Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that a high ranking U.S. government official is still collecting taxpayer dollars after making disparaging, discriminatory, and inaccurate comments about the people of Africa who are suffering from the ravages of HIV/AIDS. President Bush should dismiss Andrew Natsios, the new Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development at once. Instead of offering the United States' assistance to help the infected people of Africa receive the treatment they desperately need, Mr. Natsios stated that our efforts will not work because Africans ``don't know what Western time is,'' and thus cannot take drugs at proper times. He went on to say that if you ask Africans to take medicine at a certain time, they ``do not know what you are talking about.'' How disgraceful. The Administrator of our nation's lead agency for international development and assistance should educate himself about AIDS treatment and about the peoples of the world before he reveals astonishing ignorance as well as prejudice. It's time for Mr. Natsios to go and for the Bush Administration to instead appoint a real leader who will bring honor back to this distinguished agency. I wish to share with my colleagues an op-ed, which appeared in the Washington Post on Friday, June 15, 2001 by Amir Attaran, Dr. Kenneth A. Freedberg, and Martin Hirsch, respected experts in the field of AIDS research and international development. They comment on Mr. Natsios' remarks and proposed plans for U.S. funding and involvement in Africa and they make a very persuasive case for Mr. Natsios' immediate dismissal. [From the Washington Post, June 15, 2001] Dead Wrong on AIDS (By Amir Attaran, Kenneth A. Freedberg and Martin Hirsch) Andrew Natsios, the Bush administration's new chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has made a very bad start with regard to one of his agency's primary missions: dealing with the scourge of AIDS in Africa. Natsios has made comments recently on the prevention and treatment of the disease in Africa that are, to say the least, disturbing, if not alarming. His comments appeared last week in the Boston Globe and in testimony before the House International Relations Committee. On both occasions he argued strenuously against giving antiretroviral drug treatment (the AIDS treatment used in the United States today) to the 25 million Africans infected with

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Massachusetts for putting together such an assembly of experts on the subject, including yourself, who have presented so many important facts. We have scientific expertise and budgetary expertise. I have two reasons primarily that I oppose the national missile defense. I wish I had a poster. It would be one of Isabel Hart, age 3, and Eve Schakowsky, age 1, my granddaughters. More than anything in the whole world, I want them to be safe. If I thought that I could be part of this United States Congress to create a safety shield for these children, believe me, I would. But the more I have learned from my colleague from Massachusetts and others and reading about it and talking to the experts, I am convinced that far from creating a safety shield, that this plan actually endangers my granddaughters. Today, a number of us participated in a press conference where Peace Action, Women's Action for New Directions, Physicians for Social Responsibility announced their plan to deliver thousands of petitions to Members of Congress from people across the country expressing opposition to Star Wars. I had visitors from the North Suburban Peace Initiative from my district who delivered that same message to my office. I am proud and grateful that my constituents understand the risks and realities involved with President Bush's national missile defense plans. I hope that all of my colleagues had an opportunity to review the important materials that they and other committed citizens distributed on the Hill this week. National missile defense is a program that is destined for failure on so many levels.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, since the Reagan administration, we have been urged by wishful thinkers to deploy a system for which workable technologies does not exist, and now many years and billions and billions of dollars later the Bush administration is still pursuing what I view is an irresponsible, unnecessary and unrealistic policy. Mr. Speaker, the fact that it does not work and we have heard experts talk about how much it does not work is actually not the most important thing to me. The most important thing is that it really should not work, because I fear that moving forward with national missile defense will actually undermine our security by igniting Cold War II and will reverse the diplomatic progress we have made over the last decade. It will make us less safe and less secure. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to congratulate the Victory Gardens Theater in Chicago, Illinois. On Sunday night, they became only the third Chicago theater to receive the prestigious Tony Award for regional theater. This award, the highest recognition an artist or theater can receive, is given to a regional theater company that has displayed a continuous level of artistic achievement contributing to the growth of theatre nationally. Founded in 1974, by eight Chicago artists, the Victory Gardens Theater has continued to introduce theater-goers to fresh, original, and innovative productions. I am proud that the nation is finally being let in on a secret we Chicagoans have known for years: that bigger is not always better and that in the end, quality, courage, and determination will be rewarded. I salute the Tony Award-winning Victory Gardens Theater and I appreciate the contributions of the Theater to the Chicago community and to the arts.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations and best wishes to the Evanston Township High School Chess Team for winning its 3rd state championship in four years. This year's state meet was held on March 23-24 and the Wildkits team scored 396.5 out of a possible 475 points. Juniors Yahshua Hosch (6-0- 1) and Ben Yarnoff earned first-place individuals records, freshman Jusuf Pekovic placed third, sophomores Daniel Summerhays and Mark Aburano-Meister both took fourth place, and senior David Summerhays placed eighth. Other members of the championship team include junior Gershon Bialer, senior Aaron Walsman, sophomore Tyler Drendel and freshman Amelia Townsend. Science Teacher Ken Lewandowski is the ETHS team coach and he is assisted by ETHS teachers Paul Kash and Sam Sibley (retired). Adding to the success of this season, the ETHS team also placed at the national chess championship in April coming in 8th (just 4 points away from 1st place) at the championship level and first-place at the intermediate level of play. Gershon Bialer is the national Champion at the Intermediate level and Yuhshua Hosch placed 16th at the championship level. Mr. Speaker, once again I am proud to congratulate the Evanston chess players on their continued success this year. I appreciate the Chess team's efforts in maintaining the great tradition of competitive excellence that is associated with the Wildkit name. They have made their school, their families, and the city of Evanston proud.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, it is Memorial Day weekend, and while gasoline prices in my district are among the Nation's highest, at well over $2.00 a gallon, in fact it was about $2.22 for regular, it still does not appear that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have any plans to bring relief to my constituents at the gas pump. While big oil is getting bigger, consumers in my district and across the country are getting gouged, and the President's energy plan does nothing to address that. Instead, the administration has proposed relief for its oil industry friends. Big oil hit the jackpot last year, thanks to consumers in Chicago and across the country that paved the way for big oil's record profits. The top oil company profits last year went up over 100 percent on the average from the previous year, combining for almost $50 billion in profits. Now Exxon Mobile is number one on the Fortune 500 list. None of us should be surprised at the give-aways big oil is reaping from this administration and the Republicans. President Bush received $2 million in contributions for his campaign, and the Republican Party received over $25 million from big oil, with Enron and Exxon Mobile giving the most. It looks like those companies made the right bet. Mr. President, I am again calling on you to persuade, in fact to jawbone, your friends in the industry to bring these prices down now. I hope you will think about that while you are relaxing at Camp David and my constituents are cancelling their family's summer vacations.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Monsignor John J. Egan, a man who never wavered in his mission to promote justice and to better the lives of so many people. He struggled on behalf of the poor and working men and women, gave voice to the voiceless, and cared for those pushed aside by our society. I personally called him a friend and am proud to have worked with him for many years. He was also a friend of every man, woman or child who needed a helping hand, a voice, or simply a sympathetic ear. Monsignor Egan, a leader who has spoken so eloquently against racism and bigotry, was among the first Catholic priests to join the civil rights movements. He marched in Alabama in the 1960s for equal rights for all people. He was a man who led by example. Monsignor Egan was also instrumental in saving countless families from eviction and life on the streets. He understood that being poor should not translate to being homeless. He stood on many picket lines supporting workers struggling for their right to organize and improve their working conditions. People throughout the nation knew Monsignor Egan. He was admired by so many from a wide cross section of our society. He has left a lasting impression on those he has met during his years. He received a religious leaders award from Rainbow/PUSH and was honored by the Chicago chapter of the American Jewish Committee, the Travelers and Immigrants Aid, Citizen Action of Illinois to name only a few. Those awards are a testament to his effective social activism. In honor of his life, I urge that we continue to follow in his steps, learn from his example, and organize for public policies that are fair and equitable. I urge all my colleagues to read the following accounts from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and New York Times celebrating Monsignor Egan's life. [From the Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2001] Monsignor John Egan 1916-2001; Priest Was ``Conscience'' of the City (By Noah Isackson) Monsignor John ``Jack'' Egan, a priest whose battles for social justice made him one of Chicago's most influential religious leaders, died Saturday, May 19, in the rectory of Holy Name Cathedral. ``A great priest has gone back to God,'' said Cardinal Francis George, Catholic archbishop of Chicago. An archdiocese spokeswoman said Egan, 84, died of cardiovascular disease. Egan served the Roman Catholic Church for 58 years, bringing his ecumenical approach to Chicago's grittiest haunts and the nation's toughest social problems. ``He was eager to help people,'' said Bishop Timothy J. Lyne, a friend for more than 65 years. ``Especially people who were treated unjustly.'' Egan was born in New York but moved to Chicago early and grew up in the Ravenswood neighborhood. He attended DePaul University, then studied for the priesthood at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein. He was ordained in 1943. In 1965, Egan marched with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Ala. Later, a photo of him walking with King and other protesters became a call for clergymen across the country to join the civil rights movement. As director of the Archdiocesan Office of Urban Affairs from 1958 to 1969, Egan became a powerful voice in promoting subsidized housing as a way to fight urban segregation. Later, Egan became an outspoken opponent of public housing and called Cabrini-Green ``a concrete monument to the city's racism.'' From 1970 to 1983, he was the special assistant to the president at the University of Notre Dame. He returned to Chicago in 1983 as the archdiocese's director of human relations and ecumenism. ``He was the city's conscience,'' said Rev. Robert McLaughlin, pastor of Holy Name Cathedral. ``He was a conscience not only to the politicians and the people, but the church as well, a man who dared to be a gadfly and raise important issues.'' ``He really had a way of challenging people on very serious moral issues without alienating them,'' said Rev. John Minogue, president of DePaul University. ``And with that, he kept the dialogue open so that change could actually happen.'' Egan had headed DePaul's Office of Community Affairs for four years at the time of his death. The university honored Egan by naming its urban think tank and community service organization after him, calling it the Egan Urban Center. In 1993, thousands of people attended a celebration at Holy Name Cathedral marking the 50th anniversary of Egan's ordination to the priesthood. Plumbers hosted a similar celebration at Plumbers Hall on the West Side. Buses were chartered to bring the monsignor's admirers to and from the event. He is survived by his sister, Kathleen Egan Martin. His body will lie in state at Holy Name Cathedral from 3 to 9 p.m. Monday and Tuesday. Mass will be said at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the cathedral.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1885, 245(i) Extension Act of 2001. This 245(i) proposal in the House is insufficient in time and stingy in scope. The White House has stated support for an extension of 245(i) for 6 to 12 months, and there is bipartisan legislation in both Houses of Congress for similar extensions. This new proposal of a limited 4-month extension with restrictions has come to the floor without a hearing and without appropriate, fair consideration. It is not consistent with the spirit of President Bush's letter where he advocated for policies that strengthen families and recognized that there was not enough time with the previous four-month extension. In December 2000, when Congress passed a 245(i) extension that expired April 30, 2001, it took the INS over 3 months to issue the new regulation, causing great panic and confusion among immigrants and creating an opportunity for unscrupulous and fraudulent immigration ``advisors.'' This new provision, needing new regulations will only create more delay, chaos and unnecessary hardship on immigrants with real claims to legal status. A 245(i) provision helps people in this country who otherwise qualify for legal permanent residency. It is not an amnesty, but rather a way for people with deep roots in this country to reunite their families and work their way towards citizenship and full participation in their adopted country. A meaningful extension must go beyond 4 months and should not impose new arbitrary requirements. This proposed extension is a superficial and transparent political gesture, which recreates problems we are seeking to rectify from the last extension we passed. It appears to do something positive for immigrant families. However, I believe that it is a proposal that demonstrates that we have not learned anything from our previous mistakes. We need to pass and implement a comprehensive solution to families that are separated from their loved ones and not prolong, perpetuate, or further complicate their problem. While I fully support a 245(i) extension that provides real relief to families, I strongly stand in opposition to this hastily considered, incomplete and impractical proposal before us now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, my plane was delayed. Had I been here, I would have voted in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 56 expressing the sense of Congress regarding National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman from California not only for yielding but for her steadfast leadership on this very important issue of election reform. As chairperson of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, she is working to ensure that citizens across the Nation are aware of the serious effort that is going on to reform our system and guaranteeing that in the future, no eligible voter will ever be turned away again, shut out or discriminated against on election day. This Saturday, the committee will hold its next hearing in Chicago. Hundreds of voters will have the opportunity to tell us their experiences about how we can improve the system. Chicago, a large part of which I have in my district, had the most error-ridden Presidential election last fall of any major U.S. city, with 123,000 uncounted ballots in Cook County. That is why the work of this committee is so important. We can learn from voters across the country and from local election officials and experts how we can reform our election system. What the 2000 election has taught us is that many problems exist and that without serious Federal legislative steps, we are destined for another Florida fiasco with the election decided by the judicial branch and not the electorate. Florida could have happened anywhere. As it turns out, it certainly could have happened in Chicago given all the problems that we had. On election day around the country, voters were turned away from the polling place. They were unfairly targeted. They were not allowed to fully exercise their constitutional right during the election. This past election taught us a very important lesson. Voters were penalized for no fault of their own. That is why I believe, as I believe the gentlewoman does, that Congress can play a role in reforming current law. One of the ways that it can do it is with provisional voting legislation. It is important that one standard exist nationwide that would guarantee that no registered voter is turned away at the polls. When we talk about national involvement in elections, which is largely a matter of local jurisdictions, we are not talking about muddling in their business. What we are talking about is setting standards that will guarantee the right of every citizen and the details left to the local jurisdiction. But this provisional voting issue is one where we can play a role in setting the standard. Passing legislation like, for example, my Provisional Voting Rights Act of 2001, H.R. 1004, registered voters can feel confident if their name does not appear on the registration list, they will be permitted to vote. They would not have to go, as they do in some places, we heard in Philadelphia, to a police station, or leaving the polling place in order to get their provisional ballot. During the committee's hearing in Philadelphia, we heard testimony from Juan Ramos, founder of the Delaware Valley Voter Registration Education Project and Petricio Morales, an ordinary voter, who testified that voters had to travel to the police station to see a judge to determine whether they are eligible to vote. Voters then had to travel all the way back to the polling place to cast their vote. Many voters who are confronted with that process either decide not to vote because they feel intimidated or because of time constraints or just plain inconvenience. In Cook County, if your name does not appear in the right place, then you are just simply prohibited from voting altogether. You can vote by affidavit under certain limited conditions but there are many instances where even though you may be a registered voter, you cannot vote on election day. We have to change that. Voters should be given a provisional ballot after affirming their right before an election official right there at the polling place. They can vote immediately and feel confident that if it is certified that day that they are eligible, that that vote will count. If our goal is to ensure that more voter participation occurs, we should take steps to ensure that this is achieved. And reforming provisional voting is a step in that direction. Actually in the legislation that I have, if they cannot show that this person is not eligible to vote, then the person would be able to vote, exercising their right as a citizen of the United States. I am certain that we will hear more during our committee's hearings in Chicago on Saturday and across the country as the committee continues to highlight the importance of election reform in subsequent hearings. I look forward to that. I once again congratulate my colleague from California on a job well done.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 118, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the global gag rule is anti-family and it is pro-abortion. President Bush said the policy was necessary ``to make abortion more rare.'' There is absolutely no evidence that it did that the last time it was in effect. Rather, there is statistical evidence that family planning reduces the number of abortions all over the world. This gag rule would deny money to places like Turkey, where the Ministry of Health initiated a pilot program linking family planning services and abortion. The results have been dramatic. After a program to promote the use of birth control, the number of abortions performed at that hospital dropped 42 percent from 1992 to 1998. This policy would be unconstitutional if applied in our own country. How could we even imagine voting in favor of a policy that hinders and gags democracy around the globe? The global gag rule undermines women's health by denying aid money to organizations that provide crucial family planning services. I urge a no vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Waxman-Schakowsky amendment and thank my co-authors for their hard work on this important subject, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations. My district, the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, includes Skokie and is home to one of the largest Holocaust survivor populations in this country. With passage, this body will make it clear to Holocaust survivors in my district and throughout the world that the United States places the utmost importance on providing some measure of justice, albeit long overdue, to those who suffered the worst atrocity of the last century. This amendment also puts it clearly on record in underscoring the critical timing of this issue for the aging Holocaust survivor population, and urges the German Bundestag to provide the funds for disbursement by the German foundation to Holocaust survivors as soon as possible. Holocaust survivors have been waiting more than 50 years. This amendment will help assure that their pain and patience is acknowledged in some small way.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me and for her leadership in gathering us today to talk about the budget that just passed the House of Representatives. And I am sorry to say it passed without my vote, because I would have liked to have voted for a budget that would have done what is right for the American people. That was not this budget. We are at a remarkable point in our history right now. For the first time in memory, really, we have a surplus of money in the budget. We have an opportunity as Americans now, as a family might do, to say, okay, now we have some extra money available, why do we not look around and see if it is not time to fix the roof, to send our kids to a really good university, to provide ourselves with the health care that we need, to clean up our community, to make things better, to pay down our debts. How about that? We could pay off our debts, if as a family we had extra money. But instead of doing that, we are about to squander the money that we have by giving most of it to the wealthiest of Americans, at the expense of what? Well, as a mother and as a grandmother, I am very concerned about education. As a Congresswoman, I have been going around my district, and not just to poor communities but to my suburban communities, and what do I find? I find schools that are overcrowded, where kids are bundled up in a couple of classes in one room, where ceiling paint is falling down, where there is not enough computers to teach the new technologies. We cannot even plug in computers in some schools because the wiring is faulty. We have the money now to do school construction, to provide after- school programs, and early childhood education. Things that would benefit all of our children are within our reach right now because we have a surplus of dollars. What instead are we doing? We look at the education budget that came out of this House today, and it does not even include what the President of the United States asked for in increasing the budget. It barely increases education funding by the rate of inflation, one of the poorest increases in education funding that we have ever seen, or at least in recent years. And yet this President says he is an education President. We are doing so little for what needs so much right now. And knowing what we could do, it just makes me want to weep. I live in Chicago; I represent a district in Chicago where there is a crisis in affordable housing. We are short about 155,000 affordable housing units in the Chicago area. This budget that came out of this House today cuts $2 billion from housing and urban development, money that could go to provide housing. Not more housing. As a consequence, we could get less housing. We are meeting less of the need than we should have. If we look at the programs that have formed the basis of our security net in this country, Social Security and Medicare, programs that have worked to lift seniors out of poverty, have provided health care for our elders, people with disabilities, widows and orphans, things that all Americans can be proud of, all Americans rely on, this threatens the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund. It threatens Medicare. It raids the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for an inadequate prescription drug benefit. So senior citizens who thought, my goodness, both candidates for President, including George Bush, campaigned he wanted a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. But do not look in this budget that just came out of the House. I am afraid to say it is not there. There is a measly program that will go to seniors, some of whom earn $11,500 or less. But we know even middle-income seniors are going broke because they cannot buy their prescription drugs. Where is the prescription drug benefit under Medicare? It is not there. This is the first budget in a long time that does not give more funding for the Ryan White Care Act for the AIDS pandemic that continues to rage in the United States, even as AIDS cases, particularly among women, particularly among women of color, continues to accelerate. There is no money for that. Child abuse prevention is cut. Child care is cut. Graduate medical education training for doctors to work in children's hospitals is cut. Veterans benefits are inadequate. Medicaid is being cut. We are supposed to be trying to pay down our debt, which would help us bolster the Social Security Trust Fund. All of this is being crowded out by a tax cut almost half of which is going to go to the wealthiest Americans. Does it make any sense that we help the million millionaires at the expense of 39 million senior citizens and persons with disabilities who want a prescription drug benefit or want to know that their Medicare is safe? And it is all based on projections of a surplus for the next 10 years that is using a flawed crystal ball. What makes us think that our projections are going to work when they never have in the past? We have always been way off; yet we are going to commit this money. No family would do that. We are going to commit this money now and hope that it will be there. This budget is fuzzy math, big time; and it jeopardizes all of the programs that have helped Americans to improve their quality of life. I thank the gentlewoman for letting me say that.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this budget ought to come out with a warning for senior citizens: Do not look for a decent prescription drug benefit here. President Bush, one may remember, when he was a candidate, promised a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Instead, this budget has a measly proposal available only to seniors that make under $11,500 a year. This is not going to help people like the Reinauers in my district. He is 75 and she is 71, but they make too much money to get help under the Republican plan. Mr. Reinauer wrote to me last February saying, ``We are going broke paying for prescription drugs.'' He is paying $324 a month. Mrs. Reinauer has a drug bill that will knock your eyes out, and she pays the full price. This is a budget that does more for a million millionaires than it does for 39 million Medicare beneficiaries that are waiting for a real prescription drug benefit. That is priorities. This is not what President Bush promised when he was a candidate and it is not what senior citizens deserve to see in this budget.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in opposition to H.R. 503. As the mother of a pregnant daughter and the mother-in-law of a pregnant daughter-in-law, a proud grandmother of Isabel and Eve, the sense that somehow I do not understand the incredible mystery and magic and holiness of a pregnancy because I do not support this legislation, I really resent that very much. We look forward in our family to welcoming these two new babies, and a crime against my daughter or daughter-in-law would be absolutely devastating, and even more so because each is pregnant. We all agree on that. That is the part that I do not get. We all do agree that we need to change the law to add penalties because a crime against a pregnant woman is really devastating. Why can we not agree on that? We have the Motherhood Protection Act, the Lofgren amendment, that does just that, it increases the penalties. It is not their bill or no bill. We could agree that we should increase the penalties. I am happy to connect the dots for the gentleman on why this is an anti-abortion bill. It creates personhood for even a fertilized egg equal to that of a woman. That does not make any sense. Even if she does not know she is pregnant, that fertilized egg now has equal value to her. We should create law that recognizes that this is a devastating crime, and we should increase the penalties if my daughter or my daughter-in-law is violently assaulted. We agree on that. Why do we not, then, move forward as a body in agreement that we should pass this amendment? It does not detract. In fact, it increases the deterrent against violence against women at a time when more violence than other times occurs. Pregnancy is an incentive for violence against women. That is when it occurs more. Let us get together and pass the Lofgren amendment.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, while I am not proud about the gender disparity of wages in the United States, I am proud today to join with my colleagues as a co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is unbelievable that women still earn only a percentage of what men earn for comparable work. In the 21st century, women earn 72 cents for every dollar a man earns. In communities of color, the gap is wider: black women earn 64 cents for each dollar and Latinas earn only 55 cents for each dollar a man earns. According to these numbers, the average woman must work an additional 12 weeks a year to make up the disparity in income. The pay gap has a significant impact on entire families; it is estimated that American families lose $200 billion each year. Both the AFL-CIO and the Institute for Women's Policy Research report that, if women were paid the same as comparable men, their family incomes would rise by nearly 6 percent. Poverty rates would drop by more than 50 percent. Unequal pay is unjustified for equal work. It hurts individuals, families, and communities. We must do better to support hard working women and their families. We must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act; it is the only right and fair thing to do.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, Republican budgets are a blueprint for disaster. To pay for President Bush's irresponsible and fuzzy math tax cut for the rich, the Republican budget ignores the needs and priorities of the American people who have sent us to Washington to fight for their interests. This Republican budget ignores people like 73-year-old Olga Kipnis from my district. With the help of the Federal Government, Olga now lives in an apartment in a safe and quiet neighborhood but soon she may lose that apartment and be forced to move out of the neighborhood. Does the budget address our national affordable housing crisis? Hardly. This Republican budget resolution would guarantee millionaires a down payment for a summer home and seniors like Olga their eviction notice. And because of that tax cut, our national priorities will not be met. $800 billion is needed for a quality prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare. The Republican budget dedicates only a paltry amount for a meaningless benefit. The Democratic alternative budget will provide $151 billion for education needs like teacher recruitment and school construction. The Republican budget does not commit any money to school construction. The American public believes the Federal Government has a role to play to meet our Nation's education, public housing and health care needs and to ensure the health of Medicare and Social Security. The Republican budget fails that role miserably.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Evanston Township High School swim team for winning this year's Illinois State championship. After more than 40 long years, the State swimming championship title is back in Evanston. And after the many hours of hard work in the pool and countless laps, this team's dedication to winning was finally rewarded. Led by Coach of the Year Kevin Auger, this year's outstanding and superbly talented Evanston Township High School swim team dominated the competition, broke state records, and swam away with the top prize. That was a proud moment for ETHS swimmers, coaches, faculty, and especially the parents of those remarkable student athletes. It was a very proud moment for all the residents of the city of Evanston and all Wildkit fans and alumni. I urge all members to read the following article from the Evanston Review on ETHS' great achievement, and to take a minute and read the names of the championship swim team members listed below. ETHS Team Members: Glen Anderson, Jamaal Applewhite, Peter Bloom, Nate Crocker, Brian Doyle, Justin Froelich, Taylor Hales, Alex Johnson, Alex Maass, Sean McCaffrey, Stuart Olsen, Terry Silkaitis, Stephen Skalinder, Will Vogel, Blake Wallace, Seth Weidman, and Brian Weiland. ETHS Coaches: Kevin Auger, Jim Blickenstaff, Chuck Fargo, Joey Hailpern, and Aaron Melnick. [From the Evanston Review, Mar. 1, 2001] Kits Snag First State Swim Title in Over 40 Years (By Dennis Mahoney) Evanston freshman Alex Johnson brought his family's favorite lawn ornament--a two-foot high plastic penguin--to the Illinois High School Association state swimming and diving finals Saturday at New Trier High School. ``It's always brought my family good luck, so I thought I'd bring it along,'' Johnson said. But good luck isn't necessary at the state swim finals. The cream always rises to the top. Led by the terrific trio of Terry Silkaitis, Sean McCaffrey and Blake Wallace, Evanston's swim team ascended to the top of the heap as the Wildkits captured their first state crown since 1960 Saturday. Coach Kevin Auger's team left no doubt about the outcome with a sizzling performance during Friday's preliminary competition, then breezed to a team total of 139 points and easily outdistanced runner-up St. Charles East (110). Silkaitis defended his individual championship in the 200- yard freestyle event, and also swam with the victorious 200 and 400 freestyle relay teams as part of a dominating performance by the Wildkits. ``Winning that last relay (in a school record 3:06.93) was just the icing on the cake for us,'' said Auger after his celebratory dip in the New Trier pool. ``This just feels awesome. These guys worked so hard and it's just great to see this senior class accomplish this. ``For them to handle the pressure the way they did was just tremendous. Our big three swam virtually perfect Friday, and I told the guys we had to win yesterday to win it today.'' ``Even after the sectional I didn't think this was possible. It feels awesome, but it hasn't really sunk in yet,'' said Silkaitis. ``It definitely was a nerve-wracking weekend. But I knew what I had to do--and I did it.'' The splendid senior almost pulled off a pair of individuals wins. He put together impressive back-to-back swims in the 200--with a prelim time of 1:38.42 and a finals time of 1.38.36, both personal bests--and won the title by almost two seconds. And he responded to a big challenge in the 100 butterfly, where Champaign Central stud Dan Trupin was the odds-on favorite--until Silkaitis broke the state record of 49.54 with a time of 48.96 in the prelims. That threw a scare into Trupin, who responded by re-setting the record at 48.69 Saturday. Silkaitis settled for second best at 49.34. ``It was nice to win the 200 again, especially because this is my senior year,'' Silkaitis said. ``Today was definitely harder than in the prelims. I'd have said no way coming into the meet that I could go a couple of 1:38s, but after yesterday I thought I could do it again. I felt good today. ``Was I disappointed in the fly? Not at all. If you're going to lose, lose to the best. I knew Trupin would be there and I just gave it everything I could.'' Also producing points for the new state champs--with legendary coach Dobbie Burton, who led the Wildkits to five state titles in the 1950s, watching from the stands--were McCaffrey (fourth in the 200 freestyle, second in the 100 freestyle), Wallace (sixth in the 50 and sixth in the 100), Glenn Anderson (11th in the 100 backstroke) and the medley relay unit of Anderson, Justin Froelich, Taylor Hales and Seth Weidmann that finished 12th. Both of Evanston's relay triumphs turned out to be the fastest times in the country this season, Silkaitis, Weidmann, Wallace and McCaffrey beat out rival New Trier with a winning time of 1:24.90 that was actually slower than their prelim effort (1:24.72). The same foursome finished with a flourish in the 400. It marked the first time the Wildkits have won that event in their history. McCaffrey's decision to participate in shorter races this season (he placed eighth last year in the 500 free) paid off. He wasn't happy with another fourth place finish in the 200 but came on strong after that. His splits were a 20.5 on the shorter relay and an incredible 45.5 on the 400. ``It was obvious to me the 500 was going to be harder with all those fast young kids coming up,'' said the Wildkit senior. ``The 100 proved to be a better race for me. ``I trained hard and lifted a lot of weights this year to prepare for this. I knew this would be a fast race, but I didn't know it would be this fast (a state record 44.40 by winner Matt Grevers of Lake Forest). I knew first place was out of the question there. I was just trying to get some team points.'' So was Wallace, a junior who established himself as one of the state's top sprinters. ``My individual swims weren't what I wanted, but the relays were awesome!'' he said. ``We were so pumped up for that 400 even though we already had the meet won. We wanted the state record (3:05.84), but we couldn't quite get it. ``Yesterday I felt a lot of pressure to make it into the top six (in the 50 and 100). I did what I had to do. I think coach Auger deserves so much credit. He had us swimming just as hard in practice as we did in the meets. And the taper was right on.'' Good luck may have had something to do with Evanston's title after all. The school was fortunate to land Auger, who also coaches the girls team, via the Wildkit Swim Organization club. He landed the full-time club position two years before taking the helm at the high school and worked with some of the current Kits as pre-teens. ``I'm thankful the WSO reached out to a remote place like Canada to sell me on coming to this place,'' Auger said. ``They wanted to see the program get back to where it was when Dobbie was coaching. ``This was in the works when I first saw this group of kids. I'm a big believer in hard work getting you where you want to go, and my philosophy was we won't be out-worked. This year the whole team got behind that philosophy. ``I wouldn't have come here if I didn't believe the potential was here to win a state championship. All I did was convince them they were capable of doing it, and give them the work to back it up.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with the gentlewoman from California and other distinguished Members who are concerned about the scourge of AIDS and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and around the globe. I am glad we decided to work on this issue from the outset of the 107th Congress. Much discussion but, even more, action needs to occur in the next 2 years if we are serious about combatting the spread of HIV-AIDS and if we want to aggressively work to provide relief to those who are already suffering from this terrible disease. Those of us here tonight are familiar with the staggering statistics. 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 21.8 million lives. Over 17 million men, women and children have died due to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Over 36 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. If there is anyone who thinks it does not affect them, let me just point out that one of the side effects of HIV-AIDS has been the development of drug-resistant TB, tuberculosis. One does not have to engage in IV drug use or unprotected sex to get drug-resistant TB. Just sit next to someone on an airplane who coughs on you, and then you have it. So all of us are at risk. I find it unspeakably offensive that 39 pharmaceutical companies filed suit against South Africa in order to prevent that country from implementing aggressive strategies to make life-saving drugs available and affordable. I would say that that lawsuit needs to be immediately dropped. As the world's leader, the United States must set the moral example for other nations to follow. We have to think about this. We are facing a worldwide pandemic that has the potential of eclipsing all plagues of the past, all wars, can destabilize nations and continents and the world, and has been declared a security risk by the United Nations Security Council. The very idea that profits and patents and intellectual property rights would be placed up here while the health of the people of this planet is placed down here is unimaginable. This is a time in history that requires the people of the world to sit down at a table and together to develop the strategies that will end this threat. I welcome the news that the Bush administration will honor the policies implemented by the Clinton administration on the subject of the access to drugs in developing countries, or at least in sub-Saharan Africa. However, I believe that there is more that can and must be done. President Bush should use existing authority to give the World Health Organization the right to use HIV/AIDS patents where the United States Government has rights to those inventions. Great progress has been made in developing products to treat HIV and AIDS, and many of those products were developed with taxpayer funding. These publicly financed products should be accessible and affordable to consumers both in the United States and in other countries. Along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), I wrote to President Clinton on this subject last year and intend to raise this issue again with President Bush. A recent Washington Post editorial stated, ``The administration should lead an international effort to clarify poor countries' right to fight emergencies with generic drugs, and it should declare its sympathy for the South African government in the pending case.'' The editorial went on to say that Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, should come out publicly and declare this administration's support for the Clinton administration's executive order on pharmaceuticals for sub-Saharan Africa. The Congress and the administration need to work together to form a budget that includes increased HIV/AIDS funding for numerous programs. We also have a number of legislative initiatives that deserve action. We need full funding for the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund legislation sponsored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). With this bill, which is a public- private partnership dedicated to fighting HIV/AIDS and developing vaccines, we have the ability to leverage more than $1 billion in U.S. contributions. This bill was authorized for 2 years and funded for this year, and we need to make sure it is included in our appropriations priorities this year. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her work and for reintroducing the HIV/AIDS Medicines for Poor Countries Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, and which would make it illegal for the United States Government to use the TRIPS agreement, the World Trade Organization agreement, to challenge another country's efforts to make HIV/AIDS drugs available at lower prices. The bill would also prohibit any agency of the U.S. Government from using Federal funds to seek to revoke any law or policy of a developing country that promotes access to HIV/AIDS medicines. Finally, the bill would require the U.S. to urge the World Trade Organization to exempt developing countries from the application of provisions of the TRIPS agreement that restrict their ability to make HIV/AIDS medicines available to their populations at affordable prices. The Congress, President Bush and his Trade Representative have a responsibility to South Africa and to the rest of the world. It should be the policy of this administration and this Congress to denounce efforts that limit access to lifesaving drugs and to attack the AIDS crisis to the fullest extent. Anything less would be unconscionable.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and other distinguished members who are concerned about the scourge of HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and around the globe. I am glad we have decided to work on this issue from the outset of the 107th Congress. There is a lot of discussion and even more action that needs to occur in the next two years if we are serious about combating the spread of HIV/AIDS and if we want to aggressively work to provide relief to those who are already suffering from this terrible disease. Those of us here tonight are familiar with the staggering statistics. 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 21,800,000 lives. Over 17,000,000 men, women, and children, have died due to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Over 36,000,000 people are infected with the HIV virus today. Over 25,000,000 live in sub-Saharan Africa. By 2010, approximately 40,000,000 children worldwide will have lost one or both of their parents to HIV/AIDS. One does not have to look far to come across scores of figures like those I just mentioned. And, as daunting a picture as the numbers paint for us, there are in fact many things that can be done right now to advance the struggle to prevent others from being infected and to help extend the lives of those who are already suffering. The numerous drug companies that have filed suit against South Africa in order to prevent that country from implementing aggressive strategies to make life-saving drugs available and affordable immediately should be dropped. I am appalled by the drug industry's thirst for profit and willful neglect of the AIDS pandemic in Africa. These companies have to stop putting profits before people. And, as the world's leader, the United States must set the moral example for other nation's to follow. I welcome news that the Bush Administration will honor the policies implemented by the Clinton Administration on this subject. However, I believe that there is more that can and must be done. President Bush should use existing authority to give the World Health Organization (WHO) the right to use HIV/AIDS patents where the United States government has rights to those inventions. Great progress has been made in developing products to treat HIV and AIDS, and many of those products were developed with taxpayer funding. These publicly-financed products should be accessible and affordable to consumers both in the United States and in other countries. Along with Representatives Jackson, Waters, and Lee, I wrote to President Clinton on this subject last year and intend to raise this issue again with President Bush. A recent Washington Post editorial stated, The Administration should lead an international effort to clarify poor countries' right to fight emergencies with generic drugs, and it should declare its sympathy for the South African government in the pending case. The editorial went on to say that Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative should come out publicly and declare this Administration's support for the Clinton Administration's Executive Order on pharmaceuticals for sub-Saharan Africa. The Congress and the Administration need to work together to form a budget that includes increased HIV/AIDS funding for numerous programs. We also have a number of legislative initiatives that deserve action. We need full funding for the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund--legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Lee and Congressman Leach. With this bill, which is a public private partnership dedicated to fighting HIV/AIDS and developing vaccines, we have the ability to leverage more than a $1 billion U.S. contribution. This bill was authorized for two years and funded for this year and we need to make sure it is included in our appropriations priorities this year. I want to thank Congresswoman Waters for her work and for reintroducing the HIV/AIDS Medicines for Poor Countries Act, which I am an original cosponsor of, and which would make it illegal for the U.S. government to use the TRIPS agreement to challenge another countries efforts to make HIV/AIDS drugs available at lower prices. The bill would also prohibit any agency of the U.S. government from using federal bills to seek to revoke any law or policy of a developing country that promotes access to HIV/AIDS medicines. Finally, the bill would require the U.S. to urge the World Trade Organization (WTO) to exempt developing countries from the application of provisions of the TRIPS agreement that restrict their ability to make HIV/AIDS medicines available to their populations at affordable prices. The Congress, President Bush, and his Trade Representative have a responsibility to South Africa and to the rest of the world. It should be the policy of this Administration and this Congress to denounce efforts that limit access to life savings drugs and to attack the AIDS crisis to the fullest extent. Anything less would be unconscionable.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Women's Caucus who have been organizing weekly special orders around topics of great concern to women during the time when we celebrate Women's History Month. Today's topic is violence against women. Violence against women is a profound and extremely pervasive problem, striking across borders, across economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and across all the age groups. It is an epidemic that affects not only women, but their children and families as well. We, in Congress, should be proud that we were able to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act last session. Now, we must live up to our promise and appropriate full funding to the programs included in this bill. Furthermore, pervasive discrimination continues to deny women full political and economic equality, and is often at the root of violations of their basic human rights. This is reflected in the various manifestations of violence women endure: domestic violence; female genital mutilation; sex trafficking; rape during times of armed conflict; sexual assault; ``honor'' killings; sex-selection or gender preference abortions; and other manifestations, including neglect in areas of education and nutrition women and girls endure, both here and abroad. The statistics are appalling. Globally, 1 out of every 3 women has been beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. In the United States, 1 out of every 6 women has been beaten or sexually abused. There are somewhere between 1 to 2 million women and girls who are illegally trafficked around the world, with at least 50,000 coming into the United States. Some 130 million girls and young women have undergone female genital mutilation and it is estimated that in the United States there are at least 10,000 girls at risk of this practice. Women's lives are endangered by violence which is directed at them simply because they are women. We must stop what I believe has become too accepted and tolerated in our society. Violence against women is not acceptable and we must get that message out to both the perpetrators of the violence and the women who endure it. We recently witnessed a landmark moment in international justice, when three Bosnian Serbs were convicted for the rape, torture, and sexual enslavement of Muslim women during the Bosnian war. For the first time in the international justice system, sex crimes against women are being specifically identified and punished. In the past, UN war crimes tribunals ignored mass rape and sexual enslavement and considered these crimes to be a natural occurrence in war. Crimes against women such as forced prostitution and rapes that took place during WWI were never even prosecuted in the international tribunals that followed the war. Today, perhaps most significantly, the judges ruled that mass rape is a crime against humanity, the most serious category of international crimes after genocide. However, while there is still even one woman out there who endures violence, our work will not be complete. We need more money for services such as transitional housing and job placement and training to support women while they seek to escape abusive situations. We also need to provide trainings to educate boys and girls against violence so the problem stops. We must change our attitudes to come up with remedies to cure this epidemic, not just treat its symptoms. We as women must be empowered to challenge the culture of violence. Our work can not be complete until the women of the world live free from an ever present fear of violence.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce a resolution recognizing and supporting the goals of International Women's Day. Women in the United States organized the first Women's Day in 1908 and helped inspire the international movement. International Women's Day celebrated on March 8th, began as a movement for voting rights and labor rights. Over the years, it has grown, and today, it is seen as a day for asserting women's political, economic, and social rights, for reviewing the progress that women have made, as a day for celebration, and as a day for demonstration. In the early 1900's, the solidarity of women working on suffrage and improved labor conditions led to the formation of the first women's labor union, the Women's Trade Union League. Almost a century later, we have much to celebrate, yet we also have much work left to do to advance the status of women worldwide. Women all over the world are contributing to the growth of economies, participating in the world of diplomacy and politics, and improving the quality of lives of their families, communities, and nations. And we should honor the women who have led us this far. Women like, Jane Addams, Coretta Scott King, Gloria Anzaldua, Maya Lin, Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma (now Mynamar), the Mirabel sisters from the Dominican Republic, Shabana Azml from India, Rigoberta Menchu from Guatemala, Eleanor Roosevelt, Oprah Winfrey, Eve Ensler, Dorothy Cotton, Wangari Maathai from Kenya, and Fatou Sow from Senegal. Women around the globe, from the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South Asia, and Europe have all contributed enormously to the struggle for gender equality and the advancement of women. We must continue the struggle. While the right to vote has been won here in the United States, there still remain women in many countries fighting for their voices to be heard and for representation in their political process. Furthermore, women still earn less, own less property, and have less access to education, employment, and health care than men. The statistics of violence against women are appalling. Globally, one out of every three women and girls has been beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. Each year, there are 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 women and children illegally trafficked across international borders, with 50,000 women and children transported to the United States. It is estimated that 130,000,000 girls and young women have been subjected to female genital mutilation, with at least 10,000 girls at risk of this practice in the United States. These statistics are unacceptable. We are in the midst of a global crisis and we can not afford to continue passing on this crisis of violence to our sons and daughters. It is promising that for the first time, the international community has declared that sexual crimes against women during times of war will no longer be considered natural occurrences of war but will be punishable as a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are less in severity to only those of genocide. I applaud and honor the work of women all over the world who live and fight the struggle every day. I also urge Congress to pass my resolution which will reaffirm the United States government's commitment to pursue policies to end discrimination and violence against women and pursue policies that guarantee basic rights for women both in the United States and in countries around the world.

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, ergonomics may be a fancy-sounding name but the impacts on workers from ergonomic hazards, including repetitive stress injuries (RSIs), carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis are down- to-earth and serious. Working men and women who suffer from ergonomic injuries have difficulty accomplishing the simple tasks that we take for granted. They often cannot open a can of soup, cannot comb their hair, and cannot hug their children. All of us know someone who has suffered a repetitive stress injury. Many keep working, in pain, because they cannot afford to stop. Their injuries are serious, they are obvious, they are often life-long and--most importantly--they are preventable. Every year, 600,000 workers suffer serious injuries because of ergonomic injuries (according to a 1999 BLS study). Many of those injured workers are women. In fact, while women are 46 percent of the workforce, they account for 64% of repetitive motion injuries, 69% of lost-work-time cases due to carpal tunnel syndrome, and 61% of lost- work-time cases from tendinitis. Ergonomic hazards are the cause of one-third of all serious job-related injuries, but half of injuries affecting working women. They cost our nation $45 to $50 billion each year in medical costs, lost wages and lost productivity. I, along with my Democratic colleagues in the Illinois delegation, today released a report prepared by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee. It found that, in 1998, 26,734 Illinois workers suffered injuries so severe that they missed at least one day of work. Of those injuries, 5,554 workers--more than 1 in 5--missed more than a month of work. The cost of Illinois' economy is over $2 billion a year. Last November, after 10 years of study, 9 weeks of hearings, 11 best practices conferences, 9 months of opportunity for written comment, and years of legislative delays, ergonomic standards were finally issued to prevent injuries. The program standard issued last fall outlined the benefits from this rule: 4.6 million fewer injuries, protections for 102 million workers at 6.1 million worksites, $9.1 billion in average annual savings, and $27,700 savings in direct costs for each injury prevented. The cost: $4.5 billion a year. Half of the projected savings result from preventing 4.6 million injuries. In January 2001, the National Academy of Sciences issued a Congressionally-mandated study, giving the latest in a long line of confirmations that ergonomic injuries are a serious workplace problem and they can be prevented through standards to reduce ergonomic hazards. There is practical evidence as well. At companies like 3M and the big three auto makers, ergonomic standards have not only helped reduce worker injuries, they have saved money and made the companies more productive. Ten years ago, Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole called repetive stress injuries ``one of the nation's most debilitating across the board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990's.'' We have delayed action for 10 years. Over that time, 6 million working men and women suffered needlessly. It is wrong that we let the 1990's go by without taking action. It would be unconscionable to allow RSIs to continue to plaque working families in the new millennium. The Joint Resolution of Disapproval overturns last November's standards and prevents the Department of Labor from issuing any similar standard unless specifically authorized by Congress. The Bush Administration and its Republican supporters in Congress say that the rule costs too much. It is too costly in protect 102 million workers? This same Administration has proposed giving $774 billion to the richest one-percent of all Americans over the next 10 years. I believe the November standards make sense in terms of workplace health and safety and economic productivity. But even if you believe that the employers need help to make ergonomic changes, why not take some of that $774 billion and use it to improve workplace safety? I simply do not believe that protecting workers is beyond our means. Ergonomic Injuries in Illinois (Prepared for Representatives Rod R. Blagojevich, Jerry F. Costello, Danny K. Davis, Lane Evans, Luis Gutierrez, Jesse Jackson, Jr., William O. Lipinski, David Phelps, Bobby L. Rush, and Janice D. Schakowsky) Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, March 7, 2001 executive summary Ergonomic injuries, such as back problems, tendonitis, sprains and strains, and carpal tunnel syndrome, are a serious and expensive workplace problem affecting the health of hundreds of thousands of workers and costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars annually. In 1998, almost six hundred thousand workers suffered ergonomic injuries that were so severe that they were forced to take time off of work. Ergonomic injuries account for one-third of all occupational injuries and illnesses and constitute the single largest job-related injury and illness problem in the United States. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that the costs of ergonomic injuries to employees, employers, and society as a whole can be conservatively estimated at $50 billion annually. The U.S. Department of Labor has worked for a decade to develop regulations to prevent ergonomic injuries. These regulations were finalized in November 2000. However, Congress is now considering repealing these regulations using the Congressional Review Act, a special legislative maneuver that has never been used before. In order to estimate the impact of a repeal of the ergonomics rule on Illinois workers and on the state's economy, Reps. Rod R. Blagojevich, Jerry F. Costello, Danny K. Davis, Lane Evans, Luis Gutierrez, Jesse Jackson, Jr., William O. Lipinski, David Phelps, Bobby L. Rush, and Janice D. Schakowsky requested that the Special Investigations Division of the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform conduct a study of ergonomic injuries in the state. This report, which is based on data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and cost estimates prepared by the National Academy of Sciences, presents the results of the investigation. The report finds that: Thousands of Illinois workers suffer from ergonomic injuries. In 1998, 26,734 Illinois workers suffered ergonomic injuries that were so severe that they were forced to miss at least one day of work. Ergonomic injuries accounted for one- third of all occupational injuries that occurred in Illinois. Many of these ergonomic injuries are severe, causing workers to miss significant time away from work. Of the 26,734 ergonomic injuries that caused workers to miss time at work, 5,554, over 20%, caused workers to miss more than a month of work. Almost 60% percent of the injuries were so severe that they caused workers to miss more than one week of work. Ergonomic injuries cost Illinois's economy over two billion dollars each year. The analysis estimates that the total statewide cost of ergonomic injuries, including lost wages and lost economic productivity, was approximately $2.3 billion in 1998. i. introduction Ergonomic injuries, such as back problems, tendonitis, sprains and strains, and carpal tunnel syndrome, are a serious and expensive workplace problem affecting the health of hundreds of thousands of workers and costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars annually. In 1998, almost six hundred thousand workers suffered ergonomic injuries that were so severe that they were forced to take time off of work. Ergonomic injuries account for one-third of all occupational injuries and illnesses and constitute the single largest job-related injury and illness problem in the United States. These injuries are painful and debilitating. Ergonomic injuries can permanently disable workers, not only reducing their ability to perform their job, but preventing them from handling even simple tasks like combing their hair, typing, or picking up a baby. These injuries are also expensive. Employees lose wages because of these injuries, while employers are forced to pay billions in compensation and face high costs because of the loss of productivity from the injuries. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that the costs of ergonomic injuries to employees, employers, and society as a whole can be conservatively estimated at $50 billion annually. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been concerned about ergonomic injuries for over a decade. In 1990, Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor for President George H.W. Bush, found that ergonomic injuries were ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health issues'' and announced that the Bush Administration was ``committed to taking the most effective steps necessary to address the problem of ergonomic hazards. In June of 1992, President Bush's Labor Department began work to establish regulations to solve the problem of ergonomic injuries. Under President Clinton, the Department of Labor continued to investigate the causes and potential solutions to ergonomic injuries. Last year the Department held nine weeks of hearings with more than one thousand witnesses. It sponsored 11 best practices conferences and allowed for nearly nine months of written comment from the public. It examined extensive scientific research, including a 1998 National Academy of Sciences study that found that ergonomic injuries can be caused by work and that workplace interventions can reduce the number and severity of these injuries. Finally, on the basis of this evidence, the Department concluded that ergonomic standards would reduce the number and severity of ergonomic injuries. On November 14, 2000, the Department issued the final standards to reduce the occurrence of ergonomic injuries. Beginning in October of this year, covered employers must provide their employees with information about ergonomic injuries, how to recognize and report them, and a brief description of the new ergonomic standard. The employee is not required to take any additional steps unless an employee reports an ergonomic injury or persistent signs of one. If an employee reports an ergonomic injury or persistent symptoms, and the employee is exposed to ergonomic hazards, the employer must then take action to address the problem. This action could range from a ``quick fix,'' if the injury is isolated, to implementation of a full ergonomics program. The standards cover over six million employers and over 100 million workers. OSHA estimates that compliance will cost $4.5 billion annually, but that the standards will save approximately $9.1 billion annually and prevent roughly 4.6 million injuries over the next ten years. Congress is now considering overturning these regulations using a special legislative maneuver, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which has never been used before. The CRA, enacted in 1996 as part of the Republican Contract with America, allows Congress to repeal rules promulgated by executive agencies. The CRA also allows Congress to by-pass many procedural requirements and repeal rules with very little debate. On March 1, 2001, Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) invoked the CRA and introduced S.J. Res. 6, which disapproves the recently enacted ergonomics rule. If both the House and the Senate pass the legislation to overturn the regulation, and the President does not veto it, the ergonomics rule will be repealed. The Labor Department would then be permanently prevented from issuing any ergonomics rule that is ``substantially the same'' as the disapproved rule. ii objective of the report This report was requested by Reps. Blagojevich, Costello, Davis, Evans, Gutierrez, Jackson, Lipinski, Phelps, Rush, and Schakowsky to estimate the incidence of ergonomic injuries in Illinois. While there have been analyses of the numbers of workers affected and the cost of ergonomic injuries at the national level, there have been few estimates of the extent of the problem at the state level. This report is the first congressional study to estimate the number of ergonomic injuries in Illinois, as well as the first to estimate the costs of these injuries. iii. methodology This analysis presents an estimate of the number of ergonomic injuries in Illinois, and an estimate of their cost. The data on the number ergonomic injuries was obtained upon request from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS conducts extensive surveys of 220,000 private employees in 41 states, and produces state and national estimates of the total number of workplace injuries and illnesses based on these survey results. The data obtained from BLS includes information on all musculoskeletal disorders--such as sprains and strains, back injuries, and carpal tunnel syndrome--that caused employees to miss at least one day of work. In addition to obtaining information on the total number of musculoskeletal injuries, the minority staff also requested and obtained more detailed data on the types and severity of injuries, the industries in which they occur, and the workers who are affected. The report also estimates the cost of ergonomic injuries in Illinois. In order to estimate these costs in Illinois, the report relies upon the recent estimate by the National Academy of Sciences of the nationwide economic costs of ergonomic injuries. The economic costs estimated by the National Academy of Sciences include medical costs, lost wages, and lost productivity. In order to determine a statewide share of these costs, the report calculates the proportion of all U.S. ergonomic injuries that occur in Illinois. The report then uses this proportion to estimate the total economic costs in Illinois. The cost figures in this analysis are estimates and are based upon several assumptions about the cost of treating ergonomic injuries and the lost wages and productivity due to these injuries. However, because the BLS data significantly underestimate the total number of injuries, it is likely that these estimates are significantly below the true cost of ergonomic injuries. According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``there is substantial reason to think that a significant proportion of musculoskeletal disorders that might be attributable to work are never reported as such.'' For example, a study in Connecticut found that only 10% of workers who suffered from work-related ergonomic injuries had filed workers' compensation claims, suggesting a high level of underreporting. iv findings A. The Number and Severity of Ergonomic Injuries in Illinois The Bureau of Labor statistics indicate that ergonomic injuries are a severe problem in the state of Illinois. The data show that in 1998, 26,734 workers suffered ergonomic injuries that were so severe that they were forced to miss at least one day of work. Ergonomic injuries accounted for one- third of all occupational injuries that occurred in Illinois in 1998. Many of these ergonomic injuries are severe, causing workers to miss significant time away from work. Of the 26,734 ergonomic injuries that caused workers to miss time at work, 5,554, over 20%, caused workers to miss more than a month of work. Almost 60% of the injuries were so severe that they caused workers to miss more than one week of work. These extended absences cause financial hardship for employees and increase costs for their employers. Workers in some industries are at higher risk of ergonomic injuries than workers in others. Overall, workers in the manufacturing suffered the most injuries (7,303), followed by workers in the services sector (6,132 injuries), and workers in transportation and public utilities (4,731 injuries). Among industry divisions employing a significant number of Illinois citizens, the transportation and public utilities industry had the highest incidence rate of ergonomic injuries, 148 per 10,000 workers. B. The Cost of Ergonomic Injuries in Illinois Ergonomic injuries cost Illinois's economy millions of dollars each year. In 1998, workers' compensation insurance paid injured workers in Illinois $1.7 billion. The BLS data show that ergonomic injuries accounted for 33% of all workplace injuries in Illinois that year. If workers with ergonomic injuries received a proportionate share of the payments from workers' compensation, the cost of workers' compensation payments for Illinois workers that suffered ergonomic injuries in 1998 would be approximately $560 million. Workers' compensation payments are only a part of the total economic cost of ergonomic injuries, however. Employers and employees must not only pay for medical treatment, but lose millions of dollars in lost wages and lost economic productivity. Overall, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that the total cost of ergonomic injuries to the U.S. economy is approximately $50 billion annually. In 1998, Illinois's private industry workers suffered 26,734 ergonomic injuries, which is 4.5% of all ergonomic injuries that occurred in the United States. If the state of Illinois bears a proportionate share of the nationwide economic costs of ergonomic injuries, this would mean that total costs due to ergonomic injuries in Illinois in 1998 were approximately $2.3 billion. v. conclusion This analysis finds that ergonomic injuries present a severe health problem for Illinois's workers and a significant economic cost statewide. Over 26,000 Illinois workers suffered ergonomic injuries that forced them to miss work in 1998. These injuries were often serious, with almost 60% of the injuries causing workers to miss more than a week of work. The total cost of ergonomic injuries to employers and employees in Illinois in 1998 was approximately $2.3 billion.