Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and the efforts and leadership of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, to end this kind of bigotry and discrimination. In the face of this unspeakable assault on the American people, we have so many reasons to be proud this week. We look at the firefighters, the police, the other emergency workers who went into harm's way, and so we are celebrating as an American family an opportunity to embrace each other, even as we grieve, and congratulate those who have worked so hard to end the suffering. At the same time there has been this one sour note, and that is, that there are those who have used this occasion to commit acts of bigotry and even violence against people who want to join with us as Americans, as residents of this country, as people offended by this act of terrorism and find themselves being the victim. It is hard for me to even imagine people who are feeling so hurt by what happened and then themselves go out in the street and find themselves to be harassed as somehow to blame for these acts of violence when they are completely innocent. I have a district that is so diverse, all kinds of people, every race and religion and ethnic origin; and we are going to take a walk down Divine Avenue this Sunday, a street in my district that has shops, a booming commercial district of Muslims and Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Orthodox Jews, Jewish people. And we are going to walk from one end of the street to the other, just take a walk together, hand in hand, arm in arm to express our solidarity. That is the kind of thing that we need to be doing in this hour of need in this country to help heal each other and not turn against each other, and that is the essence of this resolution that I hope everyone will support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this is a time for Americans to stand together through our grief and our frustration and even our anger. But I wanted to come down here this morning to say how important it is that we do not turn our anger on one another. We are beginning to hear some disturbing reports of acts of bigotry against people who are perceived to be or who are Arab Americans or people who are wearing turbans; of angry mobs, angry crowds coming to a mosque; a person wearing a turban being thrown off a train. It is only a victory for those who would perpetrate acts of terrorism against us if we begin to turn against one another. There are millions of Arab Americans who contribute, who died in the explosions and the attack and who are mourning, along with all the rest of Americans. We cannot as a Nation allow our grief to turn into acts of violence or acts of bigotry against one another. I would just urge that we hold hands, that we stand firmly together to oppose this terrorism, that we stand with our allies around the world, and that we look to embracing each other as Americans to fight this enemy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I was glued to the television yesterday. It was with the eyes and heart of a wife, mother and grandmother primarily that I responded incredulously to the horrific images. Throughout the day, I tried to reach my family back in Illinois, and found myself looking at their pictures. Those of us who did not lose loved ones or know personally someone who perished in this attack could all empathize with the agony of those who do. We all have sent our precious ones off to work or said goodbye to them at the airport, never giving more than a passing thought about their safety. With great anticipation, we have ridden in elevators to the top of the World Trade Center, and as citizens visited public buildings like the Pentagon. In just a few hours, our sense of security as an American family was shattered. It will be a long time before we take ordinary acts for granted again. Today, our hopes and prayers are with the injured, and we rejoice with each discovery of someone found in the rubble. Today we marvel at the courage of the firefighters, police, military personnel, emergency crews and volunteers, many of whom also perished, who have worked and are working so hard to save lives. Yesterday I was consumed by unanswerable questions. What kind of people carefully and deliberately plot to brutally murder thousands of innocent men, women and children? How can one imagine individuals celebrating the deadly success of this evil plot? How could any human being have such total disregard for human life? How could anyone be so consumed by hate? It is still hard to get my mind around this. Today I realize that we must be careful as we answer those questions. I represent a very diverse district that includes people of all races, nationalities and religions. All of them are horrified today. But some, Arab Americans and Muslims and others have another concern--that they, our neighbors and fellow American residents, will become the targets of anger and frustration. This is a time when, in tribute to the value of tolerance that is at the heart of our democracy, we must embrace one another. Turning against each other will only be a victory for the perpetrators of this evil plot. As a proud member of the Congress of this great nation, I am working with my staff to assure my constituents that our government is mobilized now to take decisive action to assure that this will never happen again. The full resources of this nation will be expended to find and root out those responsible for this atrocity. We are vigorously engaged in the search and rescue effort and ready to provide any support and comfort we can to those who are grieving. If the purpose of this despicable attack was to deter our commitment to freedom and our support for our democratic allies, like Israel, it has failed. We will have peace and security again in this country and we continue our efforts to spread peace and security throughout the world. We will pay tribute to our lost loved ones, to those who have responded so bravely, and we will comfort the families that are aching across the nation. And we will stand together in this country and with our allies around the world and all those who consider themselves civilized, and we will have justice. And the commitment to freedom from which this nation was born will continue to flourish.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2563, the Patient Protection Act. This bill has been so damaged by the amendments passed today, that it should be a violation of truth in advertising laws to call it a patient protection bill. It is no longer a law designed to curb HMO abuses--it has become a bill that leaves HMOs in charge of health care decision-making and preempting state laws designed to protect patients. It is a bill that is no longer deserving of its title and is no longer deserving of our support. It's an Insurance Industry Protection Act. Earlier today, the House passed the Thomas amendment to establish Association Health Plans. Despite the arguments of its proponents, AHPs are not a step forward. Instead, AHPs will take critical state protections away from consumers and make access to health care worse for millions of Americans. I believe that we need to make health care more affordable and accessible to small businesses and their employees. I support purchasing coops and pooling arrangements. But I could not support this amendment. Why? Because it would do more harm than good. By preempting state regulations designed to lower premiums and protect consumers, it would move us backwards not forward. First, it would actually raise premiums for the majority of small businesses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of small business employees could face premium increases as companies with healthier employees opt out of the small group market. With market fragmentation, small firms with older workers, women of child-bearing age, and workers with ongoing health problems would wind up paying more. Second, as a result, those small businesses facing higher premiums would drop coverage. The CBO estimates that 10,000 employees--those with the highest health are needs--would lose coverage. An Urban Institute estimate is that one percent of all small firms would lose coverage. Third, even insured consumers could face higher costs and reduced access because AHPs would be allowed to ignore state minimum benefit requirements. In Illinois, those minimum benefits include annual pap smears, prosthetic devices, mental health services, cancer screening, education on diabetes self-management, and length of stay protections for mastectomy patients. Consumer' Union opposes AHPs because ``health insurance policies would be less likely to cover potentially life- saving benefits such as mammography screening, cervical cancer screening, and drug abuse treatment.'' AHPs will lead to bare-bones coverage that leaves patients with higher medical bills or forces them to go without care. Fourth, consumers enrolled in AHPs would have no place to go for protection, since state regulation is preempted and the U.S. Department of Labor lacks the resources or the will to respond to individual consumer complaints. The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said it best when they wrote to us opposing this bill. They wrote: ``AHPs would fragment and destabilize the small group market, resulting in higher premiums for many small businesses. AHPs would be exempt from the state solvency requirements, patient protections, and oversight and thus place consumers at risk.'' I also strongly oppose the Norwood liability amendment. Many of us won election last November because we promised that we would give patients meaningful protections. We promised that we would curb HMO abuses that are injuring and killing people on a daily basis. We promised that we would let medical professionals make medical decisions. We told doctors, nurses and other health care professionals that we would free them from managed care bureaucracy so that they can provide quality care to their patients. This amendment means that we will not be keeping those promises. This amendment is a ruse. Behind all the fine print, it has one underlying objective: to continue the accountability shield that immunizes HMOs from responsibility when they deny care or limit care or restrict access to specialists. This amendment means that there is absolutely no guarantee that patient protections will be enforced. HMOs will be left in charge, free to continue to override doctors' decisions and deny care with virtual impunity. This amendment provides special treatment for HMOs. It gives HMOs unique legal protections--protections denied every other industry in this country--so that they can continue to operate with immunity. Mr. Chairman, we have done a disservice to patients and those who care for them by passing these amendments. There is an old labor song that asks the question: whose side are you on? Unfortunately, this amended bill sides with the HMOs--not patients.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Bonior-Waxman-Obey-Brown (OH)-Kildee amendment. I don't think there is one person out there in America who, if asked, would state a preference for dangerous levels of arsenic in their drinking water. The Republican majority and President Bush clearly haven't asked the American public or just don't care because tougher protections from arsenic are long overdue. In 1996, the Congress instructed EPA to update the Arsenic standard of 50 parts per billion no later than January of 2001. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, after years of research, found that the old arsenic standard of 50 ppb for drinking water ``does not achieve EPA's goal for public health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible.'' Finally, in January 2001, after decades of public comment, debate, and millions of dollars of research, EPA issued the new standard of 10 ppb--which was considered a compromise proposal. In April I released the results of a study that was conducted by Congressman Waxman's staff on the Government Reform Committee. The report was focused on Illinois and warned that the health of thousands of Illinois residents is at risk since their drinking water contains unacceptable levels of arsenic. The report showed that as many as 134,000 people in Illinois in almost 60 communities are drinking water that contains arsenic levels above the standard of 20 parts per billion (ppb). Science has proven that arsenic is a carcinogen and it is deadly--it causes cancer, birth defects, and cardiovascular disease. What more evidence does President Bush need to get it out of our water? I've been a consumer rights advocate for a long time and in public office for ten years, and until now, I've never met a so-called leader so eager to do so little for public health. Thanks to the deep pockets of President Bush's mining and chemical industry friends, the United States has the same arsenic drinking water standard as Bangladesh at 50 ppb. This Administration is willing to risk the health of millions to pay back the special interests and it is time we put a stop to it. I urge all members to support this important amendment to prohibit EPA funds from being used to weaken the arsenic standard.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2563, the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood-Berry Patients' Bill of Rights, and to urge its passage. Patients in my district and throughout the country have been waiting far too long for protection against HMO abuses; but they want real reform, not a sugar pill that may go down well with the managed care industry but provides no relief for patients. H.R. 2563 is the only bill that would provide real relief, and the Republican leadership ought to schedule it for a vote. Just look at who supports it and who rejects the Fletcher placebo. The International Association of Firefighters supports it, because it provides real protection to local firefighters, unlike the Fletcher bill. The Paralyzed Veterans of America believes H.R. 2563 has the strongest provisions in numerous areas critical to high-quality health care for people with disabilities. The League of Women Voters supports the Ganske-Dingell bill because it provides strong and needed protections, while the Fletcher bill ``establishes an appeals process that will put the rights of health plans ahead of patients''; also, the American Nurses Association, the American College of Obstetricians. We should listen to those groups. We should listen to the patients. We should pass an effective and affordable Patients' Bill of Rights, H.R. 2563, now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the VA/ HUD appropriations bill. This bill severely under-funds public housing and other critical programs. At a time when 5.4 million families are paying more than half of their income to live in substandard housing throughout the country, the Bush administration has decided that public housing programs are no longer a priority for our country. The VA/HUD appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations Committee cuts public housing and community development programs by $1.8 billion. This budget is clearly headed in the wrong direction. More than 34,000 households are on the waiting list for housing vouchers in the city of Chicago, and under this budget, and under this budget they will have to continue to wait for a long time. This bill reduces Section 8 reserves by cutting $640 million. This cut will result in as many as 30,000 families losing Section 8 vouchers. The bill also reduces the number of Fair Share Section 8 vouchers by 78 percent. In addition, this bill eliminates funding for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Fund. This is a crucial initiative, and Chicago and other cities have used it successfully to combat drugs in public housing to give public housing residents a safe place to live. This bill further endangers those most in jeopardy, our homeless, by cutting almost $100 million from homeless prevention and shelter programs. Under the bill we are debating today, Community Development Block Grants funds are cut by over $300 million and zeroes out funding for empowerment zones--a $200 million cut. These are the resources upon which our cities rely to perform important economic and community development. They should be restored. I find it unconscionable that the Bush administration would declare a surplus and consider our country well off enough to provide its richest 1% the bulk of a $1.3 trillion tax cut, but in the same breath finds it appropriate to cut $1.8 billion that would provide housing for our nation's most needy. No American family would ever declare a surplus if they can't afford to put a roof over their head. However, as an American family, we are doing just that with this bill. I urge all Members to support amendments that will attempt to restore funding for public housing and other programs that were cut in the administration's request and the underlying bill. And, if it is not amended, I urge a no vote on the VA/ HUD bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a House Resolution 191. House Resolution 191 is of importance to my constituents and to the state of Israel and, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge its immediate passage. House Resolution 191 expresses the sense of the Congress that the United Nations should immediately transfer to the Israeli Government an unedited and uncensored videotape. That videotape contains images which could assist those investigating the October 7, 2000, kidnapping of 3 Israeli Defense Force soldiers, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar Souad. Nine months after the kidnapping, Hezbollah has released no information as to the whereabouts and conditions of these soldiers. While events leading up to the kidnapping remain unknown, the United Nations has admitted to possession of a videotape that contains images which could provide evidence for the investigation into the incident. It is hard to imagine the level of concern that must be felt by the family members of the three kidnapped soldiers. The fact that the United Nations may have information that could help resolve this situation is also troubling. The United Nations should not be making it more difficult for Israeli authorities and the family members of Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar Souad. Instead, it should be actively assisting Israeli authorities to secure information about these three individuals. I join my colleagues in strong support of this resolution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with all of my colleagues the attached editorial from the July 21, 2001 Chicago Tribune that articulates a position that I share. That is that our counter-narcotics efforts in Colombia are misguided, have not achieved the stated goals of US policy toward that country, and the funds required for implementation of this policy would be better spent working to address substance abuse here in the United States. In the US, there are some 5.5 million people in need of substance abuse treatment. The federal government only provides treatment funding sufficient to cover 2 million of those individuals. That means that 3.5 million people in this country who are seeking treatment for their substance abuse problems are turned away. We know from a study conducted by the Rand Foundation that dollar for dollar it is twenty three times more effective to reduce drug consumption by investing in education, prevention, and providing treatment rather than trying to eradicate drugs at their source. Again, I strongly support the suggestion put forth by the attached editorial, that we should redirect the money we are spending to battle drugs in Colombia toward more effective programs here in the US, and I urge all members to consider it when making decisions on US policy toward Colombia and the Andean region. [From the Chicago Tribune, July 21, 2001] Spend Colombia Money at Home In government, failed policies seldom are re-thought let alone abandoned--they tend to expand. Rather than blame flawed thinking or bad information, failure is interpreted as a sign of insufficient time or funding. During the past 18 months, the $1.3 billion anti-narcotics Plan Colombia has not markedly reduced violence or drug production there--or made it more difficult or expensive to buy cocaine in the U.S. Undeterred by such failure, however, the Bush administration now is pushing a nearly $1 billion sequel, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, that largely reinforces and expands past mistakes. Debate began this week on funding the new initiative. Congress ought to consider alternatives, such as rechanneling the money into expanded drug rehabilitation at home A key component of Plan Colombia has been fumigation of coca crops. After fumigating approximately 128,000 acres of coca--along with people, farm animals and food crops--the effort has only succeeded in relocating the coca fields. Most of the coca that used to grow in the Putumayo province has moved to nearby Narino. ``And if they fumigate Narino, the problem will go to another place,'' warned its governor, while governor of Putumayo estimated that half the fields sprayed in his area were food crops. The military component of Plan Colombia hasn't fared much better. Colombia guerrillas now are seeking shelter in neighboring Ecuador, spreading the violence. And by failing to deal with the murderous paramilitary units, the plan has increased bloodshed. On April 12 paramilitaries massacred 40 peasants and cut up their bodies with chainsaws, and the war- related body count nationwide is up to about 20 a day. The Andean Initiative's solution to the spreading mayhem is to continue military aid to Colombia (about $363 million) and increase military aid to its six neighbors to defend themselves from the aftershocks. Ecuador and Brazil, for instance, would get about $32 million and $16.3 million respectively to reinforce their borders with Colombia. Bush's initiative also provides social and economic aid to these countries--a welcome change--but still nearly 55 percent of the entire package would go to military aid. Previous U.S. interventions succeeded only in moving coca production and drug violence from neighboring countries to Colombia. Now the process seems to be working in reverse. American addicts' insatiable craving for narcotics--and the obscene profits to be made by suppliers--doom most supply- side police or military tactics, particularly remote-control operations masterminded from Washington. Early in his administration, President Bush said he appreciated this reality and wanted to increase funding for drug administration programs. Rethinking Plan Colombia and channeling some or all of that money into treatment and education programs would be a place to start. Such a U-turn would not be a typical government move, but it is the most sensible thing to do.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, in February I had an opportunity to go to Colombia along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and we met with all 12 mayors from Putumayo; and they had one message, please stop the fumigation. The next day we went along with Ambassador Anne Patterson to Putumayo, and we met with impoverished farmers whose legal crops had been destroyed by U.S. fumigation planes. We heard from Colombians whose children suffered from severe rashes after being sprayed. Mr. Chairman, after the birth of my granddaughter yesterday, I am particularly sensitive to the picture of the baby shown by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the problems caused to children. I saw some of those children. It was reported to us that local drinking water sources were contaminated from fumigation, as were fish farms. This testimony was news to Ambassador Patterson, who agreed that more research on the human health effects of the fumigation is needed. So many of those suffering under our policy are the poor, working families not involved in the coca trade. Those who admitted to us that they grew coca also had compelling arguments for a different strategy to eradicate the crop. They informed us that their plots were sprayed, and they would simply move into the jungle, damaging more fragile habitat, and still producing the product. Others said they would continue to grow coca because Colombian and U.S. government promises to provide alternative development and support and food aid yielded no results. All of the democratically elected mayors from the southern region came to Washington, and they said, Let us use manual eradication, as we have done in Peru in order to successfully get rid of coca. They want to get rid of coca, too, but they want support for economic development and alternatives without the coca. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned Monsanto's Roundup. On the label it says when used in the United States, ``It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in any manner inconsistent with its labeling. Do not apply the product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application.'' Entire communities have been sprayed in Colombia. We see livestock, we see crops, we see water, we see children being sprayed. It is time for us to end this policy. Mr. Chairman, even one of the companies that benefits from Roundup, ICI, a British chemical company, announced 2 weeks ago it would no longer supply one of the ingredients to the chemical herbicide because, ``it did not wish to be responsible for damage to humans, animals or the ecology of southern Colombia.'' If it is good enough for this company that wants to profit, it ought to be good enough for this Congress to say no more fumigation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support amendment offered by the Gentleman from New Jersey that would provide $30 million to protect and assist victims of trafficking and to help countries meet minimum standards for the elimination of such trafficking. This amendment and this money will demonstrate the United States' commitment to ending one of the worst human rights abuses. It is estimated that 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 women are trafficked annually; half are between the ages of 5 and 15, and 50,000 of those women are transported into the United States. According to the United Nations, trafficking in women and girls is expected to surpass trafficking in drugs and guns as the world's leading illegal industry. Yet we spend billions to fight the illegal importation of drugs and almost nothing on these people who are regularly bought and sold for prostitution, illegal labor, bonded labor, servile marriage, sex tourism, pornography, and use in criminal activities. We take for granted that slavery is a terrible relic of the past, but for these millions of women, they live it every day. Today, we have the opportunity to do something about this absolutely unacceptable practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting funding to protect and assist victims of trafficking, and to help countries meet minimum standard for the elimination of such trafficking.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague from Michigan for his leadership on this issue and actually my other colleague from Michigan for his great leadership on this issue as well. I want to make sure that every Member understands the importance of this amendment. The current law now limits the use of military personnel in Colombia to 500 people and civilian personnel to 300. In order to increase that number of civilian contract personnel, the President must first report to Congress and Congress would have to approve by passing a joint resolution. That is the current law right now. The bill that then was before us without explanation would have revoked Congress' oversight authority entirely on this subject. But fortunately now we have the Conyers-Hoekstra-Schakowsky amendment that has been agreed to, a unanimous-consent amendment, that would restore the aggregate limit of 800 personnel in Colombia, that would maintain the 500 personnel cap for U.S. military and that would allow an increase of the 300 U.S. civilian contractors but only to the extent that the 500-person military cap has not been reached. Fortunately, this amendment still requires that a report be made, that Congress be informed if we are going to go beyond the 300. My concern with the increase in contract personnel has been expressed many times. We all learned with dismay that two American civilians, Veronica Bowers and her infant daughter, Charity, were killed when the missionary plane they were in was shot down over Peru. What was even more shocking was that it became clear that the plane was first identified as suspicious by U.S. civilians working under contract for the CIA. With all the shock and sadness came a lot of questions; but unfortunately, the CIA, the Department of State, and the private firms involved have not come forward to provide any answers. We also know that employees of these firms have been involved in gun battles in Colombia, some contract employees have died. I have recently found out that we are still employing one of the private firms implicated in the Iran Contra scandal. To me, it is clear we should not be employing private companies to carry out military activities in Colombia at all on behalf of the United States. But this is not a debate about the use of contractors. Whether or not Members agree on the need for private military contractors or contractors to carry out other duties, Congress must maintain oversight responsibility and a limit for this very important aspect of U.S. policy. I thank the sponsor of this amendment for maintaining those aspects of oversight and limitations.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Hoekstra- Pelosi-Morella-Jackson-Lee amendment which adds $50 million to the infectious diseases account to combat tuberculosis and $50 million to the child survival and maternal health account. The offset comes from a $100 million cut in funding for the Colombian military. As a relatively new Member of this august body, the most important parliamentary body in the entire world, what has struck me is the capacity of the United States for relatively small amounts of money, relative to the amount of money that we have and the amount of money that we spend, to do good in the world and to end the suffering of millions of people. That is what this amendment allows us to do. I had the experience of going to Colombia with one of the sponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts. One of the things that we did was go to Barrios Kennedy, a place for displaced people, people who have been displaced by the multi-decade war that we are helping to fuel in Colombia. When we went to this crowded community and we met with families there, it was so sad because many of the families would put forward their children who were so sick and who were getting no help from the government, who were not getting the kind of help they needed or wanted from the United States. When they saw Members of the United States House of Representatives, they thought, can you help us? They showed us their health care bills that they could not pay. They held up their sick children. They were pleading for help. This amendment gives us the opportunity to do two things for those people: one, to help their children with their health care needs; and, two, to end the continued problem of displacement. How do we do that? Cutting funds from the Colombian military makes sense. This is a military that has repeatedly been implicated in the brutalization and murder of the very people that it is supposed to protect. Last year, there was an average of at least one massacre a day in Colombia, leaving thousands murdered and millions displaced. They flock to cities like Bogota where we met with some of them. While many of the attacks were carried out by guerillas and paramilitary, these illegal armed groups operate with impunity from the military. In fact, they are often aided in their efforts by the Colombian armed forces personnel. This amendment sends two clear messages: one, that we care about the children and the poor and the sick in this world, that we want to eradicate polio, that we want to get rid of tuberculosis; and, two, we send an important message to the Colombian military that we will not tolerate nor support the kinds of human rights violations that continue to devastate the people of Colombia that we say we are there to help. I urge all my colleagues to join in strong support of this well- thought-out amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 259 on July 23, 2001, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 258 on July 23, 2001 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 257 on 7/23/ 2001 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, Next week, the President's handpicked Social Security Commission will issue an interim report, a version of which is already circulating among Commission members, the media and Social Security experts. It is disappointing, but far from unexpected, that the interim report is attempting to ``spin'' the American public by claiming that there is a ``crisis'' in Social Security. The Commission and the Bush Administration are laying the groundwork for next fall's final report, which will call for privatization and individual retirement accounts. Privatizers are trying to claim that the sky is falling--the only way that they can justify the drastic changes that they are proposing. But the facts are different. Even without any changes, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits through 2038 and, after that, it will be able to pay 73 percent of benefits. Moderate changes are needed but not a privatization plan that will take $1 trillion out of the Trust Fund and reduce future benefits by up to 54 percent. It's also reasonable to ask President why, if he thinks the situation is so dire, he decided to give a $1.7 trillion tax break, the majority of which goes to the wealthiest Americans, before taking steps to protect Social Security. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a statement by AARP on the interim plan, which I think says it best: the Commission is out of the ``mainstream'' and the interim report is just a ``public relations'' ploy to undermine the basic guarantee of Social Security that will lead to ``a dramatic overhaul of Social Security that would lead to cuts in guaranteed benefits and shift financial risk to individuals.'' Statement by AARP Executive Director William D. Novelli on the Draft Interim Social Security Commission Report Washington, July 19.--The following is a statement by AARP Executive Director William D. Novelli on the Draft Interim Social Security Commission Report: The President's Social Security Commission continues to work toward a predetermined outcome--a dramatic overhaul of Social Security that would lead to cuts in guaranteed benefits and shift financial risk to individuals. Today's draft interim report puts forward a fundamentally flawed and biased view of the nature and purpose of Social Security. It implies that the program is riskier than private investment. It recycles old alarmist arguments that portray the financial shape of Social Security in the worst possible light. The rhetoric in the report demonstrates how far outside the mainstream the Commission appears to be headed, referring to Social Security as a ``novelty'' and calling the system ``broken.'' The draft report lays the public relations groundwork for a campaign to change the fundamental nature of Social Security. It argues for turning Social Security into a system of wealth-building. But Social Security was designed to provide income protection and a floor of financial security. For many, especially women and minorities, Social Security is the only income-protection they will have, providing them with a lifetime, guaranteed benefit that is adjusted annually for inflation. The report ignores the fact that other vehicles currently exist for wealth-building through personal savings and employer provided pensions. Individual accounts do not address Social Security's long- term financing issues. Add-on accounts--which have merit--can add value on top of Social Security, but taking money from workers' Social Security contributions to fund new private accounts only worsens Social Security's ability to pay today's retirees and advances the date of insolvency. Social Security is the bedrock of our nation's income security system. To preserve this benefit for future generations, the Commission should focus on all potential options and tradeoffs, rather than a narrow and fundamental restructuring of the program. The sooner the nation begins to address the program's long-term financing needs, the more moderate the changes that are needed and the more time provided for those affected to adjust their plans.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, faith-based organizations currently play an important and vital role in providing needed social welfare programs; and we, as a government, wholeheartedly support this work. In fiscal year 2000, faith-based organizations administered an estimated $1 billion in Housing and Urban Development assistance. Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services, Jewish Federation received substantial support from the Federal Government. But in order to get it, they agree not to discriminate. They simply comply with the structure established to comply with two of our Nations's most fundamental principles, equal protection of the law and separation of church and State. I have helped to establish many 501(c)(3)'s and wonderful organizations who do this work. A thousand religious leaders and organizations are opposed to H.R. 7, including American Baptist Churches USA, Office of Government Relations, Jewish Council on Public Affairs, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal Church, Unitarian Universalist Church, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church. Join with them to oppose H.R. 7.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. I am proud to support the Waters-Kucinich amendment and urge its passage. Just imagine for a minute if the United States Government decided it could provide generic anti-retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV/ AIDS to all those who are infected at minimal or no cost, and as a result we saw AIDS deaths plummet in the United States. Now imagine if another nation challenged the United States on the grounds that we were violating the intellectual property rights of a pharmaceutical company and that that other government went hand in hand with the pharmaceutical company to the WTO and challenged the right of the United States to take care of its citizens. I am sure that if that happened, that Members would be flocking to the House floor protesting the action and calling on the United States to simply ignore the WTO and continue this lifesaving program. It was 1999 when I found out that, in fact, it was the United States, hand in hand with the pharmaceutical companies, going to the WTO and telling South Africa it could not save its own citizens, that it continued to do that in Thailand, and that it continued to do that in Brazil. How shocking it would be for us if the tables were turned. Intellectual property rights here, the rights of human beings to live down here. I brought this to the attention of the President of the United States along with many of my colleagues here. He created an executive order that said we are not going to do that anymore. And this President, to his credit, is continuing that executive order. So what is the problem? Let us put that into the law for all Americans to see, that we say that we will not use the rights, the intellectual rights of the pharmaceutical companies to deprive human beings of their right to live and to receive the drugs when their country makes the effort to provide them. I think it is stunning to me that anyone, as a previous speaker did, would come to this floor in defense of the practice of the pharmaceutical companies to say, we want to make our profit off of those people who could not possibly afford the $10,000 for those drugs. We are going to protect our profits and allow people in developing nations to die. This country is so much more compassionate than that. They want us, in the face of this crisis, which supersedes all of the plagues in history and combined deaths of all the wars, to take action to do everything we can to save lives around the globe. That is the only intention of this amendment. I urge its support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud and patriotic American to oppose this resolution. Here is what some of the veterans have said about this amendment. Jack Heyman, Fort Myers Beach, Florida, a Korean War veteran, said, ``I know of no American veteran who put his or her life on the line to protect the sanctity of the flag. That is not why we fulfilled our patriotic duty. We did so and still do to protect our country and our way of life and to ensure that our children enjoy the same freedoms for which we fought.'' Mr. Heyman's great grandfather was a Pennsylvania Regular during the Civil War; his father served in the Navy during World War I; his brother fought in World War II; and one of his children served in the Army following the Vietnam War. Bill McCloskey, a Vietnam War veteran from Bethesda, Maryland, said, ``Ultimately, Americans and our representatives on Capitol Hill must realize that when a flag goes up in flames, only a multi-colored cloth is destroyed. If our freedoms are lost, the true fabric of our Nation is frayed and weakened.'' Brad Bustany, West Hollywood, California, a Gulf War veteran, said, ``My military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free speech and expression in a way that should frighten us all.'' And how will Congress begin defining what the flag and desecration even mean? Our flag is ubiquitous. It is found in such places as commerce, art and memorials. Will Congress bar display of the flag on brand-name apparel, defining it as desecration? Will flag bathing suits be desecration, and thus prohibited? How will Congress enforce such an amendment? Where will this begin and where will it end? Freedom of speech, even when it hurts, and it does hurt many of us, is the truest test of our dedication to the principles that our flag represents. Punishing desecration of the flag deludes the very freedom that makes this emblem so precious, so revered, and worth revering. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yes to upholding our Constitution and our democracy.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the issue of embryonic stem cell research has been misrepresented as one of abortion. It is not an abortion issue. Stem cell research is a medical issue, one that should transcend political lines and instead focus on human lives. One such life is that of Carolyn Laughlin, a mother of two diabetic sons in my hometown of Evanston, Illinois, who wrote me this past April to share her family's struggle and urge my support for federally-funded stem cell research. She said, ``Diabetes haunts my family every waking hour. Injections, blood testing, calculating food portions are constant companions of my sons. Overnight, I fear insulin reactions that will leave them unconscious. Long-term we face the concerns of kidney failure, blindness, and amputations.'' Most scientists are in agreement that embryonic cell research offers the greatest hope for families like the Laughlins. Federal funding guidelines assure that research will meet ethical standards and allow advancements to be made as quickly as possible in diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injury. The Laughlins and millions of other families are counting on us.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, recently, we debated ways to improve educational opportunities. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a program that is doing just that. The Future Problem Solving Program has a significant and positive impact on the education of students in grades 4 through 12. It is part of a nationwide and international effort to teach children and teens creative thinking and problem-solving skills. Problem-solving skills have been proven to be essential characteristics for young people entering the increasingly competitive job market. This non-profit program, which operates in 44 states as well as Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Chile, and Canada, teaches young people these important skills. Students have the opportunity to apply their critical thinking skills to real-world problems such as restoration of imperiled natural habitats and genetic engineering. The program is structured around a six-step model for solving complex problems. The steps include recognizing potential challenges, generating and evaluating solutions and developing a plan for action. Learning to apply these steps every day increases the ability of students to think critically and work efficiently. Small teams of young people brainstorm solutions and implementation strategies for issues as varied as tourism, global interdependence, and water use. Students are taught to think not only critically but also creatively. Team Problem Solving, Action-Based Problem Solving, Individual Problem Solving, and Scenario Writing are all components of the program that award dynamic thinkers. Students who work in small teams also learn the value of cooperation and teamwork. Young people in each of the three age divisions compete on the regional, state, and international levels. The Future Problems Solving Program is preparing the youth of today to face the demands of tomorrow. I would like to officially recognize the contributions this program has made and will continue to make to society at large. I want to thank the adults who are enhancing the education of today's young people and the student participants who are taking the initiative to learn about and help solve today's difficult issues. These students are taking their futures into their own hands. Keep up the good work!

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today is June 28th. We are only a few days away from the July 4th Independence Day celebrations. As fireworks light up the sky, houses are adorned with crisp flags, and children gaze in wonder at the passing parades, we must not forget the many brave men and women who courageously sacrificed their lives to preserve the freedoms and ideals we all enjoy as Americans. Throughout our short history, America's security as a nation has been tested and tried. It is truly a blessing that our youth have been spared the horrors of war. However, for all those who have known war and have died for the sake of this great country, let it be said that they did not die in vain. The gratitude felt by all Americans and our many allies throughout the world is immeasurable. Let us extend particular thanks to the veterans of World War II. During World War II, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime came alarmingly close to achieving world domination. It is difficult to envision what our world might have looked like had Hitler succeeded but, thanks to the heroism of World War II veterans, we will never have to find out. I'd now like to share a story about one very special World War II veteran, a man by the name of Augustus Hamilton, Jr., and a remarkable group of people in France who have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the memories of World War II veterans endure. This story was told to me by Mr. Hamilton's niece, Beth White from Chicago, Illinois, and I want to thank Ms. White for taking the time to contact me. Augustus Hamilton was born on January 4, 1922. At the age of twenty, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps the day after Pearl Harbor and quickly advanced to First Lieutenant of the 358th Fighter Group, 365th Squadron. By all accounts, he had always been a family hero--an athlete (amateur golf champion for the state of North Carolina and football star who attended the University of North Carolina on a football scholarship), good student, caring brother, and loving son. He was also a new husband and when he went overseas, his wife was pregnant with their child. Lt. Hamilton served as a fighter pilot in World War II and was awarded an air medal with two oak leaf clusters. According to an excerpt from Thunderbolts over High Halden by Graham J. Hukins, ``Lt. Hamilton was last seen diving on a flight of four enemy planes with another four on At the time of his death, Lt. Hamilton had never met or seen a photo of his only son, for the baby was born when he was overseas. He had named his fighter plane after his wife and son, ``Mrs. Ham/'Lil Ham 3rd.'' Following the crash, several of his family members persisted in denying his death. He had told his family that if he were ever seriously injured in combat, he would not come home because he didn't want to be a burden. Remembering these words, his family hoped that he had somehow survived the crash but had decided not to come home due to his injuries, or perhaps had developed amnesia and could not contact them. In 1993, almost half a century later, the gift of emotional closure was finally given to Lt. Hamilton's surviving family members by a French man named Jean Luc Grusson and his volunteer organization, Forced Landing Association. In an amazing demonstration of appreciation for the U.S. soldiers who fought in World War II, the members of Forced Landing Association devote themselves to finding each of the more than 150 crash sites reported within a 30 kilometer radius of Tillieres sur Avre, an area of intense air battles because of the close proximity of three German airfields. The Association was established in 1986 and has 11 members who live in France. To date, its members have discovered 30 crash sites, including that of Lt. Hamilton. M. Grusson uncovered Lt. Hamilton's plane in 1993. He then spent a full year tracking down Lt. Hamilton's surviving family members to return Lt. Hamilton's dog tags, ``wings'' (a lapel pin), a belt buckle, and other items. When the Hamilton family asked M. Grusson why he and his associates devote so much time, energy, and personal expense unearthing these crash sites, he replied, ``The pilots who gave their lives need to be honored. We owe these men our freedom. They gave us our country. We must honor them.'' M. Grusson's associate, Jacques Larousse, also shared a personal account of the profound impact American soldiers had on him as a young child. He explained that his mother washed the uniforms of American soldiers during the war to make money. When the Americans would come to their home to retrieve their uniforms, they always brought food and chocolate bars to M. Larousse and his mother. Given the scarcity of the time, the kindness of the Americans and their generous gifts made a lasting impression on M. Larousse. M. Grusson and M. Larousse continue to revere these American soldiers as heroes to this very day. In fact, the members of Forced Landing Association are completing individual memorials at the crash sites of both Lt. Hamilton and Edward Blevins, Hamilton's squadron member. These sites will contain photographs and descriptive accounts of these men to commemorate their tremendous service. There will also be a ceremony on July 8th in remembrance of these fallen soldiers. I applaud the tireless work of M. Grusson and the Forced Landing Association to keep the memory of our veterans illuminated. I hope that on this July 4th holiday, we will not take for granted the countless freedoms we enjoy. Rather, I hope we always remember that such freedoms have been kept alive through the sacrifices of others.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to join with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support her amendment. Economically, support for the arts and humanities just makes sense. The arts industry contributes nearly $4 billion into our economy, and provides more than $1.3 million full-time jobs. Furthermore, the arts industry returns $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in taxes, and arts education improves life skills, including self-esteem. It costs each American the equivalent of a postage stamp to support the National Endowment for the Arts. In turn, last year the NEA awarded over $83 million in grants nationwide, and over $1.7 million in my home State of Illinois. There we have the Illinois Arts Council and the Illinois Humanities Council providing critical leadership and support and development of programs that touch the lives of thousands and thousands of Illinoisans. For example, there is the Lyra Ensemble in Chicago, the only professional performing arts company specializing in the performance, research, and preservation of Polish music, song, and dance. Another project is the Beacon Street Gallery Theater, a program that supports the uptown youth and cultural heritage preservation program. This initiative promotes cross-cultural understanding, strengthens intergenerational ties, enhances literacy, and builds job readiness. These kinds of programs deserve our support.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I rise to support the amendment offered by the Congressman from New York (Mr. Engel) to provide $300 million in emergency funds to help HUD meet increased energy demands in public housing. My colleagues, like you, I recognize the increased demand on LIHEAP and I support this legislation's $300 million increase in the LIHEAP budget, which doubles the President's request. However, the needs of hundreds of thousands of seniors, families and persons with disabilities are ignored because there is no funding in this supplemental to ensure their well-being during the hot summer months and the bitter winter, ahead. We must provide HUD with enough funding to meet higher energy costs but this bill fails to accomplish that goal. Public housing authorities across the country are paying higher energy cost to keep public housing families warm in the winter and seniors cool in the summer. Public housing is still catching up with the shortfalls found in the FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 appropriations bills. According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating oil prices increased nationally from 88 cents to $1.35, a 53% increase, from FY 1999 to FY 2000! Natural Gas jumped 51%--from $6.69 per thousand cubic feet to $10.07. Chicago will need an additional $10 million to pay higher cost in public housing and to provide assistance to families in private housing. There is no doubt that this is an emergency. We are in the middle of the summer. In 1995, 700 people died in the Chicago area because of a heat wave. There were more deaths all across the country. We can't allow another tragedy like that to happen simply because Congress refused to give HUD enough money to give air conditioning to seniors in public housing. If Congress doesn't act, what is more likely to happen is that the public housing authorities will divert funds from capital repairs and improvements to pay utility bills. In Chicago, we have a $1.5 billion plan to rebuild public housing, including money to make units more energy efficient. My fear is that such plans in Chicago and across the country will be slowed unless we help address higher energy cost. So, for public housing authorities struggling to meet the basic energy costs of their tenants, our constituents, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Congressman's amendment to provide HUD with $300 million in emergency energy assistance for public housing energy costs. Point of Order