Jan Schakowsky

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to stand before my colleagues and celebrate Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month. Asian and Pacific Americans have been a part of this country for over 200 years, with one of the first Asian American communities, the Filipino community, being established in the Louisiana Bayou in 1763. Asian and Pacific Americans have quickly established themselves as a strong and thriving community in this country, positively contributing to its industrial, educational and social successes. I am also proud to see the growing number of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans involved in the American political system at the local, state and national levels. As this community continues to grow, it is important for all of us to continue to learn from each other. In the 9th Congressional District, I am very fortunate to represent a vibrant, productive, and diverse Asian-Pacific American community that totals over 70,000 people. The community is diverse, ranging from Chinese to Indian to Korean to Filipino to Samoan. Each subset of the Asian-Pacific American community has brought a rich culture and strong work ethic to my district. From restaurants to service stations to software companies, the Asian- Pacific American community has provided the services needed to keep the 9th Congressional district an enjoyable, safe and culturally rich place to live. We recognize and cherish the contributions of the Asian-Pacific American community to our country. The Asian-Pacific American community has come so far in such a short period of time, and I am confident that it will only continue to grow and thrive while maintaining its many cultures and values.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as our operations continue and we begin to help rebuild Afghanistan, it is important to stress the needs and rights of women and young girls in that nation. Women and young girls in Afghanistan have been suffering incredible abuses ever since the extremist Taliban regime seized control of the country. Although the Taliban have now been removed from control in Afghanistan, it is deeply disturbing to me that women and girls continue to be abducted, raped, and abused within the country. The denial of employment and education rights for most women and girls is equally troubling and we must improve these conditions if equality is to exist between men and women in Afghanistan. H.R. 3994, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, provides the kind of assistance and aid that Afghanistan needs to develop into an economically stable and democratic nation. Equally important is the fact that it seeks to reestablish the participation of women and girls in government, education, and the workplace, as well as provides support for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. This is a very important step in ensuring that the women and young girls of Afghanistan are full, active participants in the building of a new Afghani government. A true democratic government represents all the people of its nation, regardless of race, religion, or gender. The Taliban treated women and girls like second class citizens who were forced to live their lives through the oppressive ideals of others, and this must never happen again. The persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan must come to an end. Afghanistan will improve its conditions quickly by allowing women and girls to receive an education, to be granted opportunities to gain employment, and to play a role in the governing process of the nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support of H.R. 3994, not only to help rebuild a nation but also to help protect the rights of women and girls of Afghanistan because it is time for their suffering to stop.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment, and I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this important issue. The Bush administration and the Republicans would have my colleagues believe that a change in our control policy, a shift from the policy of a counternarcotics to that of counterinsurgency is a logical part of our plan to eradicate the global terrorist network. Last year's supporters of Plan Colombia were promising us that our efforts in Colombia were just about reducing the flow of drugs. They had many Members convinced that the policy was justified and that it was going to be successful. To date, our policy has been a spectacular failure and now it is even less justified. It is a fact that despite our aggressive drug eradication efforts, coca cultivation has actually increased by 25 percent in Colombia. Despite our efforts, human rights abuses continue. Paramilitary death squads continue to brutalize innocent Colombians, and they operate with impunity from the military, and perhaps most disturbingly, military officials implicated in the deaths of the very people they are supposed to protect remain unpunished and on the Colombian government's payroll. Anyone who thinks that the links between military and brutal paramilitary forces have been severed are simply ignoring the realities on the ground, which I was able to see myself when I went with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to Colombia and listened to the people. The May 6 Chicago Tribune editorial on this subject had it right. ``There is no advantage to the United States getting deeper into the 40-year old Colombian civil war. Money spent on drug interdiction there would be much more productively used for treatment of addicts here. And more American military aid is hardly going to advance chances of a political solution to this multi-headed conflict. This failed foreign policy cannot be salvaged, certainly not by pouring good money after bad. The House has an opportunity to put a stop to this.'' In 1999, I stood here in this Chamber and I warned my colleagues that Plan Colombia would be just the first in a series of blank checks for the war, with no foreseeable future. Along with the sponsors of the amendment, I appreciate that the committee worked to narrow the parameters of the administration's original wide-open request to expand our role in Colombia. However, this bill still opens the door, and we all know that once a door is opened, it is very hard to shut. This language reaches back and allows all fiscal year 2002 military aid, personnel and equipment to be used for counterterrorism, including any additional aid that might be sent under a continuing resolution later this year. Military escalation is built into this appropriation bill, but an exit strategy is not. Once we cross into counterinsurgency we are committing the might and the resource of the United States to a 4-decade old war that cannot be won militarily. All of my colleagues should be reminded of President Johnson's agony and his inability to extricate the United States from a jungle quagmire in Vietnam. I would not wish that on a president of any party. I want to also say in closing that I understand that tonight that the Republican leadership is going to adjourn at midnight, start a new legislative day, and it is just another strategy to shut down debate, and even as we argue the supplemental budget and wave the flag as we should for our military forces around the globe and for strengthening our fight against terrorism here at home, and even as we talk about strengthening democracy in Colombia, the leadership here is working furiously to be able to curtail democracy here on the floor of this House. We should not be so hypocritical as to be waving the flag and promoting democracy in the supplemental and then saying but we cannot have democracy here to debate what is legitimate debate here on this floor of the House of Representatives.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great admiration for my colleagues across the aisle. That is because I admire what my family calls chutzpah, or nerve, some might say gall, but not me. An ordinary person watching tonight might think that the Republican leadership would be just a little bit sheepish about coming here today and proposing a supplemental budget that we really do not have the money to pay for without dipping into the Social Security trust fund, a trust fund that just a few short months ago was safely ensconced in a lockbox, a lockbox that, if I remember correctly, one after another of those same Republican leaders declared loudly and eloquently would never, ever be unlocked. Oh, no, we would never dip into the Social Security lockbox. And why? Because we had such a huge surplus, a surplus, if I can be rude enough to mention, was inherited from the Clinton administration, a surplus of $5.6 trillion, a surplus so large that these leaders scoffed at those of us who warned that the future is too uncertain to throw trillions of dollars of tax giveaways to the richest of the rich. I admire my Republican colleagues that despite the fact that $5.6 trillion of surplus is gone, gone, that we are now facing a $300 billion deficit this year, rather than being even the slightest bit embarrassed or apologetic, they are pressing aggressively ahead with a supplemental budget that, among some very worthwhile things, also takes money out of rural hospitals, expands the war in Colombia, ignores our housing and health care needs and is all paid for by raiding the Social Security trust fund. And I admire their arguments. It is war. How dare we be so unpatriotic as to bring up trivialities such as Social Security or debt or even fiscal responsibility? We are just being political. Although it does occur to me that there just might be such a concept as economic patriotism, that at a time of new demands caused by war, caused by our efforts to end terrorism, that it might be just the perfect moment to reconsider such things as tax cuts for the richest. Their forcefulness, some might call it sanctimony, but I do not, is laudable. And perhaps the cleverest of all, some would say too clever by half, but not me, is the way that the Republican leaders are disguising the way they want to come up with the money that we simply do not have. They want to borrow $750 billion more money than the law currently allows, borrow even more money from Social Security and also the Medicare trust fund. But just asking for it would not look good. After all, so many of their Members sponsored a resolution to amend the Constitution making it especially hard to borrow more money, a resolution that proves how fiscally responsible they are. Some of my Republican colleagues from Illinois, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) are proud cosponsors of this resolution. Perhaps they can explain the embarrassing truth that this supplemental appropriations bill is nothing more than a stealth maneuver to orchestrate a backdoor increase in the debt limit, the same as raising the credit card limit on a credit card, but I do not expect that they are embarrassed by this fiscal sleight of hand. I congratulate them for it. As I said, I admire chutzpah. But maybe, just maybe, their constituents, who not only talk about fiscal responsibility but who practice it every day balancing their checkbook, paying their credit card bills, saving for college and saving for a rainy day, might not be as admiring as I am of this squandering of the surplus, this raiding of the Social Security, this cynical effort to borrow more money without even taking a vote on it, without any apology. They might not appreciate, as I do, the chutzpah it takes to play with such finesse at this dangerous budget game.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, something is seriously wrong here. Last week this House authorized a defense bill that will cost $400 billion, a record increase of $48 billion, this despite the fact that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense has testified publicly that the Department cannot pass an audit and cannot track $1.2 trillion in transactions. The increase in the defense budget alone is three times greater than the cost of the welfare program, the major program supposedly aimed at lifting poor women and children out of poverty, aimed at fostering responsibility. We are demanding that poor women get a job, any job, even as we lose track of more than a trillion dollars? Bail out the airlines, give huge subsidies to farmers, offer a $254 million tax rebate to Enron? I am for accountability, but for everyone. But the Republican welfare bill is just mean. It makes it harder for most people in need to achieve self-sufficiency, something they want even more than we want from them. I say vote for the Democratic substitute. Vote no on the Republican bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4737, the Republican TANF reauthorization bill. Anyone who looks at this bill can see that the Republican plan does not provide real assistance to needy families. Instead, this bill aims to place further restrictions and requirements on those most in need and those who already face tremendous barriers to work and self- sufficiency. If the Republican leadership truly cared about providing assistance to needy families, it would have considered the needs of those families--the women, children, and parents who are directly affected by this program. Their bill would have focused on what TANF should really be about--helping families out of poverty so they will have an acceptable standard of living. Instead, this bill only succeeds in defining those families as statistics that should be controlled and told what to do. First and foremost, the amount of funding this Republican proposal gives to TANF, the primary program in this country to help poor women and children, is pitiful. Last week the House passed a $400 billion Department of Defense authorization bill that included a $48 billion increase. Not only is this the biggest increase in Defense spending since the cold war, but it was also provided despite the fact that the Department cannot pass an audit and cannot account for $1.2 trillion in spending. Yet, this increase is three times greater than the amount the Republicans propose for the TANF block grant. This Congress has bailed out the airlines and given a $254 million rebate to Enron. It is a disgrace that we cannot give more to those in this country that need it most. It is a disgrace that this bill does not provide a single additional dollar in TANF funds. In my State of Illinois, it would cost at least an additional $322 million in order to implement the increased work requirements and meet the child care needs that this bill would require. Second, this bill neglects to help women get assistance to overcome barriers, such as substance abuse, limited English proficiency, and domestic and sexual abuse. Instead, it requires that recipients work longer hours. Besides causing great hardship on single moms and children, this increase from a 30-hour requirement to one that demands women work 40 hours a week will likely force States to create workfare programs--programs that have been proven not to work and which threaten workers' rights to earn at least minimum wage and have other protections afforded all other workers in this country. Third, this bill does not provide adequate training for jobs that would open the door for people to earn a living wage so they can support their families. Instead, H.R. 4737 takes away recipients' ability to fully engage in vocational education, often a necessary step in getting a job that pays and provides the opportunity for advancement. This bill also does not provide support to women who care for young children or children with disabilities, and instead it doubles the amount of hours women with children under 6 years old are required to work. Furthermore, H.R. 4737 continues to deny legal immigrants access to benefits, instead of allowing these families who pay taxes and work hard to receive assistance when they hit tough times. Besides placing further restrictions on TANF recipients, H.R. 4737 also places further restrictions on States. Instead of helping States to be innovative in addressing the particular needs of their low-income population, this bill applies a one-size-fits-all philosophy and dramatically diminishes States rights. And, if all that was not bad enough, this Republican bill includes a ``superwaiver'' provision that extends to programs far beyond TANF and could bring greater hardship to low-income people helped by these programs. For example, this provision would have adverse affects on Federal public housing and homelessness programs because the rules and regulations governing them could be swept away at the whim of the Federal agencies. In these cases, the real impact would be felt by families who would then be threatened with losing their housing assistance and being forced onto the streets. Such far-reaching changes are unacceptable, particularly given that the various committees with jurisdiction over programs affected by this ``superwaiver'' did not have the opportunity to consider them nor to assess their negative impact. But none of this should come at any surprise. This Republican bill is in line with all the other legislation this leadership and the Bush administration have offered in this Congress, legislation that has aimed to deprive those most in need while giving to those who have plenty. Fortunately, we have an alternative in a Democratic substitute that actually gives families the tools they need to become self-sufficient. This substitute allows women more opportunity to access vocational or post-secondary education, or go to ESL or GED classes if needed; it restores benefits to legal immigrants; it provides worker protections to all TANF recipients; it provides resources to states to foster employment advancement and promotion among recipients; it makes Puerto Rico and the territories eligible for assistance; it gives States the incentive to actually work toward decreasing poverty. In addition, the Democratic substitute increases child care funding by $11 billion dollars and accounts for inflation in TANF block grant funding. I urge every one of my colleagues to reject the Republican bill, H.R. 4737, and instead, to think about all the individual lives we are affecting. H.R. 4737 does not provide assistance to needy families, it places arbitrary and restrictive mandates on needy families. If we truly want to help people leave poverty and become self-sufficient we must vote for the Democratic substitute and against H.R. 4737.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Arsenic Treated Lumber Prohibition and Disposal Act to protect children and families by phasing out the use of arsenic in pressure treated lumber and ensure that arsenic treated lumber is disposed of safely. Most of the lumber sold for outdoor use in the U.S.--for school playgrounds and decks of private homes--is pressure-treated and injected with toxins to preserve the wood and prevent insect infestation. The most common wood preservative and pesticide used is chromated copper arsenate (CCA), which is 22 percent pure arsenic. A 12-foot section of pressure-treated lumber contains about an ounce of arsenic, enough to kill 250 people. An Environmental Working Group and Healthy Building Network study found that an area of arsenic-treated wood the size of a four-year-old's hand contains an average of 120 times the amount of arsenic allowed by the EPA in a 6-ounce glass of water. According to the report an estimated one out of every 500 children, who regularly play on playground equipment or decks made from pressure-treated wood can be expected to develop cancer later in life as a result of the exposure. The Arsenic Treated Lumber Prohibition and Disposal Act will prohibit the use of CCA treated lumber once and for all. The Arsenic Treated Lumber Prohibition and Disposal Act, parallel legislation to Senator Bill Nelson's (S. 1963) bill, will phase-out the use of arsenic-treated lumber in residential settings: decks, playgrounds, walkways and fences within a year of enactment. It also requires the disposal of arsenic- treated lumber in lined landfills to prevent contamination of groundwater and requires the EPA to finish its risk assessment regarding arsenic-treated lumber. Finally, it provides monetary assistance to schools and local communities to remove arsenic-treated lumber from their playgrounds. Arsenic can kill, and it causes cancer and other life threatening diseases. We can no longer ignore the dangers posed by exposing our children to this poison. The Arsenic Treated Lumber Prohibition and Disposal Act will protect the environment and health of American Families. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in this effort to keep families safe.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment. Women who volunteer to join the armed services, who risk their lives in faraway places, are asked now to compromise their constitutional right to choose. And she is also having to make a decision to compromise her health, because we are not talking about her life that may be at stake, but if she needs this medical procedure of an abortion to save her health, she may have to make the decision not to do that. Let us be clear. This amendment simply gives American women overseas the same legal rights they would receive if they are at home. It does not provide public funding for abortions. It simply allows women to use their own money to pay for the procedure. It does not force medical personnel at military hospitals overseas to perform the procedure. They would still be allowed the option not to perform abortions based on moral, religious, or ethical objections. This amendment is necessary for women's health. The current ban places women's health at risk by not allowing them the full range of reproductive health. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment to prohibit the Bush administration from spending taxpayer dollars on a space-based, 21st century version of a Stars Wars missile defense system. The simple question we should always ask is does this system make us safer? Are my children and my grandchildren safer if we spend these millions of dollars? I believe the answer is no. Not now, and not in the future. Today we do face some very real threats. Warnings are issued on a regular basis of possible terrorist attacks. Interceptors from space are not going to help us. We need better intelligence to intercept phone conversations and shoe bombs and biological weapons at our airports, seaports, trains and highways. Long-range, weaponizing space, bringing weapons into another dimension, is not a formula for security. Rather, as the Union of Concerned Scientists contend, such a move destabilizes arms control as we know it. The only Stars Wars any Members of this Congress should see will be at a theater near you on May 16. I strongly urge a yes vote on the Tierney amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate National Small Business Week. Small businesses have contributed and continue to contribute to our nation's economy. They are anchors in our neighborhoods, and employ and train millions of workers every year. Small businesses account for half of our gross domestic product, and I am committed to ensuring that small business owners and workers have the resources and protections necessary to grow and thrive. There are approximately 25 million small businesses in the United States and they account for 75 percent of all new jobs added to the economy and represent 99.7 percent of all employers. There are over 280,000 employer businesses in the state of Illinois, and over 97 percent of them are small businesses, with fewer than 500 employees. Currently, there are an estimated 6.2 million women-owned businesses, accounting for 28 percent of all privately held firms. These firms generate $1.15 trillion in sales and employ 9.2 million workers. Also, minority-owned businesses have quadrupled over the last decade. Minorities now own 15 percent of American businesses and 99 percent of these firms are small businesses. But the sad truth is that not enough is being done to provide these businesses with the opportunities needed to survive and compete in today's market. I recently toured several business areas in my district and met with business owners in Morton Grove, Illinois. I also met with several business groups, such as the Gladstone Park Chamber of Commerce. I was proud to see small businesses thriving in the community. The main source of help for these businesses is the Small Business Administration. The SBA has a portfolio of business loans, loan guarantees, disaster loans and venture capital worth more than $58 billion, and I will work hard to provide the necessary financial and technological support that will allow the SBA to do its job in an efficient and effective manner. I am working in Congress to improve a number of programs and services that the Small Business Administration provides which will give important resources to small businesses in my district and across this nation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 87. President Bush's decision to ship 77,000 tons of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada is wrong. This attempt to force Congress to adopt an ill-conceived, premature proposal is irresponsible and dangerous. It is our duty to protect those we serve from a proposal that will surely threaten our national security and the lives of American families in their own homes and communities. At a time of heightened security and terrorist threats, this Administration is proposing to ship tens and thousands of highly radioactive and deadly materials through our towns and neighborhood. And as fast as they get the waste out of the plants, nuclear facilities will ramp up production, create more waste and start shipping it to Nevada--right through our towns once again. If Congress passes this resolution and overrides the authority of Nevada's governor, millions of American lives will be in danger. The President's Yucca Mountain proposal would ship radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain from nuclear power plants through 43 states. Nearly 161 million people live within 75 miles of those routes. I find it unconscionable that the Bush Administration would hastily force us to accept this proposed solution. The fact is that we need more time, not only to find a safe place to store the waste, but time to figure out ways to treat it and make it less dangerous. I believe we should implement a plan that would remove fuel from reactors without the safety and security risks of thousands of nuclear transports traveling on our highways, railways, and waterways. There are currently plans that would increase security and safety at current sites, provide storage for up to 100 years, and provide time to find better alternatives. Widely implementing these kinds of plans would eliminate the security concerns surrounding the potential 108,500 shipments of spent nuclear fuel across the country. The Yucca Mountain proposal is deceitful from its core because it promises to remove above-ground nuclear waste storage facilities. The truth is that, although the proposal will fill our highways and railways with nuclear HAZMATS, nuclear power plants will be enabled to produce a greater amount of waste, which will be stored above ground until it is scheduled for shipment. The Yucca Mountain repository will not be capable of receiving waste until, at the earliest, 2010. At a rate of 2,000 tons per year, there will be 62,000 tons of waste by 2010 still sitting in storage facilities in the nuclear power plants around the country. The Yucca repository will reach its capacity of 77,000 tons in the middle of this century; the amount remaining in storage at nuclear plants will be almost exactly what it is today. The proposal will fail to meet its intended purpose. Congress should reject this proposal. It is an unfunded mandate-- Congress has not worked out the transportation funding, cost of security measures, and other logistical issues to make this a realistic project. The time, effort, money and energy required for this project could be better spent investing in securing nuclear energy plants and implementing contingency plans for surrounding communities in the event of an emergency. Congress should recognize the dangers that will be posed to all Americans as a result of nuclear HAZMAT trucks and trains streaking across our highways/rails and through the neighborhoods of my constituents and millions of people across the country. With the horror of September 11th still fresh in our minds, we have pledged to the American people that we will secure their safety--that our way of life will not be altered by the evil deeds of a hateful few. But this proposal threatens that promise. We know that the threat of terror on American soil is real. We should take time to ensure that those who want to harm this nation would not have an opportunity. Today, the President is proposing to litter American highways and railways with slow moving targets. We are setting the stage for potential disasters. Congress is faced with a choice between supporting a hastily conceived proposal, or protecting our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution and vote to guarantee the safety and security of the American people.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Bill 378, which will rename the Chicago Job Corps Center, located at 3348 South Kedzie Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, as the Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center after former U.S. Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. Senator Simon was not only a great U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois, but he is a champion for working people across the nation. Senator Simon has dedicated his life to helping the people of this country. As a scholar, writer, and public servant, Senator Simon has worked hard to battle against the social injustices that haunt our nation. During his congressional service, Senator Simon was a strong supporter of the federal Jobs Corps program and was instrumental in the chartering of a Jobs Corps center in Chicago. The Center provides opportunities in a campus environment to gain a valuable education with advanced career training, to learn a skilled trade, so that individuals may reach their full potential. Job Corps provides up to two years of hands-on work-based training and internships, in areas ranging from bricklaying to computer repair. The Center also provides academic training in remedial math and reading, GED preparation, and English as a second language, and outreach to those in the community that may not have the opportunity to attend college. It is these things that define the goals Senator Simon has set to achieve for the millions of Americans looking for skilled employment in the workplace. Senator Simon has been a dear friend of mine for many, many years. His contributions and dedication as a public servant have always inspired me. He has not only made great contributions to this country and the state of Illinois, but he continues to play a vital role as Director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. He is a leader in strengthening democracy and in addressing key global issues such as the looming water shortage crisis. I feel that renaming the Chicago Job Corps Center as the Paul Simon Chicago Job Corps Center is an appropriate recognition of what he has done for the Chicago area and all of us. Thank you Paul, for everything.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mr. Abe Selman, Niles Village Manager from my home state of Illinois, for his outstanding years of service to the community. Mr. Selman will be retiring from his position on May 1st, 2002. Mr. Selman has been a Niles resident since 1962 and has dedicated himself to the public sector, bettering the Niles community. He served as a village trustee for 17 years and resigned in 1989 to become the Village Manager. Mr. Selman worked nonstop to make Niles a community for all to enjoy and achieved this goal through his knowledge, experience, and most important of all, his passion for service. As Village Manager, he was a visionary. Mr. Selman was in charge of managing development of a Village-wide computer network project, starting from setting up a single computer to over 200 in the village. He was also responsible for the planning, financing, and construction of several municipal buildings that greatly improved the quality of life of many residents. His business savvy was felt through his efficient use of public funds and by reducing operating costs through improved business practices. Mr. Selman will be missed. His contributions to the community have been felt by all. Thank you Abe, for all you have done for the community.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 392 and in support of efforts to bring lasting peace and security to the Middle East. The United States Congress today will, once again, reinforce its bond and our nation's bond with the people of Israel. I am proud to join my colleagues in sending this message of support for our close ally and friend, the State of Israel. A short time ago, as families and as a people, Jews retold the story of our Exodus from slavery in Egypt. And Jews everywhere vowed, ``Next year in Jerusalem,'' because Jerusalem belongs to all of us. We tell that story to remind ourselves and our children how we once were slaves and now we are free. A few weeks ago, we remembered the six million slaughtered in the Holocaust. We wept together and Jews everywhere vowed, ``Never again.'' We tell that story to remind ourselves and our children that even now, especially now, we cannot take our freedom for granted. A few days ago, we celebrated the 54th anniversary of the establishment of our beloved State of Israel, the tiny spot on this planet where Jews everywhere know that, no matter what, we can go there and be free. And today we gather here to make a commitment to freedom: that Israel will thrive and shine as a democratic, Zionist, Jewish homeland now and forever. The resolution before us today tells our brothers and sisters in Israel that we stand with them; that we will not stand idly by while they are murdered by terrorists during a Pesah seder, or waiting for a bus, or going to a restaurant, shopping at a mall, going to a cafe or sleeping in their beds. We will walk with them, and we're doing that today, every step of the way. Our message today to those who would desecrate our synagogues or attack our children in France or Belgium or the Ukraine or Canada or Los Angeles or Chicago: ``Never again'' will we allow your anti- Semitism to threaten our lives and our freedom, and we will hold any government that tolerates anti-Semitism accountable for its actions or inaction. Last week at the AIPAC Conference in Washington, attended by hundreds of people from Illinois, you could also see in attendance, the largest gathering of members of the U.S. House and Senate anywhere outside of a joint session of Congress. Over half of the U.S. Senators were there; over one-fourth of the 435 members of the House. This is unprecedented. They were there because they stand firmly with us as friends of Israel. This outpouring of support did not happen by accident. It is a tribute to the Jewish community, to our organizations, all of the synagogues, institutions and individuals, and their decades of work that so many of my colleagues, even those from states with small Jewish populations, understand the importance of Israel and the U.S./Israel relationship. Because of that diligence, the day in, day out educating of policy makers, I know that the United States of America will always, ALWAYS, stand firmly with Israel. I will never allow that bond to be broken. Let me end by quoting some of the words spoken by Rabbi Michael Melchior, Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the incredible rally in Washington, D.C. two weeks ago. He referred to a Torah portion that describes the Biblical laws of holiness. ``The climax of these laws,'' he said, ``the peak of holiness is remarkable. It is the simple commandment--`Love your neighbor because he is as yourself.' This is Jewish holiness. We will never accept those who prevent this holiness, who subscribe to a doctrine of ``Kill your neighbor with yourself . . .' This fight seems overwhelming. A raging sea of violence ready to engulf us, and many of us have moments of despair. But our people, from its earliest days of creation have found ways of crossing such seas. I pray and truly believe that if we keep sight of the values for which we are fighting, we will cross this sea as well as reach the land of which we have so long dreamed, the land of peace.'' I urge all members to support this resolution. With its passage we make clear the U.S. commitment to the people of Israel. We will stand with Israel forever and we will guarantee that the people of Israel are free to live in peace and security. Today more than ever we need to reinforce that commitment. Passage of this measure joins the United States with all friends and allies of the people of Israel in saying Am Yisrael Chai! The people of Israel will continue to live--now and forever.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I do have a few additional remarks, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. It seems to me that additional information on human rights is necessary, because current policy provides really only one remedy, and that is to deny a project on human rights grounds. But those denials are made on the basis of an assessment by the State Department of human rights for an entire country in which the project will be located, and not an assessment of the project itself. There should be more tools available to Ex-Im Bank to assess human rights. In reality, there are very few projects that would warrant cancellation or total denial of Ex-Im funding because of severe human rights impacts, but many more projects may have human rights concerns that, if adequately identified beforehand, could be mitigated during project design. Ex-Im Bank needs detailed assessments on a project-by- project basis of the potential impact proposed projects may have on human rights. Again, this is a modest amendment. It is not the total solution to what I believe to be the legitimate and serious concerns of human rights experts like Human Rights Watch and Members of Congress and numerous other human rights experts and advocates throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an acknowledgment that we have much more to do to improve the human rights record of the Ex-Im Bank, prevent human rights abuses, and ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly, without compromising the project financing portfolio of the bank. The key to achieving those goals is information. Had such information existed during consideration of the Enron power project in India, for example, Ex-Im staff would have identified previous human rights problems and could have consulted with local national or international human rights organizations for further information. This would have allowed for recommendations that Enron make certain commitments to corporate responsibility, for example, that would have mitigated the problems that occurred later in the project and after Ex-Im funding was approved. Yet another lesson of the Enron collapse has been the clear need for greater oversight of projects financed with taxpayer dollars. The Dahbol power project is partially owned and operated by Enron. The project received approximately $290 million in Ex-Im Bank guarantees despite the World Bank's refusal to fund it and serious human rights problems related to its construction. According to Human Rights Watch, ``Enron subsidiaries paid local law enforcement to suppress opposition to its power plant. They broke down the door and window of one of the protestor's bathrooms and dragged her naked into the street, beating her with batons. The protestor was 3 months pregnant at the time.'' It seems to me that especially now, in a world where we are trying to build international coalitions to fight terrorism, as we should, that the United States should lead the world in the struggle for human rights, fairness, and equality for all in every way we can. We must never send a message to our neighbors in the international community or to the American corporate community that we are willing to compromise human needs for corporate greed. Ex-Im Bank has a responsibility to U.S. taxpayers to ensure our money is well spent, and the Congress has a responsibility to place human rights on an equal footing with all other considerations in our international economic agenda. Passage of this amendment would be a measured step in that direction. Again, I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services, particularly the chairman and ranking Democratic members of the full committee and the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy for their work and leadership. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this modest amendment and put the Congress on record in support of human rights and responsible behavior when we conduct business abroad. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the tenor of this discussion, and I would like to continue it just for a bit. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his support of this amendment. We have taken into serious consideration the gentleman's concern in raising the issue that it is the State Department, in fact, that authorizes on human rights grounds the commencement of a project and would make decisions as to whether or not a project should be canceled on the basis of human rights. We have been talking with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor within the State Department, and I have spoken with senior officials there who agree that more scrutiny should be placed on major Ex-Im projects that are proposed. So while I am very pleased and grateful about the prospects of the amendment today and for the gentleman's support, we are going to continue those discussions to see if we cannot further this agenda of more inquiry into human rights.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by commending the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade for their work on this important bill, and I want to particularly express my gratitude to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, and his staff for working with me so that human rights concerns and protections would be included in this debate and be part of this legislation. Our ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), has been a leader throughout this process, and I commend him for his tireless efforts on behalf of working people, small businesses, human rights, and the environment. This is a modest amendment to the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. My amendment states the sense of the Congress that detailed information on the potential impact on human rights of proposed Export- Import Bank projects should be more available to the management of the bank for all projects that are worth $10 million or more. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the month of April, which was Sexual Assault Awareness Month, has come to an end. However, I propose that we make every month sexual assault awareness month until there is no longer a woman in this world who fears being raped or assaulted. We are devoting extensive resources to ending terror around the world, while at the same time 1 in 6 women continue to be terrorized by sexual assaults in their lifetime. Sadly, this is not new or shocking news as each year the statistics change very little. It is time to take a stand. It is time that we make ending violence against women a national priority. It is time that we devote the same amount of resources to ending a form of violence that terrorizes over half the population of this globe as we provide to the war on terrorism. We can do something about it today. There will be a motion to instruct today introduced by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) which will instruct conferees to agree that we should strengthen the Violence Against Women Office and make it independent within the Department of Justice. This will make sure that we put the kind of attention and resources that we need to stop violence against women.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration and Reform Accountability Act. I agree that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a broken agency that needs to be fixed. That is a point that has been underscored in the time since September 11 but was clearly a problem long before those tragic events. The need for reform of the INS has been clear to me because of the difficulty constituents in my districts have had in dealing with the INS. My district staff spends approximately 80% of casework time on cases that have to do with problems with the INS. This has to change. Although I will vote for this legislation, I do have some concerns. We must make the INS a better managed, more efficient, coordinated, and effective agency. I strongly believe, in order to accomplish those goals, the agency must be split into the separate bureaus for services and enforcement. H.R. 3231 allows the separate bureaus to focus on the distinct missions of providing services and enforcement. Another core principle to effective reorganization is the coordination of immigration policy, legal direction, and information under the authority of a strong executive. Although this legislation creates a high level position of an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, this office is not responsible for setting immigration policy. Policy making is left to the individual bureaus. I also think offices which should remain at the core of the structure have been relegated to the service and enforcement bureaus, leading to duplicity within the overall agency. For example, each bureau is to have an Office of Policy and Strategy and each bureau is to have a Chief Budget Officer. Given this structure, I am not certain that the Office of the Associate Attorney General will have the authority to effectively manage and coordinate the functions of these offices and create a coherent national immigration policy. Although I am pleased we have made strides toward elevating the Office of Children's Affairs, I do not think this legislation adequately addresses the needs of unaccompanied minors. I am particularly concerned with the conditions under which children will be detained and held and whether they will have legal representation. These are children. We must create safeguards to protect them, not further traumatize them through imprisonment. We must also ensure that they are appropriately counseled and represented as they navigate our extremely complicated immigration courts and system. The only thing this legislation specifies is that the Director of the OCA is responsible for ``compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually a state-by-state list of professionals or other entities qualified to provide guardian and attorney representation services for unaccompanied alien children.'' How will that benefit an infant or a toddler who can not speak much less read? I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work to strengthen this provision and push for language that is reflected in the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act. I am pleased that there are provisions to create an ombudsman office. It is essential that immigrants have someone at a high level addressing concerns and problems they are having with their cases. This office will also look at systemic problems in the INS structure. Advocates with whom I work in my district suggested language that would elevate the level ombudsman and I hope the other body will consider those suggestions in its deliberations on similar legislation. I believe it is critical that an ombudsman not be restricted in accomplishing their job. It may be more effective to remove the office of the Ombudsman from the entire INS structure, placing it in the Department of Justice. I am also pleased with provisions that require separate appropriations for asylum and refugee benefits to be processed. This will stop the unfair cost shifting that has been occurring where fees from other INS benefits are being used to adjudicate asylum and refugee cases. I also understand there will be a study to further investigate how much services actually cost. I applaud the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering that very important amendment to this bill. I think it is important that we move to pass legislation to restructure the INS. We must take steps towards fixing the agency. While I support this bill, I urge the Senate to work on the concerns I have raised, and I look forward to seeing a better bill come out of conference and back to this chamber. I commend all members who have worked to bring this measure to floor.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed that the Republican leadership of this body has not responded to the widespread corruption in our financial markets. The Republican so called ``reforms'' bill will not protect investors and pension holders from conflicts of interest and corporate greed. By failing to enact meaningful reform we are failing the American people. We all know that if not for Enron's collapse we would not consider these important matters today. I am concerned that some want to characterize the Enron collapse as just a case of one bad actor in the market place. I disagree with that interpretation. Enron's collapse has systemic causes. Corporate board of directors, Wall Street analysts, and the big five accounting firms all have an economic incentive to provide biased analysis of large, profitable companies. Enron used its political ties to persuade the government to carry out its business plan. Just take a look at California, President Bush, his regulators, and congressional Republicans opposed price caps for consumers while Enron manipulated the market, causing the California energy crisis. Enron had incredible access to the White House. President Bush received over $736,000 throughout his career as an elected official. Vice President Cheney had at least six meetings with Enron officials while drafting the Administration's energy plan. Enron's economic and political power effectively muted people who were skeptical of the company's economic stability. Enron is not an isolated case and this is not only a business scandal it is also a political scandal. The fact of the matter is we do not have the laws and procedures in place to protect common investors. I have little doubt that corporate executives' greed and deception will victimize more people. We in Congress cannot simply rely on free market dogma. The American people deserve better than this sham of a reform bill. I am a member of the Financial Services Committee and I voted against final passage of this cosmetic excuse for a bill. I am dismayed to report that Republicans on the committee refused to even pass an amendment that called for CEO's and CFO's to certify financial statements. I think most Americans would be surprised to learn that this is not a requirement that already exists. Employees and pension managers must be involved in corporate decision making. Boards that are dominated by corporate executives are inherently flawed, a lesson we learned from Enron's collapse. Enron's collapse had a major impact on working families--many lost their life savings while Enron's executives gained millions. It is estimated that Illinois' state pension fund lost $25 million. That means that hard working teachers, police officers, and firefighters who worked for the public good may not be able to enjoy their hard-earned retirement. Back home in my home Chicago thousands of Andersen employees have, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs. For this reason, as well as many others, it is important that we do act in order to prevent those kinds of layoffs and to protect investors and pension holders from unfettered corporate greed. I hope that the final bill that is sent to the President's desk will make real reforms that will help prevent this from occurring, again. A real reform bill will: Make sure that our auditors are independent. Create a strong public regulatory body that does not have conflict of interest or financial ties to the industry being regulated. Ensure that investors have at least the same rights and receive the same treatment as corporate executives. Ensure those employees, investors and pension holders have access to pertinent information and participate in corporate decision making. Ensure that Enron executives cannot keep the money they stole from their employees and investors. Our ranking member, John LaFalce, has crafted an alternative that will accomplish these goals. Please join me in voting for his substitute.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to be on the floor of this House today to stand in strong support of H.R. 3839, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, and to thank and commend the Committee on Education and the Workforce, particularly the chairman and the ranking member and all those who have done so much now, and hopefully we will pass this tonight and have it signed into law. It will make such a difference in preventing the suffering of children in our country. Today could be a real red letter day for that because it is not just that piece of legislation which I look forward to supporting tonight, but we also can support the Baca amendment which would prevent the suffering of children through hunger and their families from being hungry. There can be no higher mission for this body than to prevent that kind of unnecessary suffering. All we are going to be considering tonight is a motion to instruct the conferees on the farm bill. This is in line, really, with the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. We are going to be able to restore food stamps to legal immigrants, people who have been in this country for at least 5 years, who have worked here for 16 quarters. About 85 percent of immigrant families are mixed families, with stepchildren and immigrant parents. This benefit that goes to the citizen children often has to be spread through the whole family, leaving the family not having enough food to eat. So while we protect children through the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, let us also do it by instructing the conferees to say let us restore that benefit so we do not have hungry families and hungry children who go to school.

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to say that in the same way that in a bipartisan fashion the gentleman was able to craft the Keeping the Children and Families Safe Act, we could do this in a bipartisan way. As the gentleman had mentioned earlier, the Bush administration does support this effort to restore food stamps to legal immigrant families. So I think tonight we ought to do both things: protect children from physical abuse and the kind of abuse that results from hunger.