Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in gratitude to my colleague for offering it. I have a big hole in my heart, and I think it is reflective of the hole that is left now in the political landscape, a space that was occupied uniquely by Paul Wellstone. I feel great sorrow and great gratitude; sorrow for the loss of a close friend and colleague, and gratitude for having had the opportunity to know and work with Paul Wellstone and his wife, his life-long partner, Sheila Wellstone. Paul and Sheila Wellstone touched many, many lives; literally tens of thousands of Americans considered themselves to be their close friends and partners in the effort to make America better. My husband and I enjoyed spending time with Paul, listening to his stories and jokes and planning strategy and organizing. Paul and Sheila were always open and friendly, and always eager to act on their beliefs. In Chicago this weekend, we will hold a memorial service to honor their lives. Similar memorial services are being held in towns and cities across this country. Paul Wellstone was the people's Senator, not just Minnesota's Senator, the one you could always count on to push for economic and social justice. Paul used to talk frequently about the concerns raised by people eating in the cafes and diners in Minnesota. He brought those concerns to the floor of the Senate, speaking for his constituents and for families everywhere. He knew what it was like to deal with mental illness and discrimination in the health care system. He made it his job to end inequality in care and pass comprehensive mental health parity. He knew what it was like to lack health care coverage and to be unable to afford medical treatment for a child or grandparent, and so he made it his job to win universal access to affordable and quality health care. He listened to family farmers struggling to survive in the shadow of agribusiness, and he made it his job to speak for those farmers. He heard about discrimination and lack of opportunity, and he made it a priority to break down barriers to give every person the right to be productive and secure and to protect the rights of working men and women. He listened to Sheila about the horrors of domestic violence, and together they worked to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and to stop the abuse that threatens women and children. As a teacher, Paul focused on the power of education to improve our lives. He fought for better teachers and better schools from early childhood development through the university level. He embraced these weighty issues with joy and exuberance. He was called the happy warrior. He was never apologetic or defensive, always bold and clear and, to many of us, thrilling. Above all, Paul was proud to be an organizer. He believed with every fiber of his being in the power of people to make change and to win social and economic justice. He taught us to strive for the very best in ourselves and in our communities. He inspired us to do more than we thought was possible because his vision of what was achievable was so powerful. He showed us that we can listen to our consciences, do what is right and take courageous stands on issues from welfare to Iraq and still win elections. The people of Minnesota respected him and loved him and mourn him because he lived and voted his values. Paul Wellstone changed lives. He changed thousands of lives, young people and old people alike. He empowered people. He was a friend, and I want to end with Paul Wellstone as a friend. I have two friends in my district who loved Paul with all their hearts; Harvey and Norma Mader were good friends of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. For a long time before Paul was elected to Congress, Harvey and Norma Mader were their friends. They live in my district, but they were prepared to go to Minnesota for the election as senior citizen advocates. Their lives very much revolve around progressive politics, and Paul Wellstone was their hero and friend. And Paul would call them up on the telephone and say, How is Norma, how is she feeling? How are things going, Harvey? It was common for Paul on a regular basis just to check in with his friends. And when I was at that memorial service in Minnesota, I talked to a number of people who said Paul called me last week. He heard that my son was sick or he heard that I was having a test at the hospital, and he just called to see how I was. I realize that so many of us who get so busy with our work here and the weightiness of our work here sometimes sacrifice ordinary friendships, but Paul Wellstone managed to do it all. He managed to maintain those friendships all over the country. That is what I heard. It meant so much to Harvey and Norma Mader, it meant so much to all of the people that he cared so much about, and I think that says something so special about what kind of person that he was. Although Paul and Sheila are no longer here physically, the partnership that we have with them will continue. Through our commitment to their vision of America, Paul and Sheila will always have an enormous impact on our Nation and on our future.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today I introduced the Inclusive Home Design Act. This legislation will greatly increase the number of homes that are accessible to people with disabilities. The legislation requires all newly-built single family homes receiving federal funds to meet three specific accessibility standards: an accessible route, or ``zero step,'' into the home, 32'' clearance doorways on the main level, and one wheel chair accessible bathroom. 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. 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. While serving as a member of the Illinois State House I introduced similar legislation. 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 can cost several thousand dollars for someone to retrofit their home. However, on average it only costs $300 to add visitability features into a new home. By making new homes accessible, we guarantee that many seniors can age at home. As the population becomes older this will become more important. Fifty- eight percent of people over eighty-years-old suffer from physical impairments. This legislation will allow people to age in place. 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 are over 85 by 2020 this number is projected to grow to 6.8 million. Fifty eight percent of people over eighty years old are physically impaired. 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, and practical if you want to invite a friend or a family member over for dinner who is disabled. 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 rise today in support of H.R. 4757, the ``Our Lady of Peace Act''--sensible and much-needed gun safety legislation. I thank my colleague, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, for bringing this bill to our attention. In facilitating a more accurate and complete database of people who are ineligible to purchase firearms, the Our Lady of Peace Act would bring greater safety and security to our streets and into our homes. This bill would require that a greater number of federal and state records that are pertinent to determining firearms transfer and possession eligibility be made accessible through the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS). It is incumbent that we do all we can to ensure that such a database is as thorough as possible in order to prevent criminals from buying guns. We seem to be increasingly reminded of the fear and tragedy that guns can help cause in our society. As lawmakers, we must do all we can to ensure that assault weapons and handguns are kept off the street and that only law-abiding citizens have access to firearms for hunting and sport. This bill is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for succeeding in bringing forward an election reform bill that will help move our election system into the 21st century. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for making this a top priority and relentlessly fighting for its passage. I had the privilege of being one of the vice chairs of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform under the able leadership of our chairwoman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who tirelessly traveled the country holding many hearings. From young and old voters, people of color and with disabilities, we heard a clear message. Without minimum election standards and a commitment of Federal dollars, voters will continue to be disenfranchised and history doomed to repeat itself. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a crucial proposal similar to legislation I introduced last year, the Provisional Voting Rights Act of 2001. Under provisional voting, duly registered voters can feel confident that if their name does not appear on the registration list they will be permitted to vote. They will not have to go to a police station or leave the polling place in order to get their provisional ballot. Any meaningful election reform proposal must include this measure and the Help Americans Vote Act does. It is not perfect, but it will bring us closer to ensuring that every citizen can vote and every vote will be counted.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, these are the letters and e-mails that I have received from my district, about 5,000 of them. These support authorizing the President to launch a preemptive unilateral war on Iraq, 14 of them; and all the rest of them are saying no to war. These are letters from veterans and teachers, mothers and fathers, Republicans and Democrats. In many different voices they are all saying, ``War is not just another policy option. It must be the very last resort.'' These are serious and thoughtful letters from patriots who are deeply concerned, not only about the security of the United States, but the soul of the United States. One constituent said, ``Unilateral behavior is not the example we as Americans should display to the rest of the world. We should support and ensure the United Nations resolutions to the fullest. And, if necessary, we should lead in enforcing the United Nations resolutions.'' Many others believe the President has provided no convincing evidence that going to war with Iraq is necessary or is the only option the U.S. has at this time. If the President does have the compelling evidence of imminent threat that my constituents want, he has not shown it to the Congress. If Saddam is such a grave threat, why has the administration waited until this moment to try to make its case? And why, as recently as 1998, was Halliburton, the company headed by Vice President Cheney, doing business with Iraq and helping them rebuild their oil fields? Some of my constituents suggest that oil might have something to do with this, and some suggest it has more to do with November 5 than September 11. Many others raise the concerns of the constituent that says, ``There are far too many other things that need to be dealt with in our country today, including health care, the state of the economy, corporate corruption, as well as a host of environmental and international issues, for us to make preemptive war.'' The two things never suggested in these letters are, first, that Saddam Hussein is anything other than an evil and merciless dictator, and, second, that the United States should sit back and do nothing to disarm him. Yet the President in his speech dismissed those who oppose a preemptive strike by saying, ``We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world.'' Well, with all due respect, Mr. President, there are no waiters or hopers in this pile or in this Congress. This is not about action versus inaction, and certainly not about appeasement. No one in this Chamber is a Neville Chamberlain. As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, who wrote a column called ``Appeasement Myths,'' said, since Desert Storm, ``No one has been appeasing him. On the contrary, we have let Hussein know that if he ever sets one toe across any of his borders, we will stomp him flatter than a straw hat on the interstate. The policy of containment backed by nuclear deterrent is the same policy the United States employed against the Soviet Union for 40 years with successful results.'' Mr. Speaker, I will include the full article for the Record. A preemptive strike, in my view, puts America and the world in more danger, not less. CIA Director Tenet wrote, ``Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.'' To me, this means Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, would become a target of those attacks, Saddam would likely unleash whatever chemical and biological weapons it may have on Israel, the Middle East would be in flames and the Arab and Muslim world united against the United States and Israel. The careful coalition that the United States assembled to fight what is an imminent threat, the terrorist threat of al Qaeda, would come apart. The United States would be at war, bearing all the costs and all the cleanup, which could take many years alone. We would be putting our young men and women in uniform, as many as 300,000 of them in harm's way, in the way of very serious harm. Information provided by the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense raises very serious questions about our ability to adequately protect our troops from chemical and biological weapons. Can we justify sending them off to war with protective suits that may have holes in them when there are viable alternatives? After World War II, the United States took the lead in creating the United Nations for the purpose of extending the rule of law. We took the lead in creating the United Nations for the purpose of extending the rule of law around the world in order to prevent future wars. That goal, though too often elusive, is even more compelling today in a shrinking world in which technology makes it possible to virtually destroy the planet. The United States, the undisputed superpower, has the opportunity to use its great strength to lead the nations of the world toward accepting the rule of law; or we can, as the new Bush doctrine spells out, use our power to attack at will those who may in the future pose a threat. This dangerous and contagious idea of preemptive strike will usher in a new century of violence and even catastrophe. We should vote ``no'' on this resolution granting the President the power to go to war, but we can vote ``yes'' for more appropriate and more sensible options. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) have provided us with resolutions that allow us to address the threat from Iraq without first choosing war. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article written by Steve Chapman, ``Appeasement Myths, the Realities of Iraq.'' [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 6, 2002] Appeasement Myths, the Realities of Iraq (By Steve Chapman) Should we go to war to stop Hitler? That question may surprise you--at least if you operate on the assumption that Hitler is dead and not about to go anywhere. But conservatives insist that Hitler has been reincarnated in the form of Saddam Hussein. They say that like the British of the 1930s, who had to choose between the concessions offered by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the military action urged by Winston Churchill, we have to decide between cowardice and courage. The Weekly Standard magazine labels all the opponents of this pre-emptive war ``the axis of appeasement.'' The Daily Telegraph of London sneers, ``Just as the prospect of invading Iraq provokes clerical and secular hand-wringing now, so did the prospect of taking up arms against Nazism then.'' When Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin announced he would vote against a resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq, his Republican opponent Jim Durkin immediately detected the stench of ``appeasement.'' Exhuming the Nazis to justify war is not a tactic unique to conservatives. Liberals accused the United States of shameless appeasement in refusing to send troops to stop the war in Bosnia. Both sides claim to have learned the lessons of history, but the only episode they can ever seem to remember is the rise of the Third Reich. But they don't even known much of that history. Anyone trying to apply the experience of Nazi Germany to the case of Iraq can see two obvious things: Saddam Hussein is no Hitler, and our policy over the last 11 years looks nothing like appeasement. Hitler had been in power just five years when he annexed Austria in 1938. Before that year was over, he had coerced Britain and France to surrender part of Czechoslovakia. In 1939 he invaded Poland. Denmark, Norway, Belgium and France soon followed. In 1941, he marched on Moscow. It was a plan of conquest breathtaking in its speed and scope. Just eight years after gaining power, Hitler was on the verge of controlling an empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And where is Saddam's imperial plan? He has been in charge of Iraq for some 30 years, and so far he's initiated hostilities with only two countries, Iran and Kuwait. Hitler dreamed of ruling the world. Hussein's grand vision was to control the whole of the Shatt al Arab waterway and some oil fields to his south. For all his vicious nature, he has shown no interest in building an empire. In any case, that would be an impossibility for Iraq, which has just 23 million people and is surrounded by bigger nations. As for his domestic realm, Hussein is unquestionably a ruthless despot willing to kill anyone who stands in his way. But that description would not begin to capture Hitler, who slaughtered innocents across the continent on a gargantuan scale. To equate Hussein with Hitler is like equating a snow flurry with an ice age. If finding someone to impersonate the Fuhrer is tough, finding a modern-day Neville Chamberlain is even harder. When Hitler demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Britain and France meekly gave it to him. When he proceeded to swallow up the rest of the country, nobody tried to stop him. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, by contrast, he unleashed Operation Desert Storm on himself. No one has been appeasing him since then, either. On the contrary, we've kept the Iraqi regime confined to a tight little cage. The two no-fly zones enforced by British and American fighters cover most of Iraq. Meanwhile, economic sanctions have kept him from buying weapons and spare parts, or doing much of anything to rebuild his army. ``Hitler got more powerful with time, while Saddam has gotten weaker,'' notes John Mearsheimer, a defense scholar at the University of Chicago. We've stationed thousands of troops in Kuwait, we have air bases in Saudi Arabia, and we generally keep an aircraft carrier within striking distance of Iraq at all times. In short, we've let Hussein know that if he ever sets one toe across any of his borders, we'll stomp him flatter than a straw hat on the interstate. ``Everyone agrees we have to take action against him,'' says Mearsheimer, who says the choice is not between war and appeasement, but ``containment versus rollback.'' The policy of containment, backed by our nuclear deterrent, is the same policy the United States employed against the Soviet Union for 40 years, with successful results. Hawks claim to be rejecting the policies of Neville Chamberlain that brought on World War II. What they're really rejecting is the policy of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan-- which won the Cold War and can win this one.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4685. It is a bill to improve the financial accountability of the executive branch agencies. The bill before us today extends the requirements for audited financial statements to nearly all executive branch agencies. Unfortunately, this bill provides no funds to pay for those audits. The result is that the money spent to pay for these audits would otherwise be used by the Inspectors General to investigate waste, fraud and abuse. I believe strongly that Congress should fund what it authorizes. Mr. Speaker, I have been pleased to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on this and other financial management activities in the Committee on Government Reform. We share a belief that sound financial management gives us greater freedom to fund the many programs designed to help the public and that shoddy financial management directly impacts every taxpayer in this country and particularly harms the most vulnerable of our citizens. Bad financial management is a double crime. First, it is wrong to disregard the value of taxpayer funds by wasting them through mismanagement. Second, it denies taxpayers the services for which they have paid their taxes. Unfortunately, the bill we have on the floor today is not the bill we have passed out of our subcommittee. The bill we have passed included a section that required the agencies covered under this bill to conform to the accounting standards set out in the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. The administration insisted that those provisions be stripped from the bill, or it would block the bill from coming before the House today. I find this turn of events disappointing. I am disappointed because we are passing a weaker bill than should be passed and because we are acquiescing to an unreasonable demand by the Bush administration. Our actions send a signal to the public that Congress is not serious enough about accounting standards. If there is any time in our history that we should be demanding greater accountability from government agencies, it is today. Requiring agencies to follow the standards of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act is not new. In fact, every year, as part of its financial review of the executive branch, the General Accounting Office reports to Congress on whether each agency is conforming within the provisions of this Act. The Act requires agencies to put in place policies and systems that lead to sound financial management on a day- to-day basis. Frankly, I am puzzled that the Bush administration opposes this kind of sound financial management. This administration talks a lot about its management initiatives and improving accountability in the government. However, it is very careful to make sure that it is the Office of Management and Budget that sets the rules by which agencies are graded. I am afraid that the administration's opposition to the accounting standards that were in this bill is just one more attempt to make sure that OMB, and not Congress, sets the standards by which agencies are judged. It is very easy to claim success when you define what success is. The bill before us today is not just about accounting standards. The title is the Accountability for Tax Dollars Act, and I would like to speak to that topic. The chart in the well shows the Federal deficit in surpluses for the years 1980 to 2001 and projections of the deficit through 2010. As my colleagues can see, after a few years of surplus at the end of the Clinton administration, we are back to the deficit spending of the Reagan and Bush, Senior, administrations. I believe that it is important for the American public to understand just who is accountable in this situation. The administration would like the public to believe that the recession and the attacks of last September are responsible for these deficits, but that is not true. The second chart, based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, shows that the single biggest cause of the deficits in this year and into the future is the Bush tax cut. When President Clinton signaled to the world that he was serious about balancing the budget, it had an important effect. International investment began to flow into the U.S. economy and was one of the engines of the expansion of the 1990s. These deficits will have the opposite effect, holding back the economy and taking a toll on everyone. We have already seen that happening. Last week, the Department of Commerce announced that the poverty rate was up and household income was down. The last time we saw poverty go up and income go down was during the recession in 1991. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill before us today. However, it is unfortunate that we are not also considering a bill that I introduced, the First Things First Act. My bill truly addresses the problem of accountability for tax dollars by preventing further implementation of the Bush tax cuts, provisions that overwhelmingly benefit the rich and are fueling the Bush recession. My bill puts further implementation of the tax cuts for the top bracket on hold until we can pay for the needs created by the terrorist attack last year, until we can ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, until we can provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare, until we can ensure Federal funding for school modernization and hiring 100,000 teachers, and until we reduce the number of people who face homelessness and substandard housing. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues pass the bill before us today, and I ask my colleagues to be truly accountable to the American public for their tax dollars. It is our patriotic duty to ensure that every tax dollar is accounted for and that agencies like the Department of Defense, which cannot account for over $1 trillion in transactions, clean up their books and their acts. I would like to take a personal note, Mr. Speaker, to just thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee of Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations. I want to commend him and thank the gentleman not only for the many courtesies that he has shown to me, as the ranking Democrat on that committee, and not only for the many, many things I learned from him on how to carry out the role of chairman with integrity and fairness, but I want to thank him for his service to the American people. He has been relentless in his pursuit of government efficiency and financial management. He has had over a dozen hearings around the country on our capacity to deal with some of the threats of the terrorist attacks, and this decent and dedicated leader of our country will be deeply missed as he retires. He deserves all of our thanks. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Patsy Mink, a leader, a visionary, a mentor, and a true advocate for so many who had no voice. Patsy Mink was a woman I looked up to, learned from, and was inspired by. As the first woman of color elected to the U.S. Congress in 1964, Patsy knew what it meant to break down barriers. Her passion was for those who were otherwise forgotten or pushed to the side. Patsy was a strong fighter for women's rights. Her leadership in the fight for equality for women and girls in education and sports has made an everlasting impact on this country. The passage of Title IX has literally changed the lives of millions of young girls and women. It opened the doors to countless opportunities for women and girls and allowed us to dream bigger than we ever had before. It allowed more people to see women as Olympic athletes and competitors. It allowed parents to see their daughters as softball players and runners. It challenged school administrators and coaches to see the potential in female athletes and embrace it. Patsy was a relentless fighter for low-income and poor families. She had great compassion for those who were struggling against the odds to work and provide for their families. She wasn't afraid to make her voice heard in standing up for fair treatment of women receiving welfare benefits, workers' rights and fair pay, and children who were lacking food or a good education. Patsy was a fearless fighter for the environment. She helped protect Hawaii's natural beauty in national parks and worked at the local level to help communities preserve their lands. Patsy was a lifelong fighter for civil rights. She knew what it meant to stand up in the face of adversity and she worked hard to break down barriers so those coming after her would instead experience justice and equality. Patsy was tough and passionate. I can see her now shaking her small but mighty fist as she eloquently challenged an injustice. Patsy was a pioneer and a trailblazer. As we honor the memory of Patsy Mink today, we should also think about the future that she would want and work to achieve it. Patsy would want us to pass a Labor/HHS bill that truly leaves no child behind. She would want us to fully fund the Women's Education Equity Act. She wanted to see passage of a welfare bill that lifts women and children out of poverty, not just off the welfare rolls. Patsy wants us to make sure that all people have a fair chance. Today, as I mourn with my colleagues and extend my condolences to her family and to the people of Hawaii, I honor the memory Patsy Mink and all that she stood for. And I deeply miss her beautiful smile.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this measure. This bill, which would allow houses of worship to participate or intervene in political elections and still maintain tax-exempt status, is unnecessary, unwanted, could have far-reaching and unintended consequences on the tax code, and goes against our constitutional value of the separation of church and state. Current law does not hinder a religious leader's right to free speech; it simply limits groups from being both a tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity. Numerous faith-based organizations have spoken out against this bill because they feel it would lift important safeguards that protect the integrity of both religious institutions and the political process. Some of these organizations include the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, the National Council of Churches, the Congress of National Black Churches, the General Board of Church and Society--United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Many religious leaders feel this bill could create division among their members and would compromise their position as religious and moral leaders. In addition, this bill was not approved by the Ways and Means Committee, in part because there are concerns about its unintended consequences. Churches receive preferential tax treatment as 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations and receive very little oversight from the IRS. If this bill were to become law, not only could people's tax deductible contributions be used for political purposes, but there would be significant campaign finance implications. Religious entities would be able to undertake substantial amounts of partisan campaign activity, including contributing soft and hard money to federal and state races and national parties. This bill would effectively create a significant new loophole in our campaign finance and tax laws with serious ethical and legal implications. Finally, this bill stands in stark contrast to our time tested constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. Religious organizations hold a special place in our tax code because it is believed that their work is contributing to the common good of society, not a political party or a partisan campaign. This bill seeks to remove that special and appropriate place. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2357.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in disappointment. The Continuing Resolution, House Joint Resolution 111, on the floor today is a slap in the face of the American people. Our constituents all over the country are counting on us to help them put food on the table, provide their children with the best education possible and to make them and their families safer. Despite the best efforts of Democrats, the Republican leadership of the House continues to let them down. It is inexcusable that this body has only passed five appropriations bills. What is even more disappointing is that the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill has not even been brought to the House floor for a vote. The other body has passed its version of the bill, yet we continue to twiddle our thumbs at the expense of our children. The Senate's proposal would increase education funding in the President's budget by a little over $3 billion and would provide funding increases for Teacher Quality, Title 1, Head Start, and financial aid programs, and would restore funding for rural school programs. Instead of following in the Senate's lead, the House Republicans refuse to act on this issue. The failure of the Republicans and the Administration to follow through on their commitment to education is disappointing. The “No Child Left Behind Act” was supposed to provide our children with the resources needed to obtain the best education possible, but, unfortunately, this has not happened. The law was touted as a way to prevent children from being “trapped” in failing schools but left behind may be thousands of unhappy parents and students. The President's budget of $50.3 billion in discretionary funding for FY2003 has stopped six years of steady progress in federal support to local schools dead in its tracks. Under his proposal, the overall education budget would only increase by 2.8 percent, barely enough to cover inflation. Our so-called “Education President” is doing the exact opposite of what he promised. He is leaving our children behind. Unfortunately, the only version of the House Republicans’ Labor HHS Education appropriations bill follows the President's budget request. The bill would freeze or reduce funding for most education programs, including the teacher quality, after-school, math/science partnerships, Safe and Drug-Free schools, bilingual education, Pell Grants, Gear-Up and TRIO programs. Funding for several important programs, including rural education and technology training for teachers would be completely eliminated. It also includes no resources to address the $127 billion crisis in school repairs. The bill cuts funding for the “No Child Left Behind Act” by $90 million from last year, resulting in 16,000 fewer teachers getting trained, 50,000 fewer children in after-school programs, and yet another year without the needed resources to turn around failing schools. The President and the Republicans continue to break their promises to the children of our country. In my home state of Illinois, they are attempting to take away nearly $200 million needed to support the Title I grants program, which provides supplemental assistance to improve the educational attainment of low-achieving students, especially those in high poverty areas. Also, they are cutting nearly $600 million from IDEA funding, which is desperately needed to improve special education in Illinois. Finally, student debt is skyrocketing as college tuitions rise, making loan affordability critical. Despite this fact, the Administration's budget cuts the maximum Pell Grant, which provides up to $4,000 to low-income students to help with college tuition costs, to $3,600, $800 short of what is needed to keep pace with projected tuition hikes. Mr. Speaker, this is not what I consider education reform. If we refuse to fund our educational system, then we are only cutting short the potential of our country's children and jeopardizing our nation's future. I urge my colleagues to listen to the millions of Americans out there and support a bill that follows the Senate's bill and not the President's budget. It is time to give our children the opportunities they deserve.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill H.R. 4600, which is before us today. We are facing a medical malpractice problem. We are also facing a medical malpractice insurance problem. But rather than addressing those issues, this bill would actually make both problems worse. The Institute of Medicine study, “To Err is Human,” reported that between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year from medical errors, making medical malpractice the 8th leading cause of death. More people die from medical errors than from automobile accidents, breast cancer or AIDS. We also know that a handful of physicians and facilities are responsible for the lion's share of medical malpractice cases. Does this bill do anything about improving health care safety? Does it make it easier for patients to avoid dangerous physicians or facilities? Does it require that those with bad medical records—like bad drivers—get charged higher malpractice premiums while safe providers—like safe drivers—get discounts? No. We also know that we have a medical malpractice insurance problem. Just as businesses and health care consumers are complaining about double digit premium increases, so, too, are providers. Once again, the evidence suggests a solution. Medical malpractice insurance companies made bad investments—now they are raising premiums to pay for their mistakes. Studies show that there is usually no connection between premiums and payouts—with no or little regulation, insurers are free to charge what they want. Does this bill do anything about medical malpractice insurance practices? Does it even require that the federal government monitor premiums to determine the effect of this bill on premiums and make sure that insurers don't just pocket any savings instead of passing them through lower premiums? Do the authors of this bill have any evidence from the insurance industry that premium rates will come down or moderate if we pass H.R. 4600? No. Instead of addressing medical malpractice or medical malpractice insurers, this bill is a plain and simple assault on the rights of consumers—health care patients and their families who have already been injured once would be injured again and again because of this bill. There is not a single provision in this bill that strengthens the rights of consumers or improves their access to quality care. But there is not a single provision in this bill that doesn't erode consumers’ legal rights to win compensation for their injuries and to send the signal that dangerous medicine does not pay. This bill doesn't just affect physicians. It provides a broad liability shield for drug companies, nursing homes, medical device manufacturers and suppliers. This bill may well increase health insurance premiums to small businesses and individuals because it says that, if you are fortunate enough to have health insurance, your policy may have to pay your costs even if you prove malpractice in a court of law. And most disturbing of all, this bill puts a $250,000 price tag on the life of a child. The authors of this bill say that we shouldn't worry about caps on non-economic damages. After all, they say, there are no caps on economic damages. But there are no economic damages to compensate for the loss of an infant or a grandmother, for the loss of sight or mobility. This bill tells all those families who suffer those losses—through proven malpractice—that their losses are worth a paltry $250,000. I urge this body to reject this anti-consumer bill. I also urge my colleagues to read the attached letter, sent to me by USAction, regarding this important issue. US Action, Washington, DC, September 24, 2002. Dear Representative: On behalf of our twenty-four statewide organizations, I want to express our strong opposition to H.R. 4600, the so-called HEALTH Act, and ask that you vote no when it is considered on the House floor this week. H.R. 4600 is a direct assault on the rights of consumers. Instead of addressing the root of the premium problem—the insurance industry—it attacks medical malpractice victims themselves. Nursing home residents, prescription drug and medical device users, and other patients would all lose rights that they have had since the beginning of our nation. Yet, there are absolutely no indications from the medical malpractice industry that this harsh, anti-consumer legislation would result in any reduction in premium rates or greater accessibility of malpractice insurance. At the same time that more and more FDA-approved drugs are being pulled off the market because of safety concerns, this bill would immunize drug or medical device manufacturers if their product had been approved by the FDA or is “generally recognized as safe and effective.” While more and more families are concerned about nursing home quality, this bill would limit the liability of nursing homes that knowingly put their residents at risk. Under H.R. 4600, Congress would place a $250,000 limit on the loss of a child or sight or the ability to walk. These are just a few of the most outrageous provisions of this bill, which would put more consumers at risk and shield dangerous manufacturers and practitioners from full liability for their actions. And it does so without any guarantee that malpractice rates would fall or even any provision that the federal government would monitor those rates to determine their appropriateness. Again, I urge you to protect health care consumers by voting against this irresponsible and dangerous bill. Sincerely, William McNary, President.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the establishment of a Violence Against Women Office in H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Authorization Conference Report. The establishment of a strong office that will have jurisdiction over all matters related to violence against women is long overdue. I am pleased to know that this office will have access to the highest levels of Department of Justice policy making and will have a director who is appointed by the President. I hope the President will make a thoughtful decision and use this opportunity to appoint a director who is a true advocate for women's safety, not just a figurehead. Violence against women is one of the most serious problems in this country today, and we need to have strong laws, adequate resources, and effective enforcement efforts in order to combat it. I believe the establishment of this office is a step in that direction. In addition, if we are serious about helping women who have been victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, it is critical that we provide them with the resources they need to escape the violence. I urge my colleagues to appropriate funds to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for transitional housing programs for women and their children who have been victims of such violence. I have introduced H.R. 3752, the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims Housing Act, which would authorize $50 million for FY 2003 for such a program. This bipartisan legislation currently has 112 cosponsors. It is crucial to provide a stable, sustainable home base for women who have left situations of domestic violence and are learning new job skills, participating in educational programs, working full-time jobs, or searching for adequate child care in order to gain self-sufficiency. Transitional housing resources and services provide a continuum of care between emergency shelter and independent living. It is time that we make ending violence against women a national priority. I believe the establishment of a strong Violence Against Women Office is an important step in the right direction.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, or braceros, who came to this country between 1942 and the late 1960s and to urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 522, expressing gratitude for their work. However, for Congress to truly honor the legacy of the braceros, it must pass the Bracero Justice Act. As many as 400,000 Mexico braceros who came to the U.S. before 1949 had money withheld from their paychecks, with the promise that it would be saved on their behalf, yet it was never returned. The Bracero Justice Act would help right this wrong. In many cases, braceros left their families in Mexico to come work for our benefit. For the most part, braceros took physically demanding jobs in agriculture and railroad construction, and worked for as little as 40 cents an hour. Many had to put up with slave-like conditions, working long hours with few or no breaks, suffering injuries, and dealing with abusive employers. Many of the bracero families were impoverished. The time to honor these workers and the sacrifices they made is long overdue. It would be a shame if further efforts to demand fairness for braceros were dismissed. It is unacceptable that workers who came to the U.S. in response to our call for help and our need for workers now be denied a voice to fight for what has always been theirs. The money taken from the braceros' paychecks could have been extremely helpful to their families, either at the time or had it been returned to them when they returned to Mexico, as was promised. Instead, it was never seen. Bracero workers of the past and immigrant workers today continue to contribute to the richness and diversity of this country. I am grateful for the work and sacrifices the braceros made. I will continue to work for the passage of the Bracero Justice Act. Justice and fairness have been denied these workers and their families for too long.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4691 and in opposition to the rule that we are considering right now because we should not be considering this legislation at all. Despite the wishes of the bill's promoters, our United States Constitution does in fact guarantee American women the right to choose an abortion. And while this bill does not directly overturn Roe v. Wade, it might as well for many women do that since it will make access to abortion impossible for them. To talk about this as a technical change is simply cynical. This is one of the most dangerous attempts to restrict a woman's right to choose, including her right to information and services regarding her reproductive health. H.R. 4691 would allow an HMO or a health insurance company to decide for any reason whatsoever that it will no longer pay for, provide information or even make referrals for abortion services even if the woman's life is endangered or she is a victim of rape or incest. Under this bill, it would be impossible for a State to ensure that women who are victims of rape or incest or whose life is threatened would have access to abortions. In this world today, there are decreasing options for everyone in choosing health insurance companies or HMOs. So are we going to leave it, then, to an employer to decide whether or not a woman would have a right to choose in essence because that HMO would deny them access to the abortion? And in rural areas where there may be only one option for a woman to go, she is denied that opportunity to have her full health services available to her. What this bill really does is allow any health care entity to ignore all Federal, State and local laws pertaining to abortion services, information and referrals. It is not a conscience clause as some would like to call it, as if HMOs have a conscience. In fact, there are no Federal laws that currently exist that require any individuals or hospitals to provide abortions. But this bill would restrict a doctor's rights; that is, his right if he believes in his medical judgment or in his conscience that it is his responsibility to provide those services, he could not do that. So this does limit the right of doctors not to be forced to perform it but to be forced not to perform abortions. Women in this country need to be able to trust that when they go to a doctor with a problem or a condition that they will be given all information necessary to make informed decisions. But this bill would gag doctors. Informed consent as a minimum is a valued and expected component of our health care system. So why do we think that when it comes to women's health it is okay to throw even this concept out the window? This is unacceptable. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, there are 4 scheduled legislative days remaining until the end of this fiscal year. Four days remaining. There are people watching the proceedings here in the gallery and all around the country who may be thinking that what they are watching is the House of Representatives at work, carrying on the business of the people. No, unfortunately they are wrong. We are sitting here chatting about a resolution to express the sense of the House that Congress should complete action on the welfare bill. We are not talking about completing action on anything right now with 4 scheduled legislative days remaining. We now have eight, count them, eight appropriations bills that have not been passed, with 4 days remaining. We could be working on that legislation right now. So it is really quite amazing that the Republican leadership would squander its opportunity to make real progress on a legislative agenda, real progress on addressing the problems and concerns of the American people by taking up issues that are completely under their control right now. The Democrats, given our minority position, have limited ability to control the agenda, so we have a discharge petition right now to take up a piece of real legislation that would reduce the cost of prescription drugs, H.R. 5272. This is a bill that would stop the gaming of the system and would allow real competition so that we could find lower prices for prescription drugs in this country. This is something that people really care about. Let us do something real and stop this chitchat.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1701. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this anti- consumer legislation. I want to thank Representative Waters for her tireless work on behalf of consumers. Every national consumer rights organization and 52 state and extraterritorial Attorney Generals oppose this bill. I should also note that there is bipartisan opposition to this bill. The Judiciary Committee Chairman has stated that ``H.R. 1701 is a misguided attempt to preempt the existing laws of virtually every state.'' I could not agree more. This legislation sacrifices consumer protections for the sake of a politically connected industry that is notorious for exploiting consumers. We should not preempt strong consumer protection laws in Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Vermont. This bill would also effectively stop states from passing strong consumer protections in the future. The $5 billion a year rent to own industry offers goods and services to people who do not have the credit or money to buy goods at the regular sales price. I should note that this industry that already receives special treatment by the IRS. The IRS grants the Rent to Own Industry a three-year depreciation schedule. The horse racing business is the only other industry that has a three-year depreciation schedule. This legislation will give this industry even more ``special treatment.'' H.R. 1701 effectively allows the rent to own industry to hide the true costs of its transactions by hiding interest rates. Consumers should know the final cost of a deal they have agreed to. This industry provides goods to those who are unable to conventionally purchase goods. We in Congress should work to strengthen and not weaken protections for families that are struggling to make ends meet. Low-income people predominately use this market. It is estimated that over 30% receive some form of public assistance, 59% earn less than $25,000 and 73% have a high school degree or less. These consumers frequently end up paying 10 to 15 times of the rental price. On average it takes a consumer 77 weeks to own the good. Consumers are deceived by low monthly installment rates. People should absolutely know what they are getting into when they agree to buy an item over a long period of time. This legislation will make it even harder for consumers to get fair and accurate information about their obligations. We in Congress should work to strengthen, not weaken protections for working families. This legislation will effectively increase low-income people's debt. Join me in voting against this anti consumer legislation and voting for the motion to recommit that is being offered by the gentlelady from California.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1784, the Women's Health Office Act. By establishing Offices of Women's Health throughout different agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services, this legislation recognizes the ongoing need to focus attention on various health issues particularly related to women. Women make up over half the adult population of this country and it is critical that we make women's health a top priority. For years, almost all medical research was conducted from a male perspective, while women's medical needs were ignored. Today there is a need for more research on breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer, hormone replacement therapy, and how various ailments such as osteoporosis and heart disease specifically affect women. It is important that we conduct this research, not as an afterthought, but as primary research important to everyone's well-being. There is also a need to ensure that all women in the U.S. have access to health care coverage, including comprehensive reproductive health care, prenatal care, preventative care, and coverage throughout menopause and old age. Too many poor and low-income women in this country have little or no access to health care. This is particularly harmful and unacceptable for pregnant women and women suffering from ongoing ailments. I also expect the new Offices of Women's Health within the various agencies to focus on domestic violence and sexual assault as serious threats to both women's health and public health in general. Violence against women is the leading cause of injury to women in America between the ages of 15 and 54. Not only does this violence leave victims with visible injuries, but it can lead to other physical problems and emotional distress. It is critical that we look at violence against women from a medical perspective, as well as examine its social consequences, in order to recognize it, address it, and work to end it. I am pleased that the House of Representatives is addressing the issue of women's health today and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1784, the Women's Health Office Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I remain strongly opposed to the continued efforts by President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft and the Administration to seriously endanger our country's civil liberties. In the aftermath of the September 11 tragedies, Congress moved quickly to enact sweeping legislation granting additional powers to federal, state and local law enforcement authorities in the name of fighting terrorism. I voted against that measure because I believed, and still believe, that such measures intrude significantly on the important civil liberties that make American democracy invaluable and unique. The ``anti-terrorism'' legislation contained numerous provisions that had little or nothing to do with the war on terrorist activities. Amongst other things, the law authorized covert searches for any Federal criminal investigation, including the IRS, without restricting those to terrorist activities; provided for unprecedented wiretapping authority; gave access to confidential financial and medical information granted by a secret court; and allowed indefinite detention of immigrants solely on the basis of suspicion. In a September 10, 2002 editorial, the New York Times outlines the continuing and substantial nature of the assault on our civil liberties. In the wake of September 11, the administration has shown its ``contempt for basic rights in its enthusiasm for military tribunals.'' Today, one year after the events that so tragically shook the nation, our precious civil liberties continue to be endangered in the name of ``anti-terrorism efforts.'' Such a secret, covert and, ultimately un- American agenda serves only to increase paranoia, rouse unnecessary public fear and stifle the protections that are fundamental to freedom, democracy and an open society. Rather than increasing security, such actions serve only to asphyxiate the public trust. Rather than protecting against terrorism, the foundations and principles upon which American democracy exist are slowly being eroded. The 4th Amendment was created for the purpose of ensuring our rights and protecting against the very violations to which our government would now subject us. The war on terror can be fought without surrendering our rights. As so amply stated in the New York Times, ``Fear is no guide to the Constitution. We must fight the enemies abroad without yielding to those at home.'' I urge my colleagues to read the September 10, 2002 New York Times editorial entitled, ``The War on Civil Liberties.'' [From the New York Times, Sept. 10, 2002] The War on Civil Liberties It would be easy to dismiss the harm that has been done to our civil liberties in the past year. Most of us do not know anyone whose rights have been seriously curtailed. The 1,200 detainees rounded up after Sept. 11 and held in secret were mainly Muslim men with immigration problems. So were the people the government tried to deport in closed hearings. The two Americans who were labeled ``enemy combatants,'' hustled off to military brigs and denied the right even to meet with a lawyer, are a Saudi American man captured in Afghanistan and a onetime Chicago gang member. There is also no denying that the need for effective law enforcement is greater than ever. The Constitution, Justice Arthur Goldberg once noted, is not a suicide pact. And yet to curtail individual rights, as the Bush administration has done, is to draw exactly the wrong lessons from history. Every time the country has felt threatened and tightened the screws on civil liberties, it later wished it had not done so. In each case--whether the barring of government criticism under the Sedition Act of 1798 and the Espionage Act of 1918, the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II or the McCarthyite witch hunts of the cold war--profound regrets set in later. When we are afraid, as we have all been this year, civil liberties can seem abstract. But they are at the core of what separates this country from nearly all others; they are what we are defending when we go to war. To slash away at liberty in order to defend it is not only illogical, it has proved to be a failure. Yet that is what has been happening. Since last September, the Bush administration has held people in prison indefinitely and refused to tell the public who is being held or even how many detainees there are. No less odious than the administration's secret arrests are its secret trials. The government has barred the public and the press from deportation hearings for immigrants suspected of ties to terrorism. The administration has also shown contempt for basic rights in its enthusiasm for military tribunals. In November, when President Bush first issued the order setting these up, it seemed the administration wanted to try anyone alleged to have ties to terrorism, even American citizens arrested in the United States, in military courts. Faced with an uproar, the administration backed down, announcing that the tribunals would accord defendants some rights. It then decided to try several prominent terrorism suspects in civilian courts. This summer the administration unveiled, with great fanfare, the TIPS program (for Terrorism Information and Prevention System), to recruit Americans to spy on their fellow Americans. As originally conceived, TIPS was to include mail carriers, utility workers and others with access to people's homes. Again, after a popular outcry the administration scaled TIPS back. In times of conflict, the president seeks to increase his power. Congress, sensitive to public fears over safety, cannot always be counted on to stand up to him. That leaves the Judiciary and members of the public to worry about the trampling of rights. This year a number of judges have stood out for their courage. Gladys Kessler, of Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., declared that secret arrests were ``odious to a democratic society,'' and ordered the government to release the names of all detainees. It has not done so. And Judge Robert Doumar of Federal District Court in Norfolk, Va., who is presiding over one of the ``enemy combatant'' cases, recently told prosecutors to submit documents for his review so he could determine if the defendant was in fact an enemy combatant. The Justice Department, disgracefully, defied his order. As the Bush administration continues down its path, the American people need to make clear that they have learned from history and will not allow their rights to be rolled back. The world has changed since Sept. 11, but the values this country was founded on have not. Fear is no guide to the Constitution. We must fight the enemies of freedom abroad without yielding to those at home.

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, as we remember the victims of 9/ 11 and pay tribute to the fallen heroes who sacrificed their lives to save others, our Nation offers gratitude, comfort and support to the families of those who perished on that tragic day. Our Nation is also reminded of the brave men and women who are standing guard here at home and abroad--soldiers, police officers, firefighters, and first responders. We are grateful for their service. Time may heal wounds, but we will never forget.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 333 ``The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.'' This legislation puts the interests of politically powerful credit card companies ahead of the interests of seniors and working families. That is why this conference report is opposed by every major consumer rights organization, over twenty women's right organizations, and the AFL-CIO. This is flawed legislation that could not come at a worse time. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. Last year, a record 1.45 million people filed bankruptcy. Experts attribute this to deteriorating economic conditions and rising consumer debts. Research shows that nine in ten bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce. Yet this legislation would not allow a bankruptcy judge to take into account whether a debtor is blameless for his or her financial problem when decising whether the person can declare chapter 7 bankruptcy unless the debtor is a victim of terrorism. This will make it very difficult for consumers to escape debt. This legislation will have especially harsh impact on senior citizens and women. According to research by the Consumer Bankruptcy Project at Harvard University, seniors are the fastest growing group in bankruptcy. About 82,000 Americans over 65 years-of-age filed for bankruptcy in 2001, up 244 percent since 1991. We will put seniors at the mercy of price-gouging card companies. Women represent the single largest group in bankruptcy, with households headed by women accounting for about 40 percent of all bankruptcies today. This legislation will make it harder for them to escape debt and poverty by creating new types of ``nondischargeable'' credit card debts. The legislation puts banks in competition with women trying to collect child support from a former spouse after bankruptcy. Debtors will have to pay back more money in credit card debts after clearing bankruptcy, leaving less money for child support and alimony. Proponents of the conference report claim that this legislation gives top priority to women trying to collect child support when distributing assets in Chapter 7 cases. However, more than 90 percent of all chapter 7 debtors have no assets to distribute. They have no protection at all. Amazingly, this conference report expands the most egregious abuse of the bankruptcy system by expanding the scope of the luxury home loophole to all fifty states. In five states, a debtor can hide all their resources in their home. Unless a debtor is guilty of a very narrow range of fraud or felonies, is declaring bankruptcy within 40 months of buying a home or has moved in from another state in the last two years, the loophole remains. This legislation will allow debtors to export the unlimited homestead exemptions for two years. This means that corporate thieves like former Enron CEO Ken Lay can move to my district and escape paying investors and workers. Ken Lay comes from Texas. Texas is one of the five states that does not have a cap on their homestead exemption. At the same time a laid-off worker from a state like Delaware that does not have a homestead exemption will lose a home that has as little equity as $30,000. This is an outrageous double standard. This legislation is also noticeably silent when it comes to the role of credit card companies in increasing consumer debt and filed bankruptcies over the past decade. Credit card companies sent out five billion solicitations last year. Credit card companies target college students. College students lack independent means and have a high credit risk. Yet this legislation does not curb these practices in any significant way. Language to require responsible lending to college students has been severely weakened. Also this bill does nothing to curb the practices of predatory lenders, who will be able to collect debts regardless of how they deceived consumers. This bill allows most lenders to provide only a general statement on the credit card bill about the risks of paying at the minimum rate and a toll-free number. Most consumers will not receive information that details the long-term risk of accumulating credit card debt. This legislation lets wealthy debtors and credit card companies off the hook while it makes it more difficult for working families and laid off workers to make ends meet and avoid debt. Please join me in rejecting this anti- consumer conference report. This conference report is bad for consumers and it should be opposed.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives yesterday finally passed tough corporate and auditor accountability legislation. After voting unanimously to oppose almost the same bill in April, House Republicans finally joined Democrats in taking the first step to restore investor confidence by cleaning up corporate accounting practices. I want to emphasize that is only a modest first step if we are to restore investor confidence and protect workers and pension holders from corporate greed. We could have passed strong reforms months ago, but now we are playing catch up. Our work will not be finished until there is pension security, stock options reforms, and government corporate watchdogs who are not tied to Enron and other corporate thieves. I strongly encourage the President to fire Harvey Pitt, to hire regulators who are independent from the industries they regulate, and to aggressively pursue those reforms. I am pleased that this legislation will stop loans to corporate insiders, extend the statute of limitations for financial fraud from three to five years, force corporate insiders to disclosure within two days, and strengthen whistleblower protections for corporate employees. However, I am disappointed that we have not acted ourselves or directed the Financial Accounting Standards Board to account for stock options as an expense. Stock options packages have been used to deceive investors and workers as to the true financial condition of a corporation. At a recent Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, Warren Buffet stated, ``If options aren't a form of compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it? And, if expenses shouldn't go into the calculation of earnings, where in the world should they go?'' We need to create rules that will restore integrity to our markets. I am also disappointed that we are not doing more to make sure that workers, pension holders, and investors are compensated by corporate wrongdoers and their accomplices. They suffered great losses; and through this legislation, they are not totally compensated for those injuries. Accountants, lawyers, and banks that aid and abet corporate fraud are not held liable at all for damages under current law. In order to restore integrity to our financial markets, all parties will need to be held responsible for their actions. Clearly, our work is far from over.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) whose whistleblower amendment passed in the Committee on Government Reform, the language included in this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform and a leader in this House on both homeland security and good government.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in profound regret, disappointment and anger as we consider the conference report before us tonight. The House leadership is attempting to ram through this bill, in the dead of night, without giving the American public the ability to look at it and express their views before we vote. It is clear why. The United States should be using its unprecedented economic power and global leadership position to fight for trade policies that respect labor and human rights, expand economic opportunities for workers, and improve the environment, both at home and abroad. We should use our power not just to promote corporate profits but to promote higher standards of living for working families. We should help stop the global race to the bottom in which some multinational companies move operations from country to country as they search for the one that lets them pay the lowest wages, commit the worst labor abuses, use child labor, and damage the environment without penalty. We should use the power of our markets to push for democratic reforms, equal rights for women, and stronger human rights. And, we should ensure that property rights and profits do not come first, ahead of the ability of governments to protect the very lives of their people. We had an opportunity in this bill to accomplish those objectives. Tragically, the House Republican leadership rejected that opportunity. This bill abrogates Congressional authority and Congressional responsibility to review trade agreements to ensure that workers' rights and environmental protection are included. If we pass this bill, Congress would have the opportunity to consider only one privileged resolution on each WTO negotiation, agreements that may last five to seven years. Even if serious information arose regarding food safety, environmental regulation or health standards, Congress would get one and only one opportunity to exercise its Constitutional prerogative to review and ratify trade agreements. This bill fails to provide Trade Adjustment Assistance to all workers who lose their jobs. Instead, it makes arbitrary and extraordinarily unfair distinctions. Workers who lose their jobs because of foreign imports are deemed worthy of assistance. Workers who lose their jobs because their employer shut down a factory and moved it to China are not. The bill holds out the theoretical possibility that workers who lose their jobs because of trade policies will get help in maintaining health insurance coverage for their families, then dashes any hope for meaningful assistance. Laid-off workers would have to pay 35 percent of premium costs for coverage, an enormous financial burden. There are no market protections, so insurance companies could change whatever premium they want for whatever coverage they decide to provide. The bill rejects Senate language endorsing the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, meaning that the monopoly patent rights of pharmaceutical companies will be protected while the right of developing countries to deal with the AIDS pandemic through compulsory licensing and generics will not. Finally, this bill eliminates Senate language to require that, in order to receive special trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), countries end child labor and discrimination against women and other groups. Mr. Speaker, if we in this body care about the rights of women and workers; the needs of children and the sick; the environment and human rights; we must reject this conference report. We owe it to the people of our country and the people of the world.