Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I support this bill because it reauthorizes a broad array of targeted programs that work toward improving public education. It focuses on maintaining high standards in every classroom, strengthening teacher and principal quality, supporting a safe, healthy, disciplined, and drug-free learning environment and improving student performance. H.R. 1 will help to close the gap between disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers, and between minority and non-minority students. The conference report includes unprecedented targeting of Title I funds to the neediest communities. The 50 school districts with the highest percentage of poor students will receive a 10% increase in Title I funding solely as a result of proposed Title I formula grants. In addition, Title I schools will receive more funds due to increases in appropriations. Congress, and the country at-large, cannot continue to ignore the gap between rich and poor and minority and non-minority students. This bill represents a fight against the status quo. H.R. 1 will ensure that all teachers are qualified to teach in the subject matter for which they are responsible. The bill includes an authorization of $3.2 billion for teacher training and class-size reduction, a $1 billion (or 46%) increase from the FY 2001 funding level. It provides new resources for mentoring, training, salary enhancement and other improvements. We are supporting teachers by giving them the resources they need to do their jobs. Our teachers will now be better prepared to give students the tools and know-how to be successful students. H.R. 1 includes a historical 57% funding increase in bilingual education programs. For the first time ever, our education legislation has recognized that this country is growing closer and closer to our creed, E Pluribus Unum, ``Out of Many, One''. This bill will ensure that language barriers will not leave our many immigrant and bilingual children behind. Additionally, H.R. 1 contains no vouchers, no state block grants, and no repeal of after-school programs and a section was added for school construction. The bill also kept hate crimes programs and civil rights protections. Efforts to hold schools accountable without providing the resources and protections needed to meet high standards were defeated. I contacted major disability groups, such as, The Arc and the Easter Seal Society. These groups expressed their disappointment in the loss of IDEA funding. The NEA, AFT, and NSBA offered similar opinions on the bill. All three groups also express disappointment that Congress could not agree to fulfill its promise to fully-fund IDEA at 40 percent. Congress made a commitment 26 years ago to fund federally mandated special education programs at 40 percent of average per pupil expenditures. By simply fulfilling our promise to fully fund our share of IDEA, Congress could improve public education three-fold. First, school districts would have substantial resources freed up for other essential or innovative educational programs. Second, we would remove the unpredictability of the annual appropriations process, replacing confusion with stability for local schools when formulating their budgets. And last but not least--we would be giving special education students the tools needed to overcome the many obstacles they face on a daily basis. Despite this shortcoming, these groups support the goals of raising achievement, increasing accountability, and improving teacher quality, and I agree with them. I believe the education of the 21st century must change to suit different learning styles and include a wider variety of programming that focuses on the application of classroom lessons--math, science, social sciences--to real world situations. Too often, lessons are taught in a way that makes it difficult to connect book lessons to the real world; we must better bridge this gap. In a world that evolves more closely everyday, 2nd language classes should be encouraged at early ages. We simply must ensure that our education system keeps up with our world. We are in a critical transition stage; new techniques, new ideas, and new visions must be the order of the day, in order for our students to remain competitive. We have the opportunity to uncap a wealth of human resources that lay under-appreciated and underestimated in urban and rural school districts across the country. The next generation of great thinkers, writers, scientists, doctors, educators, actors and lawmakers, are waiting for us to activate and motivate them. It is our responsibility to devise a new definition of success. We must let our students know that our future is nothing without them. it is our responsibility to show them that there is a world that they can--not only be a part of-- but also change and improve. If we invest in our students, we invest in a future of innovation and growth. The H.R. 1 conference agreement is a strong, positive step toward a new education system that focuses on preparing our youth to make our world the best it can be. I urge all may colleagues to support the passage of this conference report.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, one year ago today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, determined the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. Today, the U.S. House of Representatives, by considering the Help America Vote Act, is taking a measured step forward to ensure that future elections will be decided in the polling place instead of the courthouse. During the 2000 election, six million votes were not counted and voters were turned away at the polls, harassed, or intimidated. The American people expected that, by now, Congress would have taken action on election reform so that history would not repeat itself. But until today, we have not. I traveled the country with my colleagues, including Representative Maxine Waters, Chairperson of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on election Reform, and met with disenfranchised voters, who demanded that the federal government repair the deficiencies of the last election. And we should have delivered on that demand months ago by passing the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001, a comprehensive reform bill introduced by Representative John Conyers. That legislation, which is endorsed by civil rights, labor, disability and voter rights organizations, is the benchmark for true reform. It thoughtfully addresses concerns raised during last year's election, including voter records, accessibility, and equal opportunity at the voting place. Now, with less than a year before the next general election, Congress is running out of time. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act is not scheduled for consideration by the House, and what is before us is the Help America Vote Act of 2001. By passing this bill, we are moving the legislative train out of the station. While the Help America Vote Act contains provisions I strongly support, including funds to help states improve some aspects of their election systems and to involve younger voters in the process, I believe this bill contains flaws that must be addressed. I am concerned that the Help America Vote Act is broad and ambiguous and does not give clear direction to states, particularly in regards to provisional voting. I will work to strengthen that section of the bill. In addition, I strongly believe that Congress must set federal minimum standards to ensure that no eligible voter is denied the right to vote. However, the standards in the Help America Vote Act do not go far enough to ensure that all voters with disabilities have access to the polls and to guarantee that all machines notify voters of undervotes and overvotes. Furthermore, the legislation does not require states to provide adequate voting machinery to poor and minority districts. This legislation is not the final answer to our election woes. As a matter of fact, far from it. However, this bill puts Congress squarely on record as supporting a measure of election reform. I commend the Democratic author of the bill, Representative Steny Hoyer, for his dedication, and I pledge to work with him and my colleagues, including civil rights and election reform leaders Maxine Waters and John Conyers, to ensure that the final product truly addresses the serious flaws that resulted in last year's election fiasco. Every American is entitled the right to vote and the right to have his or her vote counted.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to honor and thank the U.S. Capitol Police for their around the clock commitment to maintaining the safety and security of the U.S. Capitol, Members of Congress and the thousands of staff and visitors who occupy the grounds daily. On September 11, the USCP rose to the challenge. In the face of uncertainty and while our nation was under attack, the men and women of the Capitol Police remained behind as the Capitol compound was evacuated, while working to ensure our safety. On that day, every member of the House and Senate, staff, and visitors witnessed the bravery and commitment of the Capitol Police. Today we mark three months since the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City. Since 9-11, twelve-hour days, six-day weeks, overtime and cancelled vacations are the norm, not the exception for the Capitol Police. This resolution, H. Res. 309, is a small token signifying that your dedication and personal sacrifices have not gone unnoticed. I thank you for your service to us, to our community and to our great nation and I urge all Members to vote in support of this important resolution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering a resolution stating our commitment to maintain the promise of Social Security by guaranteeing lifetime, inflation-proof benefits to current and future beneficiaries. I am not surprised that we feel the need to do so tonight in light of today's dangerous recommendations by the President's Social Security Commission, that we feel the need to reaffirm our commitment to Social Security on the same day that the Commission is suggesting that we break that promise. We should assure Americans--current retirees, future retirees, persons on disability, survivors and dependents--that we will not abandon them, cut their benefits, raise their retirement age, change benefit formulas, reduce COLAS, or take any other step that jeopardizes their financial security. We should assure Americans that we will reject the recommendations of the President's Social Security Commission. We all know that this Commission was handpicked to include only those who favor privatization and individual accounts. It does not include representatives of seniors'groups, women's groups, or consumer groups. It held closed-door sessions in subcommittee meetings'' designed to circumvent government in the sunshine requirements. But even this Commission agrees that you cannot have privatization without cutting benefits. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with members of the Commission at an event sponsored by the Women's Caucus. At that meeting, we were told that the Commission's recommendations would not guarantee current benefits to all current and future retirees. We were told that only those 55 years or older would be guaranteed current benefits. For everyone else, benefit levels could be lower. In fact, the Commission's recommendations would lower Social Security benefits for future beneficiaries by between 30 percent to 48 percent. Who would be hurt? Persons with disabilities, children, low-wage workers, persons of color and women. As we know, Social Security is of special importance to women, who are 60% of all recipients. Without Social Security, over half of older women would live in poverty. Women understand that value of Social Security, we know that we must protect it now and in the future. Therefore, we should listen to what women's groups have to say about the Commission's recommendations issued today. Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, says that ``The President's Social Security Commission proposes major cuts in guaranteed benefits that will not be made up by the stock market gains from individual accounts.'' Heidi Hartmann, head of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, says that the recommendations ``risk the future economic security of younger workers, particularly women. They are joined in opposing these recommendations by groups like the Older Women's League, the National Organization for Women, the American Association of University Women, and Business and Professional Women, USA. In light of the widespread public opposition to privatization, I am not surprised that the Republican leadership is bringing up a resolution that distances this body from the Commission's recommendations. I only hope that we will do more than voice our commitment to the future of social Security. I hope that we will put privatization proposals to rest for good.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance and observance of Pearl Harbor Day, a terrible day in our country's history. On this day, 60 years ago, the greatest generation was called into action. They answered this call, and changed the world forever. On the morning of Sunday, December 7, 1941, the Japanese fleet crossed the Pacific Ocean. They attacked and crippled the US Pacific Fleet. The attackers bombed our docked ships, and a nearby military airfield. Eight American battleships and 13 other naval vessels were sunk or badly damaged, almost 200 American aircraft were destroyed and approximately 3,000 naval and military personnel were killed or wounded. The attack marked the entrance of the United States into the war. The Axis Powers marched across Europe toward world domination. The tripartite represented one of the darkest and most evil forces the world has ever known. Nazi Germany had begun the systematic extermination of Jewish men, women and children. The Axis Powers moved to conquer, rule, and destroy to gain the world, under a flag of greed and hate. American forces joined freedom-loving nations already fighting. Our soldiers fought valiantly from the shores of Normandy to the Battle of Midway. They fought not to show U.S. might, nor to win possessions. The American soldiers fought to preserve and protect the right of people to live freely. In the years following the defeat of the Axis Powers, the world would change shape. Borders would open, stimulating a wave of freedom strong enough to tear down walls and break barriers. People from different corners of the earth would be connected like never before. America would build a strong relationship with Japan and its other, and unite much of the world to destroy the vice of communism. Today, Americans look upon the events of December 7, 1941 in a new light. In retrospect, we understand the distant stare that beset our father's, mother's, grandfather's, and grandmother's eyes as they told stories of where they were, and what they were doing on that day 60 years ago. It is with new ears that we hear the trembling voices that described the terror and uncertainty that jolted the country when an enemy attacked us on our ground. It is with gratitude and the utmost respect that we remember those who fought, and those who were lost for the love of our nation. We move forward more vigilant, more aware, and more determined. As we pay tribute to those we lost at Pearl Harbor, we stand with a new pride in America. Our hopes and prayers go out to those who are deployed, even now, to carry the torch in the fight for freedom. At the dawning of a new day of uncertainty, we can look to the American values of freedom, justice, and equality to lead us to peace and security. We remember the bravery of our soldiers that suffered so, to make our world better.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to the House passed Homeless Veterans Assistance Act and Veterans Benefits Act. These amendments will provide greater care for our nation's veterans and will help America keep its promise to protect the men and women that have done so much to protect America. I supported the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act when it passed the House of Representatives, and now, I support the Senate-passed version because it does much more. This bill will provide new programs, and will modify existing programs, to furnish a multitude of services for homeless veterans. These services include outreach, rehabilitation, vocational counseling and training, and transitional housing assistance to homeless veterans. In other words, this bill seeks to fight the causes of veterans' homelessness at their root. Mr. Speaker, as many as 80,000 of our country's 3 million homeless are in the city of Chicago, Many of these are veterans. There are few things as tragic as the sight of the homeless set against the background of a society with so much wealth and prosperity. We have the responsibility to do more. This bill is a modest step in the right direction. Providing veterans with the best possible benefits and rewarding them for their tremendous service to our country is important to me. I believe we must ensure that veterans' programs are sufficiently funded. Providing the means for disenfranchised veterans to renew their lives is the very least we can do. I also supported the Veterans Benefits Act when it passed the House because it provides a cost of living adjustment for the rates of veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled adult children, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. This legislation seeks to ensure that our veterans and their families are not- left behind in the struggle to move forward in these pressuring economic times. I believe that veterans who served our country deserve the fairest treatment available and that our national priorities must recognize the contributions of all military personnel. This Congress should remain committed to our veterans and work to ensure that they are provided the best possible service. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Senate amendments to the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act and the Veterans Benefits Act.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2069, The Global Access to HIV/AIDS Prevention Act of 2001. I want to commend and thank the distinguished Chairman (Mr. Hyde) and Ranking Member (Mr. Lantos) of the International Relations Committee, the authors of this important legislation for their efforts and for their leadership. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her continuing leadership and commitment on this critical issue. The bill we have before us today is another step in the right direction for the global struggle against HIV/AIDS. H.R. 2069 authorizes a total of $1.3 billion for the prevention, treatment, and monitoring of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries. The bill authorizes $560 million in bilateral assistance for various AIDS treatment/prevention programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), and it authorizes a $750 million U.S. commitment to multilateral efforts to fight the pandemic. The bill also authorizes $50 million for AIDS drug procurement. Funds in this measure will be used to cover many of the needs created by HIV/AIDS. The bill is directed toward prevention, education, testing and counseling, including strengthening and broadening the capacity of indigenous health care systems. The bill also includes assistance aimed at mother-to-child transmission prevention, and strengthening and expanding hospice and palliative care programs, as well as care for children orphaned by HIV/AIDS, improved infrastructure, and vaccine research. Finally, H.R. 2069 includes funds for income generation programs targeting assistance to HIV/AIDS affected populations, particularly those groups and individuals who are at the highest risk of being infected, including women. I am particularly pleased that this body has recognized the importance of providing end of life care for those that are losing their struggle with AIDS and that we have acknowledged the particular plight that AIDS means for women and children. We have all heard some of the staggering statistics about AIDS. However, I believe that at least some of them need to be repeated time and again until necessary results are achieved. Since the HIV-AIDS pandemic began, it has claimed over 22 million lives. Over 17 million men, women and children have died due to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Over 40 million people are infected with the HIV virus today. Over 25 million of them live in sub-Saharan Africa. By 2010, approximately 40 million children worldwide will have lost one or both of their parents to HIV-AIDS. Each day AIDS kills more than 7,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and the pandemic continues to escalate in the Caribbean, Asia, Russia and elsewhere with more than 8,000 people around the world perishing from AIDS each day. This human catastrophe is unlike anything the world has known. While an encouraging symbol of progress, awareness, and compromise, the funding set forth by this bill alone will not be enough. In order to satisfy the demands posed by the AIDS pandemic, it has been estimated that sub-Saharan Africa will need as much as $15 billion a year. I want to take this opportunity to include for the Record a compelling article from the December 6 New York Times. The article goes a long way toward dispelling the myth that robust drug treatment programs cannot be implemented in poor developing nations. I agree with the article that what we can learn from the example of Haiti is that, ``if we do not treat the millions of Africans dying of AIDS, it is because we have chosen not to, not because we can't.'' Indeed, we can and should help Africans and all of those struggling against the scourge of AIDS. The virus knows no bounds and failing to attack it with every resource at our disposal would not only be morally reprehensible, it will leave this nation more vulnerable to perhaps the greatest threat we have ever faced. Again, I commend all of those who helped to bring this important measure to the floor and urge all members to vote in support of H.R. 2069. Learn From Haiti (By Howard Hiatt) Of the 28 million people in Africa with AIDS, no more than 25,000 have access to medications. Officials of both Western nations and some affected countries--like South Africa, which has millions in immediate need of treatment--have said that poor countries have too few clinics and doctors and that their populations are too poorly educated to allow treatment of all infected people. This contention has become familiar in the debate over international financing to treat H.I.V. But it is a misconception. At a health center in Haiti, a country at the very bottom of the economic heap, H.I.V. infections are controlled as effectively as in America. And the success at this health center, sponsored by Partners in Health, a non-profit charity affiliated with Harvard Medical School, could be replicated all over the world if the wealthy nations chose to provide the financing. The barrier to the use of AIDS drugs for all H.I.V. patients is not some physical or educational impossibility; it is lack of will. The center is in Cange, an impoverished village of small houses with corrugated roofs and dirt floors. There and nearby, care is delivered with skill and personal attention comparable to that in American teaching hospitals. The compound was begun in 1983 by Paul Farmer, a physician and anthropologist now at Harvard Medical School, and the Rev. Fritz Lafontant, a Haitian Episcopal priest. Working with Dr. Farmer and Jim Yong Kim, another American physician- anthropologist, are Haitian doctors and nurses and about 200 community health workers, who make this model of health care succeed. About 1,400 of the patients have H.I.V.; of these, 100 of the sickest receive the advanced medicines used to treat AIDS in the United States and now function normally. Their care is supervised by the local health workers, who are trained at the clinic. The health center's operations are financed by donations, and the doctors will treat another 100 desperately ill patients with the AIDS drugs if they can persuade drug companies to donate them. Partners in Health also applies the principles used in Cange at a center in Peru and one in Mexico. In each case, training community health workers allows the development of a system that can offer sustained treatment for people ill with hard-to-cure diseases. The center in Lima has cured more than 80 percent of patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis-- something many tuberculosis experts and even the World Health Organization had thought impossible. What these doctors do to treat H.I.V. infection is a small effort against a huge worldwide problem. But they have shown that if we do not treat the millions of Africans who are dying of AIDS, it is because we have chosen not to, not because we can't.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 280, and urge all members to vote in support of this measure that expresses our solidarity with the people of Israel at this difficult time. Now we know; now we understand. As Americans, we know. We see the people running down the street in panic and it looks all too familiar. Now we know. We hear the sirens and see the dead and injured, and as much as thought we knew, now we know. We sometimes joked about Israelis and their cell phone, and now we know how it must feel to wait for the call from your teenager who is out for the evening with friends saying, ``Mom, I'm OK,'' or just waiting for that call. We now know the rage and frustrations of being attacked by those who prefer to die than live, and who plot and scheme to take innocent life with them. We now know the courage and determination it takes to ``just live your life'' when ``just going shopping, out to eat or riding the bus can be life threatening. And while hopefully we will not know what it is like to live for half a century and more on constant high alert, we understand better now intolerable that must be. And now that it happened to here, in a place many believed was immune to such an attack, we know that terrorists must be answered, and those who harbor or support terrorists must be held accountable. And we know, as we pray for peace, leave space for peace, continue to work for the miracle of peace in this holiday season, we know that we must defend ourselves and our children. And we know, as Americans who love Israel, that as people, as a community, and as nations we must be united more than ever before in defense of that tiny and precious plot of land, surrounded day in and day out by hatred and danger, where our brothers and sisters want only one thing, and that is to live in peace and freedom. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for introducing this important measure and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, and in support of the LaFalce substitute to that bill. Once again, the House is being asked to consider legislation that purports to address a legitimate public need but which is cloaked in special interest giveaways that do harm to the public interest. First, we acted to provide a $15 billion airline bailout that did nothing to help laid-off airline workers, improve safety or even guarantee that funds would be reinvested in improving American airlines. Airline workers are still waiting for unemployment insurance compensation and health care benefits. The need to help airlines and their employees after the tragedies of September 11 was legitimate, but the legislation we passed was a special interest giveaway that failed to meet that need. Second, we passed a so-called economic stimulus bill that will do little to stimulate the economy but instead includes tax breaks for the wealthy and for giant corporations, including refunds for taxes paid back to 1986 and incentives to invest overseas. And, again, the needs of laid-off workers and their families are ignored. We need to enact economic recovery measures, but the House-passed bill is largely a package of long-demanded tax breaks that will bring little, if any, benefit to the vast majority of American families and small businesses. Today, we are being asked to pass the legislation that not only provides an unwarranted bailout to the insurance industry but actually takes away consumer protections by making it extremely difficult for those injured to seek full compensation. Again, there is a legitimate concern. Although no one denies that the insurance industry has sufficient revenues to meet its current obligations, there is a need to address the decision of reinsurance companies to stop providing terrorism risk coverage in the future. This problem would seem to demand a narrow, well-considered approach. But this vehicle has served as a magnet for companies that are trying to avoid responsibility by limiting their payout liabilities and by preventing injured consumers from getting their fair day in court. As the Washington Post reported today, ``The insurance industry's lobbying campaign for federal help covering future terrorism claims was in full swing last month when a group representing Lloyd's of London investors published a newsletter highlighting the `historic opportunity' for insurers to make money after the September 11 attacks.'' This is not the history that we want to write here today. In the event of future terrorist attacks, H.R. 3210 requires that U.S. taxpayers pay for 90 percent of all claims, including first dollar losses. It is simply outrageous that, as unemployed workers and their families are waiting for federal assistance, our first priority should be to bail out an insurance industry that is sitting on major reserves. The LaFalce substitute, unlike the underlying bill, would require that the industry pay a deductible of at least $5 to $10 billion annually. The LaFalce substitute not only protects U.S. taxpayers, it ensures that insurance companies will still have incentives to press their policyholders to act to improve safety and security. That is why groups like Consumer Federation of America, the National Taxpayers Union, and Consumers Union oppose H.R. 3210 and support the LaFalce substitute. Even more disturbing to me than the size of the potential bailout in H.R. 3210 is the assault on the rights of victims. There is no justification for taking away the rights of injured consumers or their families to seek redress through our civil justice system. There is no justification for immunizing companies from dangerous behavior. Yet, H.R. 3210 would do just that. H.R. 3210 would prevent future juries from awarding punitive damages. These damages are extremely rare and used only where injuries are caused by recklessly dangerous and irresponsible conduct. Under H.R. 3210, a security firm that hires felons, a building owner who refuses to put in fire escapes, a construction firm that doesn't meet building codes, or a company that fails to provide escape procedures for persons with disabilities would be immunized from punitive damages. H.R. 3210 also limits a jury's or judge's discretion to award non- economic damages. If we agree to this provision, we are saying that the loss of a child or husband and the inability to walk or have children are injuries that are not worthy of full compensation. Finally, H.R. 3210 provides a one-sided and unfair limitation on victims by limiting attorney's fees. Defendants would, of course, be free to pay their attorneys whatever they wish. But plaintiffs, who usually rely on a contingency fee system because they lack the funds to pay up front lawyers' fees, are hampered. As a result, victims may find it difficult to find qualified attorneys to take what may be complicated and costly cases to prepare. Unlike H.R. 3210, the LaFalce substitute leaves our civil justice system intact. It does not assault the rights of victims. And it leaves in place the potential for damages that will encourage firms to be as careful as possible in improving security and contingency plans. We pray that we will not suffer from future terrorist attacks. But, as we mourn the victims of September 11, we must not take away the rights of any future victims or their families. Nor should we reduce the incentives on the insurance industry and other companies to do everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks or prepare safety measures in case they occur. By limiting insurance industry liability, shielding wrongdoers from liability, and reducing the ability of victims to recover for their losses, H.R. 3210 would do far more harm than good. It should be defeated.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are waging war around the world against terrorism, oppression and hate, we must be sure that we are sending a clear message at home to all Americans, especially our children, that hate crimes will not be tolerated, period. President Bush has repeatedly called on Americans to resist all acts of bigotry and hate; and yet since the terrorist attacks on September 11, thousands of assaults have been reported across the country against people of South Asian, Arab, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds. Some of those occurred in my district, one of the most diverse districts in the Nation. The Conyers bill, H.R. 1343, is the right antidote. It is not just talk; it is action. We must elevate the status of hate crimes within Federal law to ensure that the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime. Congress has given law enforcement new tools to fight terrorism, and we must not delay in adding new tools to fight hate here at home.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, at an historic inter-Korea summit in June of 2000, the leaders of the two Koreas pledged to work toward reconciliation and reunification of the divided peninsula. A key component of healing the 50-year old wounds is for the Korean governments to work quickly to reunite families that were torn apart during the violence and chaos of the Korean War. Families on the Korean peninsula, as well as many Korean Americans in my district and across the United States, have not given up hope that one day they will be reunited with their long lost relatives. I applaud Congressman Becerra for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 77 and thank Chairman Hyde and Congressman Lantos for bringing it to the floor tonight. It is my hope that this resolution will reinforce the United States commitment to a united and peaceful Korea. I urge all members to vote in support of this important measure.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act conference report. Our actions today will help to make the skies the safest that they have ever been. Since the disasters of September 11, the American public has been waiting for us to act. While I am glad that we are finally meeting their demands, we should have done so weeks ago. There should have been no delay in responding to the safety concerns of airline passengers and airline workers. That should have been our first priority. At long last, we now have a bill that puts the federal government squarely in charge of protecting aviation security, instead of leaving this awesome responsibility in the hands of private, for-profit companies like Argenbright. It ensures that we will have adequate numbers of well-trained employees who will stop armed and dangerous passengers before they can enter the boarding area or get on a plane. It requires that all checked baggage will be screened by explosive- detection equipment. It expands the Federal Air Marshall program. It requires that cockpit doors be made secure, that aircraft security be strengthened and that flight crews are trained to deal with any potential threat. I share the belief of the overwhelming majority of Americans that safety is best put in the hands of a public law enforcement authority and federal employees. However, I continue to be concerned that we have left the Secretary of Transportation with a great deal of discretion as to whether those new public employees will enjoy the same employment benefits and protections as other federal workers. While we agree that these federal law enforcement employees will not have the right to strike, it is my understanding that the Secretary is given the authority to determine whether they can join a union; participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and retirement options; and be covered by non-discrimination, health and safety, and whistleblower laws. I sincerely hope that the Secretary will act to give those benefits and rights to federal screeners and security workers. We do not want those critical workers to be given second class status when it comes to employee benefits and rights. We must attract the most qualified people possible to fulfill the role of protecting the flying public. There should be no question that they deserve the same treatment as their fellow federal employees. With passage of this measure, we will all be able to truly declare that it is safer for America's flying public to take to the skies. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this long overdue and critical legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, while affordable housing is a national problem, it is particularly serious for persons who also face significant health care problems. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an important new study and set of recommendations on this issue prepared by the AIDS Foundation of Chicago. Recognizing the importance of stable housing to the health and well being of people living with HIV/AIDS, the AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC) has published the Five-Year Chicago Area HIV/AIDS Housing Plan. The plan is the result of an intensive year-long community planning process that drew on input from more than 50 agencies, 100 AIDS housing professionals, and 500 consumers of AIDS housing services. AIDS Housing of Washington also served as a consultant to the project. The plan describes HIV/AIDS housing services and unmet needs across the nine-county Chicago metropolitan area. The plan examines how housing services are distributed to people living with HIV/AIDS who are facing crises or instability in their housing, Finally, the plan offers policy and programmatic recommendations for eliminating the AIDS housing crisis in metropolitan Chicago. The AIDS Foundation of Chicago, together with its many partners in this project, has designed the plan so that it can be used by housing providers as they budget and plan for the future and by philanthropists and government officials working to allocate resources to support stable health and housing. Finally, the plan will be a critical tool in educating a wider audience about the importance of housing to HIV health care and about the crisis in affordable housing that is affecting the Chicago region as a whole. The Five-Year Chicago Area HIV/AIDS Housing Plan is an updated version of a similar five-year plan that was first published in 1995. That plan, like this year's plan, was the result of an AFC-led collaborative effort by key stakeholders in the Chicago metropolitan area. Many of the strategies mapped out in the original plan were adopted across the region and have led to greater efficiencies in the development and distribution of AIDS housing services, improving housing opportunities for significant numbers of people living with HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately, despite expanded and improved housing services for people living with HIV/AIDS in the Chicago metropolitan area, the major finding of the new plan is that the need for housing assistance among people with HIV/AIDS continues to outpace available resources. In fact, more than 5,000 individuals with HIV/AIDS in the Chicago metropolitan area are left without access to needed AIDS housing services each year--a factor which contributes to the high rate of homelessness experienced by people living with HIV/AIDS. As the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to grow in the United States and affordable housing becomes more and more scarce, Chicago's plan should be used as a model for metropolitan regions facing overlapping crises in HIV/AIDS and housing. Such plans not only map out the particular challenges facing communities struggling with overlapping HIV/AIDS and affordable housing crises, the very processes used to develop such plans help pave the way for the collaborative efforts that are required for implementing the best practices recommended by the plans. I want to congratulate the AIDS Foundation of Chicago for its leadership in preparing the five-year plan and for its continued commitment to addressing the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. Established in 1985 to provide central leadership in the fight against the epidemic, the AIDS Foundation of Chicago is an invaluable resource to our community and to the nation. It promotes sound HIV/AIDS public policy, funds HIV/AIDS prevention and care projects, and, through its 135-member Service Providers Council, helps to coordinate the delivery of essential HIV/AIDS services. As an advocate and by empowering individuals living with HIV/AIDS to participate in public policy debates, it provides an important voice that we should listen to carefully. Five-Year Chicago Area HIV/AIDS Housing Plan--November 2001 Recognizing the importance of housing stability for the health and well being of people with HIV/AIDS, the AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC) has published the Five-Year Chicago Area HIV/AIDS Housing Plan. The plan, which is the result of an intensive and yearlong community planning process, describes HIV/AIDS housing services and unmet needs across the nine-county Chicago metropolitan area. In addition, the plan examines the distribution of services responding to the housing needs of people with HIV/AIDS, and offers a series of recommendations aimed at eliminating the AIDS housing crisis in metropolitan Chicago, through targeted service expansion and policy reforms. The plan's Ad-Hoc Steering Committee and the Housing Committee of AFC's Service Providers Council were instrumental in the creation of the plan, providing critical information, direction, and oversight to the community planning process. For the plan's data analysis and recommendations, AFC drew on input from more than 50 agencies, 100 AIDS housing professionals, and 500 consumers of AIDS housing services. AFC commissioned AIDS Housing of Washington, a national AIDS housing consulting agency, to serve as a consultant to the process. In 1995, AFC conducted the region's first AIDS housing planning process and published the Chicago EMA Five-Year HIV/ AIDS Housing Plan. Recommendations from the 1995 plan led to greater efficiencies in the distribution and development of AIDS housing services, which ultimately resulted in greater numbers of people being served. The 2001 plan updates the housing inventory and needs assessment from the previous plan, measures the progress made in AIDS housing services since 1995, and presents emerging trends in the provision of HIV/AIDS housing services. Among the most important findings described in the 2001 plan is the growing, unmet need for housing assistance among people with HIV/AIDS in metropolitan Chicago. The report shows that, despite steady gains in the availability of AIDS housing services, the need for assistance continues to outpace available resources, leaving more than 5,000 individuals with HIV/AIDS homeless or at risk of homelessness each year. Lack of safe and affordable housing has dire consequences for people with HIV/AIDS, whose survival can depend, quite literally, on having a stable place to live. Stable housing promotes adherence to complex HIV medication regimens that often have special dietary requirements and can induce debilitating side effects. People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are more likely to fall out of regular medical care and experience greater difficulties adhering to their medication regimens. For those disabled by AIDS, the hardships of living on the streets or in substandard housing puts tremendous strain on already severely compromised immune systems. Factors Contributing to the AIDS Housing Crisis The Five-Year Chicago Area HIV/AIDS Housing Plan documents several factors contributing to the AIDS housing crisis in metropolitan Chicago: More people are living with HIV/AIDS than ever before. A steady number of people become newly infected with HIV each year, and the number of AIDS-related deaths has declined as a result of more effective medications. This much applauded trend means that greater numbers of people are in need of housing and other support services, for longer periods of time. Housing instability is directly related to a person's struggle to maintain a living wage. For many individuals, HIV/AIDS affects their ability to work and keep steady income. For others, poverty and other health problems force them into homelessness or put them dangerously at risk of evictions or foreclosures. Among people with HIV/AIDS surveyed for the plan, more than half reported incomes below the federal poverty level and over one-third reported being homeless at some point in their lives. Participants of AFC's survey and other local surveys report insufficient income as a leading contributor to housing instability. The region's affordable housing crisis contributes to housing instability among people with HIV/AIDS. Studies show that there are 245,000 low-income renters and 115,000 low- cost rental units in the Chicago area, leaving two low-income renters for every unit of affordable housing. Rents in the Chicago area are rising faster than the national average, and demolitions and redevelopment projects are depleting the region's stock of affordable housing, including thousands of government-subsided housing units. Government funding for AIDS housing assistance and services has not kept pace with community needs. Unless extended, state and federal subsidized housing programs expiring in the next five years will leave thousands of previously affordable apartments subject to market-rate rents. In addition, decreased federal funding for subsidized housing vouchers, more commonly known as Section 8, has so severely restricted the program that prospective aid recipients are turned away or told to wait several years in order to enroll. Lessons for Planners and Providers of AIDS Housing Services The plan draws on input from people with HIV/AIDS, AIDS advocates, and service providers to assess the effectiveness of the AIDS housing service system in metropolitan Chicago. The following are recommended strategies for improvements: Expand AIDS housing and support services across the region for men and women who are poor, chemically dependent, mentally ill, or recently released from correctional facilities. In its analysis, the plan identifies trends among new cases of HIV/AIDS that signal emerging issues for the AIDS housing service system. In particular, the plan found that the system is ill prepared to serve clients with chemical dependency, mental illness, and histories of incarceration. In addition, a disproportionate number of women, people of color, and people living in poverty are affected by HIV/AIDS, These demographic trends are resulting in service gaps along the housing continuum of care, and require additional resources to address them. The plan's consumer survey and other local surveys provide crucial guidance in designing services appropriate to meet clients' needs. Expand services in areas of high need to combat geographic disparities that persist in the availability of AIDS housing services. The most dramatic increases in numbers of new AIDS housing units since 1995 have taken place on the south and west sides of Chicago and in DuPage, Lake, and Will counties, where no AIDS-specific housing services existed previously. However, geographic disparities among certain types of housing services still exist. Make an ongoing commitment to community planning and assessment to inform the use of scarce AIDS housing resources. Service providers and other stakeholders identified a lack of ongoing planning across the AIDS housing service system. They recommend that coordination of AIDS housing services across funding streams be increased to avoid limiting potential innovations and efficiencies in the provision of client services. Cross-collaboration between services funded by the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), the Ryan White CARE Act, and other sources was specifically identified as crucial to maximize available AIDS housing resources. Increased collaboration between AIDS service providers and correctional health, public aid, and substance abuse treatment providers was also identified as a pressing need. Recommendations for Policymakers The plan calls on federal, state, and local lawmakers to expand government support for AIDS housing services. In particular, the plan calls for increased funding for: State and federal short-term rental assistance programs designed to promote housing stability by assisting individuals to meet a short-term financial crisis, such as unmet healthcare, utility, housing-related costs, or temporary job displacement; Federal transitional housing services for those who have been recently released from correctional institutions, hospitals, and treatment facilities; Long-term subsidized permanent housing with off-site supportive services for those capable of living independently, but on fixed incomes; Local, state, and federal programs designed to stimulate development of affordable housing and auxiliary support services. How to Access and Use the Plan AFC and members of its Housing Committee will use the plan to advocate for increased public and private spending on housing services and expanded community involvement in the planning and organization of AIDS housing services. AFC and Housing Committee members will pursue strategies to implement each of the plan's recommendations and will carefully monitor and assess progress meeting these goals. The plan is a rich resource of information for service providers, policymakers, and service planners about the need for and availability of AIDS housing services. Extensive feedback from HIV-positive people on service needs and preferences provides an especially important perspective for AIDS service providers. The plan is an excellent resource for policymakers and students about the continuum of housing services established to respond to the needs of people with

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for this opportunity. When I heard that she had dedicated an hour to making a special call for tolerance and to disavow hate crimes, I did not want to pass up the opportunity. And based on my district, I felt a special obligation and desire to come down here and speak. I represent certainly the most diverse district in Illinois, and probably one of the most diverse districts in the country. People view my district on the north side of Chicago, and some of the near northern suburbs, as a kind of gateway to the United States. Immigrants from all over the globe make their home in Chicago, in my district, seeking to become citizens, to send their children to school, to create their livelihood, to fulfill the American Dream that they brought with them from all parts of the world to live out in our country and to seek the promise of freedom and tolerance and the ability to practice their religions. Generally, that has been true in the district. We all get along, we celebrate together and work together. There is every religion being practiced there and lots of good solid community feelings. But I knew, as soon as we identified those attacks on the Twin Towers as a terrorist attack, and as soon as it was identified as being wrought by terrorists that were using the name of Islam in their attacks, that there was going to be fear in my district among the Muslim and Arab American community in particular. Then I started hearing about comments that were being made to Sikhs. Again, I think it is important to just note that that reflects a misunderstanding of Sikhs to begin with. But nonetheless, I think anybody who was dark skinned, darker skinned or different, was feeling a sense of fear. So what I decided to do, just to address that a little bit, was the Sunday after the terrorist attack I invited people in the district to take a walk down Devon Avenue. Now, people who know Chicago know that it is a commercial street that has many, many shops of people of Pakistani origin, from India, and in a certain section there is a lot of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, an orthodox Jewish community, and so everybody works and lives in that neighborhood. About a thousand people joined for a peaceful walk down the street. There were no speeches. We just joined arms and walked together, some chanting ``Long Live USA,'' with different accents, different faces, and there was certainly a solemnity about it because of the terrible incident, but there was a comfort and a joy about that, too. But when I talked to people on the walk and subsequently, and every week that I have gone back, I know that there is a lot of fear and that it is grounded. And when I look at the chart that is here, I am sorry to see that, under hate crimes against Muslim and Arab Americans by State, Illinois was not doing so well before September 11, but in the 2 months since that we certainly have had way too many. So I was hearing from women who were reluctant to go out of the house with their heads covered, who were talking about keeping their children home from school, who were fearful about security around the mosque, who were changing their behavior as a result of threats that were made to them. Not all the comments were hate crimes in the sense of violence or attacks, but hurtful comments that were being made to them on the street or things that were said to taxicab drivers, some of them who decided actually not to drive for a while. I do not know if they are back to driving. So I guess the thing that should be of concern to all of us is that what the September 11 attack has done is made us reflect on what are the things that are most precious about the United States, about the lives that we live as individuals and the values that we share. And I think none is more precious than the value of tolerance, of individual freedom to be who you are in this country. The recognition that we are a Nation of immigrants, a people coming from all over the world who want to live here, and that we open our arms to those who want to share our values and live them out in their lives, and that when we turn on one another, then in a devastating way the terrorists have struck a blow and that we have to guard against that with as much fervor as we fight the terrorist threat externally. As we search for Osama bin Laden, we also have to search for tolerance. We cannot turn one against another. I think as leaders of this country, we want to create that sense in our districts, to make sure that we help infuse, to create the culture of tolerance back home in our districts. So that when we check those numbers next month and next year, we see that they have fallen. And, hopefully, with the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as well that we not just talk about it but we put in to the words of our laws that we stand firmly against intolerance. I again want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to come down here and just support the words of the gentlewoman from California and to speak on behalf of my district and my community.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2779.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this Veterans Day to pay tribute to our nation's heroes. The veterans of this country have given so much to protect and secure our way of life. Now more than ever, it is our duty to commemorate their actions, and to commend their commitment. I rise to thank our veterans for having the courage and strength to fight for American values. Though we are saddened by recent events, we can look to the valiant history of our nation's bravest for comfort. We can rest assured that the dream of America is worth fighting, dying, and living for. We know because from every corner of the earth, the down trodden, the disenfranchised, and the oppressed come to seek out this dream. We know America is the beacon of hope and change, we can see it in the diversity of our citizenry. On September 11, 2001, a generation blanketed by the quilt of peace and tranquility was awakened. This quilt of peace, stitched with the blood, sweat, and tears of brave American soldiers, was torn in a manner unimaginable only two months ago. Today, a generation comforted by a freedom so deep, so common, so prevalent, and so easily taken for granted, can more easily identify the price for which it was paid. This generation is reminded that the sacrifice of Americans made our way of life possible. Young Americans with dreams in their eyes and hope in their hearts, bought our freedom. The tears of families who lost loved ones were exchanged for our security. The peace that we have come to know, was purchased by men and women that so loved our country that they risked and often gave their lives--ensuring that freedom is not only a concept that we dream about, but a reality that we live. So it is with gratitude and the utmost respect that we remember those who fought, and those who were lost for the love of our nation. We move forward more vigilant, more aware, and more determined. As we pay tribute to our nation's freedom fighters, we stand with a new pride in America. Our hopes and prayers go out to those who are deployed, even now, to carry the torch in the fight for freedom. At the dawning of a new day of uncertainty, we can look to the American values of freedom, justice, and equality to lead us to peace. We thank the countless heroes, our veterans, for giving their freedom and their lives, so that we may live free.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, but not surprised, by what took place in the House of Representatives last week. By the narrowest of margins, the tired old agenda of tax cuts for the rich and giveaways to the corporate interests and big business scored another victory in the Republican-controlled House. Bob Herbert described it best when he wrote in The New York Times, on Monday, October 29, 2001: ``The Republicans who control the House thumbed their noses at the ordinary Americans who will absorb the brunt of the economic downturn and shamelessly gift-wrapped yet another bundle of tax cuts for the very well-to-do.'' He added: ``With Americans fighting and dying both at home and abroad, we are understandably in a season of patriotism. That patriotism should not be soiled by wartime profiteering.'' The Republican so-called economic stimulus package is described by Mr. Herbert as having ``. . . very little to do with economic recovery. It's about using the shield of war and economic hard times as a cover for the perpetual task of funneling government largesse to the very rich.'' It should come as no surprise that there are some in Congress who will push their one-track agenda no matter what. If our nation is experiencing an economic downturn, then the answer is tax cuts for the top. If our nation is recovering from a terrorist attack, then the solution is more Treasury money to the big corporations. And if our Armed Forces are engaged in battle half way across the world, then a tax cut for the wealthy and well connected is the patriotic thing to do. Since 9/11, the American people are holding their government to a higher standard, and are placing extraordinary trust in their elected officials. Shame on those public servants who abuse that trust. I hope my colleagues will carefully read Mr. Herbert's op-ed and consider his arguments. [From the New York Times, Oct. 29, 2001] Shame in the House (By Bob Herbert) ``Ask not what your country can do for you. . .'' It has been 40 years since John F. Kennedy, standing hatless and coatless in the bitter cold of a snow-covered capital, delivered the lines that turned out to be the most stirring and most famous of his presidency. If you listened closely last week, you could hear an echo of that moment on the Senate floor. On Wednesday morning, in an address to his colleagues, Senator Edward M. Kennedy said: ``Now we have seen, perhaps more clearly than ever before in our lives, how we are all in this together--how if even one of us is hurting, all of us hurt. Our first thoughts on September 11 were about others, not ourselves.'' Senator Kennedy, now 69 years old, spoke movingly of the acts of extraordinary bravery and selflessness exhibited by Americans both at home and abroad in this sudden war against terrorism. And he called on the nation as a whole to adopt that spirit of selflessness as the new standard ``by which we measure everything we do.'' ``The standard is clear,'' he said. ``To seek what is right for our country, and not just for ourselves.'' He said it is essential that Americans not ``strive for private advantage in a time of national need.'' Not everyone is listening. Senator Kennedy's speech was, specifically, a call for fairness and common decency as Congress moves ahead with its effort to help revive an economy that was faltering before Sept. 11, and has since been thrown into very serious trouble by terrorism and war. But last week, as the House narrowly passed its version of an economic stimulus package, the dominant motive at work appeared once again to be greed. The Republicans who control the House thumbed their noses at the ordinary Americans who will absorb the brunt of the economic downturn and shamelessly gift-wrapped yet another bundle of tax cuts for the very well-to-do. In Senator Kennedy's words, the House proposal, which contains more than $100 billion in tax cuts for corporations and individuals, ``merely repackages'' old, partisan, unfair, permanent tax breaks--which were rejected by Congress last spring--under the new label of economic stimulus. The American people deserve better.'' With Americans fighting and dying both at home and abroad, we are understandably in a season of patriotism. That patriotism should not be soiled by wartime profiteering. The House package is a breathtaking example of cynicism and chutzpah. The bill's primary author, Representative Bill Thomas, a Republican from California, piously proclaimed that there is an urgent need to help businesses because they are the nation's employers. ``They're the hardware store,'' he said, ``the diner down the street, the gas station on the corner.'' And then you look closely at the legislation and find that it overwhelmingly favors the giant corporations, with tax breaks approaching $1.4 billion for I.B.M., more than $800 million for General Motors and $670 million for General Electric. It's a stimulus package in name only because the Americans who are the most strapped--the consumers who would take any relief that they received and immediately pump it right back into the economy--get the least. The package has very little to do with economic recovery. It's about using the shield of war and economic hard times as a cover for the perpetual task of funneling government largesse to the very rich. Nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts were passed just a few months ago, but that was not enough. True greed knows no bounds. The political analyst Kevin Phillips, in a commentary on National Public Radio, said: ``Neither house of Congress has ever passed this kind of major tax bill in wartime, and no one in the House assumes that the Senate will accept it in whole. But the more extreme the House bill, the further that will drag the eventual compromise in that same inexcusable direction. The only real solution is a public outcry, tens of millions of pointing fingers and voices saying, `Shame.' '' Forty years after the inauguration of President Kennedy, the most favored and least needy among us are proving themselves to be masterful at finding what their country can do for them.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, women in Afghanistan have been suffering incredible human rights abuses since the extremist Taliban regime seized control of Afghanistan in 1996. Today, I rise in solidarity with Afghan women against this misogynist, fundamentalist regime and for women's rights. The treatment and condition of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule is deplorable. Women have been beaten and stoned in public for not being completely covered, even if this means simply not having mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to death by an angry mob of fundamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another victim was stoned to death for trying to leave the country with a man that was not her relative. Husbands have the power of life and death over their female relatives, especially their wives, but an angry mob has just as much right to stone or beat a woman, often to death, for exposing an inch of flesh. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest ``misbehavior.'' Women have been forced into poverty and destitution because they are not allowed to work or even go out in public without a male relative. Professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers, artists and writers have been forced from their jobs and restricted to their homes. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging in the street. There is a public health epidemic growing among women in Afghanistan. Depression is becoming so widespread it has reached emergency levels. There is no way in such a society to know the suicide rate with certainty, but relief workers are estimating that the suicide rate among women is extraordinarily high. Health care has suffered on many other levels. Men are not allowed to examine women patients without a chaperone. And even then, women are only allowed to be examined through their clothes. Even in life saving situations, surgery is unavailable for women in this country, if they have money, they might travel to Pakistan for needed operations. More than 1 in every 100 women dies in childbirth. The infant mortality rate is at an alarming number of 165 deaths per 1,000 births. Women give birth to their children on hospital floors and then watch them die due to minor complications. The Taliban regime is killing its own people. As we move forward with out mission to eradicate terrorism, we must look for natural allies in this process. I would like to draw attention to the work of an organization that has fought the injustices committed against Afghani women and society by the Taliban, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). RAWA strives to provide the basics of life, like education and health care, to women and girls in Afghanistan. The women of RAWA work underground, fighting for a true democracy and struggling to create a better life for the people of Afghanistan. These women fight at their own peril to create a better society. They are our allies. I urge this body and this government to recognize the voices of RAWA and provide support to their difficult, dangerous, and heroic work. We need to increase our efforts to help the women of Afghanistan live without their fundamental human rights violated. I hope this will be a policy that all of my colleagues can embrace.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma, which would delay enforcement of Executive Order 13166 that requires federal agencies and organizations that receive federal funding to provide translators to limited English proficient individuals. Executive Order 13166 promotes actions consistent with, but not unduly burdensome to, the fundamental mission of federal programs. Flexibility is recognized as essential--states and providers need only do what they can, given their circumstances, to assist limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals. For example, street signs do not need to be translated into characters and doctors who serve LEP individuals on an infrequent basis are not required to have full-time interpreters or bilingual staff, this would be considered undue burden. The need for Executive Order 13166 and its implementing guidance cannot be overstated. LEP individuals--many of whom initially enter the United States as refugees and asylees--endure restricted access to critical public health, hospital and medical services which they often desperately need. The most recent Census data that documents over 31 million individuals, over one in nine Americans, speak a language other than English at home. While this reality should be viewed as a cultural strength of our nation, in the health care context an individual's limited English proficiency often results in inadequate health care. An inability to comprehend the patient, mixed with a fear of liability, can also lead some doctors to order expensive, otherwise avoidable tests. Conversely, because of communication problems, non-English speakers often avoid seeking treatment until it is absolutely necessary, which disproportionately causes them to under utilize cost- effective preventive care. This is not only unhealthy, but often more expensive. Without Executive Order 13166 and translation services for LEP populations, citizens and non-citizens alike suffer. Parents of citizen children, who have limited knowledge of English, can not explain to the doctor what is wrong with their child nor do they understand what the doctor tells them to do for treatment. If a LEP individual arrives at a hospital with symptoms of tuberculosis--or smallpox--without an interpreter, hospital staff and public health officials would be unable to communicate with the patient and a public health hazard could easily spiral out of control. Here are additional stories that have resulted from inadequate LEP translation services available. A Korean woman appeared for a gynecology exam, but no interpreter or language line assistance was provided. The clinician used the 16-year- old son of a complete stranger to translate. A woman requiring treatment for a uterine cyst was unable to receive treatment on two separate occasions because an interpreter was unavailable. A man suffering from a skin condition requiring laser treatment underwent treatment for over a year. The man endured days of pain after each treatment, but was unable to communicate this because he was never provided with an interpreter. Only after a community organization intervened did the clinic understand the patient's pain and adjust the treatment. A Russian-speaking woman experienced life-threatening complications from prescribed medications. Without an interpreter or use of a language line, doctors in the emergency room were unable to treat her. Only because a Russian-speaking young girl happened by and agreed to help were doctors able to save the woman's life. A Russian-speaking woman's none-year-old son had to translate before and after his mother's angioplasty. The hospital refused to use a language line and the child translated for several hours each time. This Executive Order will have a profoundly positive impact on ensuring that all individuals, regardless of language, receive quality care and that disparities in health care access and outcomes due to language barriers are being addressed. There is no good reason to delay the full enforcement of Executive Order 13166. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on October 15, an extraordinary fashion show will take place in Chicago. This fashion show, sponsored by the law firm of Arnstein & Lehr, is designed by women who are committed to improving opportunities for other women. The theme of this fashion show is ``Reaching Up and Out . . . Empowering Other Women.'' I want to commend Arnstein & Lehr for their tremendous work in putting this event together. They have demonstrated a commitment to improving the lives of women in the Chicagoland community that is extraordinary, and I believe that this is the first example of a law firm hosting such an event. I hope that other firms will follow their example. The proceeds of the October 15 fashion show will benefit two wonderful charities. The Prentice Women's Hospital at Northwestern Memorial Hospital is one of the most preeminent women's hospitals in the country, providing clinical care, education and research into women's health care. For too long, medical research and delivery services have failed to address the needs of women. Prentice Women's Hospital is playing a tremendous part in changing that, by focusing on women's health and allowing women to be actively involved in improving their access to medical care. The Nathaniel B. and Joyce Miriam Hirschtick Memorial Matching Gift Program will be unveiled at the Chicago Fashion Show, and it will continue to raise funds for Prentice Women's Hospital. The other charity that will benefit is the Bottomless Closet, an organization also dedicated to improving the lives of women. The Mission Statement of the Bottomless Closet is ``to provide professional clothing, job retention training, coaching and mentoring services to working-poor women, enabling them to add value to the organizations that hire them while empowering them to craft a new vision for their lives.'' Clothes can make a difference, not just in how others see us but in how we see ourselves. The Bottomless Closet makes sure that low- income and working-poor women have the tools necessary to achieve their goals. With that assistance, women will be empowered to improve the well-being of their families and to become productive members of their community. In addition to commending Arnstein & Lehr, I want to recognize the contributions of Cynde Hirschtick Munzer, a key organizer and moderator of this event, as well as Terry Schwartz and Gwen Rich, who are coordinating the Chicago Fashion Show and outfitting the models. I am pleased to be one of the participants in the Chicago Fashion Show. I also want to recognize the other women who will model clothing: Joy Cunningham, senior vice president and general counsel of Northwestern Memorial Hospital; Carrie Hightman, President of Ameritech Illinois; Mary Pat Reilly, press secretary to Senator Dick Durbin; Rhoda Belson Salins, senior vice president of Solomon Smith Barney; Sheryl Swibel, a family therapist; Martha Tuite, a Chicago realtor; Vicki Turoff, Northwestern Memorial Hospital Service League board member; Stacey Kruger Birndorf, corporate managing director of Cushman & Wakefield of Illinois; Kathy Brock, anchorwoman at WLS-TV; Renee Cipriano, director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; Sherren Leigh, editor of Today's Chicago Women; Roni Weiner Pressler, assistant vice president of Illinois State Medical Insurance Services, Inc.; and the Honorable Rita Mullins, mayor of the Village of Palatine. Their willingness to contribute their time to this important event is greatly appreciated. Arnstein & Lehr is not just putting together a charity Fashion Show in Chicago. They will also host a similar event in Miami later this year, where the benefiting charities will be the Women's Fund of Miami- Dade County and Suited for Success. Again, I want to congratulate and commend Arnstein & Lehr for demonstrating such a wonderful commitment to women in their communities and for acting now at a time when our nation is facing economic difficulties and security threats. Now, more than ever, it is important for all of us--individuals and businesses alike--to support each other. The Chicago Fashion Show is a wonderful example of how one law firm can make a difference in the lives of many.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, every single member of this body and every person in this country understand fully that a functioning airline industry is vital to the functioning of our country. Yet I stand in opposition to this legislation. Why? Because, remarkably, this bill completely ignores the heroes in the airlines industry who were and are most deeply and personally affected by the September 11 atrocities. I am speaking of the pilots who fly the airplanes, the flight attendants, the baggage handlers, the mechanics, the ticket agents--the workers who are now losing their jobs as a result of the September 11 attacks. You can look through every line of every page of this bill and you won't find a single mention of them. But those airline executives who earn over $300,000 will find a whole section of this bill devoted to them. It says that they can continue earning the same amount they did in year 2000, compensation amounting to $35 million for one CEO, $16 million for another, and $12 million for a third. And if those CEO's decide they've had enough, this bill says their golden parachute can be twice their salary. But not a word about the up to 100,000 airline industry workers who will lose their jobs even if we pass this bill. An angry and hurt Association of Flight Attendants says, ``It's sad how quickly those who sacrifice to make our great country work, even in these times of tragedy, get left out when corporations go asking for taxpayer money.'' These workers are going to lose their jobs, and this bill says nothing about their loss of income, their loss of health insurance, nothing about job retaining. Some other people are missing from this bill--passengers. Without them, no amount of money will save the airline industry. Yet nothing in this bill addresses the reason why airports are quiet and airplanes are nearly empty, why business travelers, vacationers, families, conventioneers are changing their plans and staying home or driving. That reason is simple: Fear of flying. In this entire bill there are only two sentences that refer to airline safety and then only in passing. If passengers are looking for a list of measures that will be implemented to make airplanes and airports more secure, they better not look in this bill. If they are looking for a security timetable, they won't find it here. I stand here tonight ready to help the airline industry--but not just a part of it. Those who say they will help the workers next week or next month must be asked, Why not tonight? To those who tell consumers to wait for airline safety measures, I ask, Why can't they be part of this package? Are they less deserving, less important, less needy? We can go back and within hours add them. Then I would gladly and proudly vote yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida to restrict the District of Columbia's ability to use their own local funds to implement the Health Care Benefits Act of 1992. For almost a decade now, this body has blocked the District of Columbia from using any local or federal funds to implement this law, which would expand health care benefits for domestic partners. This must stop. Particularly today, with the attacks on our country fresh in our mind, it is extremely important that we come together as a nation and in our communities. Our American family includes many families, traditional and non-traditional. Our nation should welcome diversity. We should respect each other, not be divisive. Domestic partnership laws acknowledge and respect the non-traditional family structures in our world today. These include relationships such as grandmothers and mothers living together raising children, persons with disabilities and their live-in care providers, and unmarried partners, both heterosexual and gay and lesbian. We as a government must grow with the society we are governing and embrace it. We must respect the rights of non-traditional families. We must also respect the right of the District of Columbia to respond to the concerns and needs of its residents. Many other cities across the country provide domestic partnership benefits to their employees. Since 1997, the City of Chicago has offered domestic partner benefits. Other cities have been offering these benefits since the early 1990's. Those laws are working well, providing important protections for our constituents. There is absolutely no justification for this body to prevent D.C. residents from receiving those same benefits. This amendment is anti-local control, anti-good public health policy, and just plain bad business. In 1999, a survey in Human Resources Management ranked domestic partner benefits as the most effective recruiting incentive for executives and the third most effective recruiting incentive for managers and line workers. Employers must have the ability to offer competitive benefit packages in order to recruit quality applicants. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this restriction and allow the implementation of the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 in the District of Columbia.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by the Gentlewoman from California to lift the ban which forbids service women and female military dependants from using their own funds for abortions at overseas military hospitals. At a time when we are sending more military personnel overseas, we must not limit the medical care those individuals will have to be able to access. These brave women serving our Nation risk their lives for our freedom and they deserve the same constitutionally protected health care we enjoy in the United States. Their lives should not be further endangered because they can not receive quality health care while they are serving in the line of duty. This policy is unfair. It denies women in the military the right to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health. Is this the way we really want to treat women who are overseas or heading overseas to defend our Nation? We as lawmakers can not continue to place the reproductive health of American women in uniform at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and repealing this ban which discriminates against our Nation's service women and their dependents, preventing them from obtaining needed medical services simply because they are stationed overseas.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this body and every person in this country understands fully that a functioning airline industry is vital to the functioning of our country. Yet, I stand in opposition to this legislation. Why? Because, remarkably, this bill completely ignores the heroes in the airline industry who were and are most deeply and personally affected by the September 11 atrocities, the thousands of everyday airline workers who are now losing their jobs as a result of the September 11 attack. Members can look in every line and in every page of this bill and we will not find a single mention of them. Those airline executives who earn up to $35 million a year, they will find a whole section here, but not a word about the up to 100,000 industry workers who will lose their jobs even if we pass this bill. An angry and hurt Association of Flight Attendants said, ``It is sad how quickly those who sacrificed to make our country great, even in these times of tragedy, get left out when corporations go asking for taxpayer money.'' This bill says nothing about unemployment benefits, job training, and health benefits. I stand here tonight ready to help the airline industry, but not just a part of it. Those who say they will help workers next week or the week after, have to be asked: Why not tonight? If we add them to the bill, I would gladly and proudly vote yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, along with all of my colleagues and all Americans, I believe that the United States of America must respond effectively and appropriately to this unprecedented attack on our people and our Nation. This resolution gives awesome responsibility to the President of the United States, but it should not be interpreted as unlimited power to use force or commit troops. This resolution has been carefully drafted to restrict our response to those we know to be responsible for this atrocity. It is not a carte blanche for the use of force. This resolution requires compliance with the war powers resolution which directs the President to report to the Congress and to consult whenever possible. These requirements and this power must not be taken lightly. I have thought long and hard about this vote. I do not want to regret it. I want to be able to tell my grandchildren that I voted this night to make the world safer. I pray that in supporting this resolution, we are making the right decision, and I pray that the President will make the right decisions.