Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) I rise to offer an amendment that will prevent the Department of Homeland Security from becoming the ``department of homeland secrecy.'' I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and his staff, as well as the Select Committee, particularly its ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). First, this amendment strikes subtitle C of section VII of the underlying bill, language that excludes from the Freedom of Information Act information submitted voluntarily from corporations regarding critical infrastructure information. It strikes language that preempts all State and local open records laws. Second, this amendment strikes section 762, language that allows the Secretary to circumvent the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, by putting all the deliberations of those advisory committees beyond public reach. Third, this amendment provides real teeth to protections against retaliation for whistleblowers, the kind of individuals who have been the lifeblood of exposing failures at the FBI to heed warnings of terrorists within the country, and exposing corporate misconduct. The Freedom of Information Act is a law carefully crafted to balance the ability of our citizens to access information and the interests of those who want to protect such information from public scrutiny. There are nine exemptions to FOIA, including national security information and business information. FOIA currently protects information that is a trade secret or information that is commercial and privileged or confidential. In addition, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12600 that gives businesses even more opportunities to oppose disclosure of information. In fact, I and other Members of the Committee on Government Reform repeatedly have asked proponents of this exclusion, including the FBI and Department of Commerce, for even one single example of when a Federal agency has disclosed voluntarily submitted data against the express wishes of the industry that submitted that information. They could not name one case. Instead, we are told that FOIA rules just are not conducive to disclosure, that corporations are not comfortable releasing data needed to protect our country, even if we are at war. Is our new standard for deciding such fundamental questions of openness and accountability in our democracy how comfortable industry will be? Environmental groups, open government groups and press organizations support my amendment because the broad secrecy provisions of the new Department would hide information critical to protecting public safety, such as chemical spills, results of testing to determine levels of water and air pollution, compliance records, and maintenance and repair records. Corporations could dump information they want to hide into this department under the cover critical infrastructure information. Corporate lobbyists can meet with government officials in the name of critical infrastructure protection and hide their collusion behind this exclusion. If we create the Department without my amendment, corporations will no longer need to bury their secrets in the footnotes, or even shred their documents. They can hide them in the FOIA exclusion at the Department of Homeland Security. No longer will industry officials have to hide their meetings with government officials. The exemption from FACA will offer them a safe haven within which to have those secret meetings. State and local authorities would also be barred from and subject to jail sentences for disclosing information that they require to make public, even if it is because it is withheld at the Federal level. This amendment also protects the rights of whistleblowers. My colleagues will go into more detail. But most whistleblowers are not as high profile as Sharon Watkins of Enron or Coleen Rowley of the FBI, to whom we owe a great debt, and many of them suffer retaliation. They often lose their jobs or are demoted as punishment for speaking out. It is clear that the protections currently available simply are not working. Since the Whistleblower Protection Act was amended in 1994, 74 of the 75 court decisions have gone against whistleblowers. So my amendment gives whistleblowers the right to go to court instead of going through the administrative process and requires the same burden of proof to be used in whistleblower cases as in all other cases involving personnel actions. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are in great danger today of tipping the delicate balance between security and basic, precious freedoms, those rights that uniquely define our American democracy. We can have both, and I urge my colleagues to restore the balance and support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure we are considering today, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Since September 11, it has become abundantly clear that we must change the way we conduct national security in this country and we must address our security shortfalls with aggressive, decisive actions. We all agree we must do more to protect our country from threats posed by those who wish us harm and those who wish to alter the way we live our lives. There is no question that all members want to protect the American public. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today does not take the right approach to accomplishing that goal. At the outset of this process, I said that any new proposal to address our national security shortfalls must pass three basic tests. First, the plan must actually make us safer. Second, the plan must not compromise our precious civil liberties or rights. Finally, the critical non-security functions of government entities must not be compromised. This legislation fails to adequately address those critical tests. The bill before us today creates a new Department of Homeland Security. As we debated the bill originally proposed by the Administration, we were able to make several significant improvements to it. I am pleased that the legislation includes a provision establishing an Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within the new department. I offered an amendment to accomplish that goal during the Government Reform Committee's consideration of this bill and was glad to see that provision maintained. I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the issue of immigration and the organization of immigration services. I come from an immigrant-rich district. Their contributions to our community demonstrate how important it is to ensure that newcomers to this country are received in a fair and considerate manner. It is critical that, however immigration and naturalization services are structured, the quality and efficiency of the services offered to immigrants are not compromised, and are in fact improved. For that reason, I have worked hard to help secure various provisions in this bill that will provide immigrants with a place to turn if they have complaints and will hold immigration officials accountable for doing their job with diligence and fairness. First, this bill establishes an Ombudsman's office to assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with citizenship and immigration services. Second, this bill would require the new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to report on how it is handling its immigration caseload. This provision includes reporting requirements on how many applications the Bureau receives and how many it is able to process; how it is addressing the enormous backlog that exists; and whether people requiring immigration and naturalization services have adequate access to the Bureau and the services it offers. These are critical data that will allow us to hold this new Bureau accountable for addressing the concerns that have been raised over the years about how the INS has performed its duties. While the improvements made to the bill are important, there are a number of serious problems with this legislation that force me to vote against it. This bill gives broad new authority to the President to reorganize the massive federal workforce created by this legislation. The bill gives the President an excuse to disregard and to take away hard-won civil service protections and collective bargaining rights for employees of the new Department. At a time when agencies throughout the federal government--in Washington, D.C. and in cities across the country--are having difficulty attracting and retaining qualified employees, this bill could turn employees of the new department into second class workers. What kind of a signal will we send to those federal workers if we ask them to move and tell them that they will lose many of the guaranteed rights that they now enjoy? How many of those workers will decide to leave federal service and move to the private sector? For those workers who do stay, how can we expect them to demonstrate high morale and commitment when they know that they lack the same rights as their federal colleagues in other agencies? Congress enacted civil service protections and collective bargaining rights so that we could attract the very best to government service. We should not give this or any other Administration the right to take them away. As we stand together to fight terrorism, we should also stand together for the rights and well being of federal workers. The House also missed an opportunity today to provide real protections for whistle-blowers. I offered an amendment that would guarantee American patriots who come forward to expose improprieties and threats to our security a guarantee that, if they are retaliated against for their actions, they will have a right to legal recourse. Sadly, under the current inadequate whistle-blower provisions in the bill, those who risk their future to shed light on issues of concern to the public will have no guarantees and no real protection. By withholding very basic rights and protections for whistle-blowers, we are actually subjecting the American public to greater risk because those with information that should be shared with Congress or the public will be reluctant to do so--leaving us in the dark about threats we might otherwise be able to eliminate. This bill creates an exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act to all information dealing with infrastructure vulnerabilities and is voluntarily submitted to the new department. This is an unnecessary provision because, under current law, the government already has the authority to exempt from FOIA information that meets one of several standards, including that which is related to national security and trade secrets. While the current law simply requires the Administration to review information voluntarily submitted for possible exemptions from FOIA, this bill provides a blanket exclusion, thereby removing the discretion of the Administration completely. Even worse, the same section of the bill preempts state and local good government and openness laws. This bill also exempts committees created by the Secretary of Homeland security from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This would allow the Secretary to create secret forums where lobbyists for all sorts of special interests could push their agendas with the Administration without concern that the public would find out and regardless of whether their discussions are about security or business goals. The legislation before us today negates the Congressionally-mandated requirement that all airports have the ability to screen checked baggage for explosives. One of our most frightful and realistic vulnerabilities is the status of our air travel system in this country. It is a sad message to send to our constituents and the flying public that we are not willing to do what it takes to ensure the skies are truly safe. Many on the Republican side have argued that the task of providing equipment to secure our planes and prevent terrorist devices from making their way on board is too costly. I would submit that we cannot afford to do otherwise. Finally, this bill is flawed because it provides an exemption from liability for manufacturers of equipment used for national security purposes. This broad protection for industry would apply even if company officials willfully neglect the welfare of the public in order to make profits. If a new bomb-detection machine company knows that its product is not reliable but does not inform the government, we will not be able to seek legal recourse if that company's product, as anticipated by company officials, fails to work and leads to loss of life. September 11 made us all painfully aware of the limitations of our current national security and anti-terrorism apparatus. We have become painfully aware of the shortcomings of the FBI and CIA. And we have become painfully aware of the need to act decisively to correct our flawed system. If we want to be able to prepare our nation and to guarantee America's security, we must improve communications, invest in language translation capabilities, invest in our public health infrastructure, provide necessary training and resources to emergency first responders and focus on improving the capabilities and the capacity of state and local authorities, and more. Moving the boxes from one agency to another will not accomplish these important tasks. Unfortunately, this bill fails to address even the most obvious and immediate concerns. Instead, what the President and the Republicans in the House put forth is a massive reorganization of the federal government, nothing more than a reshuffling of the deck, with a few added tools for the Administration. Simply shifting people and agencies will not make America safer and that is all we will accomplish if we pass this bill. I urge all members to reject this flawed legislation and to focus on efforts that will actually enhance our security and maintain our American way of life.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, we are told over and over again as we create this Department of Homeland Security that we are at war, that these are very special times. And clearly we need to know about infrastructure vulnerabilities. There is no question about it. Such information is essential. Well, I wonder if it occurred to the majority that one way to get that information might be to require it. For an issue as critical as national security, it is striking that the administration is apparently unwilling to require companies to submit information on vulnerabilities, but instead willing only to rely on coaxing it from them voluntarily by relaxing the disclosure law that is a cornerstone of open government. Now, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) purported to give an example how information regarded as confidential by a company was released as an example of why we have to have this. But, instead, actually what he told us was how a company refused to give the information because they did not trust the government. Again, over and over what we are told here is not that the Freedom of Information Act as currently written really does not have enough exemptions but that the lawyers for private corporations do not trust it. Do we not trust the new Secretary, whoever that may be, of the Department to say we will exempt those things that are a threat to national security, that are a threat to the confidential proprietary information of a company? We have put all kind of power in his hands. Certainly we can trust him to do that. I think it was the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) also said that the Senate passed this language or the earlier language, the FOIA language, in their version of the bill, but that is not true. One important exception is the Senate bill does not preempt State and local Freedom of Information and other kinds of public information disclosure laws. It is important we should vote down this amendment. It is dangerous to our democracy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of my colleagues Section 642 of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from using appropriated funds to release information from its Trace and Multiple Sale Database. Effectively, this provision would prevent state and local governments from accessing information about multiple gun buyers who may be selling guns to criminals in their communities and data on guns traced to crimes on their streets. These restrictions on access to public information would compromise the safety of many of our communities across the country, including Chicago. In fact, one of the stated purposes of the ATF's crime gun tracing program is to enable participating local governments to obtain information regarding the sources and movement of guns used in crimes, so that local law enforcement agencies may develop successful strategies to reduce gun violence. In the past, information from ATF's Trace and Multiple Sale Database has been invaluable in helping cities and states determine who is illegally selling guns in their communities. The City of Chicago, which has a ban on most types of guns, is trying to use this information to determine who is marketing guns to its residents. Yet, Section 642 would require that ATF withhold multiple sales and crime gun trace data from disclosure under FOIA, regardless of how essential that data may be to local law enforcement agencies. Withholding information from ATF's database would prevent City officials and others from doing all they can to secure the safety of their streets and the safety of their residents. Furthermore, this provision attempts to override existing laws regarding the Freedom of Information Act by forbidding the ATF to use Federal funds to release information that, by law, it is required to make available. This defies common sense--that a government agency would be forbidden by law to use appropriated funds to carry out and obey existing law. If proponents have a problem with allowing this information to be released and believe it should be exempted under the FOIA, then they should address the FOIA issue head-on, not try to endrun it by placing a provision in an appropriations bill. But they know that they probably couldn't win that fight. In a case involving the City of Chicago's FOIA request for ATF information, a Federal court has ruled that the release of this information is not protected by current FOIA exemptions. In fact, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went so far as to say that, ``When one balances the public interest in evaluating ATF's effectiveness in controlling gun trafficking and aiding the City in enforcing its gun laws against the nonexistent or minimal privacy interest in having one's name and address associated with a gun trace or purchase, the scale tips in favor of disclosure.'' Finally, Section 642 goes beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this bill by applying this prohibition not just to the bill before us but to ``any other Act with respect to any fiscal year.'' This attempts to place mandates on any other legislation this body has considered in the past or may consider in the future. Without the waiver granted in the rule, this provision would certainly be subject to a point of order. At this time when we are demanding that corporations and CEOs be held accountable for their actions, we must also make sure that our government agencies are accountable. That is what FOIA is intended to do. We must preserve its integrity and importance in our government. Section 642 is dangerous and unnecessary, and I will work hard to have it removed from the bill in Conference.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on the morning of September 11th, 2001 passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 were getting ready for the long flight to California. Their thoughts may have been consumed with family, friends, or work. What was about to occur on that tragic journey was probably the furthest thing from their minds. As the mayhem of that morning unfolded in New York City and in our nation's capital, the passengers of Flight 93 were about to directly experience the horror for themselves. Four terrorist hijackers had moved all of the passengers to the rear of the plane and attempted to seize control of the cockpit and direct the plane to its destination of destruction. One can only imagine the fear that rushed through the veins of each passenger on that doomed flight. Like many people, I have wondered, ``What would be going through my mind? What would I have done?'' The passengers and crew of Flight 93 provided us with their answers. Knowing of the chaos that was taking place on the ground below, these brave individuals decided to push fear aside and control their destinies and our futures for the last time. Although the outcome was fatal for the passengers and crew of Flight 93, one could only guess at the countless number of lives they may have saved had those passengers not reacted with bravery, courage, and pride. September 11th was a day that showed us how vulnerable we as Americans can be, but the passengers and crew of Flight 93 reminded us of how the greatness of this country can still shine through us, even in our darkest hour. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3917, which establishes a memorial at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 to honor the passengers and crew of Flight 93, to always remind us of what it truly means to be an American.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. This bill is an affront to all women, and it is an insult to the medical profession, and it violates the Constitution. Abortion is a constitutionally protected medical procedure in this country, and this bill flatly aims to take away that right. It does not aim to ban a single procedure that proponents of this bill like to call partial-birth abortion. If it did, the sponsors of this bill would have accepted medical language that actually describes a medical procedure, but they rejected this language. Instead, the proponents chose to play doctor and describe a so-called medical procedure in their own words. This bill does not even ban what some may call late-term abortion because it never specifies a point in the pregnancy after which an abortion is banned. What this bill really does is chip away at Roe v. Wade which established the constitutional right of women to control their own bodies. The proponents of this bill do not trust women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. They do not trust women to talk to their doctors about their health, about their choices, and then make their own informed decisions. They do not want to give women the power and freedom to make their own decisions about their reproductive lives, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this right in the face of countless challenges. I urge a no vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Rangel, Moran,and Flake amendments to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. It is clear to me that the trade and travel embargo on Cuba must be lifted. I commend the following Chicago Tribune article on this subject to the attention of my colleagues, and I urge all members to vote to repeal the current policy, which is outdated and unwise. Allowing trade and travel between the U.S. and Cuba will help the Cuban people and will help the America public. I urge all members to join me in supporting the efforts of the Gentleman from New York, The Gentleman from Kansas, and the Gentleman from Arizona. As the Tribune puts it, this is ``a chance to think fresh on Cuba''. A Chance to Think Fresh on Cuba With each passing day, the once-invincible Washington lobby in favor of maintaining the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba looks as absurd and irrelevant as the Flat Earth Society. Unfortunately, and not as a matter or principle but craven politics, President Bush vows to stick with his support of the embargo to the point of vetoing any congressional move to weaken it. He must give this new thought. The next few weeks will be as propitious a time as any to shift course, be it from the perspective of politics, economics or the national interest. Four amendments tot he Treasury and Postal Service bill in the House seek to undo various parts of the embargo. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) wants to dismantle the embargo altogether. Rep Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) proposes to lift restrictions on private financing of trade deals with Cuba. Finally, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has introduced two amendments, one to effectively lift restrictions on private travel to Cuba and another to lift limits on remittances Cuban-Americans to their relatives still in the island. The last three amendments have an excellent chance of passage. A similar amendment by Flake last year received 240 votes, but was sidetracked in the Senate by the events of Sept. 11. An even wider margin is expected when it comes for a vote within the next few days. On Tuesday, the Senate Appropriation Committee unanimously passed an amendment identical to Flake's; full Senate approval is expected by a wide margin. Except for incurring the wrath of some Cuban hardliners in southern Florida--and possibly harming his brother's chances for re-election as governor--there would not be much political risk to President Bush if he were to get behind a softening of the embargo. Economically, it would be good for the country. According to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a non-partisan information organization, trade with Cuba last year amounted to about $103 million and is expected to rise to $165 million this year--all cash. That puts Cuba 57th among the 180 top buyers of U.S. agricultural products. These shipments originated in 30 states. A U.S. food and agribusiness fair, scheduled for Havana in September, already has attracted 120 American exhibitors, who are coming armed for business. Confirmed attendees so far include two Illinois dairy cows plus two buffalo and a 200- pound pig from North Dakota. Approximately 20,000 attendees are expected from both counties, including the Bearded One, who has promised to stop by every day. Unless President Bush changes course, he will find himself in the untenable position of having to recite the tired old lines in support of the embargo even as Congress moves overwhelmingly to vote in favor of easing it, and American business people--many of them no doubt Republican--head for Havana to sell their products. Certainly, the administration has more important foreign- policy issues on its agenda than maintaining an embargo fueled by Cold War rancor rather than economic or political reality.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Falun Gong is based on three principles: Truth, Compassion, and Tolerance. Falun Gong practitioners participate in five simple yet powerful exercises that they believe refines their inner strength by reaching for excellent health and higher spirituality. That is why I am baffled as to why the Chinese Government, which supported the spread of Falun Gong in the early 1990s, is so against such a peaceful and humble religion. I was shocked when I read reports of Falun Gong practitioners being beaten, imprisoned, and even tortured. This abuse is not isolated within the borders of China. There have been recent reports of Falun Gong practitioners in the United States being attacked. These incidents have even affected constituents in my district and these abuses must come to an end across the globe. It pains me to see innocent people being attacked for their beliefs. As we enter this new century, we have so much opportunity to make this world a better place to live for all and it is our responsibility to work toward that goal. I ask my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 188, which strongly urges the Government of the People's Republic of China to cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners because supporting this resolution is supporting the true essence of freedom.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the suffering of the working class in China. I recently read an article, ``Worked Till They Drop'' by Philip P. Pan, in the Washington Post on May 13th, 2002, and it shocked me. According to the Washington Post, 19-year-old Li Chunmei died due to work exhaustion. She had been on her feet for nearly 16 hours that day, running back and forth carrying toy parts from machine to machine. Later that evening, she had complained that she was very tired and hungry. During the night, her roommates had awakened to the sounds of violent coughing and tracked the source of the sound to find Ms. Chunmei curled-up on the bathroom floor, coughing up blood. They immediately called an ambulance, but she died before it had arrived. Cases of guolaosi, meaning ``over-work death'', are never documented but many local journalists estimate that dozens occur in the Pearl River Delta area alone, the manufacturing region north of Hong Kong where Ms. Chunmei's factory, Kaiming Industrial, is located. What is sad is that nothing is being done about these horrible deaths. The majority of these workers are young men and women who travel many miles from their poor villages to earn a living in China's factory towns. Many of them never finish school, being taken out by their parents to help work on the farm or in the family business. By the age of 15, most of these youths are urged by their parents to seek employment in a factory to support the family. These young migrant workers are considered second class citizens in China's industrial cities, receiving less access to the weak courts and trade unions. Many do not even know the Chinese word for labor union! The factories, many of them backed by foreign investment, that they work in are drab, concrete dormitories. Life inside can be compared to the feudal system. An average day begins around 8:00 a.m. and can last until 2 a.m. Breaks are rare. The conditions that these poor souls have to work in are tragic as well. In most of these factories there is no air conditioning, with the temperature climbing above 90 degrees at times, and the air is full of fibers. The average salary for a runner, which was Ms. Chunmei's position, is about 12 cents an hour and, even during the busy season, one might earn as little as $65 a month, with no money received for overtime work. Moreover, benefits are non- existent and managers tend to make deductions from the workers' salaries for items never received. Managers also tend to impose arbitrary fines on the workers, which include penalties for spending more than five minutes in the bathroom and wasting food during meals. When these young workers try to complain about these conditions to their supervisors or government officials, they are told to return to their jobs or they will be fired or even arrested. Local officials often overlook labor rights and safety violations, eager to take bribes and generate tax revenue. The concept of subcontracting further complicates the situation, as many foreign investors rely on these contractors to carry out their operations. It is due to this complicated web that overseas corporations avoid responsibility for the rights of China's working class. In the case of Li Chunmei, it took her father 28 days to get someone to take responsibility for what had happened to his daughter. He was lead on a wild goose chase when finally the police concluded that Li Chunmei died because of an illness and that her death was non-work related. Her poor father could do nothing about the ruling and now the family again is struggling to make ends meet, this time with empty hearts that money will never be able fill. Mr. Speaker, I have attached excerpts from this piece but I strongly urge my colleagues to read this article in its entirety. This is an issue that we can no longer ignore. As China and the U.S. improve trade relations, we must continue to press China to improve its labor, environment, and human rights record in general. Let us do all we can to help these young individuals, before we read of another Li Chunmei. Excerpts From: ``Worked Till They Drop'' by Philip P. Pan, Washington Post, May 13th 2002 ``On the night she died, Li Chunmel must have been exhausted. Co-workers said she had been on her feet for nearly 16 hours, running back and forth inside the Bainan Toy Factory, carrying toy parts from machine to machine. When the quitting bell finally rang shortly after midnight, her young face was covered with sweat.'' ``. . . Her roommates had already fallen asleep when Li started coughing up blood. They found her in the bathroom a few hours later, curled up on the floor, moaning softly in the dark, bleeding from her nose and mouth. Someone called an ambulance, but she died before it arrived.'' ``The exact cause of Li's death remains unknown. But what happened to her last November in this industrial town in southeastern Guangdon province is described by her family, friends and co-workers as an example of what China's more daring newspapers call guolaosi. The phrase means ``over-work death,'' and usually applies to young workers who suddenly collapse and die after working exceedingly long hours, day after day.'' ``These new workers are younger, poorer, and less familiar with the promises of labor rights and job security that once served as the ideological bedrock of the ruling Communist Party. They are more likely to work for private companies, often backed by foreign investment, with no socialist tradition of cradle-to-grave benefits. The young migrants are also second-class citizens, with less access to weak courts and trade unions that sometime temper market forced as China's economy changes from socialist to capitalist. Most of all, they are outsiders, struggling to make a living far away from home.'' ``Li was a runner . . . always on her feet . . . `She had the worst job, and the bosses were always telling her to go faster,' said one worker on Li's assembly line . . . `There were no breaks, and there was no air conditioning.' He added that the air was full of fibers, and with the heat from the machines, sometimes temperatures climbed above 90 degrees.'' ``Runners required no special skills, and were paid the least, about 12 cents per hour, workers said. During the busy season, including extra pay for overtime, Li could cam about $65 a month. But there were deductions. Workers said the company withheld about $12 a month for room and board and charged them for benefits they never received. For example, workers said they paid for the temporary residence permits they needed to live and work in Songgang legally, but never received them. Managers also had the power to impose arbitrary fines, including penalties for spending more than five minutes in the bathroom, wasting food during meals and failing to meet production quotas, workers said.'' Another colleague, Zhang Fayong, recalled that Li once purchased a new dress, then refused to wear it. She said Li was amazed she had spent money on it, and afraid she somehow might ruin it. After her death, her father found the dress among her belongings, folded and wrapped in plastic, he said. He also found a stack of laminated snapshots, taken at local photo parlors for 50 cents apiece . . . They show Li with her friends . . . She looks surprisingly young, just a teenager with long black hair, holding flowers, or saluting, or sitting with an ID tag pinned to her blouse . . . She was smiling in only one picture.'' ``Immediately after learning of his daughter's death, Li Zhimin traveled to Songgang. For 28 days, he said, he tried to get someone to take responsibility of what happened . . . Finally, police gave him a letter that said a district medical examiner had concluded Li Chunmel `suddenly died because of an illness while she was alive.' There were no other details, and the local labor bureau declared her death `non-work-related' . . . Li said he was unhappy with the finding, but was helpless to do anything about it.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Corinne Lindy Claiborne Boggs, a pioneer for all women in the U.S. Congress. As the first woman from Louisiana to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and as a founder of the Congressional Women's Caucus, Lindy Boggs helped pave the path for all women Members of Congress who have followed in her footsteps. When Lindy Boggs was elected to Congress in 1973, there were only 15 other women in the House of Representatives. Today there are 62 women in the House, and for the first time ever, a woman holds the second highest position in the Democratic party. Lindy Boggs is a model and inspiration for all of us who dedicate our lives to public service. She was the first woman to chair a national political convention in 1976 and served as the Ambassador to the Vatican under President Clinton from 1997 to 2000. I am proud to walk the same halls and work in the same Chamber where Lindy Boggs broke down so many barriers and led the way for so many to follow. I commend her for her leadership, spirit, and vision, and urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 439 Honoring Corrine ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Founding of the Congressional Women's Caucus.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill offered by my colleagues, Representatives Slaughter and Dicks, to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million. There is no question that education about the arts and humanities not only creates well-rounded human beings, but more responsible citizens who contribute to the richness of our cultural heritage. For many years, under the wise guidance and leadership of my predecessor, Congressman Sydney Yates, Congress understood the cultural and economic importance of federal funding for arts. Yates almost single-handedly protected the arts, and was awarded for his tireless efforts by President Clinton in 1993 with the Presidential Citizens Medal. Unfortuantely, NEA funding was cut by more than 40 percent in 1995 and, for the most part, has yet to recover, despite overwhelming evidence that the arts contribute greatly to our society and culture. A recent study released by the Arts Education Partnership provides hard evidence that exposure to the arts improves students' critical skills in math, reading, language development, and writing. Furthermore, other studies suggest that for certain populations, including students from economically disadvantaged circumstances, students needing remedial instruction, and younger children, arts education is especially helpful in boosting learning and achievement. The humanities play an equally valuable role in the education of children and adults. In particular, state humanities councils, which receive NEH funding, have been working for nearly 30 years to educate citizens about our history and culture and stimulate dialogue about contemporary issues of concern. Collaborating with libraries, museums, religious institutions, schools, senior centers, historical societies, and community centers, state humanities councils have served as the single most reliable source of local support for programs that educate citizens for civic life, thereby strengthening the fabric of our democracy. My district in Illinois greatly benefits from NEA and NEH funding. In 2001, the 9th Congressional District received over $180,000 from NEA through a wide variety of grants. That same year, Illinois received $4.6 million in NEH funding, making Illinois the fourth largest recipient of NEH funds in the country. My constituents reap the benefits of this. If we are to preserve these programs, and other similar programs all over the country, it is critical that we provide adequate funding for the NEA and NEH. I strongly support increasing the NEA and NEH funding levels by a total of $15 million, and urge my colleagues to support the amendment to do so.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has never seen the likes of Justin Dart. His vision, his dedication, and his passion for improving our country and the lives of our people were unwavering. What he accomplished during his lifetime was nothing short of miraculous. Justin Dart's contributions for equality for persons with disabilities and for justice for all people will be felt for generations to come. He would have expected nothing less of himself and from those who joined him in the struggle. Justin Dart was a trailblazer for justice. For 30 years, with his lifetime partner, companion, friend and wife Yoshiko, and with many of us following closely behind, he led the way for the radical empowerment of persons with disabilities and for universal healthcare. Justin Dart's life was changed forever when he contracted polio and the doctors proclaimed that he was only 3 days away from death. Those 3 days turned into 40 years. Polio left him in a wheelchair, but Justin often said, ``I count the good days in my life from the time I got polio.'' He used each and every day to the fullest. He traveled, organized, spoke, and enjoyed every minute of it. He began his advocacy campaign in earnest following his visit to a rehabilitation center for children with Polio in Vietnam in 1966. He would later write of the scene of young starving children left to suffer. ``That scene is burned forever in my soul. For the first time in my life I understood the reality of evil, and that I was a part of that reality.'' Since that day forward, he dedicated himself and his resources to what he believed to be the most basic of human and civil rights--the right to live free and in dignity. Through sheer will, he fought to end the centuries old discrimination against people with disabilities. Because of his years of hardwork, along with those who joined him in the fight, people with disabilities in this country finally received what is rightfully theirs, but what took so many years and so many struggles to achieve. In 1990, with Justin Dart on the podium, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law. Understanding that without a grassroots movement, there is no catalyst for change, Justin Dart did not miss the opportunity to protest that the fact that he and only two other disability advocates were on stage when President George Bush signed the ADA. He said, ``hundreds of others should have been there as well.'' Justin Dart, the father of the ADA, did not stop, did not rest, but instead pushed ahead with another cause after the victory of 1990. Universal healthcare became his passion and he once again traveled the nation calling himself ``a full-time citizen soldier in the trenches of justice.'' When he spoke in Chicago in the early 1990s on universal healthcare, people drove hundreds of miles to hear him. He later fought tirelessly against attempts to weaken or even repeal the ADA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. He turned back the attacks. Once again, Justin Dart was victorious. In his lifetime, Justin Dart was unwavering in his convictions. And in his final words to us, he wrote, ``Thanks to you, I die in the beautiful belief that the revolution of empowerment will go on. I love you so much. I'm with you always. Lead on! Lead on!'' Justin, we will.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 283, 284 I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank the chairman for his willingness and openness and cooperation with the Democrats, and I would also like to take a moment of personal privilege to commend the chairman for always thanking the hard-working staff of both parties for the hard work that they do, both in committee and on the floor. I think it is a wonderful thing to acknowledge that work. I would like to join him and associate myself with his appreciation and congratulations for the hard work of our staff. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to be on the floor today with the gentleman from California to support passage of this bill. I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with the Democrats on the committee to produce a bill that we can all support. As the chairman pointed out, this is a bill to make agencies more keenly aware of the problem of improper payments and to get the agencies to address the problem at the front end. We have learned from our work on debt collection that collecting improper payments is more difficult than avoiding the mistakes in the first place. The problem is that there is no incentive for agencies either to collect debt or to avoid improper payments. Improper payments occur in a number of ways: Agencies pay invoices more than once, some unscrupulous merchants bill agency credit cards when no purchase has been made, and the agency does not adequately monitor the bills. Medicare is a large source of improper payments because of the conflict between the deadline for making payments and the length of time it takes to determine if the patient has private insurance. Medicaid is also a source of improper payments, in part from unscrupulous providers. However, Medicaid has yet to estimate the extent of the problem. It is also the case that improper payments are made to individuals. These cases often arise because of difficulties in determining eligibility for a program like food stamps or Social Security disability. Often those problems are not the fault of the recipient, but come from errors in administering the program. These programs serve the weak and downtrodden. The program rules are such that most tax accountants would have a difficult time figuring them out. It is especially important in these cases that we make sure the agency gets it right the first time. If it does not, then months or years later the agency discovers the error and tries to recapture the mispayments from the individual. This is an extreme hardship on those individuals. We must not let agency mistakes become another burden on the poor. I hope this bill will help those agencies develop a better understanding of how these mistakes come about and correct the mistakes before they happen. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for working with us to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just really want to end with this. H.R. 4878 tightens up the Federal Government's accounting practices. This is a good thing. We need to be sure that the way we do business is on the up-and-up, and we clearly need to do more to require corporate America to do the same. We are asking government agencies to improve the management and accountability of the agencies. We must ask the same of corporate leaders. They must be accountable for the company's financial health, be honest with the public, and there must be consequences for breaching those trusts. For years, we have asked government to act more like a business. We need to turn that around and ask businesses to be as accountable as the government. H.R. 4878 is based on the principle that making information publicly available will change the way people and agencies behave. This is underscored by the activities of Enron and WorldCom. They knew that if the public was aware of what they were doing, the company would falter, and so they tried to spin their way out of trouble. I think the steps that we are taking today in terms of government accountability are important, and that we should seek unanimous support from our colleagues, but also we need to think about ways that we can extend these practices and make sure that corporate America abides by these same government rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate Ms. Delores A. Holmes upon her retirement as Director of Family Focus in Evanston, Illinois. Through her lifelong journey of service in Evanston, Delores has proven to be a true community hero. For more than 26 years, Delores has reached out with persistence and optimism to promote healthy child development through family support. From her work with teenage parents, to engaging students through after- school programs, to providing important childcare and early learning opportunities for infants and toddlers, she has sought out and served those most in need. What Delores Holmes does best is teach people to see the greatness in themselves and in their community. She provides them with the tools they need to achieve their fullest potential. Delores' dedication, selflessness, and insight have inspired and motivated citizens from all economic levels and from all walks of life. Her passionate fight to improve our community and empower our neighborhoods have earned her many awards and countless tributes from all around the nation, including recognition from the National Head Start Parent Association, the NAACP Community Work Award, and Parent Magazine's As They Grow Award. Delores' perseverance and desire to get the most out of life and to improve the lives of others is evident in her own story. After marrying and having two children, Delores went back to school to earn a bachelor's degree from Northeastern Illinois University, and then ten years later, a Master's degree in education from the National College of Education in Evanston, IL. She went on to donate her time to numerous organizations and committees, and has served on the Board of Directors of the National Organization of Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting, the Northern Cook County Private Industry Council, and the Evanston Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the community to which she has given so much, I thank Delores for her outstanding commitment and dedication. Her legacy of service will always be remembered and appreciated. I wish her health and happiness in her retirement.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this pathetic excuse for a bill that is particularly harmful to senior women and to persons with disabilities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding to me, who has been such a great leader on an issue that is so important to the 39 million people who are on Medicare. Those are the elderly and persons with disabilities. A lot of times we come to the floor and we talk about people that are in our districts or people that we have heard about or issues that affect some segment of our society, but not so often do we come to the floor and talk about a problem that affects so many people that also directly impacts our own families. The issue of the high cost of prescription drugs is hard to escape from, regardless of the income or the position of one's family. I found, much to my surprise, sometime ago that my family was not immune from this particular crisis. One day I got an e-mail from a cousin of mine that said, ``The reason I am writing you today, I saw you on C-SPAN giving a speech on prescription drugs.'' He said, ``I thought you would be interested in my mom's story.'' This is also my cousin, his mother. ``The last couple of years of my dad's life, he was relying heavily on all sorts of heart medication and other prescription drugs to keep him going and maintain a quality of life.'' Well, Mom kept on putting those drugs on their credit cards. How else were they going to pay for them? With Social Security? I do not think so. Well, anyway Mom did everything she could to make sure Dad got his meds. When Dad passed away in January 1998, Mom was left with a mountain of credit card debt. The Tuesday after his funeral, she had to declare bankruptcy. It just does not seem fair. But if you ask Mom, she would do it all over again to have a few more days with Dad. As we the baby boomers get older and the cost of prescription drugs is skyrocketing, something needs to be done to curb the drug companies. It cannot all be for recouping R and D. Somebody is gouging somebody. This e-mail was sent to me almost exactly 2 years ago today. And at that time there was not a candidate running for office, particularly for Federal office, who was not promising that something was going to be done about that high cost of prescription drugs. Oh, yes, elect me and I will go to the White House or I will go to the Congress and I will pass a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. Do not worry, seniors. Vote for me and I will get you a prescription drug benefit. There was not anybody running for any office at the Federal level that did not say that. Well, those seniors, people in our own families, are still waiting in line for that prescription drug benefit. We are almost through an entire session of Congress, and there still is not a prescription drug benefit. They have been bumped out of their place in line by the airlines who we bailed out a very short time after September 11. They have been displaced from their place in line by a very few rich dead people when we excused them from the estate tax. And now as the front of the line appears closer and closer, maybe they are getting there, what they are offered up by the Republicans is a sham and not a plan, a bill that was written by the drug companies and for the drug companies that does nothing to control the high cost of prescription drugs, provides no guaranteed benefit, there is no predictable premium or copayment, no guarantee even that any insurance company will even offer them the chance to purchase a plan. A former member, Bill Gradison, who was president of the Health Insurance Association of America from 1993 to 1998, criticized the GOP private market approach to prescription drug coverage saying, ``I am very skeptical that `drug only' private plans would develop.'' So even those people who are associated with the insurance industry think that there is not going to be such a plan available. That is what the Republicans have offered up. The Democrats on the other hand, we have a plan that does provide a guaranteed benefit, that is absolutely going to lower the cost of prescription drugs, will lower the cost by enabling the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate a lower price for senior citizens, that says that all the beneficiaries of Medicare, our group just like an HMO or the Veterans Administration, and they will negotiate a lower price for senior citizens, and lower the amount of out-of-pocket costs. But women, women are the ones who are most affected, that are most hurt by the high cost of prescription drugs just like my cousin was who had to declare bankruptcy. Out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs by seniors is the single largest out-of-pocket health care component after premium payments. Older women spend more out of pocket on prescription drugs on average than do older men regardless of the type of supplemental insurance coverage they have. Women on Medicare without supplemental benefits spend almost 40 percent more on prescription drugs than men, and men are spending too much. Older women are less likely than men to have employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage. Women without drug coverage spend more out of pocket on drugs than men. On average older women fill more prescriptions than men each year regardless of whether they have prescription drug coverage. Older women without prescription drug coverage on average have 18 prescriptions filled in 1 year compared to 14 for men. So this is a problem that impacts all Medicare beneficiaries, all old, every American, but particularly falls the hardest on women. And I know that my colleagues here, the women here, today are going to talk about how the Democratic plan is going to directly address the needs of the elderly, and particularly elderly women; and we will go into that. But I would just like to say that if anybody thinks that their families, their own relatives, their own parents or grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins are immune from the runaway costs of prescription drugs, think again. If my cousin had not sent me this e- mail telling me about the bankruptcy in my own family, I would not have known because my cousin was too proud to tell anyone in the family that this is what was going on. So I am just happy to be part of a great group of women who are here today to stick up for and to go to bat for all of the women who really need our help with the true prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives passed a resolution that recognizes National Homeownership Month. Democrats and Republicans are united in their support for homeownership. However, we should not fool ourselves by claiming that this resolution is going to solve our affordable housing crisis. We need to back up our words with action. Housing is not a top priority of this House or the Administration. HUD provides down payment assistance through several of its programs, yet without sufficient resources HUD will not be able to accomplish its homeownership goals. In fact in real dollars, HUD's budget is one third of what it was during the Ford administration. This is unacceptable. Yesterday the Financial Services committee marked-up the ``Housing Affordability for American Act of 2002.'' Several members of the majority voted against an amendment to create a national affordable housing trust fund. The approved amendment creates a trust fund that utilizes FHA surplus funds. By creating a housing trust fund we can provide the necessary resources to build and preserve 1.5 million units of rental housing over the next 10 years. Also, predatory lending continues to be a serious problem for homeowners. The Coalition for Responsible Lending estimates that homeowners lose $9.1 billion annually due to predatory loans. Predatory lending is especially a problem in the subprime market. People who have trouble getting access to conventional mortgages often use the subprime market for mortgage assistance. Predatory lenders disproportional prey on the elderly and minorities. In 2000, HUD completed a study that found that borrowers in upper income African American neighborhoods, who would easily qualify for conventional, low rate loans, were twice as likely as homeowners in low-income white neighborhoods to receive subprime refinance loans. In Chicago the number of high interest loans rose 3,685 between 1993 and 1999. To combat this problem, I and several of my colleagues have introduced anti predatory lending legislation. Regrettably, none of our bills have been given consideration by the Republican House leadership. Simply supporting homeownership is not enough. We must act to make sure the people are able to keep their homes as well. Homeownership is expensive and it is difficult for people with low incomes to own a home. People in Chicago and across the country need affordable housing whether it is a home or an apartment. In Chicago, we're short 150,000 units of affordable housing. Nationally, there has been a 37 percent increase in the number of people seeking emergency shelters in the past year and five and a half million people are facing the worst housing crisis in the United States. That is why I have introduced H.R. 2999 ``The First Things First Act.'' My legislation puts tax breaks for the rich on hold until we address our nation's housing crisis and other critical needs. This resolution is only effective if we take strong actions to make affordable housing a reality for America's families.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 237, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I recently read an op-ed in the Israeli paper, Ha'aretz, entitled Refugees First written by Dr. Avi Becker, the Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress. In the article, Dr. Becker discusses the role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, for Palestinian refugees. The article brings to light how these refugee camps are coming under control of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and being converted to ``military bastions'', a strict violation of U.N. policy. The Palestinian refugees of the UNRWA refugee camps are suffering and have not been offered a rehabilitation program to rebuild their communities outside these camps. The United Nations and the international community must reform their current policies on these camps and formulate a new humanitarian vision that will benefit the Palestinians within these camps and elsewhere. I strongly recommend that my colleagues read the following article. Refugees First It is revealing that only after the Arab/UN abortive attempt to send a fact-finding committee to Jenin, questions have been raised in the international media about the role of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). Several articles in the American media have asked bluntly: ``What exactly is the UN doing in its refugee camps (with our money)?'' The United States today finances more than one-fourth of UNRWA's operations, about $90 million, annually. Some Arab oil countries give together less than $5 million annually, while Iraq and Libya pledge nothing. Since the current mandate of UNRWA runs through June 30, 2002, it is essential to review and reassess the role of this UN agency. UNRWA, according to its self-proclaimed mission described in its Web site, does not aim to solve the problem of the refugees. While all of the world's refugees are dealt with by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) who is charged with working for their ultimate rehabilitation, UNRWA, which had existed for more than 50 years, was never meant to actually solve the problem of the Palestinian refugees but rather to perpetuate it. Under the auspices of UNRWA, some major principles of international law are violated. In 1998, the UN Security Council affirmed the ``unacceptability of using refugee camps and other persons in refugee camps . . . to achieve military purposes,'' a commitment which was immediately confirmed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in a 1998 report to the Security Council, in which he urged that ``[r]efugee camps . . . be kept free of any military presence or equipment, . . . and that the neutrality of the camps . . . [be] scrupulously maintained.'' It is therefore important to apply the same principles in the case of the UNRWA camps. In 1976, the Lebanese ambassador to the UN Edward Ghorra warned the international community of the fact that UNRWA camps in Lebanon had been taken over by terrorist organizations. In his letter to the then UN secretary- general, Kurt Waldheim, the ambassador said that ``the Palestinians acted as if they were a state within the State of Lebanon . . . . They transformed most, if not all, of the refugee camps into military bastions . . . in the heart of our commercial and industrial centers, and in the vicinity of large civilian conglomerations.'' (The letter was published as an official UN document.) In reality, UNRWA camps, with 17,000 employees, had come under PLO control, and under the UN flag they were functioning, for all intents and purposes, as military camps. In October of 1982, UNRWA released a most comprehensive report, which related in great detail that its educational institute at Sibleen, near Beirut, was in reality a military training base for PLO fighters, with extensive military installations and arms warehouses. The forthcoming renewal of UNRWA's mandate must be used to put pressure on the UN agency to begin a reform plan which will prepare the ground for its future integration with the UN High Commission on Refugees. Thus, in preparation for the decision on the mandate renewal, UNRWA must be asked to develop reliable and viable policies on two fronts: to enforce the ban, required under both international law and UN policy, against using their camps for military and terrorist purposes, and to draft a rehabilitation program which will build new neighborhoods for refugees outside the camps, wherever they are located. The tragedy of the Palestinians cannot be addressed by existing UN policies and practices. Any comprehensive peace plan dealing with Israeli withdrawal and new borders with a Palestinian state must include as a major component a thorough political and humanitarian solution for the Palestinian refugees. While the borders and security arrangements are obviously issues that need to be concluded, the refugees' situation must be addressed first, and a realistic practical solution must be developed which is based on dealing with the real conditions of their daily lives. The issue of the Palestinian ``right of return'' cannot be left in limbo, looming over every peace initiative, including the most recent Saudi one, which did not address the refugee issue clearly. Polls taken in Israel in recent days show that a significant majority of the Israeli public is prepared to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state, the dismantling of settlements and the making of far-reaching compromises for a sincere peace. As stated by President Bill Clinton on July 28, 2000, the refugee problem in the Middle East is two- sided, and includes the Jews from Arab lands ``who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land.'' The Jewish post-1948 refugees, whose number was about the same as that of the Palestinian refugees from the same period, were resettled and rehabilitated in their new home-- Israel. The Palestinians of the UNRWA refugee camps have not been offered any form of rehabilitation anywhere, and this is precisely the reason that the camps have become the incubators for so many suicide bombers. Thus, a peaceful resolution of the conflict continues to be stymied by the violent consequences of a decades-old policy of deliberately neglecting the Palestinian refugee problem and of deferring its resolution until some far-off future date. Today, for the sake of peace, the UN and the international community must reverse their long-standing and destructive Palestinian refugee policies and offer a dramatic and new humanitarian vision to the Palestinian refugees in the UNRWA camps and elsewhere.