act are only the first step in making sure that Congress works to end the cycle of violence against women. It is crucial that Congress take the next step of actually making the money available. The House has authorized funding for transitional housing for domestic violence victims multiple times, yet has never appropriated a single dollar for this purpose. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to follow through on their support for transitional housing and appropriate money for this purpose in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 budget. Victims of domestic violence deserve nothing less than our full commitment to providing adequate resources that will help them rid their lives of violence forever and rebuild healthy lives for themselves and their children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 14.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, in celebration of Women's History Month, I rise to honor a woman from my district in Chicago, Mollie Lieber West, for her outstanding work and dedication to organizing women within the labor movement. Her leadership has opened the door to thousands of women to join unions and stand up for their rights in the workplace. Barely off the boat from Poland, Mollie West became an organizer and a person who stood her ground. She was arrested for passing out leaflets in protest of her high schools' decision to discharge all the music, art, and gym teachers because of budget constraints. Soon after, Mollie was demonstrating in support of the Republic Steel strikers in South Chicago. She found herself in them midst of the Memorial Day Massacre of 1937 where ten workers were killed by police bullets and were she, too, felt the pressure of a pistol at her back as she was ordered off the field. Later, after working for various unions, she became a professional proofreader, and joined the Chicago Typographical Union. An active member and a delegate to the Chicago Federation of Labor, Mollie became the voice for women laborers. She successfully lobbied for the establishment of an annual tribute to the Trade Union Women of Chicago, which continues to flourish today. Another of Mollie's great achievements was helping to found the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW) in 1974. Today CLUW has a network of more than 75 chapters and a membership of 20,000 women and men. The goals of CLUW include promoting affirmative action in the workplace, strengthening the role of women in unions, organizing women workers, and increasing the involvement of women in the political and legislative process. For the last twenty years, Mollie has served as an officer and a volunteer of the Illinois Labor History Society. From that platform, Mollie has been able to pass on her memories of the struggle to audiences across the country. In addition, she has continued to stay involved in electoral politics at all levels. To this day, you can always count on Mollie's voice to be among those fighting for the rights of all women workers. Today, I ask you to join me in honoring Mollie for all she has contributed to working women everywhere!